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. Two relists later and no other votes have been made. Feel free to start a new discussion if you still feel like this page should be deleted, retargeted, disambiguated, or converted to a soft redirect. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Noldorin → Elf (Middle-earth)#Fictional history  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This seems rather misleading to me, since the term in question is actually only indirectly mentioned within the linked section. Also, it will probably mislead in particular users seeking an article on the pertinent language (in analogy to Sindarin or Eldarin, for instance). Hildeoc (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There's a whole section about the language at Sindarin#Noldorin Sindarin. Hog Farm _Talk 17:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This really depends on whether Noldorin refers to the language or the culture. If it's the culture, then it's fine where it is as it talks about Noldor, which itself redirects to Fictional history. If it's mainly about the language / dialect then redirect to Sindarin. Note that Ñoldorin should also be grouped with this, and if it requires a hatnote redirects here then consider adding that. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget (ALL) Actually, there are MANY redirects for individual elvish languages at Elvish languages (Middle-earth)#Internal history, which is basically the new home for all of them. The links used to go to many separate pages full of primary details, but they are all deleted, leaving redirects to Elf (Middle-earth) which says very little about them. I suggest ALL the redirects go to Elvish languages (Middle-earth)#Internal history which at least sets them all in context and gives some detail on them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Dubbing (filmmaking)#ADR/post-sync. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated Dialogue Replacement → Dubbing (filmmaking)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I think this redirect should be deleted. Looking at the source for the target you can see that it explains Dubbing is confused for ADR and that it is not ADR, and that someone noticed that Automated Dialogue Replacement is, for some reason, redirected to the Dubbing page, and tagged it for clarification. This actually backs up what the target page says about it. I don't know why the redirect was made. It COULD also be re-targeted to another page on the subject matter. The thing is, it is not dubbing. Discuss? Bywok_! 20:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to Dubbing (filmmaking)#ADR/post-sync to align with the redirect at Automated dialogue replacement. - Eureka Lott 20:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine per Eureka Lott. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine per Eureka Lott, unless there's a technical problem with the forward slash in the section title. I don't think there is. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four other redirects redirect to that section, so it isn't a problem. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine to Dubbing (filmmaking)#ADR/post-sync per above. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DiCicco → Jessica DiCicco  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Disambiguate. Jessica DiCicco is the only person with this exact spelling of this surname, but the title could also refer to Dennis di Cicco or 3841 Dicicco, as well as a plausible misspelling for De Cicco v. Schweizer, the pasta brand De Cecco, the DeCicco Building, and any of the names at Di Cecco or De Cecco (surname). Possibly others I didn't come across. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aww, I was going to do it boldly but you beat me to it. So drafted under the redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig per the above. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per above. There's also several other people with this spelling including Sue DiCicco, Pat DiCicco, Kevin DiCicco, and Frank DiCicco. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 20:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Set indexify (technically not a dab page) per above. I've created a couple of similar navigational pages as well. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @J947: you may be interested in WikiProject Anthroponymy, which deals with common given and surnames, including navigation pages for people with names in common very similar to what you created. They have a manual of style of sorts. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate/Set index as above. She's not known by that mononym. If anything, her father is just as famous. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 set indexify. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Concussion substitute → Substitute (cricket)#Concussion substitute  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete to encourage article creation. A general article for concussion substitutions in sports could be created, as it's used in many sports (cricket, football, rugby as a head injury replacement). Current setup of redirecting to cricket article is too specific Joseph2302 (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Concussions in sport. Subject can be adequately generalised there and split if necessary. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this seems to be a rule that specifically applies to international cricket, and is discussed in detail at the targeted section. It seems that the association football Premier League has also very recently implemented a similar rule, so perhaps an article (or more like a set index) could be created, but this redirect is serving a purpose now (deleting it would be harmful) and it can be overwritten with an article if anyone wants to write one. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added a section on concussion substitutes in football (Substitute (association football)#Concussion substitute), so this page could be turned into a disambiguation. Given the rules governing concussion substitutes will differ between sports, I doubt a general article would be necessary/useful. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per S.A. Julio. I've done a rough draft of a dab page, though it could be improved. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Combined solution. I suggest taking the text @J947: has prepared at the draft disambiguation page, adding it as a section to Concussions in sport, and retargeting there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhhnotsoloud (talk • contribs) 13:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Setindexify - rationale same as my comment above. I prefer this approach over dropping an awkward set index into the middle of another article. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The set index is probably the best option we have right now. Substitution (sport) could also be a place to discuss the topic. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Set indexify per Ivanvector's squirrel. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 for Trump insurrection and Trump coup attempt, and delete Trump terrorist attack, Attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi, and Attempted assassination of Mike Pence. While recognizing that it is not a vote, I made a table to help keep all of the differing opinions somewhat more organized. I do note there are some nuance with these as some editors have labeled their recommendations as weak or strong:

Participants are roughly split on Trump insurrection and Trump coup attempt. Personally, I found the "keep" arguments for those two a bit stronger, especially those that showed usage in reliable sources in order to meet WP:RNEUTRAL, but I don't think it's enough of a difference to call a full "keep". Finally, thank you to everyone for staying relatively civil in a evenly-divided discussion regarding recent political events. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Trump terrorist attack → 2021 storming of the United States Capitol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Trump insurrection → 2021 storming of the United States Capitol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Trump coup attempt → 2021 storming of the United States Capitol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi → 2021 storming of the United States Capitol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Attempted assassination of Mike Pence → 2021 storming of the United States Capitol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:R#DELETE #3. These redirects are clearly intended to be inflammatory, are not established terms, and are possibly WP:BLP violations. Trump insurrection might be acceptable per WP:RNEUTRAL as it's arguably an established term. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Trump insurrection and Trump coup attempt, the first as trump has been impeached on charges of "incitement of insurrection" and the second because it has been Widley used to describe the event in coverage, opinion pieces and analysis, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], meaning these are reasonable search terms. Delete the other 3 as I cannot find reliable sources publishing any material labelling this a terrorist attack or attempted assassination. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Far too inflammatory to warrant inclusion. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all for two reasons [1] far too inflammatory. [2] Unlikely searches. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In the 18 day they've been around Trump insurrection has received 176 page views and Trump coup attempt 88, so those two don't seem like unreasonable search terms to me. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, per WP:RNEUTRAL and similar policies, "far too inflammatory" is not a valid reason to delete a redirect and so should be ignored. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, that cannot be the sole reason for deletion, but WP:RNEUTRAL allows for non-neutral redirects that aren't established terms to be deleted if they meet WP:R#DELETE #3. These likely meet WP:R#DELETE #3 (which is where the "far too inflammatory" component is coming from), so the question is whether they are established terms, which would allow them to be kept per WP:RNEUTRAL. Some might be. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep those starting with "Trump" as the search terms find plenty of independent uses of the terms in relation to this event (although there are a smattering of other uses for "terrorist attack" there is no consistency in what they are referring to and include hypothetical terrorist attacks against Trump so this event is primary.) These include some hits in reliable sources, so they clearly pass WP:RNEUTRAL and the usage stats show they are being used. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"stats show they are being used" – Hm... I don't think so. I failed to find a page with lower numbers than these three. For example, I compared them with rather obscure pages like Foosball and Nocturnal Vigilantism or Foosackly's – even these pages are roughly ten times more popular than the "Trump ..." redirects. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete those starting with "Attempted assassination" as I'm not finding more than 1-2 uses of each term that didn't originate with these redirects and I'm not convinced one of those I do find is actually relevant and none are in reliable sources (although coverage in reliable sources isn't necessary, it can be a useful indicator) so I'm not convinced these are useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as inaccurate search terms. By keeping these, we are essentially endorsing the accuracy of the descriptions (no I don't want a political debate, but these are far from mainstream descriptors and we should not just create redirects on the basis that they are potentially an opinion held by some people). Yes, we want people to find what they are searching for, but we are decidedly not Google. Not everything should be a blue link. Most people come to WP from Google, anyway. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By no means to redirects endorse the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the descriptions, beyond acknowledgement that it is search term some people use (which is also not the same as saying these are opinions held by people). If it were otherwise then {{R from incorrect name}} and similar templates could not exist. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's only true up to the point where an incorrect search term becomes POV pushing. No matter how many people search for "Hillary the Murderer", "Pathetic Loser Trump", or "Failed Biden Administration" we don't create redirects for those terms. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure we would, if they were frequently-used terms that readers used to find information. Just ask Moscow Mitch, Leningrad Lindsey, Climate Barbie, Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Joe, Basically Braindead Bernie, The Great She-Elephant, or any of several people that have been called Slick Willie. I think Thryduulf meant to link to {{R from non-neutral name}} which is specifically for redirects like these. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of them. These are not terms in common enough use for a redirect, and the titles are more inflammatory than accurate. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of them, per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehawk10 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all arguable G10s. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "insurrection" and "coup attempt" as valid search terms and topics that are discussed in great detail with those specific words in the article, and per WP:RNEUTRAL. Delete "terrorist attack" because it's ambiguous (could refer to many things that Trump did) and per WP:TERRORIST, and delete the two "attempted assassination" redirects because there's nothing in the article discussing either of those allegations. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some Keep the three entries that begin with Trump, since all those are is common use, and the evidence is strong that he encouraged it. Delete the two stating assassination attempts, since we don't even know if such attempts happen, and reliable sources haven't covered it as an assassination attempt. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oiyarbepsy, are you sure about "Trump terrorist attack"? That one doesn't appear in any RS as far as I can tell, unlike the other two. Per WP:TERRORIST, the bar for us implying someone is a terrorist needs to be quite high. This phrase seems to suggest Trump himself committed an act of terrorism. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I be willing to consider deleting the Trump Terrorist one, but my quick search found a decent number of sources using it. I almost wonder if we need to split this one and relist. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oiyarbepsy: I didn't find any relevant sources using the term "Trump terrorist attack". I found two opinion pieces using "Trump's terrorist attack": [5] may be a WP:RS, [6] (also published at [7]) probably isn't a WP:RS. Michael Moore used the term in a Facebook video, but it looks like no WP:RS picked it up. Did you find any other sources? — Chrisahn (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TRUMPTRAINWRECK for me. I'm at keep to weak keep on "Trump insurrection", "Trump coup attempt", and "Attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi Mike Pence", delete the others. None look like especially common alternate names, and none are clearly acceptable WP:NDESC terms. "Trump insurrection" and "Trump coup attempt" come closest, and probably wouldn't refer to anything else (though maybe Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election to the latter...). "Trump terrorist attacks" seems vague and inappropriate. "Attempted assassination of Mike Pence" seems fair when the rioters chanted "Hang Mike Pence", and with some reports that more concrete violence was planned. I don't doubt some of them had similar intentions regarding Pelosi, but the article content doesn't really support that. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: Did you mean to vote weak keep for "Attempted assassination of Mike Pence"? Your vote seems to contradict your explanation. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Corrected. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for some some, delete the others - The "Trump insurrection" and "Trump coup attempt" terms are not unreasonable search terms, even if they are inflammatory. The others, however, are much harder to defend.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep insurrection and coup attempt. Insurrection because it's directly relevant to the charges of impeachment and is getting a steady trickle of traffic every day (unlike the rest). Similarly on coup attempt (there's been plenty of discussion using that term) — but I agree with User:BDD that it would be better to redirect "Trump coup attempt" to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, given that the first paragraph of that article explicitly says it has "been described by some as an attempted coup d'état."
  Strong delete for the rest: "Trump terrorist attack" seems heavily opinion-based, no one has shown a basis for it in RS, low traffic indicates it's not being used, and the article doesn't once describe the storming as a terrorist act (the only mentions of "terrorist" are connected to a few of the insurrectionists being on terrorist watchlists). The "attempted assassination" ones likewise fail the reality check because there were no specific events that can be called assassination attempts, nor does the article mention any assassination attempts. (Assassination threats, yes, but that's different.) I'd go so far as to argue that the "attempted assassination" links are deceptive, because their existence implies that an attempt was made during the storming, and a searcher would likely be confused to not find any reference to it. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, and per comments above. Avilich (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the terrorist attack, and the two assassination ones as unlikely, no opinion on the others. Hog Farm _Talk 18:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep insurrection and coup attempt (plausible search terms based on coverage), delete the others (implausible search terms based on coverage). Lennart97 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment – Can we split this? We're talking about five rather different redirects in one thread. This makes the discussion confusing, and it will be hard to tell when and if there is consensus for anything. I'd suggest three separate discussions: 1. "Trump terrorist attack"; 2. "Trump insurrection" and "Trump coup attempt"; 3. "Attempted assassination of ..." — Chrisahn (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this late stage it would be more disruptive to split this nomination I think, especially as everybody has been doing a good job making their opinions clear. To my (involved) eyes there is a clear consensus regarding the "Attempted assassination" redirects, consensus (though not as strong) regarding "Trump insurrection" and "Trump coup attempt" but no consensus regarding "Trump terrorist attack". If I was closing now based on that I'd close the whole discussion, but make it clear that it was without prejudice to an individual nomination of "Trump terrorist attack" if anyone thinks that would likely lead to consensus (I'm uncertain). Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right that it's too late to fix this now. And I almost agree with your assessment of the current state of the debate. Except for "Trump terrorist attack": I just looked through the comments again, and I think there's consensus for deleting it. If I'm not mistaken, you're basically the only person who really !voted for keeping it. Sorry! — Chrisahn (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Trump terrorist attack" and "Attempted assassination of ...". Not used by WP:RS, unlikely search terms. Neutral on "Trump insurrection" and "Trump coup attempt". Both are occasionally used in WP:RS, but more often in variations like "Trump's coup attempt" or "pro-Trump insurrection". — Chrisahn (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Unlikely searches, not neutral. These redirects are ridiculous. — BeanieFan11 (talk | contribs) 15:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any arguments for "Trump insurrection" and "Trump coup attempt" being "ridiculous", specifically? That would be helpful, as strong arguments in favour of those two have already been made in the discussion above, based on both pageviews and use in coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: That these redirects are not neutral is not problematic if they represent terms used to find the neutral content at the target (see WP:RNEUTRAL). In this case, there is plenty of evidence presented above that the redirects starting with "Trump" meet this requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Faerûn, sort of an WP:NCRET. There's no consensus to consider the Genshin Impact usage when it's not mentioned, but the D&D (i.e., Forgotten Realms) mention is now at Faerûn. The status quo of treating this (only) as a D&D term continues. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dragonspine Mountains → Forgotten Realms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Dragonspine is also a mountainous region in Genshin Impact, so this redirect should be disambiguated. Aasim (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate sounds like a good idea in this case. The Forgotten Realms-related fictional location should also be retargeted to Faerûn#Northern regions, where the topic appears now. Daranios (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Genshin Impact with a hatnote to Faerûn which is the target of Dragonspine Mountains (Forgotten Realms). There is no need for a disambiguation page. Note that "Dragonspine Mountains" is not mentioned at Forgotten Realms. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Realms version of "Dragonspine Mountains" now does appear in the Faerûn article. Seeing that the few pages that currently use the redirect refer to the Forgotten Realms version, I would tend to keep the original Dragonspine Mountains for the Forgotten Realms version, and rather use a hatnote and create new Dragonspine Mountains (Genshin Impact). Except if there is any evidence the Gensihn Impact version is more prominent in some way. Daranios (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:GAMECRUFT; search results would be better. "Dragonspine" is not included in either Forgotten Realms or Genshin Impact; readers landing on either one will be disappointed. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "Dragonspine" is included in Faerûn now, which describes the Forgotten Realms version. Daranios (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, retarget then. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Never mind, it is a plausible misspelling of an alt name. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kung Fuzi → Confucius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. Seems to be an attempt at humor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Portal:Current events/2020 May 5. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• May 5, 2020 → ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy#May 2020 broadcast stoppage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I find it difficult to fathom that this is the only notable (or semi-notable) event which happened on this particular date. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to May 5. That page lists only one notable event on that date, this one, but in the Philippines the date would be written "5 May 2020" (assuming it was written in English in the first place), making this an implausible search. The current subsection target also has a see-also note to Portal:Current events/2020 May 5, which lists several events that happened on that day which perhaps could be added to the date article. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Portal:Current events/2020 May 5, which is usually what we do with single day redirects that we have a Current events entry for (eg: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 3#06/06/06). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the portal per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Portal:Current events/2020 May 5 per Tavix. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Portal:Current events/2020 May 5. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Baraque → Baroque  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems as likely to be a misspelling of Barque as Baroque, I think that deletion is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - just as likely a misspelling of Barack, or numerous other things if we're just going to guess. Better off red. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• fr:Baraque is a disambiguation page, but I don't think we can replicate that here at the moment. A search shows several WP:PTMs, but no good candidates for redirection or disambiguation. - Eureka Lott 19:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no primary topic or disambiguation and no close connection to the possible spelling variants. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• Delete Unlikely misspelling of “Baroque.” Would make more sense (barely) as a redirect to Jean Barraqué —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rikuto → Six Secret Teachings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to be a transliteration of the Chinese name. Rikuto is also a Japanese given name, for which we have one notable entry Rikuto Hirose, and several more mentions in other articles. I think that deletion to allow for uninhibited search results is appropriate unless a justification for the current target can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find any reason why this Japanese term is synonymous with Chinese military teaching, and there appear to be no better targets. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• IDGAF (Calvin Goldspink song) → IDGAF  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should be deleted. The song has no mention anywhere on the Wiki and the artist is only mentioned on a band page. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this was previously an article [8] but if restored to one today it would fail WP:CSD#A9, although it didn't at the time as Calvin Goldspink was an article until the following year. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nowhere to redirect. AKK700 05:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't seem to have any mentions of this song. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Pink Floyd bootleg recordings. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 70/11/12 → 1970  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-notable date and not mentioned in detail at the target, be it 12 November 1970 or 11 December 1970: there is no major event linked for either of these dates at the target. It originally pointed to Pink Floyd bootleg recordings, where it is listed as an alternative name of "Copenhagen Sequence", but that too does not have its own article or any other indication of notability, so there would be little information at that target as well. I propose deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Pink Floyd bootleg recordings, the redirect's original target, where a bootleg recording by that exact name is listed. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Pink Floyd bootleg recordings, and add appropriate R from tags. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retrget per above. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per those above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 12st street bart station → 12th Street Oakland City Center station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible redirect, and obviously the redirect "12st" does not exist. Also, this redirect is useless, given the fact that it only had less than 100 pageviews between 2015 and 2020. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible. Lennart97 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible. "12st" on its own is already implausible, and is even more so when combined with lowercase "bart". ComplexRational (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe it was meant to be 121st Street BART station? Or 1st Street BART station? Neither exists, anyway. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No point in keeping it. AKK700 05:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Implausible typo and capitalisation errors. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 70-11 → ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy#House of Representatives votes on the franchise renewal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a redirect from a vote count in the Philippine parliament to a section of an article on the piece of legislation. I can find no sources at all referring to the vote by this name, and I think this redirect is more likely to confuse readers than to help them. Basically every result I find online is related to tyre sizing 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as highly implausible. Lennart97 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: bordering on R3 or G1. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 15:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible search term. AKK700 05:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 trainwrecked (and withdrawn). Feel free to renominate individually or in small groups. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Julia (Filipina actress, born 1997) → Julia Barretto  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Julia (Filipina actress, born 1995) → Julia Montes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Julia (Filipino entertainer, born 1979) → Julia Clarete  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Julia (Filipino entertainer, born 1997) → Julia Barretto  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Julia (actress) → Julia Roberts  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Joe (president) → Joe Biden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Guanio → Pia Guanio  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Ciara (personality) → Ciara Sotto  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Ciara (singer, born 1980) → Ciara Sotto  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Jejomar → Jejomar Binay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Vice (entertainer) → Vice Ganda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Viceral → Vice Ganda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• DiCicco → Jessica DiCicco  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Fely → Fely Irvine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Rovilson → Rovilson Fernandez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Katy (singer) → Katy Perry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Taylor (singer) → Taylor Swift  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Ai-Ai → Ai-Ai delas Alas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Ciara (Filipino entertainer) → Ciara Sotto  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Zyrus → Jake Zyrus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Regine (singer) → Regine Velasquez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Selena (singer, born 1992) → Selena Gomez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Selena (American pop singer) → Selena Gomez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Selena (American singer, born 1992) → Selena Gomez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Glaiza → Glaiza de Castro  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Jennylyn → Jennylyn Mercado  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• DeLisle → Grey DeLisle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pauleen → Pauleen Luna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pia (entertainer, born 1989) → Pia Wurtzbach  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pia (entertainer, born 1974) → Pia Guanio  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Ari (singer) → Ariana Grande  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There have been a few discussions over the past few days about this user's single-name redirects to ambiguous or incorrect biographies, so I went looking for more. This set is single name redirects to people who are not known by a single name (most are first names but there are several surnames as well), as well as a few that would be more appropriate to retarget the individual who is known by that mononym (the "Ciara" and "Selena" redirects, possibly others). Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if anyone already commented on individual redirects. This was intended to be a mass-nomination and I wasn't about to sort through those edit conflicts. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all (unless someone comes up with valid retargets for specific ones). The only semi-plausible retargets, as far as I can see, are Selena (American pop singer) → Selena and Ciara (personality) → Ciara, but neither is a sufficiently plausible search term to justify a redirect, I think. Lennart97 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can you break this up into smaller nominations, or I think we're going to end up with a WP:TRAINWRECK here. DeLisle is a completely valid "R from surname", for example, and even if we don't want it pointing at the current page there's Delisle (surname) or Delisle it could target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about this, I hadn't looked at every entry carefully enough when I voted. Maybe split into three groups: first names with disambiguators (e.g. Julia (Filipina actress, born 1997)); just first names (e.g. Fely); and surnames {e.g. DeLisle)? It might also be wise to single out Joe (president), as this seems to be the only one not related to someone from the entertainment industry. Lennart97 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd want it in smaller groups than that to be honest, probably no more than 4 or 5 to a group. some of these first name ones are fairly well used even though they look implausible. "Ari (singer)" has clocked up 20 page views in the week and a half it's been around for example, so it's clearly a search term people are using. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Trainwreck. Too many to judge in one go, and even the nomination is for a mix of deletion and retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Renominate individually. Many of these can be deleted, with the remainder suitable for disambiguation and retargeting, but these don't fall under one rationale and cannot be judged as such. A trainwreck indeed. ComplexRational (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Choo choo... crash. Too many to nominate in one go. Dominicmgm (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Trainwreck, too many requests. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagging all these similar redirects so that they would all point back to this discussion took a significant amount of time this morning, and I have neither the energy nor the interest to undo all that just to do it again in a different order. If anyone has any interest in discussing any of these as smaller groups then feel free. Someone with a mass-revert tool should process this as withdrawn. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Green Planet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Green Planet → E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to disambiguation page Green Planet. The current target is based on an ET novelization sequel called E.T.: The Book of the Green Planet. There's an upcoming BBC nature documentary series with David Attenborough called The Green Planet (see [9], [10] and [11]), so the redirect to ET is no longer justified. Lennart97 (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. For me in the UK, the upcomming TV series is by far the primary topic but as it doesn't (yet?) have an article, the dab page is the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to David Attenborough filmography and add entry and redirects here the upcoming TV series in 2022 Article in Variety. Tag R with possibilties. Alternatively redirect to Green Planet. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Green Planet per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Green Planet, the upcoming Attenborough series doesn't seem to be a clear primary topic right now. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 03:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#A. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashurst (1802 cricketer) → Category:Colonel C. Lennox's XI cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not a useful XNR; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Retarget to List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#A, where the person is mentioned, and where Ashurst (MCC cricketer) points at as well. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget - yes, I agree. Much more helpful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#A; not sure this needs a discussion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Frederick Price (cricketer, born 1857) → Category:Gentlemen of Marylebone Cricket Club cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not a useful XNR; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Does not seem to have a mention on Wikipedia (though we do have Frederic Price (cricketer, born 1852) and Frederic Price (cricketer, born 1840)). Delete to encourage article creation, unless an appropriate target can be found. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• L. G. Robertson → Category:D. R. Jardine's XI cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not a useful XNR; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Apart from an unrelated search result at Melbourne Grammar School#Campuses, I could not find any mention on Wikipedia. Delete to encourage article creation, unless an appropriate target can be found. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Speedy deleted under G6 -FASTILY 08:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comox people/temp → K'ómoks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Yautepec Zapotec/temp name → San Bartolo Yautepec Zapotec  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Leftovers from page moves; no longer needed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.