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) 21:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Owww! → Arsenio Hall#Discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I do not believe why this page redirects to that article. It's also not mentioned in that section. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This is the title (or a misspelling) of a track on his album Large and In Charge. Searches show it spelled with three or four W's, and I don't know which is correct. - Eureka Lott 19:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per the information provided by Eureka Lott. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak delete. There's no mention of that track anywhere in enwiki. So, I guess it would be best to delete this. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The track was mentioned as a "minor hit" in the article about the album [1] when it was briefly in existence in 2008, but there's no mention anywhere now, there isn't likely be one soon, and if one were added that wouldn't be enough to justify a redirect: an article about an artist would typically mention dozens of productions, and each will probably share a name with other productions by different artists. Navigation for such minuscule topics is what the search engine is there for. – Uanfala (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[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 Tram#Battery. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Battery tram → Coventry Very Light Rail  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, is mentioned briefly at other articles. Deletion to allow for search results may be the best option here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Tram#Battery which has a short but comprehensive overview of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to the obvious Tram#Battery. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[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 dabify -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Gesellschaft (disambiguation) → Society (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RLOTE. None of the entries at the target appear to have any German affinity (nor are they otherwise known as Gesellschaft). Gesellschaft without a disambiguator points to Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, which would not be an appropriate target for a (disambiguation) redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Gesellschaft can be converted (back) into a dab page, looking something along the lines of:

Gesellschaft may refer to:

• Gesellschaft, the German word for "society"; used in English for a particular category of social relations (see Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft)
• Gesellschaft, company in German company law
• Die Gesellschaft (literary magazine) [de], a literary magazine published 1885–1902 by Michael Georg Conrad
• Die Gesellschaft (series) [de], a series of monographs published 1906–1912 by Martin Buber
• Die Gesellschaft (political magazine) [de], a political journal (1924–1933), successor of Die Neue Zeit

The first meaning is certainly the most prominent (so much so that it's got an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary), but there's also a fair number of incoming links for the second one (where it's not just the German word for 'company', it's a term in a particular legal framework that may not be 100% equivalent to the English one). – Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dabify per Uanfala. I have put a draft under the page. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Disambig per Wuhanfala and consider moving the disambiguation to the base title. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• John Adamsson → Juhani Aataminpoika  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, no matches in a google scholar search. Seems like a novel anglicization to me. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[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) 21:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Cooyon → 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[reply]

• Delete this and coo yon per nom. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Butt shaker → Tactile transducer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article. Also, "bass shaker" and "butt shaker" are not the same meaning. Bass shakers are tools that contain low-frequency vibrations on surfaces. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: This page should be retargeted to "Twerking". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep or Retarget to Subwoofer#Bass shakers which indicates that tactile transducers are called "butt shakers" and explains why. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[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 Mint sauce. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Mint jelly → Mentha#Culinary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Mint Jelly → Mint sauce  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Mint jelly and Mint Jelly both redirect to different articles, so I am not sure which article the redirect should target to. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (The RfD notice was missing from the second one, so I just added that). The second one actually has a brief mention (and bolded), but it seems to be pretty out-of-place. I'd favor redirecting to Mentha#Culinary, as the first one does, since that actually seems a more appropriate place to discuss it (and it does, briefly, along with a picture). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And thanks for doing that. (SN: The hatnote at the top of the article for the second redirect is of questionable notability, so I'm going to keep an extra eye on it.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Both redirects should target the same article. On the whole I prefer Mint sauce, with a better See also link to Mentha#Culinary (which should really be "Culinary uses", but I'd also be happy with the other choice. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Mint sauce. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As an American, I associate mint jelly with Southern cuisine, where it has the much thicker consistency of jello or preserves. Is this really the same mint jelly mentioned at Mint sauce? Cf. entry for "jelly" at List of words having different meanings in American and British English (A–L). --BDD (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to mint sauce. They are largely the same thing (a food dressing made with mint), and some sources regard mint jelly as the American term for mint sauce: [2], though in the UK we have both mint sauce and mint jelly. The jelly is a recent introduction (possibly from America) and is of course sweeter, and less minty and vinegary, but they are both used to accompany food (traditionally lamb). SilkTork (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[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 Garamond (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Garamond (typography) → Point (typography)#Traditional point-size names  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Garamond (typography)" is ambiguous and more likely to confuse people when it comes up on search than be a helpful redirect.

Garamond is a font design, and the name was also sometimes used as the name for 10pt metal type in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (in any style, but most commonly in the Netherlands, I think, where they actually spelled it Garmond). So it wouldn't be obvious to someone seeing this in the search box which of those topics this redirect is going to take them to. We also already have Garamond (disambiguation). I therefore propose deleting this redirect and replacing it with ones that are something like "Garamond (font size)" and "Garmond (font size)" which would redirect to traditional point-size names. Blythwood (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The section in the target article was moved to Traditional point-size names, where the Dutch name is still mentioned. Agree that this is too ambiguous and should be deleted. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Garamond (disambiguation) - I'm not sure how "too ambiguous" is a reason to delete when a disambiguation page exists. The disambiguation page of course mentions the font, and also has a section for "typography" which includes the article split from the current target. A7V2 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Garamond (disambiguation) (which I've cleaned up) and create any new redirects as required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget per above. ((R from incomplete disambiguation)) exists for situations like this. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[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. I'm also going to tag those redirect pages with Template:R from incorrect name as suggested. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ursicinus (Roman general) → Ursicinus (magister equitum)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ursicinus (Roman General) → Ursicinus (magister equitum)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete both. "General" is an anachronistic rank for the subject, and discouraged per WP:ROMANS. Unlikely to help with disambiguation since a disambiguation page already exists. Avis11 (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Seems in line with guidelines.★Trekker (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and tag with ((R from incorrect name)) (note that he's a member of two categories for generals). Sources such as Britannica and the Oxford Classical Dictionary refer to Ursicinus as a general, and this is a useful qualifier since most of the other notable people named Ursicinus were religious figures. ROMANS may be a fine reason to avoid referring to him as such, in the article text or title, but I can't see how removing these is anything but a disservice to readers. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[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.