Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 28, 2024.

Episode 201[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Episode 201

Roza Potocka (1780-1862)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Roza Potocka (1780-1862)

Gumby "Fun Special" redirects[edit]

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 17:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "fun special" is nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear what these redirects are meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in the Arthur Adams (comics) article. Nightscream (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Arthur Adams (comics) per Nightscream where the titles appear several times, and are listed at the Bibliography#Interior work section. CycloneYoris talk! 20:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it alone. It's already in the Arthur Adams article. A redirect to the article it's already in would be circular. I created it to direct to the Gumby article, because Adams won an award for his work on that book, and there is no Wikipedia article on that book. Thus, I created the redirect to the Gumby article. Why is this a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...The problem is what I stated in my nomination statement. Keeping the redirects in their current state, readers will arrive at the target article and not find information about these redirects, leaving it both unclear what these redirects are meant to refer and why the redirects target their current target. In a case like this, deletion would be preferred per WP:REDLINK, and I prefer that over retargeting to Arthur Adams (comics) ... but the redirects are mentioned there, so retargeting there is at least better than the current scenario. Steel1943 (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Cyclone. Jay 💬 08:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete all (or weak keep), looks like they were creted by Nightscream as a way to create a link to Gumby from a sentence. We usually do that using a WP:PIPELINK not a custom made WP:REDIRECT. - Nabla (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, taking into account the creator's understandable desire not to have these become circular. This would leave the titles appropriately red on the Arthur Adams page. The single link to Gumby at Arthur Adams (comics)#Awards could be used elsewhere in the article if desired in the meantime. I assume the comics are notable enough to support their own articles, since one won an Eisner. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget, keep, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete all. Isn't really helpful as a searchable title. Because there's no dedicated article or section on this topic at the target, red links or piped links seem to be more appropriate here, which could encourage the addition of pertinent content about the Fun Specials.
If these redirects were to exist, the only possible target I see is for Arthur Adams (comics), as this is the only place it receives coverage. It's wholly unhelpful & confusing while its pointed at Gumby, regardless of intention. I'm indifferent between retargeting (to Arthur Adams) or deletion. The way to avoid circular links would be... to remove the links at the Arther Adams article, which is allowable, albeit not what the Nightscream intended. The more optimistic fix I feel would be to honor Nightscream's wishes of "not having this point to the author", which leaves "deletion without prejudice to content later" as the only other option, and keeps the links as they are. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Applying RDELETE #10 "the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Which would still apply if redirected to Arthur Adams. Nobody (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Colonization of the Sun (Lagrange Points)[edit]

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect makes no sense. Lagrange point colonization is not colonization of the Sun. The Sun is a hot ball of plasma and cannot be colonized. Fish567 (talk) 18:14, 28 January 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).

Legal term[edit]

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 Lists of legal terms. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These should point to the same place. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 28 January 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).

List of NASCAR Banking 500 Only from Bank of America broadcasters[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page doesn't really discuss much about the Bank of America 500/Banking 500 Only from Bank of America/other name for the 500 mile oval configuration races in general, with only slight mentions of it, but no listing of winners. It has no information about the broadcasters of the race before NBC, where many of the races before NBC were broadcast on TBS and some on ABC. It seems that there is nowhere to really put that information in the article. The redirect itself is the result of a WP:BLAR by the author of the article in response to it being WP:PROD'd with the content being merged into Bank of America Roval 400 at this revision. All of that info has since been removed from the article, so I am unsure what to do with this redirect. TartarTorte 00:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 14:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This content was removed per this discussion. Ideally this should be either deleted or restored, but given there were no sources in the original article unless there are attribution issues remaining in the current target this can be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably just delete here, this'll never be a useful redirect, and this topic in particular has vanished. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

2006–07 Ranji One-Day Trophy[edit]

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! 19:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was left behind after a double redirect issue was resolved. It serves no useful purpose and should go. Thanks. Batagur baska (talk) 13:29, 28 January 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).

AI Gore[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 05:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as an r from misspelling... and that's putting it mildly. Getting to this page would not arise from a spelling blunder, but from the deliberate intention of typing a capital i as opposed to the name of Al. RfDing this as I thought it may be in reference to an artificial intelligence bit related to Gore, (which surprisingly this page DOES make mention of "artificial intelligence" once, although not in relation to his name.) Utopes (talk / cont) 08:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a plausible misspelling. WWGB (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: plausible OCR, etc. error. Currently harmless. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it was created a few months ago, meaning this is most likely an unlikely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep typographically identical in multiple fonts -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cremastra and the ip editor. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, an unusual redirect but Cremastra and the IP have good points. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 14:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not a valuable pattern for all pages that have characters which commonly have identical replacements but I think there's no harm in them existing for higher traffic articles that are more likely to, as mentioned, have OCR'd content referring to them on the internet, as mentioned. Has been getting a smattering of page views over the past 90 days even before this RfD. Skynxnex (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was planning to let this simmer to see if there were any different keep !vote rationales made... I would have expected more specific reasoning beyond "ell and eye look similar so they're basically interchangeable in any circumstance", which to me this has not been established, especially when we've seen cases with O's replaced with 0's being deleted, and etc. And even for those, something like "T0y0ta" is only going to be seen as Toyota. The elephant here though is that someone typing AI is almost certainly looking for information on exactly what they typed; AI. To me, the association of "AI" meaning "artificial intelligence" would be a hundred-fold more likely than the association with "AI"-but-actually-meaning-the-name-"Albert"-but-not-formatted-like-a-name-at-all-due-to-double-caps-in-first-word. Furthermore, "Artificial intelligence gore" is actually a TOPIC with strong ties to Artificial intelligence art#Ethics, which becomes a pertinent search term and not just a borderline-meme letter-swap of someone's name to reference a trendy topic, when such topic has zero proven relationship to the person in question, nor is there a reason to believe that people actually look for Albert Gore by spelling his name as "AI", when Artificial Intelligence Gore is the far more plausible outcome to begin with for this term. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, particularly the point that "AI" is a different topic. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is surely at least as likely to cause someone confusion searching for "ai gore" than it is to be helpful to someone copy pasting from an incorrect OCR scan. A7V2 (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at google search results for AI Gore -Wikipedia, all but two results on the first two pages are for the former US vice president, one of the others is for a non-notable song or album (I'm not clear which) and the other might be talking about AI-generated horror movies but I'm really not sure. Even if there are other notable things people could in theory be searching for, the evidence very strongly suggests they aren't - especially as we don't have any content that I can find about anything else that could be referred to as AI Gore. So keeping this pointing to the present target is what is going to cause the least confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Friday the 13th (2017 film)[edit]

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 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does not exist. ★Trekker (talk) 05:48, 28 January 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).

Friday the 13th Part XI[edit]

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does not make much sense, the numbering for the sequels ended a long time ago and there are 12 films now. ★Trekker (talk) 05:45, 28 January 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).

Coquille (engineering)[edit]

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not exist, no engineering definition at wikt:coquille either. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore this revision or delete. The current target does not exist, meaning in the current state, if it were not for the redirect's edit history, the redirect would qualify for WP:G8/{{Db-redirnone}}. Steel1943 (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the revision highlighted by Steel1943 as a contested BLAR. No prejudice against AfD if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stub is completely unsourced, so I'm not sure why restoring is even an option here. CycloneYoris talk! 04:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restoring is only ever not an option when the restored content would be subject to speedy deletion. Neither being a stub nor being unsourced are reasons to delete an article, let alone speedy delete it. Whether there is scope for expansion and/or whether the content is unsourceable are matters for AfD to discuss not RfD so when there is a contested BLAR, restoring is almost always the correct option. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, in agreement with CycloneYoris. This is not a contested BLAR, no one has made an argument for keeping the article. -- Tavix (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An argument has been made that the redirection is not appropriate, therefore the BLAR has been contested. Further, I am arguing that the content should not be deleted. An objection to deleting article content means that it needs to be discussed at AfD (if anyone still desires deletion). RfD is not AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that RfD is not AfD—the status of the page since 2017 is a redirect and so deletion of the page can and should be conducted at RfD. Do you have a good faith argument for keeping the article content? What I see is a 'procedural' restore !vote in order to send it off to AfD. That's not the same thing. -- Tavix (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A bold redirection has been challenged in good faith. There is a good faith objection to deleting the article content that does not meet a speedy deletion criterion. The only correct and appropriate course of action given those two facts is to restore the article content without prejudice to AfD. Everything else is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should never be restoring unreferenced rubbish, but I thought I'd give you the benefit of doubt to make an argument for keeping it. I see you have no interest in doing so. -- Tavix (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should never be restoring unreferenced rubbish whether something is or is not "rubbish" is a subjective opinion that is irrelevant to whether it should or should not be kept, deleted or restored. The standard for referencing is WP:V which requires content to be verifiable not verified. I have repeatedly explained why I believe the content should not be deleted at RfD, that you disagree with this argument does not mean I have not made it (and it is depressing that I've had to explain this to you on multiple occasions). Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That something is unreferenced rubbish is my opinion on the article content and is part of the reason that I am recommending deletion of the redirect without the unnecessary step of restoring it and sending it to AfD. I only recommend restoration for articles that should actually be kept, which is why I am so insistent on hearing an argument for actually keeping the content should this be at AfD—that is the only condition upon which I would consider changing my !vote. On the other hand, I am well aware of your opinion of the matter (so your depression over explaining it to me on multiple occasions is unnecessary). It does not sway me in the slightest. -- Tavix (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter how often you repeat your subjective opinions, they do not come close to overriding the deletion policy, the verifiability policy or the guidelines around blanking and redirecting. It is rarely not worth making that explicit so that users who are unfamiliar with the policies or guidelines are not mislead by editors who should know better. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I laid out in depth about how my position is compatible with the deletion policy and WP:BLAR at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Erin Sheehan. If your audience is actually editors who may be unfamiliar with such policies, it would be prudent to demonstrate how those policies have been 'overridden' rather than just making WP:VAGUEWAVEs at them. -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 30 January 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).

Stone Cougar[edit]

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a section there for this alleged breed, now deleted as long unsourced and not actually sourceable. Turned out to be one single breeder's "backyard breeding" experiment with a Chausie crossbreed, and there are no sources available for this that are not promotional material from the breeder, repetition of that material in social media by someone else, or repetition of WP's own unsourced claims. The claim of recognition by the Rare and Exotic Feline Registry made in that material was false; I checked. So, it's just now-deleted WP:NFT spam, and the redirect serves no purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:03, 28 January 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).

Friday the 13th Part 2 (2016 film)[edit]

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 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does not exist. ★Trekker (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is a nonexistent film. It was never actually announced. Not sure how this was created in the first place. Should have been a speedy delete.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a film that never even existed. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 13:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:02, 29 January 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).

Home Planet[edit]

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A home planet is a planet that is the home of an entity being discussed. Because of humans' limited venture beyond our gravity well, the term is mostly confined to science fiction, where it usually refers to any planet but Earth. Planet would resolve the issue of focusing on Earth, but contains no content about the concept of a "home planet", so I favor deletion for want of a suitable target. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to wikt:home planet, which at least defines the phrase (I see no good targets on English Wikipedia proper). Duckmather (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. I don't see any articles which has this wikilink. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or soft redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redir, per the above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to wikt:home planet per Duckmather --94rain Talk 01:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or delete someone who types Planet in title case is more likely to be looking for a proper noun, not the dictionary definition. There are a few WP:DABMENTION topics by this name (a BBC Radio 4 programme and Enid Dame's Home Planet News which are cited in some articles, as well as decades-old singles by Misato Watanabe and Chris Brann) that normally wouldn't be worth a dab page. But per WP:RFD#K4 we might want to leave something at this lemma instead of a 404 page to avoid breaking external links, and if so that something should be a dab page and not a soft redirect: the latter makes searching the encyclopedia more inconvenient for anyone who doesn't know about the tilde trick, and still leaves the dictionary definition hidden behind an extra manual click the same as a dab page would anyway (and worse than search results which show the dictionary definition directly in the side bar). 59.149.117.119 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the IP. The Wiktionary entry is not helpful. It only links to Homeworld which says The world on which a person originated. We don't need to trick the reader into multiple clicks for a capitalized entry, and leave him no wiser. Jay 💬 16:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Stevens-Johnson-Fuchs-Syndrome[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Stevens-Johnson-Fuchs-Syndrome

Annadaana[edit]

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 Dāna#Dāna in rituals. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is a definition of a Telugu word useful for English Wikipedia readers? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:58, 28 January 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).

Defensive alliance[edit]

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 Defense pact. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target contains no useful information for the readers of the English Wikipedia. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either restore this revision or delete. Either way, do not keep: All targets which this redirect has targeted in Wiktionary don not exist, meaning the current and former targets make this redirect eligible for WP:G8/{{Db-redirnone}}. Steel1943 (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Defense pact, which seems to be what the old revision refers to. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:58, 28 January 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).

Mozart Society of Vienna[edit]

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross-wiki redirect - people searching for this term are looking for an encyclopedia article, not a bunch of images. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling the other two redirects that currently point here as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all to Mozart Medal (Mozartgemeinde), the medal named after and given out by this society. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the retargeting suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:57, 28 January 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_28&oldid=1206984330"