The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Danish phonology. Jay 💬 09:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft D → Finnish phonology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I believe this has nothing to do with Finnish. Re-target to Danish phonology. There is not mention of a "soft D" on the Finnish page. There is, however, a relatively well-known concept in Danish called "blødt d" which is even talked about on the new target page. Furthermore, if you Google "soft d," all the results will be for the Danish concept in question, indicating its relevance to the new tarket, and not to the current target. Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 22:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Danish phonology per nom. Fieari (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or maybe weak disambiguate. A search reveals at least 3 other reasonable targets, 2 of which I wouldn't even begin to know how to describe correctly. It also finds a mention at Colloquial Finnish, presumably why this redirect exists, but that article appears to be ~99% OR. I'd advise someone who knows more about Finnish to look into that one more closely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Retarget. I agree that Danish phonology is the most common use of the term, but it does also exist in various medieval languages, so this is a WP:REDYES argument. -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's important to consider what readers are most likely to want to find when they search for a certain term. I argue that the most common use of the term should be where it redirects to. If there was another concept that was almost or just as common, then deletion or disambiguation would make sense. It seems like there's a consensus that this shouldn't redirect to Finnish, but I feel like there's just too little else to argue against this redirecting to Danish. — Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 15:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm. My normal argument here is that it's better to let people go to the search results. But in this case they suck, actually. So sure: retarget it is. -- asilvering (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Category:University of Maryland, College Park alumni. Jay 💬 16:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:University of Maryland alumni → Category:University System of Maryland alumni  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Is this the right place to discuss cat redirects? In any case, University of Maryland redirects to University of Maryland, College Park, not University System of Maryland, so retarget to Category:University of Maryland, College Park alumni. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 21:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the correct place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Kinda involved, but WP:IARing, some people find it useful and wiktionary directly assists that search term. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No relation → wiktionary:Special:Search/no relation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:SSRT: "only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." Fram (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild keep; created because I thought it might be the kind of thing that would have an article, and when it didn't, a redirect seemed useful. But I'm not dying on the hill of it and I don't care to argue about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Either Delete or maybe weak retarget to No Relations as a plausible error. Otherwise too vague to have a specific target, and soft redirects to Wikitionary only get in the way of normal searches (which always include links to WIktionary for existing entries anyway) 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - While we don't need a soft redirect for every page, having a few scattered around is not so harmful as to require deletion. Why waste time on something so WP:CHEAP? Basically, don't bother with this one, it doesn't matter. It's not like we're encouraging people to create soft redirects willy nilly... and it seems this one did have a purpose for someone, so why not let it stand? That said, I really don't care that much. Fieari (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to No Relations as an R to plural; encyclopedic searches should lead to encyclopedic, editable material where possible. I agree there should probably be an article at this title though, seems fitting. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC) On second thought, I really do not care what happens here all. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No incoming links, and I doubt if any links if added, will be kept. Either Delete or weak retarget per IP. Jay 💬 18:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose retargeting to No Relations - that's almost certainly not what people are looking for. Don't care whether you keep or delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Premeditated Chaos, Fieari and WP:RFD#KEEP point 5. It has been explained why this is useful and nobody has presented any actual arguments why it is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. If anyone feels strongly enough about any particular retarget, go boldly forth. asilvering (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• F-duction → Plasmid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Appears in the Index of genetics articles (despite being a redirect, though the page also contains a bunch of redlinks), and is mentioned in the article about Edward A. Adelberg, who apparently discovered this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This a synonym to sexduction and, as far as I can tell, just an outdated way of referring to bacterial conjugation. Sexduction itself is a redirect to bacterial conjugation and is also not mentioned in that article. Maybe retarget to Bacterial conjugation and tag with {{R from alternative name}} ― Synpath 15:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiktionary defines sexduction as "A form of bacterial conjugation involving the F-plasmid." – wbm1058 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Suikoden I characters → Suikoden (video game)#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• List of characters in Suikoden → Suikoden (video game)#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• List of recurring characters in Suikoden → Suikoden (video game)#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Target contains no such list. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The closing admin should take note of some of the comments at #Unmentioned Suikoden characters that may also apply here. If the goal is to preserve history I would be fine with moving to titles without "List of" (i.e Characters in Suikoden ) without leaving a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but my arguments are in the other "Unmentioned Suikoden characters". Just seemed inefficient to rewrite this in several places and these used to all be on the same page, but I guess one was relisted without the other. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Add link to the #Unmentioned Suikoden characters discussion which is mentioned twice in this RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article contains no list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history? Also notified of this discussion at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. list(s) not present. list of characters in suikoden had one (1) source and nothing else, and was written almost entirely in an in-universe style. won't debate the reliability of the source in question because it's down and so is the internet archive :c, and the thing it would be about (that being the hero's name) is not present in the target anyway cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tellurane → Hydrogen telluride  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Tellurane is not hydrogen telluride, but a heterocyclic compound 109.52.57.238 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The redirect was not tagged until just now. I also restored the target mentioned above (Hydrogen telluride), pending this discussion, it had been retargetted to Telluride (chemistry) and then to itself. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in 2020 Kupirijo removed the redirect and left a note on the talk page saying Tellurane refers to the saturated six-membered heterocyclic hydride https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Tellurane and tellane to the mononuclear hydrides H2Te.. This was reverted by GB fan with a note to take it to RfD, but that didn't happen. The only place this is mentioned on en.wp that I can find is Heterocyclic compound#6-membered rings but that is just a table entry with a link that clearly anticipates the reader being taken to somewhere that gives more information, so I'm leaning towards deletion per WP:REDLINK but want to see some comments from those with subject knowledge first. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, delete. I am biochemist and tellurane is a saturated six-membered heterocyclic compound. 109.54.233.14 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, please delete. Thank you Thryduulf for bringing it up. Also "tellurane" should be removed from the chembox of Hydrogen telluride. kupirijo (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation. Oddly we have an article for the aromatic cation Telluropyrylium but not for the neutral non-aromatic heterocyclic. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete of course this is a incorrect redirect. 109.54.250.137 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to encourage article creation. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDYES to encourage article creation. Fieari (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also removed "tellurane" from the chembox of Hydrogen telluride.--kupirijo (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Cincinnati Bengals. ✗plicit 14:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cincinnati Bengals (AFL) → Cincinnati Bengals (1937–1941)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should probably point to the modern Cincinnati Bengals, who also played in an American Football League. O.N.R. ^(talk) 02:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WhatLinksHere and pageviews point towards most of this redirect's views being from links rather than searches, so if a retarget is made it's best to fix those links. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Cincinnati Bengals. I believe this would be the expected result, based on the better known American Football League, which they were a part of and which merged with the NFL. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Josh. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Josh. The hatnote at Cincinnati Bengals should address the relatively few times that a reader is looking for the 1937 team. Rlendog (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep and tag. asilvering (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Carrotion → Carotene  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not really a plausible phonetic misspelling, nor a plausible typo. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google hits are a mix of things I can't work out (most prominent is a reference to a model of Volvo car, but I can't work out which one), misspellings of "corrosion" or OCR errors for words like "correction" and "collection". I did find one hit where I think it means "Carotene" (it's a comment about sun tan lotion that does have carotene in it) but it's presently inaccessible due to a server error so I can't verify that. Either way, one hit does not make a plausible misspelling error, especially when it's far more commonly (and plausibly) a spelling error for an entirely different word (corrosion). Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it is an OCR error for carotene -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but like all misspellings, if it's a plausible misspelling or OCR error for multiple words, then it doesn't make a useful redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There can be exceptions to that, e.g. if one use is very significantly more common in practice than any other, but that isn't the case here. I didn't find any examples of this being an OCR error for "Carotene", indeed it would be an unlikely OCR error (based on my experience) in a couple of ways: while "o" ↔ "n" is quite common, "e" → "n" is uncommon and "r" → "rr" is very unusual. Unlike human misspellings, where substituting single for double letters and vice versa is very common (it's probably the most common type of misspelling I make) OCR errors rarely change the number of vertical strokes, especially in the middle of words, even if they sometimes distribute them wrongly (e.g. "rn" ↔ "m" ↔ "in"). Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per "what is this even a typo of?" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cogsan try reading other people's comments. This doesn't seem to be a typo of anything, but it is a plausible but not overly common misspelling of "corrosion". Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I extracted this name from a 1954 chemical dictionary. This claims it is the same as carotin and carotine. In these dictionary carotene was not even given as a spelling. So it is not supposed to be a typo, but an alternative old spelling. But in my 1940 dictionary carotene is listed as the only form. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You should probably categorize your redirects so this kind of misunderstanding doesn't happen. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 09:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Graeme Bartlett above, and tag appropriately. Fieari (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on Graeme Bartlett's comment about the reason it was created. Redirects from synonymous technical terms are useful, even if outdated. If there are other plausible meanings (as typos or OCR errors or whatever), then it could potentially be broadened into a disambiguation page. Marbletan (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete After trying to find scholarly literature sources online and failing, I think this redirect should be deleted. I would prefer not to elevate something that is not corroborated by other secondary sources. The definition in the book Graeme Bartlett has may have been an error or an overly generous view of alternate spelling and at least didn't catch on enough to be recorded digitally. I'm soft on deleting, since the redirect is mostly harmless and redirects are WP:CHEAP. ― Synpath 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to You Don't Want to Know. asilvering (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's never lupus → House season 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Its never lupus → House season 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• It's not lupus → House season 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems as though these redirect formerly targeted You Don't Want to Know prior to that article being WP:BLARed last year. As it stands, the target article does not mention these phrases, and these phrases seem to be a quote, which may not be too helpful if it's targeting a episode page for a season of a television show. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even I, who never watch the program, know that's a reference to House. There should be a season page which is relevant, if the episode page has been deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

They currently redirect to the most relevant season page, given their previous target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've defended quotations as acceptable {{R without mention}}s before, figuring they can at least answer a reader wondering, "What was that from again?" Without an article on the specific episode that defied the trend, though, redirecting to the season seems more trouble than it's worth, especially given that the only mention of lupus on that page is the instance where it was lupus. Gregory House and House (TV series) seem equally likely targets, and I'd prefer either one over the current target. I'm not necessarily opposed to deletion, though. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Deletion as plausible, and I feel we do have some information... at least on the level of "Where was that quote from/what does that meme refer to?" I'm ambiguous on the target. I actually feel that Restoring the specific episode article that was BLAR'd would be the best target... we have articles on episodes from other shows, and this episode seems particularly notable (I don't even watch the show, never seen even a single episode, and yet even I have heard of this particular episode!). (I do agree that the article, when it was BLAR'd, was overly detailed on the episode summary, but I wish they hadn't resorted to WP:TNT!) Barring that, I'm fine with the current target for now, but would not object to sending it to the character or the series page either. My only strong feeling is that we should keep the redirects and point them to one of these pages, even if I don't mind which as much. Fieari (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in some form. It's a well-known phrase from the show that shows up in its own marketing [1] and in academic literature [2][3][4] There's an AV Club review that mentions that the episode was finally Lupus and there's some articles discussing the phrase [5][6].

-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to You Don't Want to Know, which I have cut down and restored, also providing a citation that was marked as needed. I put the references Patar gave above on the talk page along with one or two others... don't really have that much time to add what needs to be added to the article, but WP:NEXIST says that this should prevent the article from being WP:BLAR'd again, or worse, flat out deleted. Fieari (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to You Don't Want to Know per Fieari, now that it has been restored. A7V2 (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• !(*$ → 1984  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Can only be accomplished by holding the shift key during the entirety of typing as it will not occur with caps lock. Unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a fairly common problem with sticky keys. And of course sticky keys. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment Caps lock is disabled on my keyboard, so this could happen. And before you ask, I disabled caps lock because I hit it accidentally far more often than actually using it. Paradoctor (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a mind-bogglingly WP:UNNATURAL redirect. If someone has sticky keys turned on and botches a search, they can turn it off. There's no apparent reason why this particular string of digits (or any keyboard symbols for that matter) should be singled out to have such a redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible. Depending on the layout, it can happen with caps lock, but we don't need to help readers with search queries they would probably not expect themselves to work. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Grawlix (replacement of profanity by typographical symbols), similar to $@!%. That's what I expected when I saw this in the TOC and had to hunt for the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I specifically oppose such a retarget. I was even going to nominate the existing redirect for deletion, but just hadn't gotten to it yet. This is even more unlikely a string of punctuation symbols than the existing grawlix redirect, and would be inappropriate to redirect there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Grawlix is hard enough to find currently when you don't know what it is called. Searching for it using examples of it is extremely plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This redirect won't make it any easier to find. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? By providing another example of it that may be closer to someone's search term and thus more likely to be found by search engines, etc. this will make that target easier to find for many people. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, really, and I find your insistence to the contrary bordering on bad-faith stubbornness. This specific sequence is just one of 5,040 such sequences containing 4 of the 10 symbols over the number keys without repeats. There are another 30,240 more if you use 5. And this is only on US keyboard layouts; considering others will add more. It's also one that's especially unlikely to be found due to the distances between consecutive symbols. Please, no cute little puppies will be harmed if this redirect is deleted. Just let this one go; it'll be okay. I promise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, # cannot occur in titles, and I don't think parentheses that commonly occur in grawlix (though web search results sometimes show them, as well as ? or + as well). I agree that the distances between the symbols make this unlikely. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The question is not whether puppies will die as a result of deleting this redirect, but whether deleting this redirect will improve the encyclopaedia for our readers. Neither you or anyone else has given a plausible reason why deletion is better than retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Retargeting is misleading, and hence worse than deletion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  How would retargetting an example of grawlix to the article on grawlix be misleading? Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Delete it requires QWERTY to work, and not some other configuration -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a reason to delete (especially given that QWERTY is by the most common keyboard layout used by English speakers) and also completely irrelevant to the retargetting suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect. It works with AZERTY etc, and even with Dvorjak. If you find this string standing alone it is almost certainly a mis-shift of 1984. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  

• Delete as implausible. I understand the point Thryduulf makes about possibly retargeting, but it seems unhelpful to me to have a redirect to grawlix for every possible combination of four symbols. There's no evidence that this specific combination is commonly used. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Grawlix. Alas, both google and nGrams can't search for punctuation, but I don't find this set of punctuation implausible for a profanity substitution. No, we don't need every single possible combination, but neither is there a reason to get rid of ones we already have, and we might as well make use of what's here. I agree that the more ways to find Grawlix, the better, as it is extremely plausible that someone might be trying to find it but have no !(*$ing clue what it's actually called. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed we don't need every possbible combination, but search results are more likely to include the target if there is a redirect similar to your search term than if there isn't, so a variety will significantly increase the likelihood of someone finding what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  

  Given your logic there, we could certainly potentially take up the task of tactfully developing a diverse set of these (partially per Steel1943 below) to aid searching for this topic. We should not, however, use an argumentum ab existentia to include this in that group without thoughtfulness. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Either delete or retarget to Grawlix. The redirect exists now, bots will have indexed it, and it certainly shouldn't point to 1984 any more. — The Anome (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment/update: For the record, I prefer "delete" over "retarget to Grawlix" since strings that represent "Grawlix" can basically be any set of random punctuation marks, so it doesn't make sense that we should redirect a sequence there that is 1) no mentioned in the article, 2) not a notable sequence and 3) could potentially encourage the creation of similar randomized redirects (which I don't think we want to do.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the reasons explained above, a limited number of distinct sequences of Grawlix is something that we do want given the clear benefit to those searching for similar strings. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And I don't agree for the reasons I already stated. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Other than you don't thinking we want to do it, you haven't given any reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. 🤣 Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously, the only reason you have given that is relevant in any way to the reasons given for titles of this nature to redirect to Grawlix is "could potentially encourage the creation of similar randomized redirects (which I don't think we want to do.)" which is almost literally "I don't like it" (but with an arguable side-helping of WP:OTHERSTUFF). If you don't want to give any additional reasons, that's fine, but don't gaslight that you have given reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Ain't no "gaslighting" ... just "stick dropping". Steel1943 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Implausible redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redriect to Grawlix, per Thryduulf BugGhost🦗👻 09:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given it seems to be ambiguous between two bad targets. Cremastra (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per 35.139.154.158. No affinity has been shown with this particular 4-character sequence of keyboard symbols than any other similiar potential grawlix sequence. No one seems to be suggesting that this should be done for every, or a subset of (e.g. 1900s), year article(s). Thus, there is no good target. If there is no consensus to delete, prefer current target over suggested retarget per Steel and Rich. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was initially not going to opine here, but... nah. delete. 1984 has no particular affinity with accidentally holding shift, doing that anyway can be brushed off as what is colloquially known as a "skill issue" which the average joe would likely spot and fix, and grawlix has no more affinity with !(*$ than it does with $@)¨(, @$¨)!, or !&&)!# cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grawlix has no special affinity with any particular sequence, that standard would disallow a redirect from any example of it which would clearly be detrimental to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the area of joke numbers, that is. only not linking 177013 because that's extremely not safe for life cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This can't be a grawlix because of the parenthesis. A parenthesis is considered punctuation and punctuation marks are not used to make a grawlix because they are perceived as being outside of a word rather than a part of a word. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a citation for that? Our Grawlix article doesn't mention anything about punctuation, and multiple illustrations contain punctuation. Thryduulf (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a blog, but [7] is an interesting read. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  the lead image in grawlix starts with an exclamation mark cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And in the third image, exclamation marks are used as punctuation! Of course the redirect in question has an exclamation mark, but I'm personally focused on the parenthesis. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no mention anywhere. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. It has been two weeks since a relist and there has been no further participation. The nom commented that Special relativity#Invariant interval appears to be a good target, hence retargeting there. Jay 💬 16:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lightlike separation → Minkowski space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; brief explanation exists at Lorentz transformation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPD: Searching for the adjective, Special relativity#Invariant interval appears to be a good target. (There should presumably be redirects from lightlike separated, timelike separated and spacelike separated as well.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Why do you think this should have a different target from Lightlike? I don't see how they're distinct. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Causal structure only seems to talk about tangent vectors (and therefore does not mention "separation")... The redirects in the nomination below could point to Special relativity#Invariant interval as well, though that section could also be linking to the causal structure article. It's mostly an issue with how the content is organised. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Thanks for explaining. I think lightlike shouldn't redirect to a target that's too specific to discuss non-tangent vectors, then – but that's for the discussion below. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Missões. Clear redirect to diacritic. It's possible the bot performed this retarget on the previous page history as Missões was G6 deleted to make way for a move a year after the bot edit to avoid a double redirect. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Missoes → Rio Grande do Sul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

i was going to retarget it back to missões and call it a day, but there's a non-zero chance that that could also apply to some plot points from the guaraní war, the seven peoples of the missions, or some other stuff i might be missing. kinda torn between just retargeting or considering dabifying at missões (in which case i'd probably take that to afd or something with the suggestion of retargeting it to missões, brazil) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget/WP:JUSTDOIT. I would have thought the situation was caused by a bot "fixing" a double redirect after this redirect's target was WP:BLARed which was then reverted, but the timestamps on these pages' edit summaries don't match up. In other words, I am not clear on why the bot performed the edit it did to target the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's even weirder is that this is the second time I've seen such an odd thing happen today. (See here for the other recent instance.) Is there something wrong in recent times with the backend servers retaining edit histories? Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i just realized the outcome of this redirect would have been irrelevant to the possible move discussion regarding missões, and i really could have just retargeted anyway. is this grounds for a mix of withdraw and retarget? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Completely split !vote. Luckily for folks like Elli, that's a de facto keep. asilvering (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/ → Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

subpage redirect that doesn't actually lead to a subpage. created by a blocked user, who seems to have created a lot of malformed redirects like this cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think there's even a need for a full discussion here, I see a reasonable case for WP:SPEEDY as per WP:DENY @Cogsan:. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  deny is explicitly not a csd, and i don't think this is vandalism for that matter, so g3 is probably out of the equation. i'd rather bet my r$6,69 (it's actually all i have at the moment, catfishing has not been very profitable lately) on cir (also not csd) or g1 cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is harmless, has quite a few incomming links (those I spot checked all intended the current target) and gets plenty of pageviews so deletion would be disruptive for no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "intended" is a strong word here. it seems they all come from uses of template:rfd notice between 21 and 24 december 2021, while this diff was up cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that seems like an unintended error. If someone could go through and fix all those incoming links to point to the normal RfD page instead of this, that'd probably be extremely helpful. In any case, Delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  a little iffy on doing that, since a good bit of those are in archives, and i hear the admins might tickle your schnitzels if you edit archives wrong. absolutely no prejudice with non-archived instances, though, so i'll be doing that soon-ish (except on talk:vaginal lubrication, my isp doesn't like that page) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  did that for non-archive pages... 3 days late. i swear i didn't forget, i only fell asleep for nearly 3 entire days cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as WP:G6 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ exists and was kept back in 2011 but we should probably delet it as well, the title is simply an error suggesting people could be looking for the archives etc rather than the main RFD page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...weird. that one seems to have been accidentally used by multiple templates since its creation in 2005, and has an extremely strange edit history. it's a real glitch magnet, that's for sure. honestly, i'm considering nominating it just to be safe, but it gets steady views somehow cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - It does get a fair amount of hits. Now, I'm willing to believe that these hits come from a malformed internal link, so I propose that all incomming links to this redirect be corrected, we wait a few months, then check usage again. But as long as this gets steady hits, I can't support deletion for the sake of mere tidiness. Don't break things needlessly. Fieari (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Harmless, redirects where it is supposed to. Steel1943 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not really related but i just realized this is a redirect to rfd in rfd. ow my brain cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If we keep this, fully protect to avoid some potential issues arising from its existence in the future per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 31#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The page has existed for well over a decade without said issues EVER arising... I don't think that would be necessary. Fieari (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reason whatsoever for this to exist. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The incoming links and page views show this to be incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...not feeling this one, to be honest. the reason was an accident at best, and the only incoming links outside of this (and the previous) rfd discussion are in archives (which i'm admittedly still not inclined to edit). unsurprisingly, views seem to have stopped when i fixed all the links, give or take the rare person presumably clicking on it here cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep these links (this and the AfD one) can be quite convenient as if your browser's autocomplete for RfD has a subpage, Ctrl+Backspace to get to the base page will result in the URL becoming this form. There is no harm to keeping this, while deletion would (very) slightly inconvenience people (like me) who navigate in such a way. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Nagoya cuisine. Jay 💬 11:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tebasaki → Chicken as food  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

japanese deep fried chicken wing. defined on wiktionary, only mentioned in passing in other articles, and unmentioned in the target cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is this... a case of "thing, japan"? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Nagoya cuisine All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Nagoya cuisine. This is a very famous regional food, not just "chicken wings, in Japan". -- asilvering (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• John Mills (New Zealand cricketer cricketer) → John Mills (New Zealand cricketer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This repetitive redirect is a leftover from a 2015 move to the correctly formatted counterpart. I'm not sure someone would search "cricketer cricketer" rather than just "cricketer," further muddying this thing's plausibility. Regards, SONIC678 05:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can delete "John Mills (New Zealand cricketer cricketer)". It must have been set up as either a typo or a joke, and I don't see how it can serve any useful purpose.

Sammyrice (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Basically unused over the course of a year, implausible search, implausible error. Fieari (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alpha-chlornaltrexamine → Β-Chlornaltrexamine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Α-Chlornaltrexamine → Β-Chlornaltrexamine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Α-chlornaltrexamine → Β-Chlornaltrexamine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The target article is specifically about β-chlornaltrexamine; while there is a cited mention of its isomer α-Chlornaltrexamine at the target, it is generally potentially misleading and confusing to redirect names of different compounds to articles about other specific compounds. Delete these redirects to encourage article creation about the isomer and avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:REDYES to encourage article creation. Fieari (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDYES and to avoid confusion per nom. TNstingray (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. The redirect is speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:JDELANOY → User:J.delanoy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

We shouldn't open the WP:PANDORA's box of creating shortcuts to people's base user pages. I get that some subpages work as shortcuts (e.g. WP:LUPIN points to User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool), but this feels very different. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12#Wikipedia:JZG for deletion of a similar redirect (this one to the user's talk page). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:XNRs should be discouraged as much as possible, with few exceptions. I don't think this merits being one of those exceptions. Fieari (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is that so? Mainspace-to-[insert non-reader-facing namespace here] redirects should clearly be discouraged, but that logic does not apply to this sort of redirect. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as harmless. WP:PANDORA is harmful nonsense (WP:OTHERSTUFF + WP:CRYSTAL + WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and Wikipedia: to User: CNRs aren't intrinsically harmful and the nominator hasn't given any other valid reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:CHEAP; nobody's going to run into any issues here-- the only ones using the WP namespace in the firstplace are us editors. As for the Pandora argument, see also WP:GETBACKINTHERE. I wasn't the one who made the shortcut but I will gladly use it to get to my own essay :3 Thank you Mwwv :3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why, you're welcome! ^w^ I too hate when people wax and ball their way into not liking it, and I felt your essay explained that the best, so of course I just had to create a redirect to it. Might as well create WP:GBIT too. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and a WP:TROUT for the creator. Project space redirects are not for making shortcuts to random user pages. Such redirects are unneeded and further pollute the search box dropdown, rendering them harmful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per Fieari and IP. Actively harmful XNR redirect. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this harmful? Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the PAG argument, what is allowed in projectspace is spelled out in Wikipedia:Project namespace. The page User:J.delanoy has absolutely nothing to do with the sorts of things which you would expect to have in WP:Project namespace, and I would be surprised if a projectspace redirect took me to something completely unrelated to running the project. I see that as harmful, and it seems many others agree. If you don't see that as harmful, that is fine. But neither of us have a monopoly on deciding what is or is not harmful. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Jake Wartenberg: Even though you created this redirect (and deletion per G7 is perfectly valid), it now needs to be restored since there are several participants in this discussion that have expressed their support for keeping it. Including two keep !votes by Thryduulf and Lunamann. Therefore, the redirect needs to be restored at least until a consensus is reached at this RfD. Thanks. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at WP:DRV, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 12#Wikipedia:JDELANOY. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete userspace content should not appear in projectspace. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a social network, no personal social pages in projectspace. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a "personal social page" and there is a very large overlap between content appropriate to userpsace and content appropriate to projectspace such that userspace content should not appear in projectspace is at best misleadingly oversimplifed. You have not identified why this redirect is causing harm. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And you haven't identified why it should be kept, especially when it was created, and I quote, "for the lulz". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why it was created is irrelevant - pages should only ever be deleted if there is an active reason for doing so. No such reason exists here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dumb. And nobody actually wants this to exist right now - those supporting keeping are doing so solely on the basis of procedure. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if someone is searching using the project namespace they are not going to be looking for the user page, they are likely trying to search for project space discussions like RFAs about the user so such a redirect is an inconvenience for anyone choosing to search using project space and would surprise people since they would search using the "User" prefix not the project prefix. Also as noted WP:PANDORA does likely apply since it would likely encorage users to create such similar redirects, some of which may be unambiguous but would still as noted inconvenience users trying to search using project space but for those that are ambiguous it would also inconvenience people looking for another type of page like a policy or essay etc. Thus there is a good reason not to have these redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. G7-ed, meaning the creator no longer wants it. Delete with prejudice and WP:SLAP the creator, and never speak of it again. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate and move the DAB over the redirects since there is no PTOPIC. (non-admin closure) Cremastra — talk — c 12:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disaster recovery → IT disaster recovery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should probably more appropriately target Emergency management#Recovery. Many, many links to due to it being from a page move and I don't know which tool to use to automate a fix. Tule-hog (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesty ping to Kvng for any thoughts on the retarget. Tule-hog (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should create Disaster recovery (disambiguation) and redirect there. Why are we at RfD with this? ~Kvng (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only because I have no idea how to handle all the 'links to this page's, feel free to delete this! Disambiguation could be good, but I'm not sure of the guidelines of how many articles are needed to justify it. Tule-hog (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages can be made with only two examples, but more commonly in that situation there's a WP:PTOPIC that we link to first, with a hatnote linking to the other article. If there's three pages to be disambiguated, a DAB page is much more likely, and four nearly assures we'll want a DAB. So it's not a binary black/white thing, but more a gradient.Fieari (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Disaster recovery topics:

• Emergency management#Recovery
• IT disaster recovery
• Business continuity and disaster recovery auditing
• Disaster draft

~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started! Would it be possible to automate changing the 'links here' from Disaster recovery to point to IT disaster recovery? (Or maybe thats generally bad form on WP?) Tule-hog (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's a bot that can do that and arguably it won't make things worse. I've done a quick review and there seem to be quite a few instances where the target is wrong. ~Kvng (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move the new DAB page over redirect unless there is a consensus that the current target or the alternative target proposed by the nominator is a primary one. I don't see one at the moment, and WP:NOPRIMARY would govern then. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm far too IT-minded to make a meaningful call on WP:PTOPIC 😬 —Tule-hog (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• DABify per draft made above. I do not believe there is a WP:PTOPIC here, as both IT and IRL uses are common. Fieari (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate clearly Hurricane Milton and Helene victims are not usually looking for the IT topic -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support creating the dab page per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).