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) 19:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Monster (2018 Indian film) → Monster (2019 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a 2018 film. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not released in 2018. PC78 (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2019 (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) ComplexRational (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Godfather: Part II (1974 film) → The Godfather Part II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I've been pinged about seven different times about reopening last week's discussion, which I have repeatedly declined and suggested a new discussion with new arguments be opened instead, but instead of doing that, editors just keep pinging me about it. So here's the new discussion. The previous speedy close was objected, so please allow this to run for seven days.

This redirect was created about a week ago and shortly afterwards nominated for deletion as unnecessary disambiguation, and the creator agreed with deletion, so I deleted it. It was recreated shortly after, without a deletion review or any discussion at all. Let's decide one way or the other. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a valid search term and unambiguously targets the correct article; clearly someone finds it useful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom. (That's a phrase you don't see often!) -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) The previous deletion was a speedy one (not the type that would justify deleting a page again per G4), and I'm not sure if G7 applies here and now. Besides, Bunder's agreement to deletion was based on a misconception; redirects from plausible minor errors and unnecessary disambiguations don't contradict any policy or guideline that I know of. Geolodus (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What's the error? Is it that it has a colon when the actual film does not? That's completely reasonable and probably how I would search for it, assuming that "Part II" is a subtitle. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's been nominated for unnecessary disambigaution. PC78 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original nom also pointed out that the proper title does not include the colon, which was news to me. It's pretty much the definition of a plausible error. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom. (Agreed, that's fun to say.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Somewhat pointless, but unnecessary disambiguation is not a reason to delete. PC78 (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2019 (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 no consensus. Despite having a few users voicing delete !votes, Deryck's "keep" brings up valid rationales that counterweight the others. Given its twice relisting, I will close as no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• EPIPE → Errno.h  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Several other E* redirects point there too. However the file errno.h is in fact what defines the values of EPIPE and other symbols, so this redirection makes sense, it's just that the article is not really complete.Spitzak (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. There are a quite a lot of missing redirects, in fact. This one was referenced in Project:Articles for deletion/EPIPE as the now-deleted article had a "see also" with this. Uncle G (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Someone searching this term wanting to find out more information about it will be confused or disappointed to end up at a place that does not offer that information. Note that my !vote is conditional. If anyone with more knowledge on the subject than myself were to update the target to include information on EPIPE, I will withdraw my recommendation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete per Tavix. Right now, it seems this redirect is only helpful to readers who already know what EPIPE is, if even to them. Any readers looking to learn what it is will be confused or disappointed. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I almost closed this as "delete per consensus" but then changed my mind. It's interesting that no competing topic has popped up, which means that anybody searching for "EPIPE" will almost certainly have been coding things in C/C++ and coming across this error message in the process. A redirect that sends them to errno.h, even though the article doesn't explain EPIPE, will tell them that the EPIPE has something to do with the errno.h header file. The reader can then look up further documentation about errno.h. This redirect facilitates a step in a workflow which is useful information for the reader, so I think it has value even though it's a ((R without mention)). Deryck C. 16:43, 15 October 2019 (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 Sonic Boom (TV series). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SonicToon → List of Sonic Boom episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look the Japanese version of the of the original Sonic Boom as well as the 3DS game Fire and Ice were released under the name Sonic Toon [[1]].--67.68.29.177 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Sonic Boom (TV series), where there's a mention in non-camelcase. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2019 (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 Great Alliance for Change. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Alliance → Grand Alliance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

None of the items listed in the disambiguation page to which this points are known by this name ("Great" as opposed to "Grand"), so the redirect is potentially confusing. There are other political and military alliances that are known by this name, or variants thereupon, but only the Great Alliance for Change (a Colombian political grouping) has an article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Great Alliance for Change with a distinguish hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2019 (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. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Decision 2000 → 2000 United States presidential election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ultra-ambiguous as 'decision' does not suggest anything in particular. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep decision 20YY is a common way for TV pundits to refer to the US presidential elections. May be worth retargeting to Bush v. Gore since a google search for "Decision 2000" turns up a lot related to that case. Third choice is probably delete per nom. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Bush v. Gore per Wugapodes. Seems like the most likely destination. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 23:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Wugapodes, but strong oppose retargeting as "Decision XXXX" is used specifically in reference to elections, not surrounding events (including the court case that decided the 2000 election). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wugapodes' argument. The "Decision XXXX" format is used specifically to refer to U.S. elections, the most noteworthy of which is the presidential election. Bush v. Gore was not a decision so much as a ruling. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:01, 16 October 2019 (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 Jacobite#Religion. Killiondude (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jacobite Orthodox Church → Syriac Orthodox Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Jacobite Orthodox Church (disambiguation) → Jacobite Syrian Christian Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Jacobite Orthodox Church (disambiguation) should clearly not target Jacobite Syrian Christian Church because the target is not a disambiguation page (or disambiguation-like page). But Jacobite Orthodox Church targets something different. So, for the first either verify the target or retarget, and delete the second; or turn the second into a legitimate disambiguation page (which would require entries with actual mentions in articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - after being lost in a series of renamings and bot actions, the disambiguation page is currently located at Syrian Jacobite Church. Note that these two organizations are actually part of the same church. One is the mother church, located in Syria, the other being the Indian branch. Place Clichy (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy: Yes, I see. So retarget the first to Syrian Jacobite Church; delete the second? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd say leave the first redirect where it points (which is the primary topic) and redirect the second one to the dab page. We may also rename the dab page to something more likely to be looked for by users. Place Clichy (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget first, keep second per Place Clichy. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: actually my latest suggestion is to keep first (as primary topic), and retarget the second to dab page Syrian Jacobite Church. Place Clichy (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The various combinations of Syrian, Jacobite, and Orthodox confused me. Thinking about it more, is there a reason we have this DAB page? Could we redirect the first to the primary topic (whatever that is) and hatnore the two pages? That might go far in simplifying this naming scheme. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative would be to redirect the (dab) alias to Jacobite § Religion, which I tried to rephrase, and to redirect the dedicated dab page Syrian Jacobite Church there. The names of these churches are undoubtedly confusing, and the current dab page is very ill-named. Primary topic is not obvious, as the Syriac Orthodox Church (based in Syria) is historically more significant, but is today outnumbered by the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church (its own Indian branch) according to § Demography, and even together they are outnumbered by the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, an Indian church of the same tradition which split from them in 1975. Quite confusing! I also found another dab page on the same topic: Malankara Jacobite Orthodox Church! Place Clichy (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to Jacobite#Religion. This is tough, because the Syriac Orthodox Church article says it rejects the Jacobite name, while the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church clearly doesn't. With a third church in the mix, I think our best bet is to just treat this as ambiguous. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Jacobite#Religion per above. As Place Clichy, BDD, and the nominator have pointed out this is probably one of the more confusing mix up of names that could possibly happen, with the three Christian denominations having multiple ways of being named and identified that often intertwine. No one discussion is going to put an end to this confusion, but hopefully this rfd will help. Inter&anthro (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2019 (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. Ruslik_Zero 20:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes-Gerard Illovz → Yves-Gérard Illouz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely redirect, triple typo. Fram (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as an implausible misspelling. I created Yves-Gerard Illouz as ((R to diacritic)). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if this would make it plausible but this redirect is because I was playing a board game called Balderdash and the question misspelled his name as Yes-Gerard Illovz. So I was wondering if people who played Balderdash and wanted to look him up would search by Yes-Gerard Illovz because I myself created this article calling him that and I didn't realize that was not his name until the article's name changed and the redirect was up for deletion. --Otis the Texan (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Otis the Texan: Would you be able to provide evidence of the typo? I was trying to find something online but was unsuccessful. If so, I think this would be a solid reason to keep the redirect as ((R from misspelling)). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Tavix:I have a good solution to this. While unfortunately it looks like there is no proof on the internet so I suggest you look at the latest version of Balderdash and look through all the cards and their questions and answers. I'm guessing you do not own this game and the newest version (me neither, I played it at game café) so if you don't own I suggest you go to your local game café, board game store, or any store that sells board games and ask for permission to look inside. I would suggest going to the game café because in stores they are wrapped up. If happen to be at a game café also make sure it's the newest version. --Otis the Texan (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., as an unlikely search term, particularly the misspelling of "Yves". The existence of the this typo in one version of a game isn't sufficient. --Bejnar (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea of creating redirects from erroneous terms "in the wild" readers could come across like this. This is a bit of a howler of a mistake, though. Leaving off the accent is totally understandable, V for U less so (it's been some time since they were interchangeable!), "Yes" for "Yves" really out there. Still, we can almost guarantee readers will search for this, and we can't say that about many redirects. --BDD (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Inclined toward keep, as it seems a reasonable misprint for an American to change the weird stuff. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:34, 26 October 2019 (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. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thalapathi (2018 film) → Atlee Kumar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Thalapathy (2018 film) → Atlee Kumar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  Added by -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

No film by this name released in 2018. It was a tentative working title for Mersal, but that film came in 2017. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See also discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 13#Thalapathi (2017 film); there are two other redirects as well: Thalapathy (2017 film) and Thalapathy (2018 film). It would be helpful to have a single discussion for all four. PC78 (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both since the year is incorrect. PC78 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2019 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Heny Higgins → Pygmalion (play)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Henri Higgins (character) → Pygmalion (play)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible misspellings of either Henry Higgins (character) (which redirects to Pygmalion (play)); or, in the first case, Henry Higgins (which is a DAB page). Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget first to DAB, Keep second All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  

• Delete both. No affinity to French where Henry would be spelled Henri. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Heny", retarget "Henri" to the dab page. The French spelling may have no affinity to the play, but to the ambiguous term it may. bd2412 T 23:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. As a potential closer, I saw consensus to delete "Heny" already, but I can't see keeping the other either. The Pygmalion character is the only thing there that might be referred to as "Henri Higgins (character)", but it really doesn't seem like a plausible search term or error. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2019 (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 no consensus. Well, that petered out, and I am simply not seeing a consensus agreement on what to do here. Delete !votes aren't nearly convincing enough to overturn the AfD, and the keep V soft-redirect disagreement seems six-and-one-half to me. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Boy next door (stock character) → Girl next door  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy next door (stock character) concluded with targeting it to Girl next door. I object it and suggest to use soft redirect to wikt:boy next door. Reasons:

• GND article does not define the term (no refs), while wiktionary does.
• There is no evidence that BND is basically same as GND (otherwise we could have written this up in GND article, right?)
• the argument in AfD that BND is a variation of GND does not hold water has no solid founding in sources, and I find it dubious. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I did exercise a good deal of due diligence, and I found not a single reliable source that discusses the term rather than simply uses it. Otherwise I would have simply added the ref to the GND article (since I have already wasted lots of time to find it) without bothering the community. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong venue: if you think the AfD was wrongly closed you should list this at WP:DRV. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No. The AfD was closed correctly. Please read carefully what WP:DRV is for. And this venue is exactly what I need: "central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. ". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD was closed correctly, but you "object [to] it" anyway? Please clarify. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I stated my reasons, see above. In Wikipedia we discuss articles, not editors, and my intentions are none of anybody's business, unless they interfere with "wikipediting". That said, here is my story: I voted for deletion. After closure I tried to make the redirect reasonable, i.e., tried REALLY FREAKING TOO HARD (for such a trifle) to find sources with minimal discussion, to use in in GND article; in vain. During the search I found that the term is defined in wiktionary, and here you go. You may also want to ask why did I exert myself for a piece of trivia. Because I am kinda linguistics buff and non-native English speaker. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I believe that you could not find any sources, and if there are no sources supporting usage of the phrase, the redirect should be deleted. Even though there is a Wiktionary page, Wiktionary is not considered a reliable source, as far as I am aware; therefore, linking to an un-sourced definition is not advisable either, imo. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @El cid, el campeador: We do use wikt-redirects occasionally, we even have a template for this: ((wi)). Wikipedia is not an RS either :-) but we do redirect to it. See also my another remark about wiktionary here.Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think I know why there is GND, but there is no BND cliche. My long search shows that unlike GND, a BND can by of any possible character: nerd BND, gay BND, "good boy" BND, villain BND, serial killer BND, etc., in addition to standard love target, with the only thing in common is being an "ordinary" (or seemingy ordinary) one. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see a problem with this. I agree with the AfD that the BND is really just a gender-swapped GND. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely no. Please prove your opinion using sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is the current treatment in Wiktionary more appropriate than what we have here? --BDD (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wiktionary has its own rules. In particular, they don't require WP:RS; usage examples suffice. Also, please do not confuse A term and A term (stock character). Yes, I agree that as plain English words BND and GND are 100% parallel, but there is no evidence that BND is a literary cliche, or stock character. There quite a few other "gender-non-symmetric" stereotypes. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wiktionary. I did find a source referring to the "boy next door" stock character (see here), thought it is just a passing mention. However, that is beside the point... it is original research to treat BND as the male equivalent of GND. Consider, for example, the "bad guy"/"good guy" and "bad girl"/"good girl" tropes—they are linguistic parallels but have vastly different stock characteristics. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tv Tropes mentions Boy Next Door in their entry for the Girl Next Door, though this is propably not enough reason to keep the redirect. 85.76.8.173 (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There doesn't seem to be a problem with how the AfD closed. "Boy next door" is the spear counterpart of "girl next door", and the definition of "girl next door" is adequate to describe the male version, just gender-swapped._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  [Citation needed]... Linguistically, you are correct; however, please consider the example of "bad guy"/"bad girl", which are linguistic counterparts but not narratological equivalents. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  definition of "girl next door" is adequate to describe the male version, just gender-swapped - false. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - From the arguments it seems that all 'yes'-voters confuse the expression "boy next door" with the concept "Boy next door as stock character". Yes, an expression "BND" is gender-swapped "GND", but there is no shred of evidence that "BND" is a notable stock character. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Notifying participants of the previous AfD which resulted in the creation of this redirect (except Zxcvbnm and Staszek Lem who've already participated here). @Pontificalibus, JzG, Aoba47, BD2412, Deepfriedokra, TTN, Genericusername57, and Epinoia: Wug·a·po·des​ 05:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I believe that Boy Next Door should be sufficient to cover this topic, and a one-line explanation of the term should be added at the start of that dab page. The idea that the concept is adequately explained by girl-next-door with some gender-swapping is patently false - as demonstrated by the significant coverage I found in the source I gave at the AfD. ----Pontificalibus 06:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the existing target is not adequate. I agree with Pontificalibus that the disambiguation page at Boy Next Door should cover the situation, including the link to Wiktionary. The problem is the delimiter "stock character", which lacks independent existence. --Bejnar (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wiktionary per Black Falcon. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 03:24, 6 October 2019 (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 Primary disambiguation i.e. move Laiicization (disambiguation) to the base title and redirect the other terms there. This consensus was weakest regarding Laicised so there's no prejudice against a new RfD specifically discussing that redirect if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Laicization → Loss of clerical state (Catholic Church)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Laicised → Defrocking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Laicisation → Defrocking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

We need to establish a consensus whether the term is a generic synonym for Defrocking or it specifically refers to only the Catholic Church. wikt:laicize has multiple definitions, so conversion to a disambiguation is something to consider. One definition is "To reduce from clergy to layman"... noting that it does not say "To reduce from Catholic priest to layman". wbm1058 (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article should be redirected to defrocking. The lay and clergy distinction is one that is found in other Christian denominations apart from Catholicism, including Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Catholic Church, laicization is a formal legal process that is never called "defrocking". Are there any other Christian denominations which use the term "laicization" and not "defrocking", other than, perhaps, Eastern Orthodoxy? I have not heard of any. In the mainstream media, laicization is often erroneously labeled "defrocking" and results in confusion. It contributes to the confusion when "laicization" appropriately linked in a discussion of the Catholic priesthood erroneously sends the reader to a discussion of "defrocking" which is a slang term never used by Catholic Church sources. Elizium23 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In such cases, articles should link to Laicization (Catholic Church). wbm1058 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The defrocking article was started in August 2003 with the lead To defrock a priest is to deprive him of the right to exercise the functions of the priestly office. Various religions with priests have different procedures for doing this. and only one section, with the heading ==Roman Catholicism==. You should be aware that Wikipedia generally favors commonly recognizable names over officially-recognized names, and I believe the term "defrocking" has been used by lay news sources. The Catholic Church may be exceptionally weighted in sources due to the scandals around priests abusing children. But I hear your concerns regarding the term "defrocking" having unduly negative connotations, and conveniently my check of Google Ngram for laicization vs. defrocking shows that the former is more commonly used. So perhaps moving Defrocking to Laicization would be a solution for your concerns. I was kind of surprised by that Ngram because personally, before I ran into this as part of my patrols, I would have immdiately recognized the term "defrocking", but would have needed to look up that "L" word. Also note that laicisation redirected to defrocking from August 2003 until January 2014, when Catholic Church-specific content was split to a separate article. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've notified WikiProject Catholicism and WikiProject Christianity of this RfD since those editors probably have expertise on the relationship between laicization and defrocking. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Etymologically, to defrock means to prohibit one from wearing clerical attire (i.e. from dressing like a priest). The Catholic Church doesn't use this term because it's too narrow in meaning. Instead, the Church uses the phrase "loss of clerical state" (see this passage from Catholic canon law). In the context of Catholicism, "loss of clerical state" is considered the "most correct" term, followed by "laicization" (considered an informal term), followed by "defrocking" as the "least correct" term (at which point we're well into slang territory). It is, therefore, appropriate that Catholicism-specific material remains under the article entitled Loss of clerical state (Catholic Church). As for the name of the general article, follow the ngrams. Jdcompguy (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Defrocking" implies that it is entirely involuntary, while a number of priests have petitioned to be laicized -in order to get married, or for some other reason. (I actually preferred laicization, as although the Church might view it as a "loss", perhaps less so by those who request it.) Manannan67 (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Target to Defrocking for all three terms. All are general terms. The Defrocking article has an adequate hatnote and section on the Catholic version. --Bejnar (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I created Laicization (disambiguation), to address the long hatnote that was on defrocking. Given the failed July 2011 move request at Talk:Defrocking#Requested move and the different opinions here, and the percieved difference in meaning between "laicization" and "defrocking", I propose a move of Laicization (disambiguation) → Laicization, as a compromise solution. We have mixed evidence as to which is the more common term. A straight-up Google search gives me about 67,400 reselts for "laicization" vs. 94,100 results for "defrocking", while a more academicallly-oriented book (Ngram) search, as pointed out above, favors "laicization". – wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the first line of the Laicization (disambiguation) page says it all:

Laicization is an alternative term for defrocking of clergy.

See the contradictory comment by the same editor who created the disambiguation page, Wbm1058, above. --Bejnar (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bejnar, does this edit clarify my point? wbm1058 (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed clarify your point, but I think your first edit was more correct. --Bejnar (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Laicization (disambiguation) per Wbm1058. As second choice, retarget the first to Defrocking so there's consistency. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Laicization (disambiguation) per Wbm, that seems clear to me. I see no reason not to retarget the nominated redirects there once that is done. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Laicization (disambiguation) to Laicization, per above, and Retarget Laicised and Laicisation to the new Laicization page. Jdcompguy (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Laicization (disambiguation) to Laicization, and Retarget Laicisation to Laicization as a potential regional spelling differentiation. However, Delete Laicised (or soft retarget to Wiktionary:laicised) since it is not a title match for "Laicization" or "Laicisation", and this would be misleading if it redirected to a disambiguation pagr since disambiguation page search terms should only differ in punctuation/capitalization/regional "s" vs "z" differences, not entire letters/words. Steel1943 (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2019 (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. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wild Thing Pose - Camatkarasana (Chamatkarasana) → Chakrasana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Odd redirect that never made any sense, providing three alternative names for the same thing - nobody would ever enter all of these at once, I think. I've created straightforward redirects for the individual spellings. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this sort of monstrosity does not make a useful redirect. Slightly confused by the target as well because Camatkarasana, Chamatkarasana and Wild Thing Pose all redirect to Vasishtasana. PC78 (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note however that this redirect was previously an article and so has some history. Perhaps that can be moved to one of the other redirects? PC78 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was mistargeted as well as misconstructed. The original article was deleted as "Per ANI discussion. Violates WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:SPAM, and WP:MEDICAL; all salvageable content is already at target." (a sentiment I'd agree with; and the article was atrociously cited). The coverage as a variation of Vasishtasana makes a lot more sense than pointing at Chakrasana which really had little in common with the pose, and (rightly) contains no mention of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Wild Thing Pose and the other redirects were created to be clearer ways to get to the Vasishtasana article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 17 October 2019 (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. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Aboringal Shire of Wujal Wujal → Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible misspelling; I had to go to the article to discover what it referred to. WP:CHEAP, but delete. Narky Blert (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)\[reply]

delete As per nom Kerry (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2019 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• George F. Beck (geologist) → Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target is known for more than just excavating a state park. Searching for "George F. Beck (geologist)" within itself seems highly implausible, and for those who do search it, it would be rather confusing to be sent to an article about state park that only holds limited association.

For reference, this was an accepted AFC/R redirect. I meant to deny it, but wanted to wait as it could be deemed controversial due to its tenure on the page. Instead, this was approved with no supplied reason. Utopes (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: was created purely with the intent for it to be included in a disamb page for George Beck as I agree the term being individually searchable is unlikely. — IVORK _Discuss 00:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A three-part !vote:

Keep and tag as ((R with possibilities)). A Google search for 'George Beck geologist' turned up several likely-looking WP:RS sources.

Move to George F. Beck or to George Beck (geologist) without leaving a redirect. Either the middle initial or the profession identifies him uniquely among our articles; there is no need for the double qualifier.

Add whichever title the redirect ends up under to the ((hndis)) page George Beck. Narky Blert (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If the geologists is known for more than one thing, then it's misleading to turn him into a redirect to a single one of those things. Also, the target article barely mentions him, not providing any details at all, so I wouldn't consider it a suitable target to begin with. As for Narky Blert's suggestion, that for me is an another argument for deletion: notable topics should remain redlinks to encourage article creation. – Uanfala (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no redlink. Narky Blert (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I was referring (in an admittedly infelicitous way) to the general principle: if individuals are notable, it's best not to create redirects for them. – Uanfala (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom/Uanfala/WP:REDLINK. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2019 (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.