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 01:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pannonian basin before the hungarian → History of Hungary before the Hungarian Conquest  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Imlausibly ungrammatical. Apparently an artefact of an error during a page move in 2008 [1], which got corrected within a few hours [2]. – Uanfala (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MarioGom (talk) 15:31, 24 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 01:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fucking, Australia → Fugging  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is for a misspelling for Fucking, Austria which already exists and redirects to the correct target. But it's not a likely typo for someone looking for the "funny name town". Might make someone believe there's one in Aus too. Delete as confusing as unhelpful. Gaioa (T C L) 21:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as confusing though possibly useful, I wandered about nominating it for RFD when I fixed it last month. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Austria, and tag with ((R unprintworthy)) , ((R from misspelling)) , ((R from incorrect name)) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless there's a place named "Fucking" somewhere in Australia then I fail to see the point of such a redirect. Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a place in Austria with that name, hence the ((R from incorrect name)) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MarioGom (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A ((R from incorrect name)) that is incorrect in two separate ways is likely to be more confusing than helpful. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's incorrect in only one way ("Australia" for "Austria"). "Fucking" was the common and official name of one of the villages until just a few months ago. – Uanfala (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, I think an incorrect name + former name also probably points toward deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put much weight to a former name that was current less than a year ago when the name was the main interest about the place but the point that "Australia" is incorrect supports deletion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:18, 29 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. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• German bomb → Bomb  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• American bomb → Bomb  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Minimal discussion of specific nation's history of bombs at the target, unlikely to leave a reader feeling like they've found what they're looking for (nor would it necessarily be DUE to add such content there), delete per WP:R#DELETE #10. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 23 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 01:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• American bombing raid → Strategic bombing during World War II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• German air raid → Strategic bombing during World War II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• American air raid → Strategic bombing during World War II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• German bombing raid → Strategic bombing during World War II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• British bombing raid → Strategic bombing during World War II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• British air raid → Strategic bombing during World War II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Italian air raid → Strategic bombing during World War II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could refer to myriad incidents and conflicts that the US has been involved in, including but not limited to the current target, US bombing of Cambodia, United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Kunduz hospital airstrike...I tried to draft a disambiguation page, but ran into difficulties deciding what title to give it (American bombing raid? US bombing raid? US bombing? etc.), as some titles could also be confused for bombing attacks against the US, bomb attacks not involving aircraft, etc., and there's also the issue of whether/how to include conflicts involving the US that included airstrikes but which are not specifically remembered for that aspect of the conflict (e.g. United States invasion of Panama). Given all of the complexities, I'm leaning towards deletion but am open to solid disambiguation proposals.

Expanded comment post grouping: while the UK, Italy and Germany don't have quite as notorious a military record since the advent of aerial bombardment, they nevertheless have participated in interventions in the Balkans, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan (among others) that included aerial raids carried out by their forces. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous redirects - why strategic bombing (not all bombing is strategic) - why World War II - lots of other conflict involved significant use of bombing - for example for the United Kingdom - World War I, Third Anglo-Afghan War, Iraqi revolt of 1920, Ikhwan revolt, Pink's War, the Waziristan campaign (1936–1939), the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency, the Mau Mau Uprising, the Suez Crisis, the Falklands War, etc, etc. Delete allNigel Ish (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete why wouldn't the "babykiller" raids on London in WWI not be wanted. Or the wedding party bombing in Afghanistan. Overly ambiguous. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – seems too broad for a redirect or disambiguation page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all of these are too vague to be tied to either a time or type of bombing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:21, 28 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 01:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheraro massacre → Casualties of the Tigray War#Sheraro massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused redirect. Not called from anywhere. It's target was deleted for "no sources" (citation needed). Platonk (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – not mentioned in any English Wikipedia article as far as I can tell. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:22, 24 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 keep. -- Aervanath (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Computing reference desk → Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate mainspace -> projectspace redirect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does it matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR the target is not readership material, it is editorship material. The information at the target is not encyclopedic, thus should not appear in (pseudo)articlespace -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's been there for like 13 years. It helps the reader find it, since they're unlikely to remember its real name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers shouldn't be using it, since it isn't an encyclopedic topic. If it were an encyclopedic topic, it would reside in articlespace. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who are you to dictate to the readers how they should be using Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a long-standing cross-namespace redirect getting good number of pageviews. The same user had created all the ref desk redirects: Science reference desk, Miscellaneous Reference Desk, Mathematics reference desk, Humanities reference desk, Entertainment reference desk, Language reference desk. Three of these were nominated for deletion and the outcome was Keep. See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 12. Jay (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm _Talk 18:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep. All these redirects (Entertainment reference desk, Language reference desk) should be handled the same way – we shouldn't delete one while keeping the others. No prejudice against renominating all of them as a batch. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. These are good examples of CNRs that should exist because they help readers find the pages they are looking for even if they haven't yet learned of namespaces. Nothing has changed in this regard since the 2010 discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. My test for cases like this is always, "Would a non-editor or new editor be likely to look for this page?" This is a bit of an edge case, because the answer is generally "No", but the ref desks occupy an unusual space on Wikipedia, not really editor-facing, not really reader-facing, but rather facing people who want a bit more from the encyclopedia than they can get passively. I find it plausible that someone might swing by the ref desks from time to time, rarely enough that they don't remember their names and the fact that they're in a different namespcae than the encyclopedic content. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:54, 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 Speedy delete G7. Author requested deletion. (non-admin closure) –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Auhtority control → Template:Authority control  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Rare typo. I have corrected the 8 transclusions I found. Should be safe to delete now. I think it'd be better to have this show up as a redlink, and hopefully get the person who made the typo to notice and fix it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for this and the next nomination: editors create and do not fix roughly 50 redlinked templates per day, so choosing the "hopefully" option means making unnecessary work for gnomes. It may be better to have a bot auto-subst the corrected spelling, as is done with template quasi-redirects like ((Référence nécessaire)) and ((Edad)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't keep template mispellings per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cute book, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Template:Cute news, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 5#Template:Reimprove, et cetera. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Speedy deleted per G7. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:2D51:E764:39B6:55EA (talk) 08:24, 26 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 14:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Authority controll → Template:Authority control  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Rare typo. I have corrected the 6 transclusions I found. Should be safe to delete now. I think it'd be better to have this show up as a redlink, and hopefully get the person who made the typo to notice and fix it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't keep template mispellings per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cute book, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Template:Cute news, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 5#Template:Reimprove, et cetera. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:40, 24 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.