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:Non free content#Policy. Participants are fairly split between not considering that this is an issue anyway, or retargeting to the actual policy page, or refining it to the section of the guideline that transcludes that same policy. Selecting the third of those options seems the most comfortable consensus to draw: it effectively provides the same information while mostly combining the advantages of the other two, while also potentially offering a better target if further policy pages end up being mentioned in that section. ~ mazca ^talk 18:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Non-free content policy → Wikipedia:Non-free content  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target is a guideline not a policy and its misleading 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak retarget There is a literal section on the target page called "policy", so it should be redirected to there. Otherwise, why does it matter that a redirect with "policy" in the name redirects to a guideline? JJP...MASTER!...MASTER!!! master of puppets, i'm pulling your strings (0-3-5)'_{[talk about or to] JJP... master? master? where's the dreams that i've been after (0-3-6-5)} 22:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are actually two main pages related to non-free content: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:NFC) and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC). The first page is a guideline type of page, but the second is a policy type of page. The two pages are highly related with some of overlapping content WP:NFC#Policy just transcludes the NFCC page; so, if the redirect target is truly a problem, it can be changed to WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which is actually a policy. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Pppery. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but refine to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy. I honestly do not see any problem with the current target, given that the article features a section about a policy, which is what this redirect is obviously referring to. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section itself is a transclusion of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Please click [edit] on the cited policy section to verify. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plausible alternative title. Aasim (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This page is not a policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not about whether it is policy or not; it is that people are likely to search for this title when looking for NFC or NFCC. I oppose deletion of this redirect. Also, that page has multiple policies included in it. Aasim (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  that page has multiple policies included in it. Name them. I can only see WP:NFCC transcluded in the guideline. I oppose deletion of the redirect too, see my !vote. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to Wikipedia:Non free content#Policy. While that is functionally equivalent at the moment to retargetting to the non-free content criteria, refining rather than retargetting will mean that this is still correct if we ever enact additional or replacement policy regarding non-free content, or if the criteria are no longer presented as the only aspect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 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 delete Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unkown Reality → Seth Material  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete A third example of this species; the two others are also nom'd for deletion, lower on this page. Implausible. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Unkown Reality" is not mentioned, and if it's a spelling error of "Unknown Reality" then it's no more likely than the omission of any other letter. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Narky Blert (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete on this one. Unkown is a common typo (about 26 from doing a search on "unkown" today; more stuff to work on I guess), but this would be more useful if the book mentioned has a major section in the article instead of just being listed at the bottom in the bibliography. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned out most of the typos but unkown is still used as a sic in multiple articles, just not for this book title. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:01, 10 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 delete as too implausible to be helpful. ~ mazca ^talk 12:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The known unkown → The Unknown Known  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, implausible, similar to the below nom., though this one "features" miscapitalisations, word transposition in addition to the misspelling. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No media titles for The Known Unknown at this point. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible misspelling this deep into the string, useless clutter. Also, "known unknown" and "unknown known" are mutually exclusive sets by simple logic. Narky Blert (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As a spelling error it's no more likely than the omission of any other letter. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 7 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 proposal withdrawn. wbm1058 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Daughter of the Heartland → Joni Ernst  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Promotional redirect; not mentioned in the target biography. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add mention in the article since it's a memoir released this year.[1] AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @AngusWOOF: She is the daughter of Marilyn and Richard Culver. If you promptly add cited content that talks about her "memoir" which was conveniently released when she was running for reelection, I'll withdraw my !vote for deletion. Otherwise, I still think this should be deleted. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wbm1058,  Done It's in the Personal life section for now, but if you think it can move to the Senator section or a Publications section as with Bernie Sanders, that would be okay too. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:44, 10 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 delete. There's a consensus that, while there is no specific issue with potentially drafting an article on the 2028 election, it's unhelpfully misleading to redirect it to a different one. ~ mazca ^talk 12:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:2028 United States presidential election → Draft:2024 United States presidential election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:SURPRISE. Nothing useful in the history. Suspect the editor is trying to receive credit for creation, ~8 years from now (though TBF there is no policy that is violated by that) UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep thanks for notifying me. It is a draft space where it can be expanded upon. It is a place for incubation. Also, suspicions of wanting to take credit is not a reason to delete something. Starzoner (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to prevent you from getting started on the draft, and then making sure it is edited every six months between now and when it becomes an article. But it should not be a redirect. For comparison, we already have 2028 Summer Olympics, for example. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until there's something that can be usefully written about it as WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe there needs to be some rules about when to create the next election event draft article and the one after that. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a misleading redirect to an unrelated election. It may give the impression that there is already a draft for this election when in reality there is not. Deleting would actually encourage such a draft to be created, where it could then be expanded upon and incubated. A redirect does not accomplish this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There's no strong connection between these two elections beyond the chronological part. We know nothing about this election at the moment, and I guess there's an off chance it might not happen for whatever reason. This doesn't help anything, and just clogs up what almost certainly will be a needed title in the future. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The redirect has no connection to either of the elections - neither 2020, 2024, nor 2028. Redirect should be deleted to avoid misunderstandings, the draft article can be developed if the creator wishes. Less Unless (talk) 17:37, 13 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 disambiguate -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sylwester Zawadzki → Christ the King Statue, Świebodzin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is Sylwester who is a priest https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylwester_Zawadzki_(ksi%C4%85dz) and another one who is a Supreme Administrative Court of Poland President. Redirect is confusing. Andrei (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate, as it may not be the only thing being looked for.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate using the draft (noting the Polish priest and the person associated with the statue are the same person). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per SNSL. Both have well-sourced articles in Polish WP, and should pass our WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ((hndis)) Lembit Staan (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since no primary target; we don't normally have hn dab pages if there is no stand-alone article in English WP on a person having the name. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes we do. I've seen ((hndis)) pages with no bluelink other than a WP:DABMENTION on each line, and so we should have. They help searching. They also help DABfixers. I've lost count of the number of times I've solved DABfixing problems by the simple expedient of clicking on an InterWiki link and finding the answer at once. (I've also lost count of the number of times where I've solved a DAbfixing problem by googling in Latin or Cyrillic script to find a DAB page in another language with a separate Wikidata entry. That's specialist, messy and unnecessary. I've given up trying to combine them; Wikidata procedures for combining two entries are fiddly, and like as not you'll find yourself reverted with some such argument as "an SIA is not the same as a DAB page" even if the overlap is near 100%.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:03, 9 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 disambiguate per WP:SNOW: clear consensus. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Elections in Georgia → Elections in Georgia (country)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear why this is a redirect to Elections in Georgia (country) instead of a disambiguation page listing it and Elections in Georgia (U.S. state). Propose creating that disambiguation page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this seems helpful as you could be looking for either. YellowSkarmory (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per above. Compare e.g. Government of Georgia. Oh, and correct the links in to reduce the workload on load-suffering DABfixers. Narky Blert (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "load-suffering"? "long-suffering"! Narky Blert (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've fixed most, but left a few for the gnomenjoyment of others. – Uanfala (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate as proposed above. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate: As proposed above. Aasim (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate as above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate - Pretty obvious, there's no primary topic for Georgia. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow disambiguate per all. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate I've seen other cases confusing Georgia state and Georgia country. Disambiguation is the way out here.Less Unless (talk) 09:17, 8 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 delete Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Implausible misspelling with only 60 pageviews between November 2019 and October 2020 See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_1#Uknown_God. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Narky Blert (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not much more to add.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and that autocorrect would not lead to this either. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC) updated 18:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for Uknown have only found one reference to a typoed legal court case. Needs more sics as with "ukown" to show usefulness as a typo. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "not a typo" for Uknown at UTV Tamil, should it redirect there with hatnote to Unknown? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Maybe I am one of the few to argue keep, but I think this is a plausible target. If someone's "N" key is not functioning correctly, it is possible to end up typing "Uknown". Sure this redirect does not get a lot of views, but there is no harm in keeping it. That other RfD seems more implausible. If this is an ambiguous spelling error, I'd say delete, but it is pretty clear what this redirect is trying to say. Aasim (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the N key don't work properly, then "unknown" would become "ukow"! --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a keep if there are a number of sic uses in the articles. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dlete – Iplausible msspelling. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to UTV Tamil per AngusWOOF, add ((redirect-distinguish)) hatnote there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless we can find some better justification for that UTV Tamil retarget. I simply cannot find any reference, reliable or otherwise, to those channels being called "Uknown", outside of that page. Given the overall poor English of the page, I'm not actually convinced it isn't a typo despite the template. ~ mazca ^talk 13:32, 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.