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 03:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Metropola → Zagreb  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unclear why this should redirect to this particular metropolis. Not mentioned in article. Perhaps it is better to retarget to Metropol? —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Metropola is the Croatian word for capital city, but it means that in Serbo-Croatian so it can also be referring to the Serbian city of Belgrade. It seems that DAB'ing this would be unnecessary. TartarTorte 18:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Rada Manojlović released a non-album single called "Metropola" -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. sh:Metropola and sk:Metropola interwiki to Metropolis (the latter with a hatnote indicating it can also mean Ecclesiastical province), hr:Metropola interwikis to Capital city. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2023 (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) 23:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-binary shooter → Colorado Springs nightclub shooting#Perpetrator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seeing this pop up in the queue, I felt it would be worth having eyes on this. Firstly, it should be stated that 95-97% of mass shooters are men. A vast, VAST majority, to the point that having Male shooter would be too vast to list (and there's no Female shooter either). Removing those from the picture, the instances of female and non-binary perpetrators becomes far more countable... however, should there even be a redirect in the first place? Having a redirect which represents an entire gender identity as a shooter... pointed at one singular person, seems quite hasty and dangerously generalized. (There have been 5 trans/non-binary mass-shooters in the last decade, according to Reuters. The Colorado Springs shooting was highly discussed with the context of the perpetrator being non-binary, but it still doesn't sit right with me to redirect here). Not to mention, the varied definitions of "shooter" can be interpreted differently, depending on the topic. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment my first reaction was that this was too ambiguous to be a useful redirect, but then I googled and other than one self-description by a non-notable photographer, every result over several pages was about the perpetrator of the Colorado club shooting, although a good number were quotes of a single (satirical) headline ("'He's Got a Gun!' Bystander Arrested for Misgendering Non-Binary Shooter"). Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Colorado Springs was not the only case of a non-binary shooter. The redirect is misleading. WWGB (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete generic term pointing to a specific case; per WWGB -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: misleading per the above; dangerously generalized as the nom said. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - Darker Dreams (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Characters of Danger Force → Characters of Henry Danger and Danger Force  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

excessive redirect. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How is this "excessive"? The target indeed discusses the characters of Danger Force and that's all that is needed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a reasonable redirect as Danger Force characters are part of the list. -- Whpq (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect is not excessive or implausible. Happily888 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with the OP. There was no need to create this and the other redirects in the first place. The original page is fine, and the redirects are useless and a waste of site resources. Furthermore, a mass creation of redirects like this is something that required discussion prior to creating them. And, honestly, regardless of what the end result is here, the creator's vote should not be counted, as they are obviously biased, though I realize there's not actually anything forbidding that. Amaury • 08:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds a bit like you don't understand what redirects are for – if a reader searches up Characters of Danger Force we want to immediately take them to that article, and this redirect accomplishes that. Why inconvenience that reader? Your fourth sentence is plainly incorrect, and I'm not sure how these redirects are a waste of site resources. J947 † ^edits 02:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Characters of Henry Danger → Characters of Henry Danger and Danger Force  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

excessive redirect. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How is this "excessive"? The target indeed discusses the characters of Henry Danger and that's all that is needed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a reasonable redirect as the characters from Henry Danger are in the list -- Whpq (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect is not excessive or implausible. Happily888 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with the OP. There was no need to create this and the other redirects in the first place. The original page is fine, and the redirects are useless and a waste of site resources. Furthermore, a mass creation of redirects like this is something that required discussion prior to creating them. And, honestly, regardless of what the end result is here, the creator's vote should not be counted, as they are obviously biased, though I realize there's not actually anything forbidding that. Amaury • 08:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete. - Darker Dreams (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Danger Force characters → Characters of Henry Danger and Danger Force  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

excessive redirect Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How is this "excessive"? The target indeed lists the characters of Danger Force and that's all that is needed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a reasonable redirect as this is indeed a list article with Danger Force characters. Given Wikipedia's usual naming conventions, this would be a plausible title somebody might type in the search box. -- Whpq (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect is not excessive or implausible. Happily888 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with the OP. There was no need to create this and the other redirects in the first place. The original page is fine, and the redirects are useless and a waste of site resources. Furthermore, a mass creation of redirects like this is something that required discussion prior to creating them. And, honestly, regardless of what the end result is here, the creator's vote should not be counted, as they are obviously biased, though I realize there's not actually anything forbidding that. Amaury • 08:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete. - Darker Dreams (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Characters of the Henry Danger franchise → Characters of Henry Danger and Danger Force  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

excessive redirect, this only points to one show. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Henry Danger#Spin-offs Danger Force is part of the Henry Danger franchise, so it's not just one show. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reasonable redirect as the two shows together could be considered a franchise. -- Whpq (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect is not excessive or implausible. Happily888 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with the OP. There was no need to create this and the other redirects in the first place. The original page is fine, and the redirects are useless and a waste of site resources. Furthermore, a mass creation of redirects like this is something that required discussion prior to creating them. And, honestly, regardless of what the end result is here, the creator's vote should not be counted, as they are obviously biased, though I realize there's not actually anything forbidding that. And for this one specifically, there is no franchise. A franchise involves something big like Power Rangers or Double Dare, both of which have many shows or seasons relating to them. While it is a spinoff, Danger Force is still a completely separate television series from Henry Danger, and neither series is by any means as big as something like Power Rangers. Amaury • 08:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete. - Darker Dreams (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Dangerverse characters → Characters of Henry Danger and Danger Force  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

excessive redirect, shows have no mention for Dangerverse. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect is not excessive or implausible. Happily888 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with the OP. There was no need to create this and the other redirects in the first place. The original page is fine, and the redirects are useless and a waste of site resources. Furthermore, a mass creation of redirects like this is something that required discussion prior to creating them. And, honestly, regardless of what the end result is here, the creator's vote should not be counted, as they are obviously biased, though I realize there's not actually anything forbidding that. Amaury • 08:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See my comment above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:CHEAP. - Darker Dreams (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Orca Wars → Iberian orca attacks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Orca Wars" is not listed at the target page or references, nor is a "war" referred to anywhere in the article. Searching externally, this term appears to be a meme referring to orca attacks that have been popping up recently. But as it stands now, I feel this redirect may be confusing to anyone uninitiated, and answers for this title are not currently provided at the target article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We are not an indiscriminate collection of memes. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a common alternative name for the subject of the article, even if it were an internet meme (which it isn't) that is irrelevant to RfD when we have content that people are using this search term to find. I will add a mention of this name to the target as it is referenced in multiple reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep assuming Thryduulf or someone else adds relevant, cited material this should be straightforward. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a cited mention to the Human response section. I'm happy with refining to that section if people prefer but I slightly prefer keeping it to the top. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2023 (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) 12:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Trouble with the trolley, eh? → Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unmentioned quote listed as "R from catchphrase" without any further reference at the target article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since this quote isn't mentioned on wikiquote:Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage! either. Duckmather (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2023 (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) 12:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You will never rise from the ashes of your shame and humiliation! → Azula  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unmentioned quote listed as "R from catchphrase", and excessively long to be a plausible search term. I can't imagine this title would be used to search for the subject of Azula unless one had pre-existing knowledge that this redirect existed in the first place. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 🔥Burn this redirect to ashes per nom!🔥 I can't even find it at any of the Avatar: The Last Airbender Wikiquote pages, so I don't know what use this has. 🔥Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 🔥 23:06, 4 October 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Intermediate state → Underworld  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This title was moved to Intermediate state (Christianity) and the leftover redirect was afterwards designated to the target of Underworld. The new target (Underworld) does not contain the words "intermediate" or "state", while there are several other articles which describe intermediate states, including but not limited to Bardo, Gandharva, Purgatory, Last Judgement, and may loosely refer to vegetative state, Meissner effect, and possibly others. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• With the list you've provided it sounds like it should be a disambig. Another possible target could be afterlife, though that page links to the redirect, doesn't clearly define the term, and has several references to various intermediate states, along with intermediate realms, transitions, etc. Merit_(Buddhism) also links to this redirect. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of possibilities here. I do think that disambiguation is likely the best option, as this title is in reference to an extremely broad concept from my point of view. The retargeting of this redirect to "Underworld" is what brought me to RfD with this, else it could have been a plausible redirect to any of the above topics, if any are the WP:PTOPIC. (Although, there may not be one here.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes I side with a disambiguation page. redirect to afterlife is not good because it could mean anything. I thought it was gonna be a physics article Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 04:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it does seem like physics related topics would be right at home if this becomes a disambiguation page; as for what physics possibilities there are, I'm currently unsure. The existence of "states", much less intermediate ones, seem to be involved all across the board. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. There are many potential targets and no primary topic. In terms of physics, the most prominent usage seems to be in relation to superconductors but I don't understand it more than that, and there are a couple of results related to biology that I understand even less (but may just be a descriptive term and something suitable for inclusion on a dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig. Another meaning in Buddhism is Bardo. Skyerise (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate and retarget Interim state, Intermediate State and Intermediate state of the dead there. Draft provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate, but the list should be trimmed. Only things actually commonly called "intermediate state" belong, not things that some editor thinks counts as an intermediate state. Srnec (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2023 (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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Glory, glory, what a hell of a way to die → Blood on the Risers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This lyric does not appear to exist as it is written here. The first half of this line comes from The Battle Hymn of the Republic, while the second half comes from Blood on the Risers. Both correct variations exist as redirects, but this appears to be an in-between conjunction of the two. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The lyric in Blood on the Risers is "gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die." That's only two letters off from the redirect, and I could completely see a casual listener confusing the two words. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Presidentman - I am such a casual listener and only just now have I learned that the lyric is not actually "glory, glory". Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid misspell NotAGenious (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Google search suggests that while the official lyrics of "Blood on the Risers" might be "gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die" there are plenty of people who know the lyrics as "glory, glory, what a hell of a way to die" so it seems a very plausible search term. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2023 (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 03:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MRT Line 5 Sorthern route (Dhaka Metro) → MRT Line 5 (Southern Route)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• MRT Line 5 (Sorthern route) (Dhaka Metro) → MRT Line 5 (Southern Route)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• MRT Line 5 (Sorthern Route) (Dhaka Metro) → MRT Line 5 (Southern Route)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

One letter off from south and north; would recommend deletion. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Mehedi Abedin 06:22, 4 October 2023 (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).