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 💬 08:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lee Min-ho (singer) → Lee Min-ho (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Currently redirects to the dab page because two people named Lee Min-ho are singers: one is the member of Stray Kids Lee Know and the other is a more prominent actor Lee Min-ho. Which do you think is a more suitable target, Lee Know or the K-drama actor? ScarletViolet 💬 📝 11:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is: Judging by the pageviews, Lee Min-ho is nearly 6 times more visited than Lee Know. However, it seems that Lee Min-ho is more known for being an actor than a singer, while Lee Know is primarily known for his K-Pop singing/dancing. Most readers would type Lee Min-ho (actor) instead of (singer). However, Lee Know is better known by his stage name than his real name. I think there is too much factors at play here to accurate judge the reader's intention, or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It shouldn't be deleted per Wikipedia:INCOMPDAB, which says to redirect to the more general disamb page if there is no primary topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is The standard for partial disamsbiguation is extremely high and this doesn't meet it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is per above. I don't think the standard for partial disambiguation should be as high as it is, but even by my standards there is no primary topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The base name is a singer so shouldn't it redirect there if the South Korean singer has been deemed the primary topic for the base name? If there is no primary topic the DAB should be moved to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to Crouch, Swale's observation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move disambiguation page to Lee Min-ho. Crouch, Swale is right. Since other editors agree there is no primary topic, the base name should be the disambiguation page and Lee Min-ho (singer) should be retargeted to Lee Min-ho as ambiguous. C F A 💬 15:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think other editors are arguing that the title "Lee Min-ho" has no primary topic. Judging by the pageviews, and the fact that Lee Know are known better for his screen name make me to believe that the Lee Min-ho the actor is primary topic for the title "Lee Min-ho". The nominator has said other is a more prominent actor Lee Min-ho. What I think ambiguous in terms of primary topic is the title "Lee Min-ho" with (singer) attached to it, for reasons I mentioned above. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is per Ca. ✗plicit 00:10, 17 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Priestess → Priest  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Female priest → Ordination of women  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Re-target to Ordination of women. This is for consistency with Female priest, as agreed upon at Talk:Priestess_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_25_August_2023. Discussion of the other redirect occurred at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_15#Female_priest. There are concerns about the appropriateness of the current target to house a section for the target of this redirect. See Talk:Priest#Priestesses. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A priestess is a female priest, therefore the topic is clearly the covered by the article at priest. I've never heard the term used in connection with the origination of women, and would be frankly rather WP:ASTONISHed if the redirect went there.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's ordination, not origination. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I nominated the other redirect Female priest in case we want to change it to Priest for consistency.

  @Amakuru: You "never heard the term ... the origination of women, and ... WP:ASTONISHed"?

  Keep per Shhhnotsoloud - if someone prepends "female" to this then the topic is most likely to refer to ordination of women
  — User:Amakuru 15:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  FYI, I created this RfD while dealing with Draft:Priestess, and related articles' history might be useful. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I might support a split of Ordination of women, with some of it being split off to Priestess and the rest moved to Ordination of women in Christianity. These appear to be 2 separate notable concepts that don't have to be combined. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. That is what I've been attempting to accurately do.

  Personal bias disclosed: I use the title. And it is legally valid in my region.

  Whilst I am a minority to use it in my particular faith tradition, I know many other women in ministry of different faiths, who also sincerely use it for official purposes. As well

  As historically. Any woman in many countries, that worked as a ceremony lead in any kind of temple, often was called a Priestess. Priestess Noel Ann (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In favour of making the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Priestess its own page, linked to Ordination of women.

Priestess Noel Ann (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion may need to occur regarding Draft:Priestess and its article potential to help form consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think RfD is the place to discuss whether Draft:Priestess should be an article since there are already places for that to happen. If there is a "Priestess" article, I agree that Female priest should redirect there. If that article doesn't exist (or until it does), I think the current situation seems ideal: (a) Priestess should redirect to Priest (just like Actress→Actor); (b) I have less strong feelings about "Female Priest"→"Ordination of woman" but I think it makes sense. People might want to describe someone as a "priestess" with a hyperlink and have it redirect to a page explaining what the profession/role means. That seems pretty unlikely with "female priest". —mako๛ 12:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, happens quite often. Replace the redirect with an article, and the discussion gets closed. If need be, the "new" article can go to WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is more than replacing the redirect with an article. Priestess Noel Ann had turned the redirect to article twice, and was reverted twice. Procyon117 said while reverting The edits you've put can just be integrated into the priest article.. Per Procyon117's advice, Priestess Noel Ann revived a 2006 discussion at Talk:Priest but got no response. The nom advised Priestess Noel Ann to follow a draft process via AfC, however the draft is not currently under AfC. Hence we can maintain the status quo while we wait for AfC / draft process to play out. Jay 💬 09:15, 17 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 keep all. There is consensus that everything, excluding Draft:Vengeance Engine and Unreal Engine (game engine), should be kept. There is general agreement that Unreal Engine (game engine) is harmless, noting that {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirects are fairly standard. There is no consensus for the deletion of Draft:Vengeance Engine (default to keep), noting that CNRs from draftspace to articlespace are usually kept. Participants are free to re-nominate individually if they think more clear consensus is needed. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 16:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreal engine → Unreal Engine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Draft:Vengeance Engine → Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Unreal Engine (game engine) → Unreal Engine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• UnrealEngine → Unreal Engine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Unreal technology → Unreal Engine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Unreal Engine Technology → Unreal Engine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Unreal Engine technology → Unreal Engine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Unrealscript → Unreal Engine#UnrealScript  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

we should probably delete most of the other ones at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Unreal+Engine&namespace=&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1

but I will open a rfd for them later — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Tagged every single one of these redirects since they weren't tagged by the nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2UDY7r00CRjH: Why? These all appear to be entirely typical redirects. Tollens (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these redirects are used. "Unreal Engine Technology" is not a typical redirect. Neither is Draft:Vengeance Engine, which makes no sense at all. We should use WP:COMMONNAME, not Unreal Engine technology or Unreal Engine Technology. We should not use misspelled links links like "Unreal engine" or UnrealEngine. "Unreal Engine (game engine)" does not make any sense as there is no other unreal engine to disambiguate it with. It also leads to editors actually using this awful redirects. For example see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mare_Nostrum_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1235798234 which was using [[Unreal Engine technology#Unreal Engine 2.5|Unreal Engine 2.5]] instead of just [[Unreal Engine 2.5]](Unreal Engine 2.5). why should we support this kind of usage? What benefit is there to having all these inaccurate redirects? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:RFD#DELETE, some of these fall under "The redirect might cause confusion." Specifically Unreal Engine Technology, Unreal Engine technology and Unreal technology which are not WP:COMMONNAME and are not terms I have seen any RS or Unreal Engine itself use to describe Unreal Engine. Additionally Draft:Vengeance Engine is misleading at best as it is not a real engine. UnrealEngine is also misleading as one might think that is how it is spelled, and to a lesser extent Unreal engine as well. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as further proof that these redirects are confusing people, I found this wikilink in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_banned_video_games_by_country&oldid=1235709794:

>a court found that [[Silicon Knights]] had plagiarized [[Epic Games]]' proprietary [[Unreal Engine|Unreal engine]].

If editors are purposefully changing Unreal Engine to Unreal engine (incorrect), then we should definitely not support that usage with a redirect as it will further this inaccurate usage. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_Origins:_Wolverine_(video_game)

The game was developed primarily by [[Raven Software]] through the use of [[Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 3|Unreal Engine technology]].

permalink https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-Men_Origins:_Wolverine_(video_game)&oldid=1223802693

I think these examples show that these links are confusing to editors and we should not use them as per commonname. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep UnrealEngine, Unreal engine, and Unrealscript. These are common mistakes in editing (WP:RKEEP point 2). They are also common mistakes or shortcuts in searching (point 3) and in navigating by typing URLs (which should be mentioned in point 3 but isn't). Jruderman (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I want to emphasize that WP:RKEEP point 2 considers the prevention of red links to be a net benefit. J2UDY7r00CRjH, if you're concerned about the effects on typo longevity, I suggest categorizing the redirects, then working in other venues to leverage certain rcats such as {{R from misspelling}} for making encyclopedia-wide improvements. See e.g. this feature request and this archived bot request. Jruderman (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Unrealscript and Draft:Vengeance Engine are actually redirects to sections of pages. I have updated the nomination above to show the full targets. Jruderman (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: On Unreal Engine (game engine), I added {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. There are over 30,000 such redirects, so I suspect this isn't a reason for deletion by itself. Jruderman (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @J2UDY7r00CRjH: I'd encourage you to have a look at WP:RPURPOSE. You've made a pretty convincing argument for keeping several of these redirects here above. WP:CNAME applies to articles themselves, not redirects, and the fact that people are using several of these terms, even if they are incorrect, is reason to keep the redirects as they are useful, not to delete them. I see four groups in the list presented:

• Unreal engine, UnrealEngine, and Unrealscript are strong keeps. They are either alternative capitalizations or reasonable typos that will help in linking, and very much core reasons in WP:RPURPOSE.
• Unreal technology, Unreal Engine Technology, Unreal Engine technology are plausible search terms, and are good candidates to keep.
• Unreal Engine (game engine) is an unlikely search term given the paranthetical disambiguation, but I'm not sure we should delete it as per Jruderman's third comment. I'll withhold judgement here.
• Draft:Vengeance Engine should be deleted, it's a cross namespace redirect. It should be noted that the articlespace version is a redirect to Irrational Games. A Google search says that the Vengeance Engine is a derivative of UE2 that was created by Irrational. If for some reason we are keep it, I would suggest a retarget to the Unreal Engine 2 article specifically.

I would suggest to the closer that a new RfD be held on Vengeance Engine to discuss if that redirect be retargeted to Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 2 or to Unreal Engine 2 should the draftspace redirect be deleted as a result of this discussion. Then again, NOTBURO. Hamtechperson 02:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time in the redirects forum and you're right, being a new contributor, I'm not familiar with a lot of the rules. In fact, I initially just blanked these pages and asked someone to delete the page in the comment history, which I now understand is not allowed. Reading these rules, I take issue with some of them. I wouldn't call any of these alternative capitalizations: they are typos. And I don't see why we should make redirects for every typo. That implies that every page should have a redirect with various capitalizations of the entry name. If nobody is using these redirects then I don't see a need for them to fix non existing typos. In any case I think it is better to have a redlink than have a typo because 1. someone will see the red link and fix it 2. Some people will see the blue link with a typo and think it is correct. This is in line with the reasoning given here: "The redirect might cause confusion." Also, I disagree that Unreal technology, Unreal Engine Technology, and Unreal Engine technology are plausible search terms. Looking at Google Trends, it doesn't seem anyone is using these search terms. I'm not aware of any such term being used by reliable sources or unreal itself or really anyone at all using it. I certainly don't see why we need a redirect for a misspelling of a possible search term for this page. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To get a sense of which variants are usually considered redirect-worthy and which aren't, you can check the examples in WP:RTYPO and WP:RCAPS. Jruderman (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The line between {{R from alternative capitalization}} and {{R from incorrect capitalization}} can be blurry sometimes. In "Epic Games' proprietary Unreal engine", perhaps the author is treating "Unreal" as a name and "engine" as a generic noun. But the distinction doesn't really matter at RfD because the reasons for having the redirect are similar: helping users reach the article they intend to reach. Jruderman (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh on Draft:Vengeance Engine as drafts aren't indexed by search engines and it isn't in mainspace, don't care either way (side note: Vengeance Engine and Vengeance engine currently go different places which certainly shouldn't be the case), as well as Unreal Engine (game engine) as typically redirects from unnecessary disambiguation pages have a base title that could reasonably refer to more than one thing but the redirect certainly isn't harmful. Keep the rest as either alternative capitalizations or reasonable search terms. Tollens (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good gods we have a mess with Vengeance Engine, don't we? Three redirects including the draftspace one, all of which go to different (and yet still plausible) targets. I think we need to have a separate discussion about how to clean it up, but I think I'll wait until this RfD is closed, at least as concerns the draftspace redirect. A read over the Vengeance engine target, Ghost Story Games, indicates that it's a continuation/successor to the Irrational Games target of Vengeance Engine, plus we have the section at Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 2 and the split article Unreal Engine 2 all as candidates. Hamtechperson 17:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all besides Draft:Vengeance Engine which is just a maintenance cleanup thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Draft:Vengeance Engine per WP:RDRAFT; though it was not moved, it was pointed to a section where it is/was covered. No benefit is derived from getting rid of it. Neutral on the rest. This seems headed towards trainwreck territory. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• TL;DR: Summarizing the above opinions to maybe get this somewhere. Aside from the nomination, I see everybody who provided an opinion agreeing that Unreal engine, UnrealEngine, Unrealscript, Unreal technology, Unreal Engine Technology, and Unreal Engine technology should be kept. There has been no strong opinion presented toward Unreal Engine (game engine) aside from one keep + the nom. There is disagreement over Draft:Vengeance Engine, with some arguing for deletion as maintenance/cleanup and some arguing it doesn't really need to go anywhere. I personally don't think this warranted a relist, but if some additional opinions are available about Unreal Engine (game engine) or Draft:Vengeance Engine, that might get this discussion closed. Tollens (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Originally, I had closed this discussion, but then I changed my mind, essentially per the above comment that sums up potential consensus. I had second thoughts immediately after closing the discussion since though this discussion has mild WP:TRAINWRECK potential, it did seem like there was consensus on some of the redirects. (Either way, as a disclaimer, per WP:RELIST, this discussion can be closed at any time.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:34, 15 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 00:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AFC infobox → Template:Aberdeen F.C.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The title of this redirect is extremely ambigous and should be deleted. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete seing as its a navbox, not an infobox Mach61 17:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Template:AfC submission as a plausible target for new editors who are trying to submit their first article via WP:AFC and don't know the difference between the proposed retarget and an infobox. (I'm "weak" though since Template:AfC submission is not an infobox, meaning retargeting to Template:AfC submission may throw off seasoned editors.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I'm fine with "delete", which is why I'm "weak". Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to free up for future use and per nom. R move but only used for <2 weeks. Respublik (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion is preferable in my mind to retargeting, all of the reasons Steel lists are why we shouldn't do that. Primefac (talk) 23:04, 9 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 F1 in Schools. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Formula one in schools → Formula One in schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Formula One" should be capitalised, so the name is incorrect and should be removed. It has no any value and has negative impact - incorrect name show up in search results. Eurohunter (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a standard {{R from miscapitalisation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: What is the point to keep totally incorrect and useless name with miscapitalisation? In this way we could create yet a million of such incorrect names. Eurohunter (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    But it's not useless (and not even "totally" incorrect; it's just got one lowercase letter). Did you look at Steel1943's link? We regularly create/approve/keep redirects which are slight mistypings are from the actual target articles. We serve our readers better by giving them an extra chance to find what they are looking for. In the end, the visitor lands at the article (we hope) they want, with the proper and correct name, spelling and capitalization. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a concern that requires a lot more discussion to change than one editor who is just helping enforce the de facto status quo; the template {{R from miscapitalisation}} is currently transcluded on 24,226 pages. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Change my vote to "what JohnFromPinckney said". Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Steel or, my preference, Retarget to F1 in Schools, which is where the current target itself redirects. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: either way, the "schools" in the nommed target is apparently wrong ("totally incorrect"); the thing is a proper noun, correctly named F1 in Schools. Make everything point there. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to F1 in Schools per JohnFrom Pinckney. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per JohnFromPinckney and retarget to F1 in Schools since the proposed new target is itself a redirect to that page. —mako๛ 12:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to F1 in Schools - at present this is a double-redirect (retargeting will fix that), and miscapitalisation has always been regarded as plausible as far as redirects go. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:30, 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. Deleted as WP:G5. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Jaheim → Jaheim  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect from draft space to article space where no draft previously existed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For consistency's sake, the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27#Draft:Joe Biden is similar to this one. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as harmless and per my comments in the linked JoeBiden discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Thryduulf. —mako๛ 12:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of note: WikiText2001 has been blocked as a sockpuppet based largely on the behavior of creating this and other redirects. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G5. Just WP:BANREVERT, this redirect is not useful enough to warrant rewarding block evasion. Nickps (talk) 08:28, 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. Jay 💬 19:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Priyanka Chahar Choudhary → Udaariyaan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

One of several films the subject has starred in, and not even her most prominent one. Delete per WP:XY (and see also WP:DEEPER#Priyanka Choudhary) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 17:13, 9 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. Jay 💬 19:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Movies about pbuh → Muhammad in film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible redirect. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For those who don't have this context, "PBUH" = "peace be upon him". Observant Muslims say this phrase, or write the phrase or the abbreviation, after every mention of "Muhummad" or "the Prophet". However, the same formulation can be used after the names of angels, messengers, and other prophets, so "PBUH" isn't specifically an epithet for Muhammad, and he is never known as just "PBUH". So it's an inapt title and an inapt redirect. Largoplazo (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Largoplazo. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Largoplazo (neatly summarized). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Arp242 (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Largoplazo. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - At least "movies about saw" ("SAW" being another abbreviation used in the same context as PBUH) has a plausible target; this really doesn't. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As nom(forgot to actually vote lol) LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 10:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominator doesn't need to !vote; it's assumed the nomination is a deletion !vote in itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, okay. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Besides the above statements, I read "pbuh" as "PUBG", so I totally got confused. Steel1943 (talk) 02:08, 14 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 14:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kalki (upcoming film) → Kalki 2898 AD  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Misleading redirect for a film that is no longer upcoming, as of over 30 days ago per WP:UFILM. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redirect gets little to no pageviews now. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but not speedily. There are a few stragglers here and there, but it seems that the utility of this redirect has indeed pretty much ended. Leaving the discussion open for the full week will possibly catch one or two people looking for the film so we gain nothing by closing this early. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 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).

Noting: the page for Kalki 2898 AD has 3 million monthly pageviews in early to mid August (the time of this RfD), and the "upcoming film" redirect (now deleted) had 5 monthly pageviews, give-or-take, iirc.

Generously, 0.00002% of the 3 million searchers accidentally clicked on a blatantly inaccurate title, for a movie that released in June 2024 (two months prior). A redlink would not dissuade users from reaching this target, as nobody actually thought this movie was still upcoming in August. The reason these numbers on the redirect are so low for such a popular movie, because there was no article content here for over a year+, as it was moved away from this title 13 months ago. This explains why there were a microscopic / inconsequential number of people trying to get to Kalki 2898 AD from this title, despite it being the third most viewed article on the entire Wikipedia site at the time.

Nobody was suggesting a speedy deletion (no criteria apply), so I'm not sure why that was specified; it was always going to be a slow deletion here. But gesturing towards an enforced slow delete for the purpose of "catching stragglers" would offer zero benefit here, as its not as if this title was recently moved. There's been nothing here for over a year+, the 5 monthly pageviews to a 3,000,000 viewed target are inconsequential and (imo) totally ignorable, and it's been a misleading title for 2 months -> deletable per the generally agreed-upon WP:UFILM suggestion. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the polemic on a closed discussion here, but I explained my reasoning with my !vote. What matters is the absolute number of page views, not the relative number - the readers we inconvenience don't care (and shouldn't care) how many we don't inconvenience. Why people are or are not viewing the redirect does not matter, what matters is only whether they are or are not (and whether they get to their intended target or not). WP:UFILM is nothing more than a begrudging compromise between those who care for strict accuracy above everything else and those who regard getting readers to the content they are looking for as the most important factor, don't attach more weight to it than it deserves (which is little). Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Apologies for delay, I don't use RfD as often. I made this reply because your comment of "don't speedy delete" implied that a speedy delete was being proposed via this RfD, when it was not. I brought up the circumstance of this title being moved over a year ago, and existing isolated since then, as this would be info for future reference that might be considered during further RfDs that I will be putting forward. I intend to use past precedent to dictate which redirects should and shouldn't be nominated. Which is why I was surprised that you possibly felt I wanted to "speedily delete" this, with a deliberate comment made about not doing that. Especially if there are more nominations in the future, none of which will be speedy deletions (as no CSD criteria applies), so I wanted to leave a note about the exact circumstances of this one existing since June 2023 (an uncommon situation), which would be lost to time without. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wonderland (upcoming film) → Wonderland (2024 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Film is no longer upcoming (had its theatrical release in june 2024). This is one of the most popular film concepts, and several movies have been called "Wonderland" or codenamed as such in the past, i.e. Wonderland (film). Previously deleted when it targeted Spenser Confidential. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 14:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Funny thing is that when this redirect was previously deleted, it targeted a completely different film. Just goes to show ... these "upcoming" redirects can be trouble if they stick around too long. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 9 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 keep. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 16:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Györöd, Romania → Ghiroda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Misspelled. The Hungarian name is Győröd and not Györöd. Unplausible misspelling by both Hungarian- and non-Hungarian-speakers. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not only does that look like a very plausible misspelling for non-Hungarian speakers who don't know the difference between the two diacritics, it's not solely a misspelling: [1] states on page 47 that The antebellic Györöd was the Hungarian official name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Thryduulf. Great find! —mako๛ 00:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep insofar as a non-Hungarian speaker reading "Győröd" as "Györöd" is to be expected, the "ő" being barely distinguishable from "ö" and almost no non-Hungarian being aware of that language's stressed umlauts. I do know the Hungarian alphabet and yet to me it looked as though you'd written the same thing twice. I guessed that the two instances might be distinguished by a stressed umlaut, but I had to magnify the text to confirm it. Largoplazo (talk) 01:24, 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 14:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No such list at the target. In addition, the existence of the redirect could potentially lead readers to believe that at least one Zelda game is in development at all times, which cannot be guaranteed to be true. Steel1943 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not in the mood to have to create and delete this redirect every time a zelda game is confirmed to be in development, so delete cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:24, 9 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 keep. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 16:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Virginia & truckee 11, reno → Virginia and Truckee 11 Reno  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely capitalization & punctuation combination Rusalkii (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. the capitalization is fine, who cares, but i have no idea what that comma is doing there cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep since it's not ambiguous, but it is a bit unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Steel. It's unlikely but not completely implausible for this to be copied from a construction like "the virginia & truckee 11, reno, was...". Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Steel1943. Small benefit but no harm or chance for confusion. —mako๛ 12:35, 9 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 refine to Umbrella#Modern use. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 16:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Windproof umbrella → Umbrella  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The word "windproof" is mentioned nowhere in the target article. That, and without context, such a topic seems difficult to define since the target is meant to protect the user from various elements, including wind ... which means the umbrella itself isn't windproof ... it just blocks wind ... and even then, without proper harnesses, it may fly away. Steel1943 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Windproof umbrellas are designed to resist being destroyed by high winds. Refine to Umbrella#Modern use, which describes some of those efforts. - Eureka Lott 21:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A well-known and heavily used form of umbrella. If there is no information on it in the article, that's a gross omission that should be fixed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and refine as per EurekaLott's suggestion which seems very reasonable to me. —mako๛ 12:37, 9 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. ^Complex/_Rational 09:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bruh → Template:Disputed inline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I feel like there are plenty of templates this could potentiall point to, including {{Uw-disruptblock}}, {{Uw-vandalism4im}}, {{Dubious}}, among others. For this reason, I don't think it's optimal to point this to {{Disputed inline}}, as this redirect doesn't seem to have a primary topic among the various templates that one might expect it to point to. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a lot of maintenance template shortcuts like {{what?}}, {{odd}}, {{why?}}, {{huh?}} and {{whom}} that could, presumably, go to any number of templates, but don't. I think it's fine for this to be retargeted, but I think that for template redirects specifically, "this shorthand could be useful for many templates" is an awful reason to force it to be used for none. jp×g🗯️ 05:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Redirects to maintenance templates should give some clue to their purpose to those viewing the source and/or diffs of their addition. If someone sees "dubious - discuss" in the rendered version of the page they will be expecting the source to contain something similar to those words not an unrelated slang term. If I saw this being added I would have no idea what someone's objection to the content it was near was, which is a bad thing - it would be even worse if I was a new editor. Ambiguity is tollerable in template redirects only if the context in which they are used reduces the potential for confusion - this template does not do that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an ambiguous and unavoidable WTF. (Replace all transclusions with the target prior to deletion, if applicable; as of this writing, there are 2 transclusions.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, definitely ambiguous. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:47, 14 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 withdrawn. Name is now mentioned at target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of storms named Jeana → List of storms named Jeanne  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Misleading redirect. No storms named "Jeana" are listed at the target. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:32, 9 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 Occupation of Korea. ^Complex/_Rational 09:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Occupied Korea → Korea under Japanese rule  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect to Occupation of Korea. As with that term, "Occupied Korea" could refer to either the Japanese colonial period or the post-WW2 Soviet and U.S. zones. — Goszei (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom seefooddiet (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. Occupied Korea should clearly point to a page that describes all occupations. Since that page exists, this seems like an obvious choice. —mako๛ 12:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:35, 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 14:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Mario Party minigames → Mario Party (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The target article does not contain a list of minigames. Mia Mahey (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Would be suitable in a gaming wiki. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This title was an article for a month in March 2027 2007, prior to being subject to a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

time traveler spotted, authorities contacted. it was in 2007 lol cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid number autocorrect, I guess... Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the target does not contain a list a minigames and because there is no other place in the encyclopedia that I can find one. —mako๛ 09:57, 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).