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 00:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ancient Catholic Church → Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ancient Catholic → Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ancient catholic church → Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ancient catholic → Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Ancient Catholic Church → Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I found no source claiming this expression is ever used to designate this group or Old Catholicism. Britannica does not say anything; Google scholar uses refer to catholic (term) with no reference to Old Catholics. It was previously stated that "Ancient Catholic Church" was one of the names of this group; I have removed this information since it was nowhere to be found.
The best explanation I can find is that it is an erroneous translation of the expression 'Oud-Katholieke' ('Old Catholic').
The expression itself is very ambiguous.
Therefore, I think those should be deleted.
Note: the separation between this RfD and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands is on purpose. Veverve (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all of these. There isn't a good retarget location, but on the off chance someone searched for Ancient catholic church (or any of the variants) it would be WP:SURPRISE to get a specific church in the Netherlands as a result. TartarTorte 18:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've come across this while looking up a completely different denomination called the Ancient Catholic Church, so the expression is indeed ambiguous. Ham II (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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) JBchrch talk 20:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tradewinds → Trade winds  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

If Tradewind is ambiguous—which has been the editorial consensus since 2006—then I think Tradewinds is as well. There's good reason to think that a reader spelling the term this way is looking for one of the eight entities called "Tradewinds" we disambiguate (or the one called TradeWinds), rather than for the concept of trade winds, usually spelled as two words. Thus I think we should retarget to Tradewind. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep in light of Tradewind now targeting Trade winds. Ping @Narky Blert and Veverve, who both commented before the move. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep trade winds is frequently written without the space [1][2], and is a clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT both by pageviews [3] and long-term significance. Tradewind should also arguably be moved to Tradewind (disambiguation) based on pageviews [4]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. Pageviews are meaningless when a redirect is ambiguous: it is conceivable that none of the readers who typed in "tradewinds" was looking for trade winds. Narky Blert (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding pageviews, WikiNav would be the more useful thing to look at here, but for some reason it's not working (at least for me) for this page. If someone can show that "Tradewind" primarily means "Trade wind(s)"—its status as its own page dates back to a fancrufty page about Tradewind (The Incredibles)—I'd support moving that, keeping this redirect, and adding a hatnote at Trade winds (the last bit should happen in any keep outcome here). But Google, at least, suggests to me that that's not the primary meaning; if someone knows how to unb0rk WikiNav, that would be appreciated. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Tamzin, Wikinav visualises the WP:Clickstream dataset, which excludes source-destination pairs with fewer than 10 hits for the month (for obvious privacy reasons). It appears that if the dataset has no relevant entries for a given page, Wikinav will return "An error occurred while fetching data for the current title". Looking at a previous month (January), I see that only one of the links from the dab page passed the threshold: Trade winds, with 12 clicks. – Uanfala (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom and WP:PLURAL. Veverve (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (WikiNav still not working.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: There is now a requested move at Talk:Tradewind that, if successful, would nullify the argument for retargeting. This should probably be kept open until the RM closes, or, if closed as retarget, should be closed with a note allowing for bold retargeting to match the outcome of the RM if necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a clear primary redirect for Trade winds. I would also note that the Requested move discussion determined that Tradewind should be moved to Tradewind (disambiguation) and Tradewind redirected to Trade winds. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've had a look at the eight incoming mainspace links; two of these needed changing [5] [6]. – Uanfala (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I think this is obvious at this stage (I don't think it's likely the discussion would suddenly swerving into some new WP:SMALLDIFFS territory about plurals and spacing). – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was restore article and send for deletion. Given that no-one has expressed the view that the topic may be notable, the "lighter" process of WP:PROD should be appropriate enough. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 50 Greatest Harry Potter Moments → Harry Potter (film series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, thus not being clear what this redirect is meant to refer. (Also, per the redirect's edit history, looks as though the page was an article that was redirected a few days after it was created in 2011.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sounds like one of those clickbait articles --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This should never have been redirected to Harry Potter (film series). It was the actual title of a TV special (according to the article which was BLARed). Definitely doesn't seem to be notable, but I'm not sure if this should be deleted or restored and AfD. A7V2 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Lenticel. This is Wikipedia, not TheTopTens, WatchMojo, or any of that stuff, and besides, people's opinions vary on what Harry Potter (book, movie, or otherwise) moments are "the greatest." Regards, SONIC678 00:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and AFD per A7V2's WP:BLAR finding -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AfD to determine whether the tv special is notable and/or whether any content should be merged into an extant Harry Potter article. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I cannot see that an article started on a "one-off" television programme the day after it aired, that never got lower than number 41, will survive AFD, especially as it seems in the intervening decade and a bit no-one has bothered to document the television programme in depth. Strictly, it should go there, though. Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and PROD - I don't think this has a chance of surviving AfD, but given others' insistence on procedure, PROD seems like a decent way to give the article one last chance at being rescued off of a centralized list without automatically adding the bureaucratic overhead that an AfD would. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Numerically this is only a slight keep margin, but more importantly Tavix' point about WP:XY stands uncontested after 25 days. J947 is commended for giving a fuck about an Oxford comma. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Harry, Ron and Hermione → Harry Potter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:XY. The three subjects of this redirect (Harry Potter (character), Ron Weasley, and Hermoine Granger) are distinct subjects with their own articles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —El Millo (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:XY redirects are usually kept when such redirects point to a location in which both topics are discussed (all three in this case). I was trying to find a good place where they are all mentioned together. List of Harry Potter characters does a poor job of signifying character significance. Same for Wizarding World#Recurring cast and characters. Then I realized the current target gives this information in the second(!) sentence: The novels chronicle the lives of a young wizard, Harry Potter, and his friends Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. That is a good introduction of the characters in question and includes links to all three articles should the searcher want to learn more about any or all of these characters. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tavix Why is it "Harry, Ron and Hermione" then and not "Harry, Hermione and Ron"? What's the significance of this exact configuration/phrasing? ObsidianPotato (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the order in which the characters were introduced and they are also ordered by most prominent first. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would complementing this with redirects from "Harry, Ron, Hermione"; "Harry, Ron, and Hermione"; as well as "Harry Ron Hermione" be justified? ObsidianPotato (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tavix makes a good case and I concur. Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tavix. Even though it's grammatically incorrect... :) — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. MBisanz ^talk 19:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bigamy (in Civil Law) → Polygamy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I do not know what to to with this redirect. This redirect seems very unlikely to help anyone. It also has capitalisation mistakes.
@Shhhnotsoloud: has pointed out the article Bigamy existed, and suggested at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Bigamy (in Canon Law) that the redirect be deleted.
I would like to point out in case it may be useful, that Legality of polygamy exists. However, I am not sure if it would be a good redirect, as the redirect might not be useful in itself with such a name. Veverve (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think I've figured out where all these are coming from, namely the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has "Bigamy (in Civil Jurisprudence)", which it appears in some editions may have been "Bigamy (in Civil Law)" [7]. Collier's also had "Bigamy, in civil law" in 1921, maybe also later. Normally I'd support deletion of a nonstandard disambiguator like this, but here, I don't know, I could see it being useful to someone. Unlike the "in Canon Law" RfD, where the issue was an existing consensus against the primary version of that redirect. I'd thus lean toward a retarget to Legality of polygamy (noting that "civil" here means "non-ecclesiastical", not "civil-code-based"). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my reported comments above and consistent with Bigamy (in Canon Law). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unlikely capitalization mistakes Avilich (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Legality of polygamy per Tamzin: I'm very deletionist about unusual disambiguators, but if this one has been used as the title of what is effectively the corresponding article in another major encyclopedia, then it's definitely plausible. – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redirect per nominator. AKK700 22:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• History of zoology (disambiguation) → Zoology#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete because "History of Zoology" is not ambiguous and the target is not a disambiguation page. Speedy delete previously declined in Oct 19. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an avoided double redirect for History of zoology, which redirects to this section because there is no one article on the topic, but rather two articles: History of zoology through 1859 and History of zoology (1859–present), which are linked at the top of the target section. I think it's reasonable to say, then, that the target section, through its hatnote, performs a disambiguation-like function. It's basically an embedded broad-concept article. I don't think it was really necessary to create this "(disambiguation)" redirect, but there are two articles about the history of zoology, and the target section links to both, so it's not incorrect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an avoided double redirect (and it isn't tagged as one): there's no reason why History of Zoology can't directly target Zoology#History. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This bizarre redirect shouldn't exist. It implies that there is a disambiguation page, which there isn't, and its existence is thereby confusing (WP:RDELETE items 2 & 5). We don't create "(disambiguation)" redirect pages for every article just in case someday there might be a need for a real disambiguation page. I don't see any need for an additional redirect to Zoology#History, but if you actually needed one, you could create one titled "History of animal study" or some such. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tamzin. This used to target History of zoology when that page was a WP:SIA-like stub, which was then blanked and redirects to its present target, with the "(disambiguation)" version subsequently targeted there as well to avoid the double redirect. So, the history very much confirms this is a ((R from avoided double redirect)) to History of zoology (and should be tagged as such). History of zoology targeting Zoology#History as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is just fine and certainly appropriate, but it's still an ambiguous term with at least 3 potential targets, so there very well should be a page at History of zoology (disambiguation). Instead of hosting a disambiguation page as would normally be expected in the case of a primary topic (which one could argue should be the case here), it instead redirects to a place that with hatnotes that performs the disambiguation. In any case, nothing to be gained from deletion here. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is something to be gained if users like R. S. Shaw above are expecting to see a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice I have just created an article at History of zoology for this blindingly, obviously notable topic.

That has been objected to. Paradoctor (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate, and if that shouldn't find consensus, delete as second option. Paradoctor (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not in use, and ambiguity is sketchy, at best. Not seeing any plausible use case. Paradoctor (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate: Having a disambiguation page would allow for a link to the different history pages and also related topics. Gusfriend (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gusfriend: If the topics are related then they are not "ambiguous". BD2412 T 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if it weren't a bit off kilter to create disambiguation redirects to an article because of the hatnotes there, this particular redirect isn't appropriate: "History of zoology" doesn't need disambiguating, it unambiguously refers to a single topic, whose main coverage on Wikipedia happens to be split for convenience between two articles. – Uanfala (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This was created by a bot in 2010 when the corresponding History of zoology was incorrectly tagged as a disambiguation page. The tagging was corrected to SIA only in 2015. So although this was not created in error (the bot followed the rules), it has since become incorrect. Jay (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or DABify: a page which ends with "(disambiguation)" should always be a DAB page or point toward a DAB page. Veverve (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Disambiguation redirects that point to non-disambiguation pages are ususally shot on sight. Even if a page listing links to different eras was made at the title, "History of zoology", that would be a set index or a broad concept article, not a disambiguation page, as there are no ambiguous terms here. BD2412 T 22:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 00:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kanceri i gjirit → Breast cancer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Breast cancer did not originate in anything related to Albania and the redirect is from Albanian to English. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom (Wikipedia:Redirects_in_languages_other_than_English) ObsidianPotato (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Negrophobia. ✗plicit 00:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Anti-blackness → Category:Anti-black racism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retargeting to Racism might be better than a cross-namespace redirect to this category which is a non-exhaustive list of articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Negrophobia, where Antiblackness redirects. It's a different target than the nom suggests, but it pretty much means the same thing (more specifically). Regards, SONIC678 21:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, good spot. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Negrophobia, as explained above - unless somebody thinks the antiblackness redirect is wrong ObsidianPotato (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Eden (name)#Family name. ✗plicit 00:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Eden family → Category:Eden family  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This relatively new redirect is cross-namespace but does not have to be. A better target may be Eden baronets (In the 2nd paragraph of Earl of Avon, the wikilink to Eden baronets is piped as "Eden family"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• REtarget to Eden (name) where the baronets are listed, and other people as well -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Eden (name)#Family name per the IP (but target the family name section). Mdewman6 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Eden (name)#Family name per Mdewman6. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 1–2 finish → List of Formula One constructor records#1–2 finishes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is misleading, and basically an WP:EGG redirect. 1-2 finishes are not unique to Formula One, or even motorsport. It is unreasonable to assume that most, (or even 5% of) people looking up 1-2 finish, are looking for a Formula One stat. SSSB (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this a term used outside of motorsport? A few searches turned up nothing for me outside of motorsport. We could add the term to Glossary of motorsport terms and redirect there. A7V2 (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The results are biased towards recent events, but I got results relating to ski-cross (x3-4), speed skating (x2), para biathlon and Athletics. I think the only reason you get mostly motorsport is because that is where 1-2s are most common, not becuase it is motorsport terminology. And the only reason it is most common in motorsport is because it is one of the few sports where team mates compete seperatly (outside of Olympics/world Championships). I would therefore prefer general defintion on wiktionary (as Glossary of sports terms doesn't exist). SSSB (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes of course. I've heard the term in reference to athletics now that I think about it. I still think the term is mostly associated/used with motorsport. I think readers/searchers are best served by going to the motorsport glossary now that an entry exists there. We could add a sentence to the definition there with something like "The term is also used for any sporting event where two competitors from the same team, country, etc. finish in the first two places." A7V2 (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Glossary of motorsport terms#0–9 as alternative to deletion. It's mostly associated with motorsport. czar 02:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. If I was aware of this, I would have redirected it there already. Either way, the main issue seems to be the where, so I do not understand deletion. If it is used more than in motorsport, we may still link it somewhere where this is discusses or create a disambiguation page. If the motorsport terminology is the most common, we may redirect it there, while adding a short note that it is also used in other sports as a compromise. Davide King (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not restricted to motorsports. Just look at the Olympics -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Glossary of motorsport terms#0–9: It's premiarily a term used in motorsport (and only used sparingly in other sports), so redirect to the motorsport glossary seems sensible. I see no evidence that it's commonly used in the Olympics, like someone above have suggested. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you didn't pay enough attention to the live television coverage of the Olympics . There were many instances of commentators stating a 1-2 finish for competitors of the same nation finishing gold and silver or during heats, in the winter and summer games. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not restricted to motorsports. Searches like "Germans finish 1-2" or "Norwegians finish 1-2" reveal plenty of examples of its use in other sports. DB1729 (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Emotional conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Emotional turmoil → Wheat Fields#Emotional turmoil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect doesn't make sense to me. A reader searching on "emotional turmoil" is not looking for a discussion of van Gogh's state of mind while painting Wheat Fields. I wasn't able to find a more likely target; Emotion doesn't mention turmoil, and Emotional conflict has a single mention with no content to explain emotional turmoil. Many articles include the term, but none explain or discuss it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional conflict seems the best redir. target. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect creator has now been CU-blocked as a sock of a prolific sockmaster, which would qualify this for G5. Randy Kryn, do you think it's a useful-enough redirect to be worth saving? Or should I submit the CSD G5? Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seems it would be a term some would use if searching for 'Emotional conflict'. Should be a deck of playing cards of 'Prolific sockmasters'. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the target, as the original target was really ridiculous. Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

van Gogh's legacy will never feel quite the same. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed in the instructions that I shouldn't have changed the target while the discussion is open. My mistake, but I'm going to claim WP:NOTBURO and leave it as is. Schazjmd (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for emotional conflict?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've requested input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Drakes Supermarkets. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Drake Supermarkets → Foodland (South Australia)#Drake Supermarkets  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Looking at older versions of this article before it was turned into a redirect it was "Drakes" in those and that has its own page now. The section "Drake Supermarkets" this redirect points to in Foodland (South Australia) no longer exists.

Options:

1. Delete this redirect
2. Redirect to Drakes Supermarkets

- Cube00 (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Drakes as a plausible misspelling. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Drake is a plausible misspelling of "Drakes" (it only does not have the S at the end), so retarget to Drakes Supermarkets. AKK700 22:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.