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 restore and send to AfD as a disputed BLAR. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 01:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mitra Sen Ahir → Rewari  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This article was cut down to a redirect on the basis that all of the cited sources were unreliable--I agree with this assessment, and was not able to find additional sources in a WP:BEFORE search, nor is there mention at the current target. Seeing as the only connection to the target is on the basis of claims made in unreliable sources and/or invented by an editor, deletion seems more appropriate than maintaining this redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore without prejudice to AfD as a contested BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article as this was BLARed just a day or so ago, and existed as an article for around 14 years. An argument can be made that RfD is an appropriate place to discuss redirects that were created as inappropriate BLARs a long time ago but this is ridiculous. Nomination doesn't even mention the suitability of the redirect (there is no mention in the target at present). A7V2 (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article itself was based on a non-notable individual who attracted only passing mentions from few sources dating the past centuries. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article as a contested BLAR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article - It's not a good idea to use RFD as a way to avoid AFD. We have different standards here, and have a lot less eyes regularly contributing. Fieari (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article then send to AfD per above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 2 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 23:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Flugzeugkollision zwischen Airbus A350-900 XWB (Japan-Airlines-Flug 516) und De Havilland Canada Dash 8-Q300 (japanische Küstenwache) seit 2. Januar 2024 in Flughafen Tokio-Haneda → 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems to be an incorrect title translation that needs to be verified by a Dutchman/woman. Why is it so long? Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not because it's incorrect (it isn't*) or too long (length isn't a reason to delete on it's own) but because there is no affinity between a crash involving two Japanese aircraft at a Japanese airport and Dutch (WP:RFOREIGN). *Google translates this as "Aircraft collision between Airbus A350-900 XWB (Japan Airlines Flight 516) and De Havilland Canada Dash 8-Q300 (Japan Coast Guard) since January 2, 2024 at Tokyo Haneda Airport"; While English would use "on" rather than "since", I believe this is correct in idiomatic Dutch. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It indeed means "since", though not in idiomatic Dutch (did Google Translate not tell you which language it was translating from?) but in German. It's not really a correct way to refer to this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is German, not Dutch, but the argument still holds: there's no affinity between the language and the subject.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 02:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:01, 30 September 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 Move without redirect. No need to leave this hanging. Procedural close as well. – robertsky (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rule 34 (Internet meme) (version 2) → Rule 34  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect was left hanging around from a round-robin move attempt, we're told at WP:RMTR. Just needs to be deleted, not moved. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move without redirect. This has a lot of history that overlaps with (and thus can't be histmerged with) the main article so it should be kept somewhere. All the most obvious alternative titles this could be moved to already exist, but Rule 34 meme is both red and plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move without redirect back to Rule 34 (Internet meme). Could have just been handled at RM/TR. SilverLocust 💬 00:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake. It was listed at RMTR, but I didn't understand why. Now I get it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 30 September 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 23:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Force aérienne royale néerlandaise/Koninklijke Luchtmacht (fait partie de Force armées néerlandaises (11 mars 1953 - il y a 71 ans) in Pays-Bas/onderdeel van Nederlandse krijgsmacht (11 maart 1953 - 71 jaar geleden) in Nederland) → Royal Netherlands Air Force  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems to be an incorrect translation that needs to be verified by a Dutchman/woman. Why is it so long? Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nonsense. C F A 💬 22:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not quite nonsense ("Royal Dutch Air Force/Royal Air Force (part of the Dutch Army Force (11 March 1953 - 71 years ago) in the Netherlands)") and there is obvious affinity between the Dutch language and the Dutch military, but it is an implausible title and will become inaccurate in March next year. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's also an odd combination of French and Dutch, making it an unlikely search term.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 02:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thryduul above, implausible and will become inaccurate over time. Fieari (talk) 07:33, 1 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. ✗plicit 23:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Digital Manga Guild → Digital Manga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned Isla🏳️‍⚧ 21:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned now. Xfansd (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so its fine to keep now thank you very much for adding it to the article Isla🏳️‍⚧ 00:21, 30 September 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 14:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sundararaja Perumal Temple, Salem → Alagirinathar Temple  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No references in Alagirinathar Temple call it as Sundararaja Perumal Temple, Salem. It is WP:OR. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist for closing an old log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:19, 29 September 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 23:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pseudointellectual → Intellectual  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Pseudo intellectual → Intellectual  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Target article appears to say little to nothing about pseudo-intellectuals as opposed to legitimate intellectuals. The only time the prefix "pseudo" is used is in the Criticism section where Noam Chomsky criticizes social scientists and technocrats. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The meaning of "pseudo" is clear and the rest comes from 'intellectual'; I assume since there is no separate page then the term trivially means "not really intellectual", and the reader might want to know what wikipedia says about intellectals in order to figure out who "pseudeintellectial" is. --Altenmann >talk 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete per nom (and possibly per WP:RFD#D10/WP:REDYES), or soft redirect to wikitionary wikt:pseudointellectual. Current target doesn't discuss pseudointellectuals or pseudointellectualism. A7V2 (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not my field but it seems that there's a lot of books, news and journal articles about this topic. Might be a good stand alone article in the future per WP:REDLINK. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDYES to encourage article creation. I think this would be a valid topic in its own right. Fieari (talk) 02:57, 2 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 Subvariety and disambiguate at target. Existing target article is moved to Subvariety (botany). (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Subvarieties → Algebraic variety  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not sure why this does not redirect to Subvariety. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Subvarieties, you see one link to a philosophy page (which shouldn't be there), and a number of links that require the mathematical meaning. Nothing for the botanical meaning. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If you look into Subvariety, its hatnote already lists two extra meanings, making Subvariety (disambiguation) valid page and Subvarieties must redirect there. Not to say there is subvariety (linguistics) and other "subs" for Variety (disambiguation). --Altenmann >talk — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert Subvariety to a disambig page since it clearly has more than one meaning, then retarget Subvarieties there. The existing article should be moved to something unambiguous like Subvariety (botany). 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 21:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Subvariety per WP:PLURALPT "the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular". There's a perfectly valid use of "Subvarieties" in the taxonomic rank context, so no reason to break this rule, so any incorrect links should be fixed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 6 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. wbm1058 (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The game (the game) → The Game (mind game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unnecessary duplication (unnecessary duplication). Implausible. Alongside this, congrats on losing the game! mwwv ^converse∫_edits 20:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to The game#Sports and games The Game#Sports and games. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Kind of late in the game (no pun intended), but I obviously meant "The Game", not "The game" which is a redirect that targets The Game. Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to the use of the definite article in the disambiguator. Second choice is to retarget to The game#Sports and games as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} per Steeel1943. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This deletion nomination is just trolling? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think a WP:GF failure is a valid keep rationale. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (delete) as an WP:RDAB. I don't see anyone actually being helped by this. If kept, it should be retargeted per Steel. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDAB does not apply here; there are technically no errors in the format and potential capitalization (and spelling) errors are irrelevant because it is not a variation of 'disambiguation'. For example, a redirect such as Band (band) would be appropriate for a band named 'Band'. Thus, we cannot write these off wholesale. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - the rationale for this redirect is that it is referring to the ambiguous phrase the game in the context of something that is specifically known as "the game". This seems at least somewhat plausible, and I don't see anything that would be gained by deletion - no evidence has been put forward that this redirect is causing actual harm. Hog Farm _Talk 14:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to The game#Sports and games as potentially ambiguous, not opposed to a keep though. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the disambiguator doesn't disambiguate anything. It's as ambiguous as The Game, so that would be the only target I could (weakly) support. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix. The disambiguation adds no value. Just because one might say "Foobar", only to repeat it a second time, while winking and nodding to send a subtle message (just what I'm imagining in my head; maybe that's what's trying to be done here), it doesn't translate well into text though, and definitely not as a redirect. Apple (apple) is not fair game, and neither is this. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to The Game#Sports and games Contrastive focus reduplication is a thing so it seems likely that some redirects of this pattern are going to be plausible and useful search terms (not quite the same but e.g. Fenchurch Street (street) is a logical way to distinguish the road from the station named for it) so we shouldn't dismiss this out of hand. This would only be a plausible search term for things called "the game" which could plausible be described as "the game", that applies to at least two entries on the dab page (The Game (mind game) and The Game (dice game) (it might also apply to any of the other entries in that section of the dab except the company, but I've not investigated), neither of which is primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 15:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (delete) per Tavix (tavix). Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 02:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: an unhelpful disambiguator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unnecessary disambiguation, though I would accept a retarget to The Game. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unnecessary disambiguation is not a reason to delete a redirect, indeed we have a category for them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of those don't use this format of (the X), though. The exceptions seem to be 1 (the number) and 2 (the number). Otherwise, we don't have redirects such as The Beatles (the band) or 2024 (the year). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but irrelevant as most disambiguators aren't disambiguating something with "The" in the proper name and what disambiguator is used is irrelevant to whether it is or is not necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 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 14:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Big Bear (malt liquor) → Pabst Brewing Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Big Bear (Malt Liquor) → Pabst Brewing Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

R with history. BLAR'd in 2020. No mention of "Big Bear" at the target article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is Hamm's Brewery#Hamm's Bear as a differential potential target. AFAICT the phrase "Big Bear" originated from Hamm's and was used e.g. as Big Bear Happenings corporate newsletter, December 1972.. But judging from the fact that malt liquor was a 1980's thing and Pabst purchased Hamm's in 1983, the malt liquor originated from Pabst. Not particularly notable. I'd say finish what was started and delete. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the page history. Also bundled the uppercase title with this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's no substantive information at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:47, 6 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 — no quorum. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Smooth variety → Smooth scheme  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Smooth algebraic variety → Singular point of an algebraic variety  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These should be consistent. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think both should redirect to "smooth scheme" since that article discusses the topic in more depth with more examples. —- Taku (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both for the moment. Not all readers interested in algebraic geometry are specialists of scheme theory. So, per WP:ASTONISH, the subject must be linked to an article where it is explained in classical terms, and, nevertheless, readers interested in schemes must find an article convenient for them. I wrote "for the moment" because the subject is very poorly described in Wikipedia, and the redirect problem can be correctly resolved only if the articles would be well rewritten.
  An example of the poor content of both articles is the fact that none of the articles is clearly linked to Regular ring and none states the fundmental fact that an affine algebraic variety is smooth if and only if its ring of regular functions is regular, or, more generally, that the spectrum of a Noetherian ring is smooth if and only if the ring is regular. D.Lazard (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree the topic is poorly covered. Since "smooth variety" is essentially a shortening of "smooth algebraic variety", I suggest that both should probably point at Singular point of an algebraic variety. I've added a sentence to the lead of that article that refers the reader to the more general concept. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:40, 14 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!} 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:20, 29 September 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 move target article back to Liu Yi (badminton). If the article on the Singaporean player is created the article can be doubly disambiguated again if necessary. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Liu Yi (badminton) → Liu Yi (badminton, born 2003)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Disambiguation link. This title linking to 2 badminton players. 1. Liu Yi Singaporean badminton player. 2. Liu Yi Chinese badminton player. Since this link has long been used to refer to Singaporean badminton player. So, this link should be delete for Liu Yi Chinese badminton player. I have move the Chinese player to Liu Yi (badminton, born 2003). Stvbastian (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If we had an article about the Singaporean badminton player this would be a straigtforward {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} redirect that should be pointed at the dab page, however we don't have any content that I've found so the article about the Chinese badminton player should arguably be at this title. If the Singaporean player is notable, then I suggest the best solution is to write the article then target this at the dab page. If they aren't notable then the correct solution is to move the article about the Chinese player here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in order of preference
  1. Restore Liu Yi (badminton, born 2003) back to Liu Yi (badminton)
  2. Redirect to Liu Yi
  3. Write articles about the other two badminton players
• CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert move of Liu Yi (badminton) to Liu Yi (badminton, born 2003). We only need to disambiguate when there's another article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 6 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 14:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BJP KARNATAKA → Bharatiya Janata Party, Karnataka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemant Dabral, can you please give a reason why you want to delete these redirects? mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirects like capital letters, BJP "for", "of" in" these aren't commonly possible search terms. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 17:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unlike the other redirects listed here, the all-caps version is implausible per WP:UNNATURAL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:20, 29 September 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. ✗plicit 14:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BJP of Maharashtra → Bharatiya Janata Party, Maharashtra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The redirect is unambiguous, and this doesn't seem like an implausible alternative way to refer to the subject. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Presidentman. No reason to delete has been advanced. A7V2 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 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. ✗plicit 14:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BJP for Bengal → Bharatiya Janata Party, West Bengal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The redirect is unambiguous, and this doesn't seem like an implausible alternative way to refer to the subject. As West Bengal explains, "Bengal" is an official alternative name for this state. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Presidentman. No reason to delete has been advanced. A7V2 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 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. ✗plicit 14:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BJP in West Bengal → Bharatiya Janata Party, West Bengal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The redirect is unambiguous, and this doesn't seem like an implausible alternative way to refer to the subject. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Presidentman. No reason to delete has been advanced. A7V2 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 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 Bharathiya Janata Party. No rationale was provided by the nominator for deletion. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bharathiya Janata Party, Kerala → Bharatiya Janata Party, Kerala  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 17:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Bharathiya Janata Party. This target was decided by AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? 73.163.220.231 (talk) 02:27, 4 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. Jay 💬 08:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Dharmas → Steadman (band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Nothing explains why this rediredts here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a mention. "The Dharmas" was either the previous name of the group, or a previous band with many of the same members depending on the source.[1][2][3][4] If the redirect is deleted though the link at Dharma (disambiguation) should be removed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Dharmas redirects to Abhidharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), suggesting that as a possible target or needing a hatnote for it and dharma (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've added a mention per Thryduulf's suggestion. I don't think the Dharmas redirect needs to be involved in the discussion here, as the definite article sufficiently distinguishes the two. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:50, 7 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 06:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Burglar (disabmiguation) → Burglar (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible misspelling. Killarnee (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'm not sure we need this redirect with the implausibly spelled "disambiguation" per many other discussions (some of which I've opened and/or participated in) dealing with this sort of thing. Regards, SONIC678 15:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent; unhelpful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I ain't gonna "disab" anything, unless due to lack of exercise. (Delete per nom.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to malformed modifier. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Implausible typo in disambiguator, too new to have stats history so we don't have to worry about incoming links and link rot. In summary, it's a malformed new redirect, so delete. Fieari (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – straightforward WP:RDAB. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:59, 2 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 refine to Brave § Film and television. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Brave, the Movie → Brave  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Brave The Movie (Movie) → Brave  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These redirects were the result of moving the page about the 1994 film to the title Brave (film) (which was later redirected to the current target's "Film and television" section)—the first redirect to the second and the second to the "(film)" title. These redirects haven't gotten very many pageviews nowadays, so I'm not 100% sure they're really helpful here. I think we should either delete them, or, if they're kept, refine them to Brave#Film and television, though I'm open to other courses of action if they're suitable. Regards, SONIC678 19:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In 2005, the rule was that a redirect resulting from a page move had to be kept, even if it wasn't particularly useful or logical, for WP:GFDL attribution reasons. That's no longer the rule anymore, and such redirects don't need to be kept anymore if they aren't actually serving an important purpose, which this isn't. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/refine Brave, the Movie per WP:RFD#K4 (certainly no benefit comes from deleting this page which is the result of a page move as Brave (1994 film) appears to have had this title for nearly 1.5 years), but also it seems a plausible search term, and indeed has been used by reliable sources for at least the 2012 film, for example [5]. Neutral, leaning delete, on Brave The Movie (Movie) as it is very awkward and inlausible, but also it's not clear to me that this one was created as a result of a page move as it doesn't appear in the edit history of Brave (1994 film). A7V2 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @A7V2: As described in Wikipedia:Moving a page § Page histories, moves carried out before the 27 June 2005 upgrade were not recorded in the history of the moved page (at the new title), only the history of the redirect left behind (at the old title). The move in question took place on 19 June 2005, eight days before the upgrade. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and refine both per A7V2 and Jlwoodwa. Redirects from move not recorded elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Jlwoodwa I wasn't aware of that. Given it was the title of an article for around 6 months don't delete Brave The Movie (Movie), but I'm tempted to say retarget it to Brave (1994 film) since almost certainly anyone using it would be using it as a link rather than a search term, but I am almost equally happy to refine to Brave#Film and television. A7V2 (talk) 00:56, 30 September 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. Read to the end of the discussion for tips on how to fix future red-linked translusions of this template. wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cita → Template:Blockquote  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This was presumably created for es:Template:Cita, the Spanish Wikipedia's Template:Blockquote equivalent. However, it is also inappropriately used sometimes for it:Template:Cita, which is a citation template. Both of these foreign templates use unnamed parameters, so the difference isn't always noticed. I would suggest that English editors will be confused by this name and not sure what it means. I'm not opposed to foreign-language template redirects in general, but when they are ambiguous, I think they should certainly be removed. Daask (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as template disambiguation page. If we delete it, people who copy wikitext for translation from es.WP or it.WP will end up populating Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates, which is undesirable. Let's make it a template disambiguation page that points to {{blockquote}} and {{sfn}}, or whatever the best en.WP matches are. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If people who copy wikitext for translation from es.WP or it.WP use a template that is ambiguous between those, it is undesirable. I'm not sure there is a big difference between making it transclude a nonexistent and a disambiguated template. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The deleted page's "edit summary" points to this page, making Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 29#Template:Cita the best place to explain to gnomes how to resolve the red linked template transclusions. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague. (However, this redirect has transclusions that need to be bypassed prior to deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is English Wikipedia, the templates should be in English, not some foreign non-English language, presumably with non-English parameters -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  {{blockquote}} is frequently called without (named) parameters. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per 64.229.88.34. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have deleted this as closer, but it has incoming links from ~40 articles. Jay 💬 07:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm replacing cita with bq one at a time, and it may take several days. Jay 💬 18:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that Significa liberdade had deleted the template but did not close this RfD saying this needs extra help in closing. Jay 💬 17:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bypassing cita to {{blockquote}} for quotations is E-Z. Dealing with the Italian short-citations is like pulling teeth. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But, thankfully, a bot may clean up after you! wbm1058 (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The shortened footnote template {{sfn}} creates a short author–date citation in a footnote, with a one-directional link to the first matching citation template on the same page. The problem here is that editors are copying short footnotes from the Italian Wikipedia, but aren't also copying the matching citation template. We need to go to the Italian wiki to find the matching citation template and then copy that to the English wiki's article. I'm finding that it's often just easier to replace the short footnote with the copied matching citation template. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not an expert on citation templates, and you need to be one to do this stuff efficiently. Citation templates are like a whole new programming language! With typical programming-language-like cryptic error messages. permalink.

  The <ref> tag has too many names, but hell if "FOOTNOTEPignatti1969" isn't one of them! What names does it have (don't leave me guessing), and where the eff did the name "FOOTNOTEPignatti1969" come from?

  This is why I punt and don't use short footnotes!

  I'm very much tempted to just punt and revert the 22 December 2023 edit that caused all this grief. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see! The names were "Pignatti" and "1969" which was two too many names, and the issue is solved by putting quotes around the names! "Pignatti 1969". Thanks, bot!

  Thanks, @Isaidnoway: I guess I also need to know when to use {{sfn}} and when to use {{harvnb}}. And when to fold 'em! There are just 3 more left to do, if you or someone else would be so kind. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed Barbarano Romano. 2 more to go. Jay 💬 09:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed Coele Syria (Roman province), 1 more left. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Finished the last one. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Basically, the most important thing to remember about {{sfn}} is you can't embed it inside of ref tags, but with {{harvnb}} you can use ref tags, and a ref name if desired. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:35, 12 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 Gameplay of Pokémon#Distributions. ✗plicit 06:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Event Pokemon → List of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

uh... retarget to gameplay of pokémon#distributions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sounds more like promo cards in the Pokémon card game. Steel1943 (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Steel1943. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gameplay of Pokémon#Distributions - this is how they are generally referred to by the community. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the suggested target makes no mention of "Event Pokemon". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gameplay of Pokémon#Distributions. It's not literally mentioned there in those two words in sequence, but the word "events" is used, and anyone who is looking for information on event pokemon won't be confused to end up here. -- asilvering (talk) 16:14, 28 September 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget. It's what it's called. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gameplay of Pokémon#Distributions per Asilvering. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gameplay of Pokémon#Distributions, as this is what is being referred to. Fieari (talk) 06:16, 1 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).