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. -- Aervanath (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:HISTORICAL → Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#historical  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Wikipedia:Project namespace#Historical pages, and remedy the less than fifty occurrences of this redirect (~45) that already exist. The proposed target is more closely associated with the notion of historical projectspace pages. WP:DEMOTE does not currently exist, and would as a fitting alternative as a shortcut for the current target (WP:Demoted exists, reasonably, as a redirect to Wikipedia:Former featured articles; WP:DEMOTED should be created and redirect there as well—however, that only currently has four linked occurrences, making it easily malleable as well). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate it can cover demoted policies, historical records, etc, by being a disambiguation page -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Demoted could serve as a disambiguation page perhaps. However, projectspace shortcuts are by rarely unambiguous; such a solution is only implemented in select cases that are very likely to lead to severe confusion, and this does not seemingly meet that bar. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Historical could serve that then, and redirect HISTORICAL to it, as the shortcut is supposed to be allcaps. WP:DEMOTED/WP:Demoted would be a subcase of HISTORICAL, and not the other way round. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the order, I still disagree that a disambiguation page is appropriate per my statement above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:15, 18 December 2021 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dekera massacre → Kerebera Da Mariyam massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Addi Hibubla massacre → Kerebera Da Mariyam massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Gergera Da Mariam massacre → Kerebera Da Mariyam massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nothing links to here. No edit history other than the creation by a now-blocked spamming sockpuppet. No reason to keep. Platonk (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Gergera Da Mariam is mentioned at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Jay: Gergera Da Mariam is the name of a church in village of Kerebera near town of Addi Hibubla in district of Dekera (all locations). A spammer had created 106 [alleged] massacre event articles, and for each one he added even more redirects for different spellings and nearby location names. The massacre-event articles (all 106 of them) are being gone through and mostly being turned into redirects (such as was done to the target Kerebera Da Mariyam massacre) to their relevant sentence/paragraph in Timeline of the Tigray War. That is why all of these redirect to a sentence mentioning 'Gergera Da Mariam' (the church). But no article links to any of these,' and the spammer has been perma-blocked so the likelihood of anyone ever using the massacre labels (which he coined) is nil. Platonk (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.-- Aervanath (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2021 (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. ✗plicit 00:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Last Paradise (film) → List of Netflix original films (since 2022)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect of a title that was once in production, but is no longer mentioned in the article of future films BOVINEBOY2008 16:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it seems there is no Wikipedia article that discusses this film. There is apparently a 1955 Italian film by this name (see List of Italian films of 1955) but it's a redlink. There's also a 1967 film with a similar name (The Last Paradises: On the Track of Rare Animals) but probably not similar enough to merit a redirect. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:00, 22 December 2021 (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. -- Aervanath (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dellafuente → Mala Rodríguez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, Dellafuente and Mala Rodríguez are different people. Erinius (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Update by nominator): Retarget. It should point to New Flamenco until someone creates an article on Dellafuente. Erinius (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Update by nominator again): Delete. I hadn't thought of the need to encourage article creation and enable easier searching. Per Shhhnotsoloud and Lenticel, I now think it should be deleted again. A simple search for Dellafuente would show the other artists he's collaborated with, including La Mala Rodriguez among others, and his paragraph in New Flamenco. Erinius (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm well aware they're different people. Dellafuente collaborated with Rodríguez and is mentioned at her article. Ss112 09:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on Mala Rodriguez really doesn't have much information on him. New Flamenco has a paragraph on him, so maybe Dellafuente could point to that article instead. Erinius (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. It should point to New Flamenco until someone creates an article on Dellafuente. Erinius (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if kept there should be a hatnote to de la Fuente and reverse mention on that page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have struck off the nom's vote and moved it as a nomination update.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to enable uninhibited Search, and encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete to avoid confusion between the two artists and per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm generally of the opinion we should not redirect one living person's name to another, outside of certain narrow cases like the high-profile children of public figures. Furthermore, as Lenticel notes, WP:REDLINK applies if he's notable, although I'm not entirely sure he is. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:13, 31 December 2021 (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. Jay (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• EJ Jallorina → ASAP (Philippine TV program)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, listed briefly as cast member on various other articles. Delete to allow for uninhibited search results. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom to enable Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:38, 20 December 2021 (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. -- Aervanath (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Coat of arms of Christmas Island → Christmas Island  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No use to the reader - there is no coat of arms and as such there is no information about the coat of arms in the main article. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Flag of Christmas Island does briefly say that they had a competition to design one but doesn't give any more details. Hut 8.5 18:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Flag of Christmas Island#Creation, which briefly mentions the idea of a coat of arms. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There does appear to be an "unofficial" coat of arms, as seen at Armorial of dependent territories#External territories. This one does seem to be the dominant result when searching the subject on an external search engine. I don't think we should retarget to a failed proposal (I can't tell if this is the same coat of arms), but we ought to have information somewhere to sustain the redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was closed by MBisanz as retarget to Flag of Christmas Island#Creation, but it was reopened after I objected to that close because I saw consensus to delete. MBisanz reopened the discussion, but because it's on a closed log page, it will need to be relisted (as much as I hate third relists, especially consecutively...).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After discussing with MBisanz, I realize my earlier comment was a bit too vague. I didn't give a bolded !vote, but I thought I had made it clear that I do not support retargeting to a "failed proposal", which would be Flag of Christmas Island#Creation. For some reason, I fully expected someone to come in behind me and figure out whether or not that proposal was the same one as File:Unofficial Coat of Arms of Christmas Island.svg so I purposefully left it open-ended. I also thought I had made clear that I did not support a target that does not have information on the subject (eg: the current target). That narrows down the options to a) Armorial of dependent territories#External territories and b) delete. However, since my comment Ivar the Boneful removed unofficial coats of arms from the Armorial article, so that leaves deletion. After poking around a bit more, I do think this would be a great WP:REDLINK candidate. The coat of arms associated with Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island (another good redlink opportunity) looks like it'd be a great story to write about. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:56, 18 December 2021 (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. ✗plicit 11:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Whatthefuck → Template:Clarify  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused template redirect, does not seem to be useful, and could just as well refer to ((Dubious)) or something like that. Hog Farm _Talk 07:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -DePiep (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This tag is unprofessional and is not really something we should be peppering into articles in mainspace. There are less rude ways to say the same thing, e.g. ((Clarify)). Relevant policies are WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This does appear like an element in a long tradition of creating redirects 1, 2, or templates 3 4, 5 6 that use titles with an iteration of this phrase. – Uanfala (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So a speedy WP:G4 then. And next time. -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as useless since clearer templates are being used and might cause unnecessary conflicts. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CIVIL. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:03, 22 December 2021 (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. There was no support or opposition to the nomination despite two relistings. Jay (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:PTR → Wikipedia:Public transport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Redirecting to a primary topic. Wikipedia:Public transport receives little page views, as opposed to the primary topic redirect doctrine, which is quite often referred to. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WP:RPT could serve as an alternative. WP:PTR only has eight extant links locally, and the suggested target is certainly of more prominence. However, it has been as it is since 2009. Too hesitant to support, but not enough to oppose. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 18 December 2021 (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 Library of Congress Control Number. The current version of the redirect was created without knowledge of the previous deletion closure which recommended re-creation as either a standalone article or a redirect having a mention. The current RfD considered both (re)deletion and retarget equally valid. In the sense of authority control, the new target is a plausible alternate, and it can be broadened to include the information database instead of just the control number. Jay (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Library of Congress Authorities → Library of Congress  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was deleted in 2016 via Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21#Library_of_Congress_Authorities, and re-created in 2019. All of the same rationales for deletion still apply to the replacement redirect. Chubbles (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Earlier RfD was mentioned but not listed; I have added it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Nightscream: the creator of this redirect, who wasn't notified about this discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Okay, looking over my edit history, it appears that the reason I created the redirect in March 2019 was to facilitate a wikilink from the redlinked source in this citation in the Mary GrandPré article. The name of that specific branch of the LoC cited as a source is indeed Library of Congress Authorities, so I thought the redirect was reasonable. Nightscream (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't remember that I was the one who nominated this for deletion back in 2016. It's still something that could merit its own article. Redirecting to Authority control might work. In hindsight, it could've worked in 2016 too. This is one of those cases where maybe we delete to encourage creation, maybe we redirect to the best place that can explain it for now, and either option is equally valid. --BDD (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Library of Congress Control Number or delete. In the sense of authority control, this seems to be a plausible target. However, considering the most common meaning of the word "Authorities", it would be more appropriate to redirect to Librarian of Congress, although I consider that an extremely unlikely search term and so I would support deletion rather than retargeting in that case.-- Aervanath (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging prior participants @BDD, Chubbles, and Nightscream for comment on this option.-- Aervanath (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirecting to Librarian of Congress would be confusing, as Library of Congress Authorities refers to an information database and not to a person or position. It's possible that an article could be created on the topic, though a librarian subject expert would be needed to create it. Chubbles (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Librarian of Congress is not a suitable target. This usage of "authority" remains pretty opaque outside of libraries. Before we integrated authority control here on Wikipedia, I remember seeing editor objections because the phrase seemed sinister! All the more reason to be intentional about where we redirect. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Library of Congress Control Number, which seems to be close enough to me. Perhaps that article could be broadened to include the database instead of just the control number, but it's a decent start. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:32, 2 January 2022 (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 Field extension#Extension field. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Quadratic extension → Kummer theory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Field extension#Extension field, which explains the topic in a more fundamental context rather than an application. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support retarget. The proposed new target is where I would have expected this to redirect to, assuming we don't have a separate article on the topic (which we currently don't). I have taken the liberty of fixing a reversal of the article title and section title in the proposed redirect, which I assume was a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Technical point: in characteristic 2, an extension of degree 2 may not be generated by the extraction of a square root, though it is always given by adjoining a root of a quadratic (separable case). I don't object to the change of target, but it would be helpful to have this issue discussed. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposed target does not seem to discuss the structure of quadratic extensions anyway, for any characteristic, so that's definitely a topic to expand the article on. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 18 December 2021 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 18:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dark-emitting diode → Write-only memory (joke)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Topic not covered in target or elsewhere in WP. No incoming links. ~Kvng (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Delete the redirect per Kvng. It might also be worth creating a stand-alone dark-emitting diode article, as it is clearly quite a popular joke in the electronic engineering community. -- The Anome (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Topic is mentioned at the target, and has been there since 2018. I have notified of this discussion at the redirect creator's and the current target talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mentioned in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2021 (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.