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 and move Henry Yao (politician) to fill the vacated base title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Henry Yao → Seavi Advent  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect from a person's name to a company article that doesn't contain any mention of the name to contextualize a purpose for the redirect. It results from a temporary, quickly reverted page move in 2009 by an editor who had added the name "Henry Yao Wei Min" as an employee -- but it's since been removed from the article, and there's no apparent notability claim to suggest a reason why anybody would be searching for him. And even more importantly, Henry Yao (politician) was today declared the winner of a seat in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and thus should probably hold WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights over an obscure venture capitalist. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to RM since that appears to be the motivation for the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Send what to RM? RM can't just move a disambiguated page overtop a title that already exists as a redirect meant to represent somebody else, without RFD weighing in on the necessity of the redirect first. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous and confusing. Although I do think an RM could move Henry Yao (politician) over Henry Yao. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the businessman is not mentioned at the target, and based on Google News coverage wouldn't be WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT even if he were. I agree with others above that an RM would have been fine. I think the main purpose of RFD is to provide a central forum for discussions which only affect redirects (and thus otherwise wouldn't get any participation at all, since few editors watch redirects directly). RFD doesn't need to weigh in on every admin action affecting a redirect, as long as there's someone other than the proposer and the closing admin to weigh in, and RM discussions usually have sufficient traffic to ensure that already. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 10:11, 16 November 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 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Who watches the watchers → Who Watches the Watchers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I was tripped on this one today, expecting it to go to the article on the Latinism, not an article on a Star Trek episode (of which, I am sure there are many such pop culture targets). I think the ptopic is clearly the Latinism. Izno (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, this is awkward. --Izno (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Anomie⚔ 16:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - appears to be a more likely intended target --DannyS712 (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As above, clearly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per the others. The Latinism is generally more well-known than a specific episode of a TV series. Glades12 (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget consistent with Who watches the watchmen and several, others. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 17 November 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 and allow the move to be either discussed in WP:RM or carried out boldly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oruclu, Kalbajar → Oruçlu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Oruclu, Kalbajar" redirects to a disambiguation page about "Oruçlu". They're not even same names and are completely unrelated. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Oruçlu, Kalbajar: as an ((R to diacritic))? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oruclu, Kalbajar" is the correct official name for the village Oruçlu, Kalbajar. So, I was planning on moving Oruçlu, Kalbajar to Oruclu, Kalbajar. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest to procedurally close this nomination and start a WP:RM discussion instead then. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I created the redirect back in 2008, Oruçlu was the only such article to target it. In the meantime, several other articles on towns of the same name have been created, so the dab page was established. So, per CuriousGolden I suggest we close this deletion discussion and I move the article over the redirect to "Oruclu, Kalbajar". De728631 (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Oruçlu, Kalbajar over Oruclu, Kalbajar. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Oruçlu, Kalbajar over Oruclu, Kalbajar per above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 S-comma. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• S, → Cedilla#S  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target is referring to Ş (where this would normally be retargeted), but given that this ((R from ASCII-only)) uses a comma, it may well also be a replacement for S-comma. Disambiguating this would look ridiculous to me. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why disambiguation would look ridiculous (or why we would care if it did), but surely a "not to be confused with" hatnote at the present target would be the best solution? Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just retarget to S-comma? The cedilla is a different character. Regardless of this redirect, S-comma will need to have a "not to be confused with..." hatnote pointing to Ş (S-cedilla), and the other way round, as the two characters are quite similar. – Uanfala (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to S-comma as recommended by Uanfala. The article also has a See also to the cedilla, and this can be expanded at the top with a hatnote. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to S-comma with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 17 November 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 Ü. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• U" → Double acute accent  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As A", E", and O" all point at articles about letters with a diaeresis, it seems more appropriate to retarget this to Ü. Alternatively, all four could be deleted per WP:XY (disambiguating seems a bit absurd in this case). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Ü and add a hatnote to the present target. Disambiguation is neither absurd nor needed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think u" is a very plausible search term for ü. It is, however, somewhat plausible for both ű (which redirects to Double acute accent), and ȕ (which redirects to Double grave accent). Exactly the same situation holds for the other combinations of vowel + double-quote. – Uanfala (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In LaTeX, you would write the letter ü as \" u, so the use of a quotation mark as a replacement for an umlaut or diaeresis is plausible. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • u" is also the compose key sequence for ü (the sequence for ű is u= and there isn't a default one for ȕ on keyboards without a double grave accent key). Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, at this stage, I don't think I would oppose deletion per XY, but I think disambiguation may not be as silly as it seemed at first – it would be perfectly acceptable to have a dab page saying that u" is the compose key sequence for ü, and then have several entries for the various things that may look like u" (that's the letter with the acute or grave double accents mentioned above, or the letter followed by a double prime). At any rate, I prefer such sort of "unusual" content to be on a dab page (and so visible only to those explicitly searching for it), than inside a hatnote in an article (where it will be inflicted upon a large number of readers not interested in this oddity). – Uanfala (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • • All it needs is a "not to be confused with ű or ȕ" which it should have regardless of what redirects there. I also don't understand why you think hatnotes are "inflicted" upon anybody? Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, to begin with, I don't see u-umlaut as a primary topic here – for example, readers aware of compose key would normally use those compose keys directly, wouldn't they, rather than effectively un-compose the compose key sequence. As for Ü having a hatnote for ű or ȕ – that can be done, though I'm not convinced the characters are similar enough on their own to warrant that. And if we want to mention u + double prime, this wouldn't make much sense inside such a hatnote. As for the particular turn of phrase I used – sorry if it seemed too flowery, but in principle, hatnotes, because they occupy prime article space, should be as minimal as possible. If it's feasible to do so, obscure search strings (~ one view a week) should be disambiguated on a page of their own, rather than at the top of a major article (~ 1,500 views a day). – Uanfala (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Ü and add a hatnote per Thryduulf. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:34, 22 November 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 Maass wave form. Unrefined. Same target for all three, but without the section component. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Maass form → Maass wave form#Maass cusp form  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Maass forms → Maass wave form#Maass cusp form  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Maaß form → Maass wave form#Maass cusp form  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target appears to be the result of an unfortunate bot cleanup of double redirects, and there is no need for the redirects to point at this specific section. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I understand the nomination, but if you are proposing to unrefine the redirects (i.e. remove the section component of the redirect target) then I would support that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this was my point. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:01, 15 November 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 All. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A L L → Acute lymphoblastic leukemia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible with the spaces in between. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to All (a dab page). It's a perfectly plausible search term for anything abbreviated ALL, but as there are multiple such targets the dab page is best. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to disambiguation page All. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:43, 17 November 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 Target letters. Going with the first suggestion due to lack of input from others. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• C' → Ć  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• S' → Alveolar ejective fricative  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• T' → Ť  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should either point at Ć, Ś, and Ť respectively, or at palatal ejective stop, alveolar ejective fricative, and dental and alveolar ejective stops respectively. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:10, 15 November 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 retarget to Spaceflight#Terminology. Now mentioned there. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Space mission → Space exploration  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not all space missions are space explorations (e.g. STS-61-A is called space mission, not space exploration). Delete to encourage article creation. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:51, 15 November 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 delete per G5. The creator of this redirect is globally locked, referencing this LTA page (in Chinese). -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Vietland → Vietnamese irredentism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seem WP:OR. Also, this redirects was created by LTA. SCP-2000 04:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it appears to be the name of a notable real estate development company [1], which has nothing to do with the target and isn't mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. If the LTA case is older than two days (when this redirect got created) it also qualifies as WP:CSD#G5. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 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.