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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned in target. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is apparently an Australian-English pejorative, but it isn't mentioned anywhere on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per OcelotCreeper below. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Also used in American English, it doesn't always have a single set definition. Deletion is probably best. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to wiktionary, which has a definition for dipwad. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and create new section. This is the second such recent redirect request I can recall - an alternative name for idiot. So I looked up to see if there are others: [1] - so we have Dunder head, Dimwit, Dolt, etc. And we have individual Wikitionary definitions for these terms: dimwit, dolt, dunderhead, so they are legitimate alternative names. If we have a Wikipedia article for the concept of being stupid, then per WP:OTHERNAMES we should redirect alternative titles to the article we have on the concept, and where appropriate create a section on the alternative names. These are reasonable alternative names, and we can add more, such as fool, oaf, retard, bonehead, etc, to make consistent the random manner in which we currently treat these terms. At the moment we either create redirects, or articles: Retard (pejorative), or disamb pages in which we briefly define the main usage Bonehead which may not be the usage the reader is looking for, or disamb pages in which the term is not explained directly, but in which links to other articles may randomly take the reader to a page which may give some understanding of what it is they are looking for Oaf→Changeling and Fool→Foolishness/Stupidity. Finding Stupidity, I'm now thinking that we should in fact be redirecting Idiot to Stupidity and merging the content. So, Dipwad, and all the other terms relating to stupidity, should redirect to Stupidity and a section created there to discuss the various alternative names. As I have proposed this, I would be prepared to do the work if there is consensus. SilkTork (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a valid pejorative. If it's not mentioned in Idiot, then that should be remedied along with adding all the other pejoratives SilkTork mentioned, plus Eejit, Cooyon, Dunderhead, and Addlehead which were all nominated around the same time. Normal Op (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or soft redirect per WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia's stupidity article does not need an Urban Dictionary section listing a bunch of random terms of abuse for stupid people. Note e.g. how the obesity article does not mention lardball, fatass, landwhale, etc. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:34, 16 October 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 Disc jockey. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page should be retargeted to Disc jockey because the target was recently changed to that page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• retarget per nom. When you type "deejay" into Google, the first dictionary result says Disc jockey, the edit should have been reverted, as Deejay (Jamaican) is clearly less notable than Disc jockey. The hatnots on both pages more than suffice to point confused readers in the right direction. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Disc jockey as it has been before. Clear primary topic. Deejay (disambiguation) covers the variants. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:07, 13 October 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, but retarget to Development nevertheless. Despite the affirmative consensus for retargeting, there's no support for the status quo, and we generally favor alternatives to deletion. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I propose retargetting to the disambiguation page Development. Cheers, gnu57 16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. The adjective "developed" can apply to all sorts of things; including, perhaps most obviously, photographic films. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This adjective is common and too vague to deserve a specific redirect. Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The adjective is too vague and too common to deserve either a DAB or redirect. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If users are searching for developed countries, they will type that in. I absolutely oppose the redirect proposed by nom. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:03, 12 October 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 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jungle (2011 film) → Silent Valley (2012 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Silent Vally was originally called "Jungle", but there is no mention about 2011 in that target. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the earliest revisions of the article all refer to an expected release of 2011, but it seems to have slipped. Sometimes this can be a good reason to keep the wrong year redirects, it depends on how much publicity the original planned release date got but I've run out of time to investigate whether that is the case with this film or not right now. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Two speculative elements make this a bit too far for my taste, though the speculation seems to have been appropriate and not WP:CRYSTAL-violating. We don't have Silent Valley (2011 film) or Jungle (2012 film), and I'd expect at least one of those to exist if this were plausible. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 20 October 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:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:TF → Wikipedia:Targeted flagging  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Common shortcuts like this should not target a proposed or failed proposal. They should be retargeted to an established guideline. I suggest retargeting this redirect to WP:TASKFORCE. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as per nom. "TF" is a plausible abbreviation for taskforce. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While this does not have many uses, only one of the uses that are not mistakes or lists of shortcuts clearly intend to refer to the current target, and that one use intended Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers (WP:WPTF), which will fix shortly, not taskforces. We always need to be very conservative when retargetting shortcut redirects (as explained to the nominator on multiple previous occasions) and absent any clear need for something else to take this redirect and no evidence of confusion the harm caused by breaking the links that are currently correct outweighs any potential benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We DON'T have to be conservative on low-used shortcuts. We have to be conservative on high-used shortcuts. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes we do have to be conservative about all shortcut redirects (especially as "high" and "low" use is very subjective - experience shows that Tavix and I have very different interpretations for example). That doesn't mean we should never change them, it just means we need to be extra careful as retargetting a shortcut can have serious consequences for existing and future uses and so changes must never be done lightly. I don't think that the change is beneficial in this case, but it is in some other cases. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. I agree that it does not make sense to have a shortcut like this pointing to a failed proposal that never became established when there are active targets where the shortcut can actually be useful moving forward. Both taskforces and Transformers fit that description, but taskforces have a wider appeal. Of course, hatnotes should be employed to clear up any potential confusion, but with how little usage the current target has I do believe any confusion would be negligible. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate since there are at least 3 options (Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers was the original target) although there aren't many links to it a DAB page would seem OK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with creating a disambiguation page is then it wouldn't be useful as a shortcut for any of the potential pages since it would require you to click through the dab. It defeats the purpose of having a shortcut in the first place. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces per Tavix, with a hatnote to the Transformers project and maybe to the failed proposal. I agree we need to balance access against the way disambiguation dilutes shortcuts, and that failed proposals should usually have very low priority. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 20 October 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 Southern United States. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 13:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The american south → South America  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It sure seems like this is more likely to refer to the Southern United States to me, although I am a US citizen, so maybe I'm biased. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Indeed. American South and several similar redirects already point there. In fact, it pointed there until an IP from Rio de Janeiro retargeted it to Southern America in July. (Then a bot fixed the double redirect.) The same user also retargeted American South and American south, which were respectively reverted by Betty Logan (talk · contribs) and a Southampton IP. The former redirect has existed since 2003. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that they had since been moved back to the South America article by a different IP from Rio (likely the same person). I reverted that since such a change from a long standing redirect shouldn’t be done unilaterally especially if it’s already been contested. It may be prudent to keep an eye out since possible that they will do this again.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they do do it again then we can semi-protect them (request at WP:RFPP). Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per above. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 14 October 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. It's been a month and two relists and still pretty deadlocked, gonna call it here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unanimity criterion → Arrow's impossibility theorem  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, a Google Scholar search suggests that this phrase may be used in a number of contexts. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it is mentioned at the target: “Pareto efficiency, or unanimity” in a list of criteria is about the unanimity criterion. —JBL (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I don't know how meaningful this will be to readers not already familiar with the concept, but it's a pretty arcane one to begin with. The only use of the phrase on Wikipedia is Proportionality for Solid Coalitions, where it links this redirect. Yes, other systems could theoretically have a criterion of unanimity, but I'd need to see such ambiguity demonstrated before I'd worry. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'd expect a more explicit mention if kept as-is. Unanimity is a different article, and within the article it describes different criteria for reaching unanimity in certain scenarios. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I only know of the unanimity criterion as part of Arrow's theorem, and without other plausible targets I'm not willing to delete an accurate redirect for ambiguity. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:55, 20 October 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 17:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorcerer's World → Superman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

First, the term is not mentioned in the current target article at all, second, it is a title of a notable book by Damien Broderick (mentioned for example in [2]), so perhaps it should be a disambig, if there even is a Superman-related article to include. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 12 October 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 Human nature. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 13:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nature of humankind → Christian anthropology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current redirect is too narrow, the nature of humankind is hardly limited to Christian studies or even religious studies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Human nature. Simple as that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Human nature per LaundryPizza, as that article seems to cover the whole shebang of this concept. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:47, 12 October 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 17:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Word not found in target article. See talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's an article on the Swedish Wikipedia (which does look sourced) I don't see why it can't exist here though its not clear if it meets WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't a GEOLAND issue; it's just a pejorative name for Stockholm. Apparently the consensus at the talk page there was not to include any information about this, so a redirect there is still inappropriate. On a side note, due to the socking issue, there's no need to preserve the history here, so if some form of keeping is decided, I'd still recommend deleting and then recreating, even in that case. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The redirect was created (as a redirect) in 2015 by User:Yzmo and the only different in content between then and today is the RFD template[3] so unless you're suggesting revision deletion which seems pointless there doesn't seem any need to delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was the name in the article then? If not, why was there this redirect? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are not only used when articles mention the term, hence ((R without mention)). No one has indicated that this term is ambiguous, so its creation may have been a good faith attempt to remove a redlink. —Ost (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If possible, the articles to which the redirects point should be edited to include a mention of the redirect title, keeping in mind verifiability and reliable sources." quote from ((R without mention)) if one cares to study that confusing topic more carefully. We are not (not) free to create redirects of words not mentioned in articles just because we find them cutesy-wootsy or (worse) because they appeal to some discriminatory prejudice or hatred that we think should be promoted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's really best to treat Category:Redirects to an article without mention as a maintenance category. (Addendum: I'm not sure I realized it actually is a maintenance category! That just reinforces my point, though.) --BDD (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps this could be the first European entry on List of disparaging nicknames for settlements? --BDD (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to have people start leaving all kinds of unsourced names there that are as subjectively homophobic and sarcastically hateful as this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sarcasm is not helpful. Of course pejorative names should not be used without proper sourcing. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there's proper sourcing that indicates this has nontrivial historical use, then adding it to the list and pointing as a ((R to list entry)) to the list seems reasonable. —Ost (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if there is not proper sourcing that indicates this has nontrivial historical use? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deletion then. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 16 October 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.