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 23:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Transversally elliptic operator → Elliptic operator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not currently mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 411Mania → List of professional wrestling websites  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not listed at target article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Made this a while ago when I didn't really get how redirects to these kinds of list should generally work.★Trekker (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, StarTrekker. If any passing administrator would like to speedily close this as delete under CSD G7, that would be great! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:36, 2 September 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 James Madison as Father of the Constitution. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 22:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Father of the Constitution → James Madison  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to James Madison as Father of the Constitution or keep - this redirect hasn't been touched since that article was created so I'm unsure how it should be treated. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or retarget to James Madison as Father of the Constitution Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to James Madison as Father of the Constitution. Goodness, that's an interesting article split, but it seems there's enough content for it, so as long as we have the more specific article, that's where this redirect should point. Fieari (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget as indicated: people might not remember who the "Father of the Constitution" is, so the redirect is useful, whichever article it goes to. P Aculeius (talk) 01:11, 5 September 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 User:Alex756/Writ of Wikimedius. Jay 💬 13:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Writ of Wikimedius → Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

In 2004, was moved to User:Alex756/Writ of Wikimedius, and retargeted to WP:ARBCOM. Now, there are four uses of "wikimedius" across all of the Wikipedia namespace, and 3/4 are this redirect, and two related discussions for deletion. (The only other mention of Wikimedius is the genus of WP:WikiDodo.) It is not clear how this title has any relation to ArbCom, without already knowing about Alex's essay. And, if Alex's essay is known, such a person would be highly familiar with WP:ARBCOM and comfortable using one of the several likely shortcuts, instead of spelling out "Writ of Wikimedius" perfectly to navigate here. Deletion is preferable, I think; twenty years after the foundation of the Arbitration Committee, it does not seem necessary to have a WP-space redirect to userspace for a seemingly unendorsed objection essay. But perhaps there are some elucidating threads about the 2004 context which I'm missing, which could prompt a retarget result. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I almost speedy deleted this but the nomination raises the issue that there might be some 2004-level context that would explain why we should keep this. It's a fair point to ask about but I find it unlikely and feel like delete is the most reasonable outcome here. A lot of goofy stuff happened in the early days of the project, things that would certainly not fly today, and this seems to be an artifact of that time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a joke that isn't funny anymore, absent any highly unlikely evidence coming forth that there is still a good reason for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on subsequent comments, I have no objection to retargeting, instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to User:Alex756/Writ of Wikimedius, harmless. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per 1234... Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I remember this. It was ridiculous at the time and never should have been allowed in the moment let alone kept for posterity. UninvitedCompany 01:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is more of a question to discuss at a MfD for User:Alex756/Writ of Wikimedius. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as harmless. C F A 💬 22:21, 8 September 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 23:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pokémon Indexer → Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokédex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pokemon Indexer → Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokédex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• National Pokémon Indexer → Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokédex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• National Pokemon Indexer → Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokédex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

refers to the pokédex, but that's not what the name means (there's no oficial etymology for it that i could find), that's not what "indexer" means, and i found no reliable sauce for this variant's usage cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This term doesn't seem to be applicable to the subject, nor particularly helpful. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 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 23:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• PokéNav → Gameplay of Pokémon#Items  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pokémon Navigator → Gameplay of Pokémon#Items  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pokemon Navigator → Gameplay of Pokémon#Items  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pokénav → Gameplay of Pokémon#Items  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• PokéNAV → Gameplay of Pokémon#Items  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pokenav → Gameplay of Pokémon#Items  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• PokeNav → Gameplay of Pokémon#Items  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• PokeNAV → Gameplay of Pokémon#Items  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

not mentioned in the article. mentioned in passing in pokémon emerald, but the mention is likely not worth keeping there cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:58, 4 September 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 14:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Eight dash ball → Eight-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. This is the result of an undiscussed move by user:Eight dash ball in July 2020 that was reverted (by Oknazevad) after about 20 mintues later. I don't think this is a useful search term, but if it is then the target should match whatever the consensus of the #8 Ball Pool discussion is below. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect was the byproduct of a disruptive and useless move. No reason for this to exist. oknazevad (talk) 20:42, 1 September 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 Anarcho-primitivism#Adoption and practice. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 22:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevin Tucker (anarchist) → Green anarchism#Anarcho-primitivism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirects to an article that does not even mention the subject. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has extensive history - not sure if RFD is the right place for this discussion? Might merit a procedural close and an AFD instead. -- asilvering (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Anarcho-primitivism#Adoption and practice. I had added citations for Kevin Tucker and Species Traitor to the discussed Green anarchism#Anarcho-primitivism section in 2021 because I did not think anarcho-primitivism would substantiate its own article. I've restored those citations in the suggested retarget location, where someone searching for the topic would expect to read about Carson and related periodicals. If there is more written on the topic, it can always split out in summary style. czar 14:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the retargeting proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The retarget should be uncontroversial since it's the dedicated article rather than the summary style subsection that had previously been the target czar 02:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per CZAR. Jay 💬 15:21, 8 September 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 14:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Quackifier → Quake III Arena  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

not that i'm the biggest and oldest quake fan out there, but i haven't found any info on anything in the history ever actually existing with this name. results gave me nothing reliable cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert and send to AfD. This was an article about a bit of software that "modified the OpenGL driver for ATI video cards, to change all references of "quake" to "quack"" to hack some code in the videocard drivers. I can't verify that (the reference is a dead link and google finds only usernames and ChatGPT output, after I insist I don't mean "qualifier"). Even though it's almost certainly not notable I can't find any evidence of the content being discussed and it's not speedy deletable so AfD is the correct venue. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per it's almost certainly not notable, and I agree with that assessment. There's no need to take a bureaucratic extra step for something this obvious. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article was redirected in 2008. If the subject is not mentioned anywhere, then this thing should be deleted, considering the existence of an article about the subject of this redirect is a clear WP:NOTGUIDE violation. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect that an article about this subject that is not a guide could be written quite easily (focus on the technology, the impact of it, reactions to it, any legacy, etc). Whether such an article would meet the GNG is a different question and one that can policy says can only be answered at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  the answer already seems to be "no", considering how even you found nothing reliable, so what would be the point of this extra step? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Policy says that articles which don't meet the speedy deletion criteria are discussed at AfD. Ignoring that policy will not benefit the encyclopaedia so IAR doesn't apply (IAR is rarely a good match when it comes to deletion anyway), because AfD gives a full chance for people who evaluate article content to evaluate article content and maximum visibility to those who know the topic area and can find sources. Such people do not tend to watch RfD because it's nearly always not relevant - because RfD discusses redirects not the deletion of article content. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  to be honest, i don't really see how that justifies it. the stub before had one (1) source that doesn't even seem to be primarily about quackifier (couldn't get it to load /_ \), so there's no real point in interrupting the deletion of a pretty unambiguously not very notable redirect in one place so it can be deleted as a pretty unambiguously not notable article. also, where did the "speedy" part come from? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a redirect, not an article, so the "policy" that Thryduulf made a vague wave to, if it were to exist, wouldn't apply here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a disputed BLAR. Disputed BLARs are reverted and sent to AfD for discussion of the article content, as the article content is what is being deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No it's not. No one is advocating for keeping the article content. Even if there were, WP:BLAR says that if there is a disagreement that other methods of dispute resolution should be used. RfD is a method of dispute resolution. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The redirection is disputed. I am arguing that the content should be restored and discussed as article content according to the policies for deletion of article content. In what way is that not a disputed BLAR? Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In BLAR, the disagreement is between someone who wants to keep the page as an article and someone who wants to blank-and-redirect the article. In order for you to take that position, you must be in favor of keeping the article. You have not taken that position, your argument is purely jurisdictional. Please cite the policy you are appealing to. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The disagreement is over the status as a redirect. The policy is Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Pages that do not fall in the above three categories [copyvio, speedy deletion, prod] may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussion venues. Deletion venues is linked to: Wikipedia:Deletion processes which states that AfD is for articles and RfD is for redirects. We're dealing with article content hidden by an undiscussed redirect that has been objected to: i.e. a WP:BLAR which states If other editors disagree with this blanking, [...] the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion..

  Please quote the policy that allows for deletion of articles at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The policy is Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Pages that do not fall in the above three categories [copyvio, speedy deletion, prod] may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussion venues. Deletion venues is linked to: Wikipedia:Deletion processes which states that AfD is for articles and RfD is for redirects. This is a redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, or restore and AfD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no need to debate content that was effectively removed sixteen years ago and not missed by anyone since. WP:IAR if there is a policy that says otherwise. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. I'm not a fan of the squabbling over venues above, and deletion of {{R with history}}s is a perfectly acceptable outcome at RfD. There's no need to waste editor resources by booting this to another venue when the result of that discussion will almost certainly be the same. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:59, 4 September 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 14:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bodo languages (disambiguation) → Boroic languages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The current target Boroic languages is not a disambiguation page, and does not disambiguate "Bodo languages" (because "Bodo languages" (plural) is not ambiguous). Delete (previous G14 declined). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:04, 4 September 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 14:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Brotherhood of Shadow → Mortal Kombat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Brothers of the Shadow → Mortal Kombat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Brotherhood of the Shadow → Mortal Kombat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving readers attempting to find information about this topic with no information at this target. However, there are mentions of the phrase "Brotherhood of Shadow" in multiple articles about subtopics of the target, but since it is mentioned in "multiple", it's not clear why any alternative target is preferred over another. Also, Brotherhood of Shadow is a {{R with history}} due to being subject to a WP:BLAR in 2007. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's an apparently recurring name for a cult that... honestly, the only real pattern i can see in it is being led by quan chi. it's also the name of an unrelated game series that doesn't seem to have an article. i'd say delete, as pretty much no one cares about this name, and i doubt the games will have their own articles. not even sure ed cared about the cult at the time, since killing reptile took priority

as for which spelling is right? the list of mortal kombat characters directly mentions and uses... two of them. in passing. and the cult isn't mentioned on quan chi's section at all. i suppose killing reptile took priority over deciding on a name as well cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the pre-redirect page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

killing reptile apparently took priority over adding sources to... anything there, so i'm not feeling it either cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and cogsan. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:06, 4 September 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 disambiguate. Restoring previous revision as a disambiguation page. Votes are 10 to 4 in favor of disambiguation, by my count. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Paris Olympics → 2024 Summer Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Paris Olympic Games → 2024 Summer Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The Olympics are over now. Disambiguate. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Los Angeles Olympics would be the same after the 2028 Games conclude. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: per nom. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 04:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Paris hosting the Olympic Games. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix (though that article's lead is somewhat poorly written). 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support disambiguation per nom. Merge Paris hosting the Olympic Games into its respective articles; there is nothing in common between 1900 & 1924 and 2024 except the city. It doesn't warrant an article. IntGrah (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, just revert the recent change of Paris Olympics to Paris hosting the Olympic Games and revert to this version. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support this – IntGrah (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support disambiguation of Paris Olympics per the nomination and prior discussion. There is strong precedent with Los Angeles Olympics, Salt Lake City Olympics, Lake Placid Olympics, Beijing Olympics, Innsbruck Olympics, Tokyo Olympics, etc. However, the ambiguous term Paris Olympic Games should not redirect to the 2024 instance, but rather to the Paris Olympics disambiguation, effectively restoring the prior redirect there. (A bot recently "fixed" the double-redirect there that would not have existed in the first place if Paris Olympics had been a proper WP:DAB from the start, in line with precedent.) --Tim Parenti (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to disambiguation page - Since Paris has hosted three Olympiads, it should be a dab between the three. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate by restoring this version and moving it back to Paris Olympics, as suggested by Tavix. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding this old version. I hadn't realized that Paris Olympics had been a proper disambiguation page at some point in the past, so your proposal is now my preferred mechanism for its restoration. --Tim Parenti (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Make into a dis-ambiguation page the same way it was done successfully with London Olympics. Georgia guy (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Paris hosting the Olympic Games which is a broad-concept article and is the disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages should not duplicate BCAs unless there are additional meanings. C F A 💬 02:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been pointed out above, Paris hosting the Olympic Games once was a disambiguation page in this old version, before an attempt was made to convert it into an article. However, nothing that is said in any of its sections is not already said (or could not easily be said) in the corresponding article, typically in the lede. Because it merely duplicates the articles it references, it has gone out-of-date in several places — most obviously the over-detailed 2024 section, but also, e.g., updates to the number of athletes who participated in 1900. As it does nothing to actually cover the "relationship between a wide range of related concepts", it is not a proper WP:BCA and is simply duplicative where a WP:DAB would do. --Tim Parenti (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the article just needs to be cleaned up. This is a reasonable topic for a broad-concept article. C F A 💬 16:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support DAB per nom, like the discussion at London Olympics, the Paris hosting the Olympic Games should be merged with their articles, and converted/redirected to a DAB. DankJae 18:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Paris hosting the Olympic Games per CFA. If there is concern with that page, list at AfD / restore disambiguated version / add merge tags. Jay 💬 10:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:06, 1 September 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. ✗plicit 14:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lauren Sturtevant → Lauren Parsekian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target page -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw this nomination since P Aculeius has found and fixed the problem. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Presumably there because it was her husband's legal surname (and apparently hers) until he changed it in 2022. A linked article says that she planned to change hers in the near future (but not that she had). All of which should probably be said in the article, even though it isn't. But that's not a a reason to delete a plausible search term; it's a reason to re-add information that was probably deleted unhelpfully a couple of years ago, with an explanation. P Aculeius (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And since nobody else seems to be participating in the discussion, I've gone ahead and noted it briefly in the article. Feel free to improve on what I wrote! P Aculeius (talk) 12:38, 3 September 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 Eight-ball. There is general agreement that everything should point to Eight-ball (obviously except for the titles ending in "(disambiguation)"). (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 22:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 8 Ball Pool → Miniclip  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 8 ball pool → Eight-ball pool (British variation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 8-ball → Eight-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 8-ball pool → Eight-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 8ball → Eight-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 8Ball → Eight-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Eightball → Eight-ball (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Eight ball → Eight-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Eight Ball → Eight-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• EightBall → Eight-ball (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 8-Ball → Eight-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 8 Ball → Eight-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 8 ball → Eight-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Eight-ball pool → Eight-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

The game is related to the destination, but is better to be directed to 8 Pool and 8 Ball Pool (British variation). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, except "8 Pool" isn't a real phrase, and "8 Ball Pool" is malformed in several ways (MOS:SPORTCAPS, MOS:CUE, MOS:HYPHEN); to the extent the phrase is used, generally in reference to the British variant, it's "eight-ball pool".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I'm confused here: The nominator wants the redirects speedy deleted per {{Db-redirnone}}? Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've added a seveneight more redirects to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Eight-ball or Eight-ball (disambiguation). This is a mess, especially as Eightball pool is a disambiguation page that is just a subset of Eight-ball (disambiguation). All should point to the same place, I'm equally happy with the American game (if that is really the primary topic, I've not checked) or the disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Eight-ball#Variants has a section for the British version, so it's probably primary; one or the other certainly is.
  I haven't tagged any of these, but there's also
  • 8-ball (disambiguation), 8 Ball (disambiguation), 8 ball (disambiguation), and EightBall → Eight-ball (disambiguation)
  • 8-Ball, 8 Ball, 8 ball, Eight-Ball, and Eight-ball pool → Eight-ball
  • Eightball pool (disambiguation) → Eightball pool
  EightBall and Eight-ball pool are probably the most problematic among them. —Cryptic 14:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged and listed all of those that don't end in disambiguation (as those are obviously correctly pointing to a disambiguation page). Unless anyone objects, after this discussion is complete I'll boldly redirect Eightball pool (disambiguation) to the main disambig at Eight-ball (disambiguation) and Eightball pool to wherever the consensus destination for the rest is. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Eight-ball, which mentions the British variant. Cremastra (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Eight-ball except the ones that already include "disambiguation" which all like point to Eight-ball (disambiguation). In an ideal world the hyphenated ones would point to the game, the name of which is properly hyphenated as an adjectival use with "pool" (included or implied) as the noun, while the non-hyphenated ones would point to the glossary entry on the number 8 ball, which isn't hyphenated as "ball" is the noun, but I'm a realist that no one can really keep that straight. (Heck, I just had to make corrections across the nine-ball page a few days ago.) Ideally we'd clarify the difference by moving the eight-ball, nine-ball, ten-ball, and other "X-ball" pool games to include the word "pool" in their titles for clarity and completeness; sure, people might shorten it to just "eight-ball" more often when the context is clear, but we cannot make such assumptions about context in article titles. (And that doesn't mean we then need to include "also known as eight-ball" in the lead sentence; such hypocoristic shortenings are obvious and don't need to be explicated.) oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree, since that will fail WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. These games are virtually never referred to as "nine-ball pool", etc., except by people unfamiliar with them (the partial exception being the phrase "eight-ball pool", sometimes rendered "8-ball pool" or "eightball pool", used to some extent in British and perhaps broader Commonwealth English to refer in particular to the British variant of eight-ball, using yellow and red balls instead of solids and stripes). For all these terms, the pool games are likely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so they need no disambiguation. It is entirely sufficient to have Eight-ball (disambiguation), etc., and use hatnotes. If in some particular case we really did feel a dire need to impose a disambiguator, then it should be in "Foo-ball (pool)" form, since "Foo-ball pool" is not actually WP:NATURAL in English, even if equivalent phrases are common in other languages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "People unfamiliar with them" are exactly for whom we should be titling (and writing in general). Look outside the specialist press and you'll find the phrasing quite common. You can't claim it's not a form of natural disambiguation (disambiguating the game from the specific numbered billiard hall) and also say it's used by actual people.

  regardless, that was a digression on my part, and a tangent to what to do with the redirects. oknazevad (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a massive difference between writing in a way that keeps in mind people unfamiliar with the topic (and for this, we have hatnotes and disambiguation pages, as needed), versus mis-using precise terminology incompetently simply because it's similar to other terminology (or seems vague to someone) with a result that is not only confusing to other editors but to a large class of readers. Cue sports in particular is rather prone to this problem; even "billiards" alone has four conflicting meanings, and specific collocations of that word convey meanings that are more precise than the wording might suggest to someone unfamiliar with the subject area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, an appeal to specialist style. Ironic coming from the guy who always argues against it. Just shows that we all have blind spots when discussing areas we are personally invested in. oknazevad (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yuck! Although I might prefer to see some of these redirected tp the DAB page, in the interests of consistency and WP:CONSENSUS, redirect all to Eight-ball; except for anything with a (disambiguation) qualifier which should for obvious reasons (WP:RTODAB) redirect to DAB page Eight-ball (disambiguation) and tagged {{R from ambiguous term}} if they are not already. The inlinks to all these redirects need to be checked to correct ludicrosities; something for which I regrettably lack the stamina. Narky Blert (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as appopriate to Eight-ball (the world-standardized game), Eight-ball pool (British variation), or Eight-ball (disambiguation). The ones in forms like "8 ball pool", "Eight ball pool", "8-ball pool", etc., should go to Eight-ball pool (British variation), because this phrasing is not used otherwise and always refers to that version of the game.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That claim does not hold up. Using the exact phrase "eight-ball pool" in quotes, neither a general search, nor a Google Books or Google News search, turn up anything indicating that including the word "pool" after "eight-ball" or other similar variants automatically means the British variant. Plenty of results turn up the standard American-style and even the Chinese variant (aka heyball). The should all point to the same base article. oknazevad (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports has been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (having already !voted). Redirects whixh direct uncertain readers to what they should be looking for rather than to what they might be looking for do those readers no service. We are their servants, not their masters. Narky Blert (talk) 18:53, 6 September 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 💬 22:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Zhujianbu → Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

not mentioned at target -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Zhujianbu is in fact the common abbreviation for the ministry, see its dictionary deffinition - 住建部Zhujianbu Easy to add that into the article which needs expanding. Hzh (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As Hzh mentioned, "Zhujianbu" is from the Chinese word 住建部, which is the most frequently used abbreviation for the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. I would suggest to keep this redirect. Cfls (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid WP:RLOTE. It is mentioned at the target, in the forms "住建部" and "Zhù Jiànbù". The use of spaces in pinyin transliterations is often inconsistent, and tone marks are often omitted, so "Zhujianbu" is a reasonable search term. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:04, 2 September 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 14:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bovinaephagia → Beef  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unrecognised term. Zero hits on google for this phrase and google translate doesn't detect it in another language. Closest match is Bovinophobia, although there is enough variation that I wouldn't consider it a plausible miss-spelling. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Presumably it's somebody's attempt to coin a term meaning "beef-eating", so it's not equivalent to "bovinophobia" (fear of cows). However, it's macaronic, malformed, and doesn't seem to exist in the real world. -phagia (a Greek suffix) is used almost exclusively in scientific literature to refer to diseases, mental disorders, or paraphilias involving the consuming of things, so it could be someone's attempt to say that the eating of beef is unnatural. If it existed, it would probably be "bovino-" (a Latin prefix, hence macaronic, but then so is "bovinophobia"—which isn't in Wiktionary), but for some reason the creator grafted a feminine ending onto it. Since the word has no real-world existence, it's not a plausible search term. P Aculeius (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per P Aculeius. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:15, 4 September 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 14:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tom Ealham → List of Surrey County Cricket Club players  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

not mentioned at target -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per [1], he has only played Second XI matches for Surrey, and List of Surrey County Cricket Club players only includes people who have played in First XI matches. If he makes senior appearances for Surrey, then and only then will he be added to that list article. Until that point, delete the redirect with no prejudice to re-creation if in future he plays for the first XI and so is mentioned at that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:04, 2 September 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 14:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tuar → List of Gurjar clans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

not mentioned at target -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:16, 4 September 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 14:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yuvraj Samra → List of Canada ODI cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

not mentioned at target -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per [2], he hasn't played in a match with ODI status (only matches classed as "other one day matches"), and so is correctly not mentioned at List of Canada ODI cricketers. If he makes an ODI appearance for Canada, then and only then will he be added to that list. Until that point, delete the redirect with no prejudice to re-creation if in future he plays an ODI and so is mentioned at that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 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 14:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Weekend! → List of Kapamilya Channel original programming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

no mention at target -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a programming lineup for Kapamilya Channel this weekend afternoon. However, this title was not specific targeted at the same television programming per WP:SIGCOV and WP:LINKDD. Icarus58 (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. It's getting snowy, and I interpret Clover's note as a nomination withdrawal. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Xwitter → Twitter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I deleted this as an WP:R3 but the page creator objected. I don't want to abuse my tools so I have undeleted it. It's possible I was too hasty here and if so, I apologize. A similar redirect exists at Xitter (which was created last year instead of recently and thus would not qualify as an R3). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, not a typo, but rather a neologism created by those who, not wanting to deadname Twitter, don't feel comfortable enough calling it simply X. Google shows it's somewhat used, and per WP:CHEAP I suggest it be kept. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @RodRabelo7: Could you prove it's well used? My results were "did you mean twitter?" and a subreddit with four members. This term is also not mentioned in the article at all. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Examples: 1, 2. Both reliable sources. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first is an opinion piece and a few sentences with the term in the title (I do not understand Portuguese so I suppose it's possible it says something about the usage of the term itself). The second is a paywalled source that I can't read (which is fine and not required). If I'm understanding a translated version of the title correctly and it's a reliable source about the term, could you please add a sentence somewhere to Twitter and cite this? WP:RDEL #8 is my remaining concern but if it's mentioned somewhere in the article then I no longer care. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  for better or worse, i understand portuguese, and... they say nothing of note. hell, they don't even attempt to prove that the term "xwitter" is actually used anywhere besides those headlines. i've seen "xitter" used more times than this, which is to say thrice cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 04:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please explain "for better or worse". RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  it would betray a surprisingly long-standing joke of implying that the existence of brazil is a collective hallucination and/or government conspiracy, despite being stuck in the bloody place myself. no strong opinions on portugal and its variant of portuguese though cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 04:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per my comment above cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 04:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no page views to show usage. Noah, BSBA^Talk 08:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: The redirect was just created yesterday; that's too recent for page views. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can see the term being used - [3][4] [5][6] Hzh (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per evidence provided by Hzh. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per evidence of use. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's in use. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm okay with this being closed early. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 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 14:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Making Strides Against Breast Cancer → American Cancer Society  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, though it might be worth being (the target is currently included in Category:Breast cancer organizations without ever mentioning breast cancer). Otherwise, only passing mentions on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:20, 4 September 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 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Isle of White Facts → Isle of Wight  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Volcanoe facts (this one also contains a misspelling); none of the original page contents have been merged into the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PANDORA. Also note that while Isle of White does exist the correct title Isle of Wight Facts doesn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - But NOT per wp:pandora. Pandora doesn't really work for redirects, where WP:CHEAP applies. Instead of pandora, you can look at the validity of the redirect in and of itself... and here, we have two errors compounding. One, wight -> white, and two, we don't put "facts" at the end of articles despite said articles containing facts. One error could be argued as plausible... Isle of White redirects to Isle of Wight with good reason, for instance. Adding "facts" at the end... ugh, I kinda want to nuke that kind of thing from orbit, but you know, if it was an old old redirect with potential incoming links from off-site, I guess it could stay. But compounding both at once? Kill with extreme prejudice. No pandora needed. Fieari (talk) 07:37, 2 September 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 23:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Math facts → Mathematics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Poseidon facts → Poseidon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Iodine facts → Iodine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Lion dance facts → Lion dance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Volcanoe facts. Page histories of the targets show that none of the ancient duplicate page creations have been merged anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that "Math facts" is not like the others. Web-julio (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete all per "i think this would be considered trivia", weak delete math facts, clump the rest of the "facts" noms together if that isn't currently in the process of being done cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 04:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominations are all somewhat different with regard to the page histories of the respective redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as improbable search terms that don't seem to have any significant history as independent articles. Readers would be better served by not finding confusing titles along with plausible ones. P Aculeius (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: I understand "xxx facts" as "facts about xxx". As is should be clear to everybody that the content of the aticle "xxx" must be formed by the important facts about "xxx", these redirects are non useful, since they are totally redundant.
  The case of Math facts is special since this title may refer to "facts about mathematics" as well as "fact in mathematics" (that is, theorems). This ambiguity is a further reason for deleting. D.Lazard (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Paul August ☎ 16:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PANDORA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. These are harmless, plausible search terms that lead searchers to articles containing facts about the subject they are looking for. It's a shame that I need to remind experienced RfD participants that WP:PANDORA is a harmfully misleading combination of WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thryduulf (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a shame that someone tried to shame editors for opining that these redirects weren't useful to readers, on the assumption that they were all relying on an essay that he/she didn't like. Imagine an encyclopedia where every entry is immediately followed by a cross-reference consisting of the same title plus "facts"! Practically every article title in Wikipedia could be converted into "Foo facts", but there's no reason to do so. Anyone searching for "foo" will find "foo" first, and doesn't need "foo facts", "facts about foo", or "101 things you didn't know about foo" to pop up in the search window, when all of them are merely redirects to "foo". Who's going to think that facts about "lion dance" won't be under that title, but under "lion dance facts"? The only reason for clicking on the redirect would be because it's presented as an alternative to "lion dance"—except that it's a redirect back to "lion dance", so we're telling people to go to some other target that doesn't actually exist, never did exist, and never should exist, instead of where they actually wanted to go in the first place. That's why they're not harmless, and why it's pointless to preserve them. P Aculeius (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  People using the internal search engine, or indeed any search method that presents a list of article titles to choose from, are only a subset of people searching for Wikipedia content. Redirects exist to enable the greatest number of people to find the content they are looking for, not simply those who use the internal search engine. Someone looking for e.g. "lion dance" will arrive at the article they want to read with the exact same amount of effort regardless of whether they click "lion dance" or "lion dance facts" so there would not actually be any harm even if your statement that the target doesn't actually exist, never did exist and never should exist was correct (which it isn't). That is unless you can explain how everybody wanting to read an article gets taken to that article is harmful? Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If "xxx facts" and "xxx" both exist, they should both be displayed on most research engine. So readers who do not know that they are the same article must think for deciding on which link they have to click. This is definitely harmful and must be avoided per WP:ASTONISH. D.Lazard (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's correct in the sense that the articles' existence was ephemeral: three of them were redirected to the most plausible targets within minutes of their creation, while the fourth was flagged for merger two days after it was created, and then stuck around for a year with virtually no significant changes, apparently having been completely forgotten.

  • "Math facts" existed for 4 minutes on February 12, 2006 before being redirected to "mathematics".
  • "Poseidon facts" existed for 24 minutes on November 10, 2007 before it was redirected to "Poseidon", and at that time the redirecting editor commented that he found the title an "implausible search term".
  • "Iodine facts" existed for 2 minutes on November 4, 2008 before being redirected to "Iodine".
  • "Lion dance facts" was created September 2, 2008 as an unsourced partial duplicate of "Lion dance", which by that time had several hundred edits. It was flagged for merger on September 4, 2008, but the merger wasn't undertaken until the following summer, with no significant edits between those dates (some wikilinking, bot and technical edits, with no changes to the text).

  What all of these have in common is that they were created by new users without any previous experience editing Wikipedia, and little or no subsequent history—only the creator of "Iodine facts" continued to edit after doing so, and that editor made a grand total of 10 edits to various articles, last on April 23, 2009. Other than "Lion dance facts", which somewhat resembles an encyclopedia article, they give the appearance of high school class reports which for some reason were posted on Wikipedia. They weren't created because someone wondered where all of the "facts" were. None of them have a significant number of page views, and those that exist can probably be accounted for solely because the titles come up in the search window.

  For instance: if you type "Lion dance", you get two choices: "Lion dance" and "Lion dance facts", which probably explains why it gets about one hit per month in recent years. In the past it had a few dozen views a year, probably all from people who thought it represented a different page from "Lion dance", only to be redirected to "Lion dance" anyway. The other redirects got one or two views a year, again probably quite randomly by readers who wondered why "foo facts" existed, and how it differed from "foo". They were probably even more confused when "foo facts" just led them back to "foo".

  Redirects from titles that people might actually search under make sense: for instance, readers might not know whether to look under "U. S. Supreme Court", "U.S. Supreme Court", "United States Supreme Court", "Supreme Court of the United States", "American Supreme Court", or even the abbreviation "SCOTUS". I've visited the page several times, and still have trouble remembering which of these common names that I hear all the time is the actual title of the article; but it doesn't matter, since each plausible title leads to the right article. But "Supreme Court of the United States facts" would suggest to the reader that it contains content that isn't under the article about the court—only to astonish the reader who arrives at the bypassed article anyway, and wonders where the "facts" article is or how to get there.

  Promising the reader content that doesn't exist is a harm, albeit a slight one; but since nobody is likely to search for articles by typing "facts" after the name of the article, there is no harm whatever in deleting the redirects—except to the extent that fully redundant and unsourced content that existed for very brief periods more than fifteen years ago becomes hidden from view, along with the history of these unnecessary redirects. P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither harmless, nor plausible! It's hard to imagine that anyone who enters the search term "math facts", instead of say "math" is looking for our article on mathematics. Paul August ☎ 14:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per what has already been said. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If someone's looking for Bromine facts and discovers that there's no article there, the very next thing they try is going to be Bromine. (Alternately, if I'm looking for a Redirect to encyclopedia article about math facts, who are you to stop me?) —Cryptic 15:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. Cremastra (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lion dance facts, it appears to have been an unattributed copy of the existing Lion dance article at the time. The others don't appear to share that history. CMD (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per P Aculeius. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:38, 4 September 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 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Facing the facts → BPDFamily.com  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as incredibly vague regarding a target on an encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:41, 4 September 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. C'mon guys, did this really need to be kept open for nearly 3 weeks?

Trout to User:Matthiaspaul for creating many, many redirects of dubious value. I was tempted to nominate some but hesitated since this venue is already swamped. wbm1058 (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pg (elliptic function) → Jacobi elliptic functions#pg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Target mentions no "pg". 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not a mathematician, but I double checked the article state at the time this redirect was created and found no references to "pg" there at all... however, back then, and now, the article is full of discussion about "pq" instead. My best guess is that this was an attempt at a redirect for a typo (except that the target is to a non-existent section, both then and now?). Given that I'm not a mathematician, I will make no commentary on how likely a typo this would be... I suspect mathematicians would be more careful and precise, but maybe this redirect would be helpful for an inattentive math student in university, or to a student of a professor with bad handwriting on the chalkboard? Fieari (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think "pq" would be a useful redirect either. This is just a shorthand notation for the purpose of discussing all elliptic functions simultaneously and is not used as a general mathematical symbol without that context. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Notifying User:matthiaspaul who created the redirect and is still active. Can you clarify what the intention was here? --Un assiolo (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The creator was already notified at his talk page while creating this nomination. Jay 💬 10:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible typo per Fieari. The creator had created several other similar redirects on the same day, but it appears only this was a typo.
  • Cd (elliptic function)
  • Cs (elliptic function)
  • Ds (elliptic function)
  • Dc (elliptic function)
  • Sd (elliptic function)
  • Sc (elliptic function)
  • Nd (elliptic function)
  • Nc (elliptic function)
  • Ns (elliptic function)
  • Dn (elliptic function)
  • Cn (elliptic function)
  • Sn (elliptic function)
• Jay 💬 10:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per no pg function. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:18, 20 September 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. wbm1058 (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiimake → Video game remake  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Neologism not mentioned in the target. The term is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Mia Mahey (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it (and the alternate "Wii-make") being used in some news coverage, most prominently "The Case for Wiimakes", but not nearly enough that it would demand usage in the target article or anything. Not sure it does any harm, but the use case seems limited as well. I guess I lean toward deletion, but not strongly. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i would ALMOST suggest retargeting to the vaguely klonoa-shaped travesty we were cursed with in 2008 as a half-joke, as that seems to be the primary topic for the entire term (not for a good reason, mind you), but that'd be cheap. as is, no idea if it would be better to retarget it to some list of wii games, add a mention there, or delete, but i'll stick with adding a mention for now cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: term is mentioned in reliable sources (Nintendo Life, Wired, eurogamer.net). No reason to delete. Obviously not notable on its own but a redirect is warranted. I would support a mention at Video game remake or elsewhere, but that is not needed for this to be kept. C F A 💬 20:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nintendo Wii and mention the phenomenon somewhere. It's an actual slang term formerly used for porting games to Wii while adding motion controls. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless a mention is added. If we don't have it, we don't have it. Don't leave readers scratching their heads trying to figure out why they arrived to any article which does not mention the term. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that Wii Remakes redirects to New Play Control!. Jay 💬 16:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both it and Wii Remakes, without prejudice to recreating both of them if and only if a mention is added to the Wii article, or a similar/adjacent article. We don't currently have information on this subject, so redlink it until such time as we do. Fieari (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no mention at the subject. Can delete Wii Remakes in a subsequent nom if desired. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:17, 20 September 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).