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 23:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kadisha Martina → Brewton–Parker College  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Just as the above, this redirect is linked to a wrong article; a footballer page being redirected to a school. Should remain in red link. Jõsé ^hola 06:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Jõsé ^hola 11:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not make sense to redirect to a college article, should be created with an article as soon as she becomes notable enough. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Curaçao women's national football team#Current squad, where she is shown to be the captain. No redlink as non-notable currently per Iggy the Swan. Jay 💬 07:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Currently, nearly every entry at Curaçao women's national football team#Current squad is a redlink. Alternately, perhaps those redlinks should be removed and everyone redirected to that section, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to make that call. It would seem a bit odd for the captain to be a less-notable member of the team, however. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:03, 26 November 2023 (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 Blackface. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Black up → Black Up  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Without capitalisation, I would say that Blackface is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this redirect; see Blacking up. -- GnocchiFan (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose but support adding a hatnote to the target. DuckDuckGo search for "black up" gives the album as #1, then a brand of makeup and other cosmetics from various companies. Google gives the makeup, the album at #8 and the term related to blackface at #12. Bing mostly gives the makeup, although somehow Adobe Photoeditor got in. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair. Most references in Google Books and Google Scholar seem to refer to blackface minstrelsy. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Blackface consistent with Blacking up, and in accordance with WP:SMALLDETAILS. Put an explanatory hatnote at Blackface. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly disambiguate? if there is no clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud and because according to pageviews, most people are likely looking for blackface rather than the album. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:30, 22 November 2023 (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 💬 06:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• General Gouvernment → General Government  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Deletion. That spelling is wrong and never used in the article.--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is the German spelling (borrowed from the French with a minor change, the actual French spelling is gouvernement) and as such is used in multiple reliable sources on the subject. See [1], [2] and [3] for just a few. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, the German spelling is the same as the French, see de:Generalgouvernement#Literatur. Your references I really don't understand because none of them shows me this spelling.--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Peacemaker and tag as being a redirect from German so others don't make the same mistake as the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above.--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's only not used in the article because the nominator keeps changing the spelling of book titles and quotations. It's a legitimate spelling used in reliable sources. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please name such a source? Neither the German- nor the English-language Wikipedia article lists any.--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Peacemaker67. This source, which they found, clearly uses the gouvernment spelling, e.g.: ... the complete destruction of the Jews of the General Gouvernment. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peacemaker and others. --GnocchiFan (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2023 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mt.Khulia Keng → Mount Khülio-King  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A missing space between the period and "Khulia" makes this an implausible spelling of this location, from my point of view. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The space rationale is kind of weak since we don't have the corresponding spaced Mt. Khulia Keng or Mt Khulia Keng. Jay 💬 08:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If the space was the only issue, I'd be inclined to keep it. However, given the only Google hits are Wikipedia or mirrors thereof, I would say weak delete per nom due to the spelling. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is a user made up spelling, Khulia Keng may be bundled or nominated separately. Jay 💬 07:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete the redirect and anticipate the promotion of a draft article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pouring → Anthesteria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I was very surprised to end up at an article about an ancient Greek festival when using this search term while researching the 🫗 (pouring liquid) redirect below. At least this should be refined to Anthesteria#Choes where "The pouring" is mentioned, with a hatnote to disambiguation, but I'm wondering whether the disambiguation should be primary and whether it should be a separate Pouring (disambiguation) or part of an expanded Pour (disambiguation)? Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I see little benefit in keeping this redirect (considering the term's ambiguity). Perhaps expand Pour (disambiguation), but otherwise veering towards a weak delete. --GnocchiFan (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ambiguity is an argument for disambiguation, not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Create a separate DAB at Pouring (disambiguation) and retarget this there. I think it would be helpful to also create The Pouring (a more specific redirect) pointing to the current target, albeit refined, at Anthesteria#Choes as the nom suggests. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CycloneYoris: A "Foo" title can not redirect to its own "Foo (disambiguation)" title. BD2412 T 12:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then create the DAB page at this title, as others have suggested below. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is ambiguous, interrupts Search, and causes confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate? (And if the latter, how should it be carried out?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what there is to disambiguate here. Decantation looks like the only possible option, and to be honest I can't imagine that many people searching for "pouring" will find what they are looking for there. I'd be inclined to delete, honestly Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further investigation, I'm surprised to find that the redirect averages as many as one or two hits per day. I'd be surprised if many of those are looking for Anthesteria; if we are keeping this redirect at all I would suggest retargetting to decantation and leaving a hatnote there. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there's really no ambiguity: the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "pouring" is the act of tilting a container filled with liquid or powder, to cause its contents to flow out. This is an encyclopedic topic with at least two major aspects to it: the fluid dynamics/flowability part (subtopics of which are addressed in decantation and teapot effect), and the cultural part (expectations about who pours, what kind of a container is poured from and into, how you move the container/your hands/the rest of your body while pouring, etc.). Also given WP:GERUND that topic probably really does belong at the title pouring (compare e.g. the recently-created sending). As such I've started Draft:Pouring but it's not really ready for mainspace at the moment. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for creating that draft. When it's ready for mainspace moving it over this redirect would I think be the optimal solution. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also support moving Draft:Pouring to this title (I had even considered writing the article myself). Duckmather (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The draft is more appropriate for the meaning of "pour". When I think "pouring", I think of heavy rain, covered at Rain#Intensity, however there is no mention of the word "pouring" there. Jay 💬 06:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — move draft over redirect, delete, or disambiguate? And what do editors feel is the primary topic for the term?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Articlefy with 59.149.117.119's draft; or, since that's unlikely to gain traction this late in the discussion, delete. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Articlefy or delete, as per the above. --GnocchiFan (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2023 (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).