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 Mordor#The Black Gate. Withdrawn by nominator now that a mention has been added. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 20:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Carchost and Narchost → Middle-earth#Geography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Considering that there are no references to Carchost on enwiki, and the only references to Narchost are at an obscure album page, I don't think a redirect with both names in the title is useful. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mordor#The Black Gate where they are described, and are now named. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 6 September 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 00:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ninglor → Middle-earth#Geography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Enwiki has no content about this rather obscure fictional river. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:40, 7 September 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 Sexual abuse#Positions of power. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sexual abuse by priests → Catholic Church sexual abuse cases  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Catholicism is not the only religion to have priests, so this does not seem to be the best target. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget - At this point I'm not sure where to retarget. Such a redirect is grossly inaccurate and misleading. There are more than a few documented cases of non-Catholic clergy who have sexually abused, including Episcopal priests. The redirect makes the assumption that all clergy sex abuse cases are in the Catholic church, which is not only inaccurate, it's prejudicial. Sundayclose (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion below to retarget to Sexual abuse#Positions of power. Sundayclose (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note that there are a number of other non-Catholic-specific redirects to the target page, and note also that Sexual abuse by priests in the United States (and several other terms) redirects to Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Sexual abuse#Positions of power, which mentions several religions/denominations whose leaders are usually called "priests". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:12, 8 September 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 00:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hanging a rat → Mooning  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be an obscure slang term. Urban Dictionary says this is exposing the genitals, which is slightly different than mooning. I also turned up a hit suggesting this is a slang term for defecation, most of the other results were about literally hanging a rat. Since this is obscure and doesn't seem to have a fixed meaning, deletion seems to be the best course of action here. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No need to collect all neologisms. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:10, 6 September 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ajania pacifica → Chrysanthemum pacificum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I bought some plants marked "Ajania pacifica" and came to look them up. But Ajania pacifica is a redirect to Chrysanthemum pacificum. That article says its subject belongs to the genus Chrysanthemum, but Ajania pacifica is listed at Ajania, a different genus, as one of that genus's species. Are they the same species or not? Help! Largoplazo (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. IPNI says that A. pacifica is a junior synonym of C. pacificum (link), and that's good enough for me. Narky Blert (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If they're the same species, they have to belong to the same genus, no? Yet we have separate articles for genera Chrysanthemum and Ajania. Largoplazo (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IPNI says Chrysanthemum pacificum is the basionym. I'm looking up Basionym. The section on Combinatio nova suggests that I'm correct: if the classification was changed from C. pacificum to A. pacifica, it means that the species was reclassified out of Chrysanthemum and into Ajania. This means that, whatever title it's under on Wikipedia, the article about the species should assign it to the genus Ajanica. In turn, that means that the information currently displayed at Chrysanthemum pacificum is incorrect. We have two choices: only correct that page so that it shows Ajanica as the genus, which would be confusing to all; or rename the article accordingly as well, and reverse the redirection. Largoplazo (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could @Plantdrew: help us out please? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:08, 1 September 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 withdrawn since I am not convinced this discussion is counterproductive, and this redirect should probably remain. (That, and I failed to bundle this with a few similar redirects.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Super Mario 64 Glitches → Super Mario 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Was originally a redirect towards an external link. Either way, there is no such list of information in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a paragraph and half of prose about glitches at Super Mario 64#Impact and legacy (second and third last paragraphs). I don't know whether that's enough to make this a useful redirect, but the nom's reference to a list is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. It just seems with a title like that being search, the reader would be looking for an organized section and/or list with such information. Besides the section you referenced mentioning glitches in passing twice, there's no such detailed breakdown of information as referenced in this redirect that exists at the target in a way where readers may be confident they have found what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A redirect since 2005 that additionally does have some brief mention in target? I'm not really a fan of deleting such a redirect. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 6 September 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. A majority of editors argued keep, but late participants seem to skew towards delete; I'm not seeing a clear consensus and I think that this is unlikely to draw further productive discussion at RfD. It may be advisable to try to form a consensus at a more technically-oriented board. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Usemdydates → Template:Use mdy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Template:Usemdy → Template:Use mdy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Template:Usedmy → Template:Use dmy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Request for deletion for technical reasons. These redirects are unused alias names for the two canonical templates ((Use mdy dates)) and ((Use dmy dates)). In order to perform auto-date formatting, our CS1/CS2 citation templates have to scan an article for these template names. If the template is placed at the top of an article this is fast, but if a template name is not found, this decreases the performance in large articles with many citations. Therefore and also for maintenance reasons (the set of valid template names needs to be communicated and synchronized with other templates and bots), the number of template names the citation templates have to search for should be as small as reasonably possible. The three aliases nominated for deletion above were only ever used in a few dozens of articles (and these instances have since been replaced by invocations of the canonical template names), that is, they are no longer used nor needed. Even after deletion of these three redirects, the CS1/CS2 citation templates will continue to support a comprehensive list of alias names, so this will have no impact on user convenience at all. However, the code could be (slightly) simplified and we would reach the following fully symmetrical list of supported names:

• Use dmy dates / Use mdy dates
• Use DMY dates / Use MDY dates
• Use dmy / Use mdy
• Use DMY / Use MDY
• dmy / mdy
• DMY / MDY

Therefore, I ask for the three redirects to be deleted. Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A better solution is to have a bot that fixes these and include rules in semi-automated editors like AWB that replaces them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Aren't these already "fixed" per the nom? And wouldn't this just shift workload from the CSX template to a bot instead of eliminating the work outright? Unless the concern is people continuing to use them, but isn't a big red "Template:XXX" link a good enough warning to try again?
  This would be a good solution if you're saying to have a bot update ALL of the above list to a single template, though. Ping @Koavf: for clarification. -2pou (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand your second question. My proposal is just: Have a bot account that replaces "usemdy" with "use mdy". It's that simple. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. I was thinking that going a step further would ease the CS1/2 template work even more. More complex bot logic, but probably an overall benefit for the CS1/2 templates. -2pou (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, do you volunteer to implement the bot and keep it running for the next few decades? ;-) Would it be a solution we can depend on long-term?

I mean, what is the benefit of increasing the complexity, distributing a solution over several users to keep fixing something forever that could be avoided in the first place?

It took (me) more than a year of complaints and communication to have support for the |cs1-dates= parameter be integrated into bots like IABot or Citation Bot (hopefully this has now been implemented correctly, eventually), which were messing up date formats. Everyone implements the regexes differently leading to implementations acting differently in the corner cases. All this takes so much more time than to just reduce the complexity to something simple and without external dependencies.

Nevertheless, I would agree with you if the three nominated aliases would be in frequent use or would be particularly intuitive to use. However, they were almost not used at all (compared to the canonical forms, which are used hundreds of thousands of times). So, all this complexity would be added for something that isn't actually used, anyway.

Either way, nobody keeps you from running your proposed fix-up tool even if it would act on red links. I would really applaud this, but I would not like to have any dependencies added to an already complex situation...

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Keep all. For the most part, redirects in the "Template:" namespace are WP:CHEAP, and these are no exception. Since these template names essentially match their targets and/or a redirect targeting the target (see ((Use dmy)) and ((Use mdy))), these redirects also serve as plausible search terms to arrive at their targets. Deletion here benefits no one when the incoming redirects are viable search terms, regardless how many incoming redirects its target page may have in its identical namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I would normally agree, but if you read my rationale above, these are "special" due to the way the citation template has to scan the whole contents of an article for these strings, and the longer the list is, the longer it takes to either find a match or give up eventually. This happens for each citation in an article and over the whole contents of the article, that's why the normal rule of redirects being cheap does not apply here.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then ... as much as I don't like saying something like this ... the citation template needs to be updated somehow to accommodate and/or bypass redirects. First and foremost, redirects are supposed to serve as navigation aids, with their de facto utility functions of being transclusion redirects second. I just can't agree with deterring navigation for one specific item that may benefit from it which is incompatible with the purpose of redirects in the first place. Koavf's suggestion may be a plausible alternative in lieu of finding a way to update the template(s) to remedy the technical issues referenced in the nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Somehow". Unfortunately, that's technically impossible - the conceptual design of the MediaWiki software does not allow for this. If this could be done "somehow", we would have all kinds of auto-formatting templates for other stuff as well, leading to a significantly improved user experience. But the only way for CS1/CS2 citation templates to retrieve date format information at all is to feed the whole content of the article containing a citation through a list of pattern matching regexes. Since templates cannot act outside of their own context and there is no such thing as article-wide variables, each citation template has to do it on its own again. Now, think about large articles (>100k) with many citations (>100) in combination with date template alias names (or no date template at all)... This can sometimes lead to megabytes of data being processed to retrieve some seemingly trivial info as the desired date format, so any alias name we don't need to take into account (because it's not used anyway) helps. I thought the remaining list would be comprehensive enough for real-world purposes...

An alternative to the deletion of these three redirects would be to make them "dummies" displaying a big message box that the wrong template name has been entered and a link to the correct one. This way, users entering the wrong template name would be immediately alerted to the situation, but we would still not have to support the alias name in the citation template. (However, as 2pou suggests, just running into a red link would probably have the same effect without having to keep zombies of these aliases around.)

I am generally a proponent of redirects for all kinds of useful applications and support ideas such as WP:CHEAP. However, this is one of the very few cases where deletion is IMHO the better solution. It reduces the complexity on various levels (technical, communication overhead, future maintenance etc.), does not add new dependencies, and has, IMO, no drawbacks as these redirects are not used anyway.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pretty sound technical reason to do so, and there are plenty of alternatives that make more sense anyway. Will strike !vote, if the proposed bot is for ALL variations, though, effectively reducing the CSX template work to a single pair of templates. -2pou (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Matthiaspaul: maybe a WP:BOTREQ would be better after all, although, I might even take it a step further than what Koavf|Justin suggested. Have the bot also replace ((DMY)) → ((Use dmy dates)), ((mdy)) → ((Use mdy dates)) , etc. This way the CS1/2 template work only have to scan for ((Use dmy dates / Use mdy dates)). The navigational aids that Steel1943 is concerned with would still be in place as well. There would be a time gap between someone inserting a template variant (such as ((MDY))) and the bot updating it to what CS1/2 uses, but in this gap, what's the worst that happens? The date is displayed in the reference section incorrectly until the bot comes around. I guess there is potential for people complaining that it's not properly displaying right away... -2pou (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for the "risks" if the alias isn't fixed up in short time; I think, dates being displayed in the wrong format would be tolerable for a couple of hours (although it may unnecessarily confuse some users). But if the list of project-wide accepted alias names is properly synchronized with date-formatting bots (IABot, CB, etc.), as is desirable, these bots would mess up the dates in citations - this would be really annoying, IMO. Keeping the RfDed aliases supported in the code would avoid this, but at the drawback of an unnecessary performance penalty in large articles with many citations and one of the alias names (or no "Use xyz dates" template at all) being used (or while being in article section preview).

The idea of this proposal was to reduce avoidable complexity (avoidable, because these redirects are not used and are unlikely to be entered because of the missing space in the name) instead of adding new (and even external) dependencies. Based on my experience, my trust in bots is limited; they are useful at times, but they require an operator and someone monitoring them long-term. AWB won't do the job as there is no guarantee that someone using AWB would come around to fix up an alias name in deterministic time. For Justin's bot proposal to work reliably and long-term, it would have to work not as a loosely clutched-on thing but almost as a background process, so that it could be guaranteed that the alias get's fixed up in deterministic time (say 4 hours max.). As we all are volunteers (and mortal), what if a bot operator will no longer be around at some point in the future? There are tasks where we have to bite the bullet of accepting these extra dependencies because there are no other options (like on-submit-filters not blocking but processing data, or truely integrated server-side background processes, both accessible at least to template editors) to get the job done at all at present. But in this case, I don't think the overhead and involved risks of the bot no longer working at some point in the future are necessary to accept. Realistically, would the encyclopedia as a project really lose something without these three redirects? I doubt it.

Nevertheless, AWB or a bot-based fix-up task could be implemented and run. That would certainly be great. But this would work also if these three redirects are red links. You know, for as long as these redirects actually exist, there is some urge to support them in the code base for a proper implementation. I had hoped that the remaining list of aliases would be comprehensive enough for our purposes.

Taking Steel's concerns into account, what would you think about "salting" these alias names by changing these redirects to display a message box instead? This would eliminate the dependency from a bot (although it could still be run occasionally to canonicalize the names), satisfy the navigational aid aspect, and still would result in a cleaner (and fully symmetric) list of aliases (instead of some ad-hoc list) to be properly documented and communicated across the project and necessary to be supported in date-formatting templates and bots.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IMO, at this point, these questions seem more appropriately posted on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). These statements are a bit more that the scope of WP:RFD contributors can handle. (My "keep" opinion remains unchanged.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per Steel1943. As is my usual response to nominations like these, the correct solution is to improve the tools so they deal with the encyclopaedia as they find it rather than to change the encyclopaedia to suit the tool. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting three unused redirects is hardly "changing the encyclopedia", I would think... The sky is not falling.

I would never have brought forward the proposal to delete these few redirects if other options of "improving the tools" would not have been maxed out. Actually, I consider improving the performance and attempting to reach a less quirky design and a cleaner (and symmetrical) interface as a basis for other improvements as "improving the tools" as well, because the extra complexity of adding a clutch (a bot task) on a clutch (the way auto-formatting unfortunately has to retrieve date format info due to lacking features in the underlying MediaWiki software) is unnecessarily lowering chances of those limitations ever to be resolved. To me, trading in three unused redirects for this appeared (and still appears) like a good compromise - apparently not to everyone...

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: They have no benefit over the real templates but they complicate things for the bots. No plus side. Increased bugs for bots. Increased CPU usage time for bots.  Stepho  talk  22:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration doesn't work that way. See mw.loadData().

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed per Ttm, this description is incorrect: ... each citation template has to do it on its own again is incorrect. The date module processes the article and then the actual calling module calls that only once per page (so far as we understand how loadData interacts here).

  That said, I don't find the opposition above persuasive. Each regex added to the module is more or less "expensive" and should be scrutinized accordingly for performance. In this case, the templates being sought by the module have and always will be for metadata; their existence as separate pages is only coincidental to document their use. "Cheap" I do not see these redirects as. I see deletion as reasonable here.

  The other thing that can be done would be for the module regex not to support these redirects. I have no qualms with that approach if that is preferable. (Or removing auto date formatting as well, but positive reception to that one has been surprising.)

  Overall, delete.

  --Izno (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Above, it is suggested that a bot task be created to 'fix' these redirects. I suspect that such a task will fail at WP:BRFA because WP:COSMETICBOT. AWB has as one of its general fixes WP:AWB/TR which has rules for the ((use xxx dates)) redirects. I have updated those rules so that I think they accurately reflect the current state of the redirects. The primary user of these templates is User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM_dates.js which has a function ohc_use_dates_template() that rewrites redirect names to the canonical ((use xxx dates)) form whenever the script is run.—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:13, 6 September 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 00:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Die.net → Man page  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not discussed at the target and possibly spam. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.die.net is the URL for a site that hosts a number of projects, including but not limited to a repository of Linux man pages. I'm not sure that makes it spam, but I'm not certain that makes it either notable or, if notable, that it should just redirect to man page. Guy Harris (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not mentioned at target; therefore not providing any relevant information to the reader. Note that redirects don't necessarily have to be notable by themselves. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:26, 5 September 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shahjalal → Shahjalal International Airport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This has redirected to the Shahjalal International Airport (as a short name redirect) for 10 years. mahir256 suggests Shah Jalal instead. The airport receives twice as many views,so that may be the better target (and there is a hatnote there linking to the saint). Another possibility is to make a dab page here and list the other places starting with this name, but those are all PTMs (like the airport). MB 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as primary topic. There is now a new disambiguation page at Shah Jalal (disambiguation) and I have amended hatnotes at Shahjalal International Airport and Shah Jalal. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 6 September 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) 16:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Nina Kapur → 2020 in American television  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a plausible search term since we already have a Nina Kapur redirect to the target article. There is no significant history in this draft and no one will search for a draft here since it is unlikely Kapur will ever have her own article per the AfD and RfD 108.41.60.144 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Either keep per WP:RDRAFT since Nina Kapur contains the edit history previously at Draft:Nina Kapur per this edit with the draft article in the history of Nina Kapur being found in this revision. Or, Restore the aforementioned revision on Nina Kapur and move it back to Draft:Nina Kapur, then restore Nina Kapur as a redirect towards 2020 in American television. I don't have a preference for either one, given the AfD's existence. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the redirect in draftspace with no history; a separate decision cn be made on what to do with the mainspace redirect after this one is deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as it's not actually pointing to where the draft went anymore, so it doesn't seem to be actually helping anyone. The article remains in the page history of the mainspace redirect - given the subject is dead and unlikely to get more notable, if we were to restore it to draftspace, it would just get deleted down the line as a stale draft anyway. ~ mazca ^talk 13:01, 21 September 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 Wiktionary redirect. Nominally no consensus, but no one seems happy with the status quo and soft redirect appears to have a slight numeric majority _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

It doesn't seem as though the redirect's only and/or primary meaning is the target article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, what do you suggest? Robert Daoust (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft retarget to Wiktionary. It's not just an antonym of pleasure; see the obsolete but important meaning #3. Narky Blert (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  (Linking Wiktionary:displeasure for reference.) Steel1943 (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Such a soft retarget seems good. Robert Daoust (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to enable uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uninhibited? The search box always gives the option, just below the box when you start writing a word, of looking for "containing..." Robert Daoust (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (and unlink the 2 extant incoming links). Soft Wiktionary redirects are a little iffy to begin with, but especially so here because this is a very ordinary word. Remember that leaving the default search result behavior gives the Wiktionary result immediately at the upper right. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect "ordinary" words that will be searched in an encyclopaedia but for which an encyclopaedia article is not possible are some of the most useful redirects to Wiktionary, and this is not an exception to that. Search results are unpredictable and are sometimes several clicks away (depending on how you search or browse to this title). The soft redirect template provides direct access to the dictionary entry for those who want that and to the search results for those who don't making it significantly preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 27 August 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 00:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Famous Bowl → KFC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. KFC does sell Famous Bowl. However, I don't know if we should delete or add a section for it. Seventyfiveyears at 00:41, 29 August 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. No indication has been provided as to how this is relevant to the target. ~ mazca ^talk 12:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: seems 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC) xfdvote bug, see Special:Permalink/977010352#Publishing old text[reply]
• Delete: if you look this up (probably not safe for work), you will only get unrelated results making this seem like spam. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:52, 6 September 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 00:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Digital director → Art director  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'm fine with a delete here since I can conceive of other intended uses for digital. --Izno (talk) 20:58, 7 September 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 would have been a consensus to redirect to TrumpVirus, but that article was deleted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Trumpvirus → COVID-19 pandemic in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's not Wikipedia's job to legitimize politically pejorative neologisms. "Trump virus" was already deleted; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 28#Trump virus. I will note, however, that I found this after seeing the new article at TrumpVirus. I've also nominated that for deletion. If that survives, this can certainly be retargeted there, but if it doesn't, this should still be deleted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to TrumpVirus and delete if that target is deleted. I note that Trump virus doesn't exist, but a disambiguated version (not Donald-related) Trump virus (Wild Cards) does exist, which is a bit odd. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget: for now; if the article is deleted, this will be, too, so no need for a separate discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: The proposed retarget has now been deleted; so I guess it's safe to delete this? I was hoping to use this nom to address that contingency: delete or revert to the original target, which I'd still gather there's consensus to delete. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since the proposed target has now been deleted. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:22, 12 September 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 00:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Two Cities protests → George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Two Cities riots → George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete . Minneapolis–Saint Paul is not known as "Two Cities" (and does not appear at disambiguation page Two Cities). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Two cities is not a term used in place of twin cities. Natureium (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. These can refer to any two cities, and for that matter any riots within two given cities. Regards, SONIC678 18:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Virtually no one is using these anyway.[1] - Station1 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: highly ambiguous. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jax 0677: WP:ASTONISH clearly outweighs that. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A Google search for this exact string mostly brings up references to some of the French Revolution stuff in A Tale of Two Cities as well as a few hits about incidents in Israel. Not looking like this is a probable search term for this topic. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:46, 5 September 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 00:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• TOoS → On the Origin of Species  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, implausible acronym of the book. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm finding examples of this in lists of acronyms so it's not completely implausible, but there are so many other related uses of "toos" (google is case insensitive) that I'm unable to determine whether it is actually used or not, and the existence of Evolution: The Origin of Species (a board game which is abbreviated "Evolution:TOOS") really doesn't help with that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find no use in Enwiki of this capitalisation, and there is no use at the disambiguation page Toos. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Google NGrams (2019) finds basically no uses. In all namespaces, there are 10 uses, only 3 of which unrelated to this nom and only 1 of those is the same use as the redirect target. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 6 September 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. Not mentioned at the target, and ambiguous. There is not a consensus that the suggested alternative target, Video scaler, is correct. ~ mazca ^talk 12:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• HDTV quality DVD Player → DVD player  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"HDTV" is mentioned nowhere in the target article. Could potentially refer to Blu-ray, but even then, the redirect is ambiguous/unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Video scaler alongside Upscaling DVD, HD Up Conversion, etc. Pretty sure this is talking about DVD players that can tweak the image to display closer to an HD format like 1080p for TVs that are capable of such. [2] -2pou (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator comment: FWIW, I believe "delete" to be the more helpful course of action over "retarget to Video scaler" since the aforementioned subject has no affinity to the phrase "DVD player" since the subject of Video scaler is not a "player" in the sense that it plays DVDs like a DVD player or a Blu-ray player does, but rather could act as a component in those devices. And even then, the concept of "Video scaler" isn't exclusive to DVD players since the "video scaler" concept can also apparently be used for television signals output from sources other than DVD players. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Steel1943's further argument. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:15, 14 September 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 00:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Adelheid Winkler → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Alan Premselaar → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Brigit Brat → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Bruce King (bassist) → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Chad Bishop → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• David Ivy → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• David Loop → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Davide Balbo → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Fernando Zambrana → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Mark Mohtashemi → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Michael Hess (keyboardist) → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Randolph's Grin → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Tom Whitfleet → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• The Aggression (band) → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Chaingun Operate → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Deus Ex Machina (Mexican band) → Out of Line Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

None of these music acts are mentioned in the target article, most being created because the band has a track or a band member has a songwriting credit for a song on the compilation Awake the Machines - On the Line Vol. 2 (which I'm not sure passes notability requirements at that). Some are mentioned in one or two other comps, but then that just makes those a WP:XY situation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Not only is it confusing to be retargeted to an article without mention, but it infers a connection that is not verifiably stated. Overall, Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not useful for the reader and, where notable, to encourage article creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:37, 5 September 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.