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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Scared Shitless → Thanks to the Moon's Gravitational Pull  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Song title to album redirect for a song with no apparent notability claim besides existing. There's no claim that it was released as a single, and no claim that it was ever used in a film or television series, to suggest a reason why it might be semi-notable enough to be the only song on the album whose title exists as a redirect to the album, and it was created as a redirect right from the jump rather than having ever existed as an article about the song -- so, in fact, I suspect (though cannot definitively prove) that the only real reason this exists was in an attempt to lock up a title with a dirty word in it before it could be misused by vandals.
Further, the horror film Scared Shitless now has an article, which I had to create at a disambiguated title because of the existence of this redirect -- but there's no particular reason why a 20-year-old album track with no independent notability in its own right (and little if any awareness in the anglosphere, since the band were never widely known outside the Philippines) should retain WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status over a current film. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a stupid question, but why didn't you simply convert the redirect into an article about the film with a hatnote pointing to the album? Paradoctor (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not a thing I consider appropriate to do without discussing first Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect, move the film over to Scared Shitless, per nom. I agree that the film is the PTOPIC here. BugGhost🦗👻 08:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Hard disagree on awareness about the band though. Filipino diaspora is everywhere in the anglosphere and they have performed outside the country for those audiences. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 8 October 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ø (Disambiguation) (disambiguation) → Ø (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This started out as a duplicate page of its target called Ø (disambiguation) (disambiguation) (a deleted title) in September last year (see the most developed version here), which disambiguated uses of the target's title with varying capitalizations of "disambiguation" and similar characters to "Ø" (essentially disambiguating disambiguations) with the exception of Ø (Disambiguation) (an Underoath album), until Renamed user g5s6n3yi8z7g08cs merged the two pages less than eight hours later (leaving this redirect behind in the process). Moreover, one of the titles listed on the former disambiguation page, ∅ (disambiguation), was already a redirect to the target at the time, which further muddied this thing's plausibility. It also hasn't gotten very many pageviews during its lifetime (68 compared to the 9,619 of its target) during that time, so I'm not 100% sure it's really useful to keep around. I'd recommend we delete it unless someone can provide a justification. Regards, SONIC678 19:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom Roasted (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Do we even normally have disambiguation pages for disambiguation pages? mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Disambiguation (disambiguation) comes into mind JuniperChill (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is only one Ø (Disambiguation), making the redirect misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JuniperChill (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:35, 11 October 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. I'll add the suggested WP:RCATs. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• William B. Cox → William D. Cox  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

His name simply just doesn’t have a B in it. Roasted (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per K4; deleting upsets links to this redirect, the former title of the article to which it points. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I already retargeted all those links. That isn’t an issue. Roasted (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a standard {{R from move}} and {{R from incorrect name}}. The article was a this title for about 3½ years so there is a high chance of incoming links from outside Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per policy on keeping redirects from articles that were at a name for a substantial period of time and then moved, even if the original name was in error. While all incoming INTERNAL links have been corrected, external links are likely given the timeframe it was at that location, and preventing link rot is a noble goal to stand for. Fieari (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 8 October 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rush Limbaugh/Chicom → Chinese Communist Party  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Created in 2021, way after subpages in mainspace were deprecated. No idea of what navigation purpose this could plausibly serve, and it isn't linked from anywhere. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It was a phrase used on Rush Limbaugh's radio program in the late 1990s and that's pretty much it. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Searching for the exact phrase finds exactly three hits, only one of them is unrelated to this redirect [1] from 2020 - and that doesn't use the exact phrase either (the URL contains "rush-limbaugh-chicom" which google thinks is identical). It's received 30 hits this year (but only 4 in 2023 and 11 in 2022) which is more than I was expecting, but even if people are seeking this out the redirect will not help them find whatever it is they are looking for - there is no mention of Rush Limbaugh at the target, "Chinese Communist Party" and "Chicom" are both mentioned at Rush Limbaugh#Hu Jintao but it doesn't seem likely that this is what people would be primarily searching for (or clear why they'd be searching for it using this search term). Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A strange formulation that is as marginal as can be. Hard to understand how it could have use as an aid to the reader. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Britney Spears 7th studio album (Britney Spears album) → Femme Fatale (Britney Spears album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This unusually formatted and repetitive redirect started out as an article about the album in question back when it was still upcoming on September 16, 2010. A Santa Clara IP marked the article for deletion on grounds of a foggy WP:CRYSTAL ball two minutes after its creation and redirected it to Spears' article five minutes after that, where it remained redirected until Dobie80 redirected it to the current target less than 26 months later. It's also had only 68 pageviews since July 2015 (which equates to less than one person per month), so I'm not sure we really need this redirect. Regards, SONIC678 16:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The redirect is accurate as the target is Britney Spears' 7th studio album, and it is (unsurprisingly) a Britney Spears album, but the redundancy is very unlikely to be a useful redirect. Page views totally exactly one hit in the 1 January 2023 - 30 September 2024 period do not provide any evidence of utility. Britney Spears' 7th studio album and Britney Spears 7th studio album are both red but should not be deleted on the basis of this discussion if someone feels them useful enough to create. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 6 October 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 restore templates and nominate at templates for discussion. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:MBTI Instrument → Myers–Briggs Type Indicator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:MBTI Archetypes → Myers–Briggs Type Indicator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:MBTI Cognitive Functions → Myers–Briggs Type Indicator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Mtbi instrument → Myers–Briggs Type Indicator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Three more template space redirects pointing to Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (added 12:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC))

Template:MBTI Archetypes, was merged to Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

Template:MBTI Cognitive Functions, was merged to ISTJ

Template:Mtbi instrument, alias of Template:MBTI Instrument

A few years ago, this template became unused, and was redirected to the main MBTI article. Isn't the normal procedure for unused templates to be deleted? I don't see why one would do a redirect from template space to an article. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Do these need to be kept for attribution? --Un assiolo (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and TfD? Jay 💬 11:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last three nominated redirects were not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (Involved) Relisting as the September 16 log no longer shows up at the main RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and TfD - This is a very strange set of WP:XNRs... if you tried to use these as a template, you'd get the entire MBTI article! That's clearly not a good redirect... but it seems this was an attempt to delete the templates? That means it should go to TfD instead. Fieari (talk) 23:10, 8 October 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 Set indexify. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (u — c) 20:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Minister for Cities → Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government#List of ministers for cities  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Minister for cities → Cabinet Office#Ministers and Civil Servants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Not sure if this is the best target as Minister for Cities (Australia) exists - also not sure if that is the best title for that article either. I'm not familiar with the recent political cabinet reshuffling so there might be content forking between the current target and Minister for Cities (Australia). Fork99 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia) since that article is no longer a redirect in and of itself. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the redirect (Minister for Cities), I wasn't aware that the Minister for Cities (Australia) page existed already. In that case, I am happy for the redirect to be deleted straight up or redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia). Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree – if that's the primary topic, it should be moved to the title "Minister for Cities", and if it's not the primary topic then "Minister for Cities" shouldn't redirect there. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've added the lowercase Minister for cities redirect to this discussion as they should both lead to the same place. The target section of that redirect no longer mentions a minister for cities though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Set index this and similar titles seem to be created regularly in different parts of the world with none obviously primary. In a few minutes searching I found all the following:
  • City Minister,
  • Regional minister#Developments since 2010
  • Minister for Planning (New South Wales)#Cities
  • Minister for Cities (Australia)
  • Minister for the Environment and Water (Australia)#List of ministers for cities and the built environment
  • Angus Taylor (politician)#Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation
  • Minister for Cities and Rural Areas (mentioned at Frederiksen II Cabinet#List of ministers)
  • Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population (mentioned at First Morrison ministry#Outer ministry
  • Minister for cities and urban development (Cote D'Ivoire, mentioned at François Amichia)
  • State Secretary for Cities (mentioned at Borne government#State Secretaries)
  • Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy and a "Minister for cities" (mentioned at Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care (Scotland)

  (some might be duplicates, I've run out of time to sort and sanitise). Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. The UK had a Minister from Cities from 2011-15, before the post was merged into other ministries, see Regional_minister#Developments_since_2010. The UK also has the similarly named City Minister (2008-present), which is actually responsible for the City of London financial district not cities, but could easily be confused. Thryduulf has found several other similarly named positions in other countries. So while the Australian post might be the extant position that most closely matches the exact redirect phrasing, it would be better if both capitalisations led to a Minister for Cities (disambiguation) page. Modest Genius ^talk 10:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest moving Minister for Cities (Australia) → Minister for Cities and moving Minister for Cities → Minister for Cities (disambiguation). The Australian portfolio (being extant) is the primary topic. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate/set indexify per Thryduulf and Modest Genius. Term is too generic for a primary topic redirect to a specific position. C F A 💬 21:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: A requested move was made regarding these redirects and procedurally closed + no consensus because this discussion is ongoing; permalink: Special:Permalink/1240763459. Fork99 (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. There is also a Ministry of Cities in Brazil. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions seems split between creating a disambiguation page at the base title, or claiming Minister for Cities (Australia) is the primary topic. (Either way, seems a disambiguation page needs to be created somewhere ... but is that "somewhere" the base title or a title ending with "(disambiguation)"?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Per CFA, I also think that the title is too ambiguous and generic to have a primary topic - the Australian one might be "extant" per DilatoryRevolution as of right now, but this could change in the future as political portfolios get shuffled around fairly often. Fork99 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate/setindexify at minister for cities; as WP:DIFFCAPS it should not redirect to the Australian topic in any case. A generic term and multiple non-Aussie uses; the lower case form would be appropriate for grouping in "secretary" etc. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the September 16 log no longer shows up at the main RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:20, 6 October 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• British Music Invasion → British Invasion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no such name article, so there is no source for such name, and in this way anyone could create any redirect with any name (SPAM). Eurohunter (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Google shows that this term is used with some regularity, and it's plausible natural disambiguation for someone who might expect "British invasion" to take them to a military article. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – redirects don't need sources if they're plausible search terms with unambiguous targets, and this is definitely not spam. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 8 October 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 14:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List over Swedish Artists by Albums and Singles Sold → List of best-selling Swedish music artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Absolutely incorrect descriptive name. Such redirect should be removed from Wikipedia otherwise it contributes to the popularisation of incorrect and redundant redirects (SPAM). This name is entirely incorrect and shouldn't be kept on Wikipedia. This means that if someone would create dozens of such names for different countries, they would be considered incorrect and deleted. Eurohunter (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as WP:G6. Eurohunter, while I'm sympathetic to this general viewpoint, this was created as the result of a page move (probably originally created by a non-native speaker), not an overzealous redirect creator. It was there for mere hours, so there's no harm in deleting this otherwise unneeded redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Dota 2 heroes → Dota 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• List of Dota 2 Heroes → Dota 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Target contains no such list. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. There's always a proper wiki for that in-game list. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahri Boy: That's not a basis for speedy deletion. See WP:NOTCSD#1. SilverLocust 💬 06:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The redirect was per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dota 2 Heroes. Even at the time, there was not a list at that target (permalink), just a mention of 111 "Hero" characters with a primary ref: "Heroes". Valve Corporation. Retrieved February 13, 2015. SilverLocust 💬 07:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history and/or the mentioned AfD. Notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the September 15 log no longer shows up at the main RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:42, 6 October 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Footmen Frenzy → Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Footmen frenzy → Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Huh? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pppery: Apparently this was a thing - a game-within-the-game that once had a substantial (but basically unsourced) article. See here, here, here. In other words, a thing that exists, may be worth a mention, but can not support an article of its own. BD2412 T 01:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, a popular custom game and perhaps worth a mention, but as it's not mentioned now, delete. It was not a particularly important one at the end of the day, unlike DotA's leading what became the MOBA genre, so I don't anticipate being added any time soon. IznoPublic (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and IznoPublic. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Just tagged Footmen Frenzy with {{R with history}}. Jay 💬 11:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Footmen Frenzy's page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has history but I don't think that history has been used elsewhere. Still seems fine to delete. Izno (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the September 15 log no longer shows up at the main RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:40, 6 October 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 Portal:Current events/2003 January 3. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• January 3, 2003 → 2003#January  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This day is not discussed at the target page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Portal:Current events/2003 January 3 where information on that date can be found. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Portal:Current events/2003 January 3 per Tavix. Note that this redirect's existence supplies the required attribution for the content at Portal:Current events/2003 January 3. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Portal:Current events/2003 January 3. C F A 💬 02:10, 14 October 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. per Jay, looks like we need to keep this one, so I'm closing this as keep over no consensus. asilvering (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Undermine (Warcraft) → Warcraft#Azeroth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to World of Warcraft: Cataclysm as {{r without mention}} for now; could easily be covered there. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's just an invitation to add more unwanted fancruft. No. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not mentioned at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Undermine is a fictional location in the Warcraft universe. The Undermine is supposedly on the Isle of Kezan, in the southern part of Azeroth. The 20 November 2007 consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undermine (Warcraft) was merge and redirect [to Azeroth (Warcraft)]. The 28 November 2007 consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azeroth (Warcraft) was (merge and) redirect to Warcraft universe. On 18 December 2007, Warcraft universe moved to Warcraft (series). In December 2009, Warcraft (series) moved to Warcraft (unnecessary disambiguation). There was a consensus to mention "Undermine" in the Warcraft article. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The final version of ==Undermine== in Azeroth (Warcraft), before its "merge":

• The merge template was removed at 02:05, 28 November 2007, with edit summary "both articles were redirected here", but no content was merged. This was a failure to implement the consensus. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Mention of Undermine was finally added at 01:31, 12 December 2008:

• Another mention was added 16:56, 2 March 2009:

• A 12:20, 26 June 2009 edit changed this text:

• Mention of "not been included"/"yet to be visited" was restored 01:02, 31 July 2009:

• This was removed again @16:25, 25 August 2009: "as stated before... undermine is not a continent, and the number of major landmasses has not yet been decided due to the fact that there are unknown lands where pandarens and maybe more".
• Text was changed @16:28, 25 August 2009:

• Text was again changed @14:11, 18 September 2009:

• On 27 October 2009, the last mention of Undermine in Warcraft was "split per WP:BOLD" to Races and factions of Warcraft. Later, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races and factions of Warcraft closed as redirect to Gameplay of World of Warcraft.

  Seems all this content which hasn't been cited to reliable sources has been undermining the principles of Wikipedia. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  wbm1058, in terms of action, what would you like to be done for this redirect and this discussion? Jay 💬 17:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to finally close the September 12 log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Content was merged to Azeroth (Warcraft) in 2007, and I have tagged the redirect as {{R from merge}}. However the merging user:Atama did not mention the source in the edit summary but only summarized as Added information about Undermine. I guess we need to keep the user edit history of the redirect page for attribution. Jay 💬 16:49, 14 October 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. If anyone also wants to make a different capitalization, go for it. asilvering (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel status minus Actual status Inconsistency → Body image (neuroscience)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

not mentioned at target (in over 10 years) seems to be created for listing at dab FAI as the only user, but I'm removing that dab entry as it fails WP:DABACRO and wouldn't be used anyway due to incorrect capitalisation. Widefox; talk 20:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an index [2], that could indeed be listed at FAI. The capitalisation *seems* to be correct, although I'm not sure why the authors chose to capitalise it this way. In other sources [3] [4], sentence case seems to be preferred. I don't think there's enough information to write an article, but it might merit a mention at the target. Cremastra (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies already for the wall-of-text input:

The term (with same sort-of-dopey captialization) was indeed added in 2014 (by the redirect's creator) and still present up until a reworking in late July 2021. I have taken the liberty of re-adding the mention, as I discern no reason for its removal (made by an editor inactive since 2023). Per Cremestra and the mention in several papers, it seems notable enough for a mention at the target as well as the FAI dab page.

I'm dubious as to the usefulness of the redirect due to its length, although it comes up nicely as the only choice when I type in "Feel status". However, if we keep it, I'd like to change the caps; although correctly matching the original 2014 paper's use, it's different on both the 2016 [2] and 2020 [3] papers mentioned by Cremestra. I personally prefer the last, from Social Science & Medicine, which uses hyphens, which seems (of the three styles) most easily understandable and conformant to English usage (and therefore what I used when restoring the text). In one paper's reviews Zaccagni (original paper's lead researcher) acknowledged a lack of facility with English (though the caps weren't explicitly mentioned); I don't know how much leeway we have in choosing a style. I do think it an unlikely capitalization for a WP user to type in, so I would lean toward Keep, but sentence-case it. It just looks wrong otherwise. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has been added back to the target, but participants have been unsure about the capitalization of the redirect title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards keep but sentence-case it per JohnFromPickney, especially given multiple other papers have politely overlooked the idiosyncratic punctuation. The target should be refined to Body image (neuroscience) § Measurements. Cremastra — talk — c 19:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to correct capitalisation if you want to. The advantage of doing this is that the correct capitalisation will be shown in the "redirected from" text which is pretty minor, but still a good thing. Personally I'd leave the existing case as well, as that will support incoming web links, but I know RfD don't care about that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:01, 24 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Grabage truck → Garbage truck  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Grabage tin → Waste container  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible misspelling. Killarnee (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not aware of any accent that pronounces Garbage anything like 'Grabage'. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Grabage tin. Since the existence of these redirects actively impedes search by only showing these two redirects instead of relevant content for "garbage", which would be the case if the misspelling did not occur anywhere in article space, I suggest deletion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a plausible typo (and an unambiguous one too – there's no such thing as a "grabbage truck"). Searching for "grabage" still shows results for "garbage" below those two. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 11:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure which kind of search you are using. This is not the case for me. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Vector 2022 search engine, which 99+% of readers use, eliminates this problem entirely. Try it for yourself. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This should be bundled with Grabage tin. Either way, Grabage does not exist and never has. Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is a very plausible typo since it is character transposition between two adjacent characters, a very common form of typo -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Grabage tin with this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, implausible, swapping a vowel and a consonant changes the phonetics, not special as a typo, word is easy to spell. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:27, 14 October 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).