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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per Animawiki29's comment _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Scary show → Cranston Academy: Monster Zone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While the article states that this was the previous name for "Cranston Academy: Monster Zone", this claim is unreferenced in the article, and does not seem to be supported through my searches. I bring this up because a title such as "Scary show" is very ambiguous and can potentially refer to the genre of horror shows, or Scary Movie. I do not believe that "Scary show" commonly refers to the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The term "show" is so incredibly broad in this context, meaning everything from an animated film to a live-action television series to a play off-Broadway and more, that deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Proceed - It seems as though the term used for the redirect doesn't seem to specifically apply to an independent animated film like Cranston Academy, and I grant permission that if the Wikipedia team feel most comfortable with deletion, let them proceed. Thank you for bringing my attention. Have a good day. Animawiki29 (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2020 (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. Unfortunately this was not very suitable for a bundle as there are significant differences between the terms. Accordingly, I am declaring WP:NPASR on renomination of individual entries. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Made-up neologisms by a user who made many other redirects currently at RfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Méxicanx as an implausible misspelling (the e in México is only accented in Spanish for the actual country name, not for the demonym or adjective). Weak delete Chileanx as a misspelling that's a bit of a reach but not totally implausible (especially for someone with mixed proficiency in English and Spanish). Keep the rest: some of them may be neologisms, but I think that usage of the -x suffix is becoming widespread enough that these are justifiable search terms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. The neologisms are used by a small group of people which aren't recognised by native speakers. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and keep per Rosguill. In the Spanish language, male Mexicans are "Mexicanos", female are "Mexicanas"; technically, a mixed set of males and females is termed by the male collective noun (similar to alumnus, alumna, alumni). However, more people use "Mexicanx" or "Mexican@" for inclusiveness so it's not unreasonable to set a redirect for such usages. Redirects are cheap. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per this Vox article. "Latinx" is an English neologism, not Spanish. There is no evidence that any of these particular spellings have actually gained widespread usage in either language (except perhaps "Mexicanx" without diacritics as User:Carlossuarez46 has pointed out, if that's the case we can keep that one title). Deryck C. 17:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep except Méxicanx and Chileanx per Rosguill and Carlossuarez46. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deryck Chan, In response to the delete argument that this form does not have widespread use, we don't need widespread use for a redirect to be useful. Single digit percentage points of a large population are still a whole lot of people. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rosguill: I would agree that single-digit percentage point is a lot of people but I'm not seeing that prevalence. That said, I don't live in the Americas so I will give way if American editors are convinced that these terms are being used. Deryck C. 13:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, you've got two native Spanish speakers in this discussion saying that this form sees enough use for the redirects to be plausible. The single-digit claim that I made comes from the article, Latinx which cites a US survey that ~2% of residents of the United States of Latin American descent prefer to use this form. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - With the lone exception of "Méxicanx", which I'd support getting rid of, all of these appear reasonable enough. The above arguments make sense to me. Just because a term is obscure doesn't make it unworthy to be used on Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and keep per Rosguill. Only one of these is implausible. A neologism does not need to be overwhelmingly common, just plausible, and we have a page to send these to, so the redirects' job will be done, properly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per others; I don't really care for Méxicanx and Chileanx but I don't see the harm in keeping them either. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:01, 11 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Aman Sul → The Fellowship of the Ring#Plot summary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a conflation of Aman (Tolkien) and Amon Sul, and is not a real concept in Tolkien's universe. I see no reason to have a redirect for a misspelling of a fictional alternate name. 12 pageviews in 2019 Hog Farm (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I honestly don't remember my rationale for this redirect at the time I created it, so if the community wants to delete it, I have no objection. Nightscream (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2020 (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Quality & Safety in Health Care → BMJ Quality & Safety  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• QSHC → BMJ Quality & Safety  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obviously this should not redirect to a publication, however... what exactly should it redirect to? ~ R.T.G 18:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as R from move. As mentioned in the target article, this was the name of the journal prior to 2011. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Former name of the journal. Even if there was an article on this subject, this would be a valid case for WP:DIFFCAPS. Hog Farm (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As nominator, after closer inspection. ~ R.T.G 22:02, 9 April 2020 (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 make an article. Thanks 59.149.124.29 for the work you put in. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 20:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2020 in Somalia → 2020 in Somaliland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2019 in Somalia → 2019 in Somaliland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirecting a search term about Somalia to an article about Somaliland seems potentially misleading. We don't currently have an analogous article about Somalia, and History of Somalia does not appear to have information about anything since 2017, so I think that deletion may be our best option here. Alternatively, redirecting to Somalia could be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete exactly, you are right and redirecting to Somalia seems the best opt. Shafici Bashe (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect both to Somalia. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I think the best retarget is to Outline of Somalia#History of Somalia if a retarget is deserved. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd say that these should be made into articles, as they have consistently been from 2004 in Somalia through 2018 in Somalia. As for the "[Year] in Somaliland" articles, those started in 2018. You'll see that 2018 in Somaliland exists, yet 2017 in Somaliland does not. Yet, I would think that keeping these as redlinks to encourage article creation would be a reasonable alternative for this case. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The search pages are very unhelpful, that's a point against deletion. These are probably going to be pretty high-traffic redirects so I'm unsure that condemning readers to those search pages is a good idea. The navbox (example: bottom of this page) needs to be changed to remove the Somalia link. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I have done some work where I could. To make things more complicated, we had a stale draft and heaps of one-line (IIRC) drafts (including Draft:2019 in Somalia). — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 01:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Close both 2019 in Somalia and 2020 in Somalia now have some article content. Redirecting to Somalia or Outline of Somalia is a non-starter, those articles barely mention 2019 and don't even contain the string 2020. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hawkeye (2021 TV series) → Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four#Hawkeye  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The series is currently scheduled for "sometime in 2022", so this now-orphaned redirect isn't useful. It's well outside the speedy deletion threshold, though, having been created in September 2019 (pre-move history), so bringing it here for resolution. —Cryptic 18:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete! And salt? Just because something is scheduled doesn't always make it that notable to begin with, it could still end up being canned. This seems silly, there was nothing on the page, perfect fine to a speedy tag. Govvy (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I'm unclear why Cryptic has continued to remove the speedy tag and instead opted for a RfD. Perfectly acceptable to have this speedily deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No CSD criterion covers incorrectly named R-from-move redirects. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this is a sort of WP:TOOSOON gone wrong. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We can re-evaluate things later on when more details become available. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2020 (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 , with the exception of Hero Of Time, which was withdrawn from the discussion _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Legend of Zelda: the Hero of Time → The Legend of Zelda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Zelda hero of time → The Legend of Zelda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Zelda the hero of time → The Legend of Zelda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hero Of Time → The Legend of Zelda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The hero of time → The Legend of Zelda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Originally double redirects to deleted redirect The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time. Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 2#The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time. Paul_012 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just checked the page history for Hero Of Time, and would like to withdraw this redirect from the request. It should be restored to point to Link (The Legend of Zelda), syncing with Hero of Time. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Hero Of Time" per updated nom and discussion.
  Delete all the rest per nom. The page with actual history was already deleted in the referenced RfD. -2pou (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See update for Hero Of Time. 2pou, if you agree I'd like to withdraw this one item. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paul 012: I concur that "Hero of Time" is a valid retarget given that the term is used several times on Link's page. I'll fix my !vote, but do you think the same logic can be applied to "The hero of time"? -2pou (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess so. I'll leave it open for further discussion though, since it doesn't have prior history targeting the Link article. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably not necessary since neither page is used particularly often, and it's not the one with history. -2pou (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Zelda HoT → The Legend of Zelda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

All that comes when I search this are the... wrong things. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And blog articles. But also a lot of... that. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 2#The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Paul 012, and the RfD directly above. -2pou (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This doesn't seem useful at all. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2020 (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 speedy keep as now mentioned (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Amon Sûl → The Fellowship of the Ring#Plot summary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Amon Sul → The Fellowship of the Ring#Plot summary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - No page history that needs to be kept, and no mentions besides a list entry with no explanation at List of fictional castles and a couple stray mentions of an NN object named "the palantír of Amon Sul" which would not make a good retargeting point because those mentions are about the bowling ball that can see Sauron (not quite, but basically), not the castle this is referring to. Bundle in Aman Sul, Tower of Amon Sul, and Tower of Amon Sûl as going to the same target and essentially the same thing. Hog Farm (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is the other name of Weathertop which is quite important in the plot (and redirects are cheap). I've (re?-)inserted the name in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chiswick Chap: - What do you think about Aman Sul? It appears to be a conflation of the actual name and Aman (Tolkien). Do you think that term's going to be something someone would search for? 12 pageviews in 2019. Hog Farm (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must be right about the conflation. A maximum of 7 people a month have used that link, who knows why - it is possible there was a link to it from somewhere. I'd not think it worth keeping. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Chiswick Chap's addition of the name into the text. Hog Farm (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2020 (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 Rohan (Middle-earth)#Horses and warfare. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Amon Dîn → Gondor#Fictional geography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Rohan (Middle-earth)#Horses and warfare, where it is mentioned. Hog Farm (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Generation W → Baby boomers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Baby boomers" are not referred to as "Generation W." This appears to be an attempt to popularize a neologism.

Literature refers to "Generation W" as Serbia's war generation. See [1] Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm seeing this used online in a variety of different contexts, none of them establishing that the term has one specific and notable definition. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with CoffeeWithMarkets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, as redirect creator – Honestly, go for it. I see now that it doesn't just have one defined meaning. (Also, an alternative to deletion could be to disambiguate, listing the various things it refers to.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Drinking in Brazil → Beer in Brazil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Drinking in Chile → Beer in Chile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Drinking in Colombia → Beer in Colombia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Drinking in Venezuela → Beer in Venezuela  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Drinking in these countires is by no means confined to the consumption of beer. I don't think there are any relevant aricles covering the topic, and the corresponding categories (Category:Alcohol in Chile, etc.) don't have anything that remotely approaches the expected scope. WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation? – Uanfala (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These redirects are ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to ambiguity. Drinking does not have to mean beer. – numbermaniac 06:54, 11 April 2020 (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) 15:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Trinity United Methodist Curch → Trinity United Methodist Church (Franklin, Tennessee)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Several years ago, this redirect was left over when its target page (compared to which it gets very few pageviews) was moved to its current title to "fix [the] typo in [its] name [and] disambiguate" it from other churches with the same name. Maybe delete it or retarget it to the DAB page Trinity United Methodist Church. Regards, SONIC678 15:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to say delete on this one. Searching for the string *curch is how you bring up all mentions of a string on Wikipedia. I got this redirect, a few typos I fixed, and two names. The fact that other redirects don't have this is probably a sign this isn't necessary. Hog Farm (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-target to Trinity United Methodist Church, a disambiguation page. I'd really prefer to have it deleted, but it's a vaguely plausible misspelling, I suppose. PKT(alk) 16:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. i did that move, in 2009. no inbound links. --Doncram (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; implausible typo. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The correct name appears in the searchbox well before getting to the 4th word. This is just clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An unambiguous error, and the wrong target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2020 (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) buidhe 05:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• COVID-20 → Coronavirus disease 2019  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As far as I am aware, no reliable source has called the virus COVID-20; the 20 seems to be based solely on the year 2020, nothing else. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Unlike the real-life virus, this redirect is totally harmless and isn't hurting anyone. While it doesn't have this name, it's a reasonable assumption for someone to make that it would have this name in addition to "COVID-19" for "2019". Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are a few hits – in unreliable news sources, as far as I can see – for the phrase, but even without them this is a plausible ((R from incorrect name)). – Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The potential for confusion is plausible. BD2412 T 17:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add the RCAT ((R from incorrect name)). Plausible mistake. Hog Farm (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree. This seems to be a plausible mistake, as stated above, and fundamentally appears helpful enough. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - confusion will arise if another COVID arises this year, which of course it might. Since it certainly isn't an official name, best avoided really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As there is no new strand of coronavirus explicitly named COVID-20 yet, this is a plausible "R from incorrect name". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; easy misnomer to make for now, we will obviously change it if a proper COVID-20 arises. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can anyone show me a reliable source supporting the use of "COVID-20"? And if this continues into next year, should we create "COVID-21"? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an ((R from incorrect name)); incorrect names can be substantiated by usage from the common man rather than from media outlets. Nothing is to be gained by deleting this redirect, other than inconvienience to plenty of readers. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you show where this has been used before, where it's become a common name? And you didn't answer my question – do we create a COVID-## redirect for every year that this pandemic persists? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes we should, but this redirect is probably more important because plenty of people think this pandemic started in 2020 so they may think the disease goes with that in the naming scheme. [2]. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 01:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a plausible error that someone might make, and if the redirect helps them find the correct article, it is useful and helpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Corona Virus was spreaded in very few countries in 2019. Majority of the countries got affected in 2020 only. So some may search with the given name. It may have created a confusion if a dedicated article was written. But now it redirects to COVID-19 which has relevant info. -Vijeth N Bharadwaj 08:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per others. Plausible, cheap, and harmless redirect. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 05:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not mentioned, but would make sense. WP:CHEAP. >>BEANS X2t 15:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd like to note the fact that referring to various things as "COVID-20" has been referred to by publications such as this one, where it's used as a reference to weight gain. There are other such kinds of commentary all over the internet. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2020 (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) 15:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Church of England parish hurch → Church of England parish church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While it is true that someone might forget the first "C" in the second "church," I'm not sure how plausible of a typo this is, given that there's both the correctly and incorrectly spelled versions of the word in the title. Regards, SONIC678 14:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - by the time a user types the first four words of the title, WP's auto-fill function will have spelled out the rest. Redirects aren't required to make up for *really* bad typing! PKT(alk) 15:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete G6, unambiguously created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2020 (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) 14:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I know it's a running joke of Aussies pronouncing "Australia" in strange ways, but this one's just a bit too far, don't you think? – numbermaniac 13:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an implausible misspelling..... PKT(alk) 15:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it seems fairly well used as "Australia" Twitter,Google News -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Twitter link only shows 18 tweets using the hashtag between 2010 and 2019 (it hasn't even been used once this year). I don't think that makes it significant enough for a redirect. – numbermaniac 01:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I'm not sure about this one, but the fact that occasionally a joke has been made doesn't make it worth turning into a redirect. There's no harm really, but it's not useful either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2020 (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 Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:ROUNDROBIN → Wikipedia:Moving a page#Swapping two pages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:ROBIN → Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

They should point to the same page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Point both to Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves as there is more information there, and the fact that "round-robin" moves are of higher relevance to page movers than admins. feminist (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll go out on a limb and say delete both. The encyclopedia will be a lot better without the use of round-robin moves, or project pages that promote them, or shortcuts to those pages. – Uanfala (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uanfala, I'm only here because I got the RFD notice at WT:PGM, but deleting the redirects isn't going to stop round-robins, or the knowledge of them. Hell, I didn't even know about these redirects until I saw the notice. Get consensus to stop these type of action first, and the deletion of the redirects will follow. I think that particular discussion is a little outwith the purview of this particular board, though. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
  • While I agree with the sentiment (round-robin moves very often confound page histories, and complicate situations where pages really should just be G6ed), I don't think this is the place to argue it, and deleting redirects won't help. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Point both to Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves which has the more complete step-by-step guide. Narky Blert (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the first to Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves and keep the second there to direct people to the same page per nominator. Regards, SONIC678 15:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. As the creator of Wikipedia:ROUNDROBIN, I'm here to state that due to the existence of the other redirect, I have no opinion on where these should so, as long as they are not deleted. However, I will say this: I'm almost 99% sure that I was not aware of the existence of Wikipedia:ROBIN, a redirect created months before I created Wikipedia:ROUNDROBIN. Steel1943 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the first to Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves and keep the second as is per Sonic678. We should consolidate all information on round-robin page moves to a single page in project space. In fact, we could very well create Wikipedia:Round-robin page moves as its own space to host all of that, and point to it from the existing pages. BD2412 T 17:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Target both to Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves, since it's a more informative location.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Make them consistent - I also think that we should target both over to 'Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2020 (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 procedural close. The process for proposing page moves is WP:RM. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The current target doesn't appear to be the primary topic; a Google search suggests that person names are probably the most common occurrence in English. Suggest replacing with the dab page currently at Prasad (disambiguation). Paul_012 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget and WP:ROBIN per nom. Narky Blert (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2020 (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) 14:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kerala State Fil Award for Best Sound Recordist → Kerala State Film Award for Best Sound Recordist  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While I can see people forgetting to press the M key while searching for "film," I'm not sure how plausible of a misspelling it is...hence why its target was moved to its current title thirteen years ago, leaving this redirect. Regards, SONIC678 05:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think that this is useful. "Fil" is a particularly weird non-word in this context, and somebody typing this in will probably notice the mistake immediately. Deletion appears to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlikely misspelling, searchbox clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2020 (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) 14:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Taepr → Armada Music#Signed artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Soul & Senses → Armada Music#Signed artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Purple Storie → Armada Music#Signed artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Milan & Phoenix → Armada Music#Signed artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Lonely Boy (DJ) → Armada Music#Signed artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Audioliebe → Armada Music#Signed artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Audioleap → Armada Music#Signed artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Final batch of artist to label redirects created by Zawl where the artists are not mentioned at the target and no other mention of them can be found anywhere on the encyclopedia. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all for lack of mention in the target, as before.

Thankyou for the labour of digging this lot out. Narky Blert (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator comment Some of these artists are mentioned at various music festival articles, however, I believe a redirect from an artist to a music festival doesn't make sense. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree. If an artist might be notable, a black- or redlink flags up the fact that an article needs writing; which a redirect does not. Narky Blert (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to encourage article creation (if they are notable). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2020 (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 Flatulence. (non-admin closure) buidhe 05:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Flatulence Sound → Blowing a raspberry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shouldn't this redirect to Flatulence? Hog Farm (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Flatulist. Narky Blert (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Ratarget to Flatulence or Flatulist. Not sure which though. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Flatulence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete why is this in caps? Is this a proper noun now? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Flatulence but also rename to Flatulence sound per AngusWOOF. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming redirects is severly discouraged; just create a new redirect. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 05:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing wrong with moving a redirect if this is to correct something minor in its title. It's good as it preserves whatever useful information there is in the history and it ensures we don't create more redirects than we actually need. There'll be no confusion as the changed title is almost the same as the old one; such a move is nothing compared to the unspeakable horribleness wrought upon the encyclopedia by the use of round-robin moves. – Uanfala (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Flatulence; nothing would be gained by deleting this. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 05:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Flatulence. Add ((R from overcapitalization|of=flatulence sound))((R from subtopic)). Create Flatulence sound redir, with ((R from subtopic)).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:04, 11 April 2020 (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.