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 💬 14:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Veere Ki Wedding → Veerey Ki Wedding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Veerey Di Wedding → Veere Di Wedding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Veere Di Wedding and Veerey Ki Wedding both exist. Right now, Veerey Di Wedding redirects to Veere Di Wedding and Veere Ki Wedding redirects to Veerey Ki Wedding. How do we choose which directs to which? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Created the redirects as alt spellings of the film titles, both of which should be distinguished. The spelling differences are due to the Hindi (Veerey Ki Wedding) and Punjabi (Veere Di Wedding) renderings of these film titles. If the article titles stand, I do not think alt spell redirects should be a problem at all. Gotitbro (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've merged the related nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plausible spelling mistakes; both articles already have hatnotes to channel users to the right place if they end up on the wrong one. BugGhost🦗👻 10:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BugGhost. Plausible and potentially useful. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:24, 13 August 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Tagged as such by the creator and no non-delete opinions here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Eng.wikipedia.org → English Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I'm quite curious who is searching for eng.wikipedia.org on the English Wikipedia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creator tagged this redirect with {{Db-g7}}. Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

certain kinds of people google "google.com" to get to google, so this doesn't seem too out of the ordinary. still, delete as it's not even the right url, and i at least choose to believe in the average reader's ability to read the first 4 characters of a url that is almost permanently near the top of their screens cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:50, 5 August 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 23:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Togey → Rope#punitive uses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Togie → Rope  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirects and the target unclear. It seems these topics may be related to some sort of torture device involving rope, but it seems the terms' usage is sporadic on Wikipedia on articles not related to torture. (Also, it may be worth noting that an article named Togie Pittinger exists.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

results gave me deviantart. i got nothing. delete togey, retarget togie to togie pittinger cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete If no-one knows what it is, then what else can we do? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both if we have no idea what its suppose to mean even with GSearch results. No prejudice on retargetting "Togie" to Togie Pittinger. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:09, 12 August 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, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:+rp → Template:BLP sources  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. Like Template:+C (nominated below) this is an unused cryptic redirect that obfuscates the issue for editors. Indeed, in this case I can't even work out what "rp" is meant to stand for - nothing at Rp has an obvious connection to BLP sourcing. WP:RP is a redirect to Wikipedia:Requested pictures, the template for that is {{photo requested}} but the cryptic ambiguity would not be resolved by retargetting there (and the + wouldn't make sense) so I don't support that. template:rp is a redirect to Template:Reference page, a citation template, but again the + doesn't make sense in that context. Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd guess it uses the same sort of logic as {{+r}}: + = add more r = references to p = ...people?
  Anyway, I tried to find an example of its creator using it, to show why it's so unhelpful (à la Special:Diff/1099542152/1099555870), but couldn't find even one transclusion going forward two months after its creation. Pretty sure nobody's ever used it. —Cryptic 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as nom. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's confusing and unnecessary. Toughpigs (talk) 19:05, 10 August 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 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:+C → Template:Improve categories  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:+c → Template:Improve categories  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. These are unused cryptic abbreviations in the same vein as the deleted Template:+L/Template:+l (RfD) that make it harder for editors to work out what the issues with the article are (categories? citations? comments? columns? colours?). Indeed even if you know C means Categories, it's ambiguous between template:improve categories and template:uncategorised. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit: there were actually 5 transclusions of the lowercase redirect, all placed by the creator. I removed three of them for being incorrect and the other two after addressing the issue (in both cases adding the only additional relevant category). Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The creator was recently topic banned from using maintenance templates, so these aren't going to gain any more transclusions anytime soon. —Cryptic 22:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep, per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Except this one isn't cheap, given all the problems identified above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are an enabler of Jax's poor copy-and-paste arguments. Last time he made it, you endorsed it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case the nominated redirect was cheap, and I explained why. This one is not, and I have explained why. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have +R for references, so we do not need +C for the same. IMHO, comments, columns and colours are not foreseeable uses of "C". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First WP:OTHERSTUFF, secondly "{{+R}}" is only marginally less unhelpful than this template. If we needed this people other than you would have been using it (everybody else is fine with using a few extra keystrokes and conveying meaning). Whatever you feel about "comments, columns and colours" it is unarguable that "+C" could equally refer to, at least, Template:More citations needed, template:Unreferenced, template:No footnotes, Template:more footnotes needed and Template:Uncategorised. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking a bit deeper, Template:+R is used on only ~25 articles, and of the transclusions I checked all were added by either you (Jax 0677) or one other user. Having now read the ANI thread that lead to your being topic banned, this is hardly a ringing endorsement of the template. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete contra Jax 0677. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as nom. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's confusing and unnecessary. Toughpigs (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Too confusing to be useful. Even the creator initially thought its best use would be for Template:Uncategorized. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:28, 11 August 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 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Link → Link (The Legend of Zelda)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

...like mario mario? i don't get it. results only gave me link by virtue of him being the primary topic for an entire word cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I am aware, Link's surname is either nonexistent or unknown in Zelda canon. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Either this is a very implausible typo of "Like like" (a monster in the Legend of Zelda series) or someone thinking Link, under any incarnation, has a surname, let alone one that's basically his first name. Either way, redirect is bad. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mario actually has an official last name, which is Mario. Link doesn't have a last name, and since it hasn't ever been confirmed by Nintendo, it's implausible. Wheatley2 (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete In-jokes for fancruft. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:02, 10 August 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 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Triumph Forks → Triforce  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

i don't even know what this is supposed to be. results only gave me fork-ish things that are apparently from a brand known as triumph cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hideously implausible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most of the hits are related to forks for motorcycles made by Triumph, but that is not an encyclopaedic topic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Evidently no one performed a search with "Triumph Forks" enclosed in quotation marks. There are many results discussing it, apparently it's a joke in a Zelda game. Nevertheless, I am leaning delete as it seems unlikely someone would look up an obscure joke from a video game on Wikipedia. Arguably, someone who doesn't get the joke might look it up, but would they really do so on Wikipedia? And is the redirect really helpful in that case, given that it's not explained at the target article? --Un assiolo (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did perform the search with quotes, and while I did get a couple of hits related to Zelda it was literally only a couple among the many for motorbike parts. If it were mentioned at the target there might be an argument for keeping, but when it isn't it's not helpful for anybody - someone who knows the joke already knows more than the redirect can tell them, those who don't will still be left confused. It misleads both groups of people into thinking we have relevant content when we don't. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. And apologies for assuming incompetence. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  did that, only got around 3 gamefaqs-era memes cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tell me what human would ever even look up "Triumph Forks" on Wikipedia in the first place, even if they knew the obscure joke it came from. Wheatley2 (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For context there were fish like characters in Wind Waker who called the Triforce triumph forks because the reel name had been lost to time. This is such a minor point though that the article for the game doesn’t mention it nor does the article for the Triforce itself. TLDR this is far to obscure.--65.92.162.79 (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  actionable pun detected cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete No evidence that this term exists. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:03, 10 August 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 Cookware and bakeware#Copper. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 19:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Copper pan → Frying pan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

to my surprise, it seems there are other types of pans made of copper and known by that name, and sauce pans seem to be the primary topic (however that works for cooking utensils). i wanted to retarget it to cookware and bakeware#Copper, but there might be a better possible target i'm missing. opinions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Cookware and bakeware#Copper. If there is a better target it doesn't immediately come to mind. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above - Retarget to Cookware and bakeware#Copper Wheatley2 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Cookware and bakeware#Copper per Jéské Couriano --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:35, 7 August 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 00:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Children's games (role play) → Make believe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Though this redirect is a {{R from move}} and its target has a section named "#Role-play", the concept of "children's games" is not exclusive to "make believe". See Children's toys and games for a list of pages which could be considered "children's games"; some of the subjects listed at these pages could be considered "role playing" and are exclusive from "make believe". However, since there seems to be no target that encompasses the entirety of the redirect, I believe the best option for our readers is deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 5 August 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 revert. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 19:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Religious movement → Sociological classifications of religious movements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I don't know where this should target but I feel like the current target is very misleading. Any other suggestions? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to and improve this revision. My gut feeling is that we should have something at this title, given articles like the current target, New religious movement, Providence (religious movement) and Awakening (Finnish religious movement) among others strongly imply it is an encyclopaedic concept with the current target and NRM feeling like subtopics and Religion is too general. Movement#Society and culture (a dab page section) gives a useful definition "a coordinated group action focused on a religious ideology" but that would be circular. In 2018 there was, very briefly, a set index (although it wasn't tagged as such) that had an introduction (two long sentences) and then a incomplete list of examples and other relevant articles. That creation was reverted by Polyamorph for reasons which are not immediately apparent, even though Tkctwbd (who hasn't edited since 2019) tried to discuss it on the talk page without anybody engaging with them. Whether it should stay as a set index or whether a broad concept article would be better I'm not sure, but either are superior to the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf This proposal seems good to me but what do you mean by "and NRM feeling like subtopics"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean "new religious movements" feels like a more specific subtopic/subset of "religious movements" in the same way that "protestantism" is to "Christianity". Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, okay. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert : I agree with Thryduulf. Adding here the search results of Wikipedia articles with "religious movement" in their title.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert: I agree with Thryduulf as well. Wheatley2 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 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 Kilogram#SI multiples. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 19:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Talk:Miligram (band)#Requested move 20 July 2024. Consensus in the RM discussion was that this is more appropriate for RfD. The issues to be decided are: (1) Should the band's article be at Miligram? (2) If not, where should the redirect be targetted? This is a procedural nomination: my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Kilogram#SI multiples per Milligram. Easy misspelling, far more notable than the band. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Necrothesp. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Necrothesp. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Necrothesp. "Mili" is a feasible typo of the prefix "milli-". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Google seems mixed between the band and the generic meaning so maybe DAB? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Necrothesp. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Q – traffic data. I'm curious about relative traffic. I'd also like to know how many readers follow the hatnote from the band to the unit, and how many only read the article about the band. Jruderman (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Q – malice. Did the band choose their name specifically to disrupt Wikipedia and gain fame via typosquatting? If inconclusive, we want to discourage typosquatting, right? Jruderman (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The band was founded in 2004, which is too early for Wikipedia to factor into naming ideas for bands (also, please remember to assume good faith). Even if it was the reason, it wouldn't be a relevant consideration for determining the target of a redirect (c.f. Wikipedia:Right great wrongs). Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to match Milligram or make it a 2-item dab page. Leaning slightly toward dab page given current wiki tech. When and if Wikipedia switches from always-visible {{redirect-for}} hatnotes to redirect-specific notes, a redirect-specific note would be ideal. Jruderman (talk) 20:41, 7 August 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 Glossary of symplectic geometry#S. ✗plicit 10:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Symplectic action → Action (physics)#Abbreviated action (functional)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Term is not actually used at target, but listed in Glossary_of_symplectic_geometry#S. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget fine, a dictionary.Delete This is a math thing, not a physics thing, so the redirect is not correct. The topic is not notable on its own and not covered in other articles. No page history and only one incoming link. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Jay 💬 13:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:25, 6 August 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).