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 💬 06:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• History of work → Work (human activity)#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Could refer to various topics at Work, a disambiguation page, which have paragraphs/sections dedicated to their respective histories. However, with that being said, I do not think retargeting to Work is the solution here since the disambiguation page does not disambiguate a "History of work" topic. So ... probably either "listify" (if possible) or "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as this is the likeliest target IMO despite the potential ambiguity. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...I mean, Work (physics)#History exists, for example. Steel1943 (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hence the "weak" keep. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there is very little chance that someone will search for the other pages with "history of work". The sub-bullets under work (human activity) are covered by the same page. The history of work in physics is merely a subtopic of "history of physics" or "history of mechanics", and one would expect to find such information at "work (physics)", not on a separate page. "Creative work" and "work of art" are not referred to by the collective noun "work". Bands, musical works, and people don't have separate "history" items, and most of the entries are partial title matches. Certainly Work (human activity)#History is insufficient for a topic of this importance, but it seems to be the best we have right now. Kk.urban (talk) 06:50, 4 March 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 💬 14:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Job shopper → Employment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No idea what this is meant to refer to. It's not mentioned in the target article, and I do not believe Job shop to be an appropriate retargeting option due to its content in relation to the structure of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This has history as an article, in 2005 it was a single paragraph describing someone I'd probably call a consultant although I'm not sure that's a perfect match, This New York Times article from 1964 supports that definition. Google results are mostly describing a person who climbs the corporate ladder by moving from one job/company to the next relatively quickly (I'm sure I've heard a different term for this but I can't remember what it is) and I've not found relevant content here, this is often contrasted with a jobseeker (an unemployed person looking for work) (JobSeeker and Job Seeker may warrant a retargetting discussion of their own). Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf: Are you thinking of "job hopper"? I was thinking of that as well, but Job hopper, Job hoppers, and Job hopping do not exist, nor could I find a good target for any of them. Steel1943 (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since there seems to be no plausible target that I'm aware of. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:33, 7 March 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 Monopoly#Other related factors. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Potential competition → Capitalism#Market competition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The word "potential" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer and/or differentiate. However, this redirect seems to be a {{R with history}} as a result of a WP:BLAR in 2008; the original target was Monopoly. The redirect is mentioned in Monopoly, but it does not seem to define this redirect, but rather using the redirect as using "potential" as an adjective to describe "competition" instead (though the redirect is used as a makeshift section header in Monopoly#Market shares Monopoly#Other related factors). Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed intended target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Monopoly or Monopoly#Market shares per nom. Jay 💬 06:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay: Apparently, I meant Monopoly#Other related factors, not Monopoly#Market shares. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. Jay 💬 06:59, 8 March 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 Wage slavery per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wage labor and slavery → Capitalism#Comparison to slavery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Slavery and wage labor → Capitalism#Comparison to slavery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, and the target section does not exist. The word "slavery" seems to be present nowhere in the target article. Without context, these redirects are WP:XY issues since Wage labor and Slavery are separate articles about separate subjects. (However, the article Wage slavery exists, which may be a viable target.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Wage slavery, as it discusses the intersection of the XY, in the manner expected via the original redirect's nonexistent section name. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both per Lunamann. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both per Lunamann --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Wage slavery per Lunamann as the most suitable target. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:40, 3 March 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 23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcianoism → Capitalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can figure out who the heck Marciano is. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only connections to capitalism I can find almost certainly originated with this redirect. Google is insistent that I meant Marcionism (an early Christian belief system) but I don't think this is a plausible misspelling that for our purposes. The only other thing I found in search results is a hashtag related to a TikTok series about fishing, but I can't work out what it means in that context either. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 00:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Peeko → List of generation III Pokémon#Wingull  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

fancruft. not mentioned in the target since... i removed it a few minutes ago cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and Revert the change mentioned. Peeko is the focus of an early main quest in the Hoenn games, where the player is expected to rescue this NPC Pokemon from a Magma/Aqua grunt. Given this means that nearly everyone who plays through said games will encounter this NPC, I'd say that the NPC's name is an appropriate- and non-crufty- mention in the article, and similarly, an appropriate and non-crufty redirect. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Peeko definitely has a proper reason to remain as a redirect given it's a rare case of a notable, plot relevant species member. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:34, 29 February 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 23:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mudkiepz → List of generation III Pokémon#Mudkip  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

that's taking plausible misspelling and the meme (i herd u liek mudkipz) a little too far cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unlikely typo. Shame that I'm not making a 'keep' vote, or I could say to "kiep" the redirect. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unlikely and unhelpful search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:39, 3 March 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 23:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wailmer watching → List of generation III Pokémon#Wailmer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

fancruft. not mentioned in the target, and also wrong. it's wailord watching that's all the rage according to the pokédex cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:50, 4 March 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 23:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Poussifeu → List of generation III Pokémon#Torchic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pussifew → List of generation III Pokémon#Torchic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

poussifeu is torchic's french name. pussifew is an implausible misspelling for anyone more mature than me, though it doesn't actually seem to be vandalism. does rlang apply? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say yes, Delete as per WP:RLANG. Pussifew could maybe also slap on WP:RTYPO but I think RLANG already covers it. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:25, 1 March 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) feminist🩸 (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sword and planet → Planetary romance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of the genre anywhere on the re-directed article so it is unclear their relation and the re-direct does not help any reader connect how they got from point a to point b here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this redirect exists due to the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sword and planet, which followed an earlier talk page discussion that both concluded that this shouldn't be an article and that Planetary romance was the most appropriate target for a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy ping for the participants in those discussions. @Mike Christie, Piotrus, CohenTheBohemian, Siroxo, Dronebogus, Jclemens, Shooterwalker, and Eluchil404: for your attention. Feel free to ping anyone I might have missed. TompaDompa (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Thryduulf, isn't there a tag for this? R from merge??? In any case, someone should probably head to Planetary Romance and add a line or two explaining the alternate name, as was suggested in the AfD discussion. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, it looks like it was just removed, but you'll need a citation regardless to state they are the same thing, if that is the case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The second comment in the linked talk page discussion has two possible citations, although I'm unsure whether they would support a "these are the same" or just a "these are sometimes treated the same". Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, this is always the issue with the kind of genre re-directs. Topics of alternative names for somewhat niche genres are used differently depending on who it is and what they are saying. It becomes complicated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added that "sword and planet" is an alternative name, cited to a Gardner Dozois introduction. Not sure about the redirect page. Thanks for the ping, @TompaDompa. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah shoot, we got an edit conflict. I've added a few additional sources along with links and the relevant quotes. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops. Well, your edit is a lot fuller than mine. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per previous discussion and my comment above. TompaDompa (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Sword and sorcery Based on my research, sword and planet is more related to sword and sorcery, which makes sense because the name is more similar. This is just a recap of what I said at AFD, and I will respect the consensus either way. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this. Those are two different genres. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All three are different genres. "Sword and sorcery" would at least explain the origins of the term "sword and planet". "Planetary romance" isn't precisely correct, but I do respect the consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With the additional material added to show the relationship of the terms there's no longer a reason not to keep this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 6 March 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 Arthur Orton. Jay 💬 23:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thomas Castro → Tichborne case  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should the target of this redirect not be Arthur Orton? "Thomas Castro" is understood to be the name assumed by Arthur Orton when he claimed to be the heir to the Tichborne estates and baronetcy. It would be a textbook usage of {{R from pseudonym}}. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main author of the Titchborne article, Brian Boulton, died in 2019. Several of his admirers and protégés like me keep an eye on the 100+ articles he took to FA and comment as we think appropriate when changes are suggested. In this case, though, I don't think I have any useful comment to offer, and will happily go along with any consensus. Tim riley talk 15:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Orton, per nom. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:36, 6 March 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 14:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Flemmli → List of generation III Pokémon#Torchic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

torchic's german name. is it worth keeping for a primarily japanese franchise? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:RLANG. Also, is this what a Flemi is supposed to be??? (Note: I still also recommend deletion of Flemi, too. Even if it IS an alternate-language name for a Pokemon, WP:RLANG applies there, too.) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  yeah, apparently. no idea why the other possible target was flaaffy of all pokémon cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:RLANG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:39, 3 March 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. Early closure per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll steal it! No one will ever know! → Wikiquote:Special:Search/The Dover Boys at Pimento University#Dan Backslide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Random quote created as kind of a soft redirect to Wikiquote. I see no reason to have links for non-notable sentences to outside sources (whether in the WMF universe or not): either they are notable enough to be mentioned in an article here and can then be redirected internally, or we shouldn't have them at all Fram (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Soft redirects to Wikiquote are a thing and they have community consensus to exist, and this is a properly formatted etc one so the only question is whether this an appropriate example or not. I'm not familiar with the work at all, but given that the quote is not mentioned on en.wp, it is not only mentioned on, but is used as the lead illustration of, the wikiquote page, it gets a lot of Google hits (including in things like memes, making it very likely someone will search for the origin of it) and it is not ambiguous it seems to tick all the boxes for being a useful soft redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. - Master of Hedgehogs ^{(converse) (hate that hedgehog!)} 13:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. CJ-Moki (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf; valid redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:38, 3 March 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).