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. British variant of a synonym. Up to editors discretion whether to add it to the article text or not. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Haemogram → Complete blood count  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term not mentioned in target. Hildeoc (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "hemogram" is mentioned, and this is just the BrEng variant of that. The term could be added to the article if need be but I don't think it's necessary to list every trivial spelling difference. Spicy (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notice that Caesium (a FA) mentions the non-IUPAC American spelling cesium only once in the main prose. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:02, 8 January 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. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Next Algerian presidential election → 2019 Algerian presidential election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's 2021, and "next" specifically means "upcoming", so 2019 is clearly no longer upcoming. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest to retarget it to 2024 Algerian presidential election but that article doesn't exist, so it's better to just delete it. JIP | Talk 20:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget' to Elections in Algeria which will inform readers when the next one is and link to the article when appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JIP. Retargeting to Elections in Algeria is a bit misleading because it is silent on when the next election would be. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:16, 7 January 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 in the absence of any objection to the nomination. ~ mazca ^talk 14:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This redirect was created a bit over two years ago and has not been edited since. According to Google, Cruesli is a specific brand of muesli. There are no incoming links and "Cruesli" is not mentioned on the target article. Googling for "Cruesli" doesn't seem to turn up any hits on Wikipedia. I think this redirect is useless and should be deleted. JIP | Talk 19:50, 6 January 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. A plausible misspelling, but a plausible misspelling of so many things that the consensus is that this has too many possible targets to be a useful redirect. ~ mazca ^talk 13:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This redirect could also be a mispelling of "Title" or "Tidal", so this is an ambiguous term. I would suggest to delete this redirect per WP:XY unless justification can be provided. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, delete this because we don't know where someone misspelling this is trying to do Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• How about Tidles? – Uanfala (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Uanfala: Thanks because I did not see that redirect you showed me, so I'm adding that too. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too ambiguous. They could also be mispellings/typos of tiddle (a redirect to tiddler) or Tiddles. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 13 January 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 Moot. There's a consensus that the existing redirect was not appropriate, and an editor has now drafted an essay at the sentence-cased page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Curiosity killed the cat → Wikipedia:Be bold  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Wikipedia:Curiosity Killed the Cat → Wikipedia:Be bold  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It appears that this redirect was created as part of a proposed merge to WP:BEANS, as shown by the page's history, and the essay that was previously there appears to be closest to WP:BEANS, but it was redirected to WP:BOLD, which essentially has the opposite meaning that the original page had. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 02:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: added Wikipedia:Curiosity Killed the Cat to the nomination - Eureka Lott 04:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• JJPMaster, a delete seems to be implied by your argument, but you haven't actually stated what your intended outcome is. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My intended outcome was to retarget to WP:BEANS. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 11:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The phrase has way too oblique a relationship (if any) with BEANS for this to make any sense, and the initial essay was extremely niche, amounting to "don't click on userpage links that say they're to a virus". No prejudice against any attempts to make a new essay with this title, but the status quo is misleading. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BDD, not a relevant redirect – Thjarkur (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• And there's the accompanying shortcuts WP:CURIOUS, WP:CURIOSITY-CAT and WP:CKTC. – Uanfala (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete shortcuts if main redirect is I see no reason to leave the shortcuts if the main redirects are deleted.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've drafted a quick essay below the redirect at Wikipedia:Curiosity killed the cat – this really looks like the sort of title that I would definitely expect to find a Wikipedia essay sitting under, and I'm surprised nothing meaningful had been written on it in the past. I'm not completely sure if what I've written is any better, but I think at least it's a pointer in the right direction. – Uanfala (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This looks fine to me. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 14 January 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. in the absence of any explanation or objection to the nominator's issue with the redirect. ~ mazca ^talk 14:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Trevor Lawrence Jr. → Aftermath Entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target article has no mention of the subject. —Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 6 January 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 disambiguate in the form of a set index article, pointing to the several options mentioned here. I will create a basic version of this myself now, but strongly invite those with more knowledge in this to flesh it out. I'm going to leave brown coal alone as it wasn't formally discussed here and I think there's a fair argument Lignite might be the true primary topic for that - feel free to renominate that separately. ~ mazca ^talk 12:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft coal → Sub-bituminous coal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Currently this is a redirect to sub-bituminous coal, which indeed is a soft coal, but both Lignite and bituminous coal may also be known by this term. The latter mostly in Europe. Similarly, the term brown coal currently points to Lignite, although it can also refer to sub-bituminous or sometimes even bituminous (e.g. in Germany). I would suggest that soft coal and brown coal both be turned into Dabs, both pointing to all 3 of the softer coal classifications. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Setindexify per nom. Add explanatory note as to the usage in Germany. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Setindexify per nom and ip. Given identical set of meanings for both terms, I think a single page covering both ("Soft coal or brown coal can refer to..." is possibly better than two separate ones - write the set index at the more widely used term and redirect the other to it. Thryduulf (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we have consensus here, but I'd be more comfortable with someone who knows the subject matter creating the page. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Coal#Types, where the types of coal are listed in order of grade or rank. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that that doesn't explain the various soft and brown coals. There's only one brown coal there, lignite. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Setindexify per nom, who seems to know what they're talking about a lot more than I do BlackholeWA (talk) 11:50, 8 January 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 2020 Sri Lankan parliamentary election#National in the absence of any particular consensus for any target, as it's actually mentioned there. Bodu Bala Sena would be a reasonable target in theory, as would Athuraliye Rathana Thero which this redirect was retargeted to during the debate, but neither have a significant mention. If such a mention is added to either, to give a reader more context, then this can be freely retargeted once more. ~ mazca ^talk 13:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Our Power of People's Party → Bodu Bala Sena  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, which gives "Buddhist Power Force" as the translation of the party's name. Delete unless a justification can be provided _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Bodu Bala Sena contested the recent parliamentary election as the Ape Jana Bala Pakshaya (Our People’s Power Party) - see 1 and 2.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The collapsible listing at 2020 Sri Lankan parliamentary election seems to imply that this was an alliance, though it lists no other party. Most of the other collapsed entries are, though this may be analogous to the case of the Tamil National People's Front / All Ceylon Tamil Congress, whose footnote explains that the former group ran under the latter name. Do we have any indication whether this is a name Bodu Bala Sena will use in the future? If they intend to do so, the information should be added to their article. If they don't, or if we don't know, retargeting to 2020 Sri Lankan parliamentary election#National might be the best way to give some context. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 2020 Sri Lankan parliamentary election#National to give readers what context we have. If this is a legitimate alternative name or a ballot name the party will continue to use going forward, I'm sure it will be added to the party's article, at which point retargeting back there sounds fine. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 14 January 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. Withdrawing my nomination per comments below. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Calatal-Yehud → Calatayud  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned as an alternative name at the target or its esWiki and caWiki counterparts. I was not able to find any evidence of this term being used on Google Scholar. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative spelling from  Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Calatayud, Calatal-Yehud". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. Kyuko (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kyuko absent evidence of other usage, though it would be nice if we could explain this somehow. I don't think it's a Hebrew form, since different Hebrew names are given at Calatayud#History. Given the context, I would guess Judaeo-Spanish (aka Ladino). I couldn't find anything on the Judaeo-Spanish Wikipedia, but that's not too surprising, as it's very small. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 14 January 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 without prejudice to adding a mention at the target and recreating the redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

GameCrate does not appear in the target article. IceWelder [✉] 13:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a game review site owned by Newegg. It used to be mentioned in the article, but it was removed along with a list of websites a couple of years ago in this edit. I think we should either add a mention of it back into the article or delete the redirect, depending upon whether the site is viewed as worth including. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:39, 30 December 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 restore article at TAST and retarget the others back there. This is a reversion to the status quo prior to the WP:D-R redirection. No prejudice against AfD, and while disambiguation may ultimately be called for, I don't see an immediate case for it. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Time of assertion → Assertion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• TAST → Assertion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Time of Assertion → Assertion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A redirect to a DAB page, whose only use in WP is the circular link in the target. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This was an avoided double redirect of TAST, which was redirected by Wugapodes in November 2019 with the comment, "redirect per WP:NOTDICT". I've added TAST and Time of Assertion to the nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd suggest restoring the TAST article, then pursuing more appropriate deletion options (PROD or AfD) if warranted. (Redirecting a specific topic to a disambiguation page should not have been done.) --Paul_012 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (nom) Restore article TAST, retarget Time of assertion to it, and send to AFD. Narky Blert (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment related terms Time of utterance (TUTT (dab), TUTT (linguistics)), Time of completion (TCOM (dab), TCOM (linguistics)), Time of evaluation (TEVL) exist as redirects to various language articles. It would seem this should also point to similar articles (and TAST (linguistics). -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is a Du Tast Lake (aka Tast Lake) and a Tast Fest covered at New Center Park and the stock ticker TAST for Carrols Restaurant Group; so "Tast" should either point to the lake with a hatnote or be a disambiguation page; or TAST should point to the restaurant with a hatnote or be a disambiguation page. If TAST is turned into a disambiguation page, its edit history should be moved to time of assertion with a WP:ROBIN swap, or moved to TAST (linguistics), as the linguistics edit history would be unrelated. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 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 Xbox One#Initial unveiling and launch. The current target is clearly unpopular and contains no mention of this term - a disambiguation page has also been suggested, but a disambiguation page on a topic that isn't the correct name for anything is also not particularly popular in this discussion. A weak consensus leads to a retarget to the only page that actually mentions usage of the term. ~ mazca ^talk 13:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Xbox 180 → Xbox  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in article 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Microsoft have never made or announced a product with this name as far as I can tell, and it's not mentioned at the current target. Searching online suggests it might be a long dead meme from the time that the Xbox one was released, or a random guess at the name of the Xbox one? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Retarget to Xbox One#Initial unveiling and launch based on the comments of 65.92.160.124 below. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term is mentioned at the end of Xbox One#Initial unveiling and launch section and if kept should redirect there.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for context the mention of the term is In response to these pre-launch changes and a belief that Microsoft's initial decisions for the console were in poor judgement, journalists and consumers jokingly gave the Xbox One nicknames such as the "Xbox 180", in reference to the Xbox 360 and Microsoft's decision to reverse its controversial decisions, and "Xbone", suggesting that the company was "throwing a bone" to consumers by making these changes.[65][66][67][68][69]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Xbox One#Initial unveiling and launch. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or—if not delete—, disambiguate. The redirect could point towards two things: the first Xbox, or the name the Xbox One was jokingly given. Neither of these are the actual name, and going hard in direction will probably baffle at least a few people. Redirects are meant to be intuitive; neither of these are. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per ImaginesTigers -- 180 = 360/2 == predecessor to 360 because 1/2 is before 2/2 (it was a nickname used for the first Xbox console) --- There's also the nickname for the Xbox One, when Microsoft removed the always-on internet-required DRM checking. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget -- Xbox One#Initial unveiling and launch seems like a fitting section to redirect to, in the spirit of Xbone and other monikers given. -Kai445 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, the section on the Xbox 1 page I suggested retargeting to does mention the term. Second, the article for thr original console doesn’t mention it so I don’t believe we should disambiguate unless evidence is provided that the original console is actually known by this name.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 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 Template:URL. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused in mainspace. Does not follow any of the banner standards (and their redirects). I suggest that we redirect to Template:URL exactly as Template:Website Magioladitis (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would a redirect to a WikiProject banner template not being used in mainspace be at all relevant? Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in talk namespace neither. It was a typo. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:URL. Redirects to Wikiproject banners should begin with WP. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:45, 7 January 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 Gilded Age#Scandals and corruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Era of good stealings → Ulysses S. Grant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Confusing. The phrase does not appear in the target article, the only uses I've found of it seem to instead refer to the Gilded Age as a whole. No other pages link to it. 2A04:2413:8003:B380:6057:E6B5:58C3:5444 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term is mentioned near the end of the first paragraph at Gilded Age#Scandals and corruption so if it belongs anywhere it should be there.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gilded Age#Scandals and corruption since the term is mentioned there.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per 65.92.160.124 - there's a good sourced mention there, and definitely less confusing than the current target. ~ mazca ^talk 16:54, 13 January 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. Participants are comfortable that this remains the primary topic, and the semi-ambiguous alternative - technically an archdiocese - is hatnoted. ~ mazca ^talk 16:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Diocese of Southwark → Anglican Diocese of Southwark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous, as could refer to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark as well. Makes sense to DABify, as per Diocese of Birmingham Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got notified this as creator of this page. When I created it was as a DAB. I don't see why it was changed, tbh. Morwen (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It was converted to a redirect by LarryJeff in 2012 with the edit summary "change to redirect as all incoming links are for the same article" suggesting the Anglican diocese was primary at that time. A look at a sample of the current inbound links suggests that is still the case. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the RC entity is an archdiocese, so presumably less likely to be sought as "Diocese". The current hatnote is appropriate. PamD 18:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Anglican diocese is the primary topic. It could also refer to the RC diocese which is why there is a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:11, 9 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also the former name of D3.js 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the suggestion being made? Redirect to the other article, deletion for being ambiguous, a two entry dab page?--65.92.160.124 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a dab page as I do not think there is a primary topic but i do not really care of what happens to the redirect 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protovis is not D3js.

Protovis had its own code, approach, and community. Then the same author created D3js. Yug (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Genera are inherently notable, and this one is currently monotypic. Add a ((redirect)) hatnote from Protovis himalayensis to D3.js. Narky Blert (talk) 07:08, 30 December 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 as a redirect resulting from moving a page created in the incorrect namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Never should have been created in article space JBL (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Speedy? XNR to an infonotice template; absolutely no encyclopedic content or navigation content -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The destination template is a new creation and not using the proper cleanup template format. Is there a consensus to create such an infonotice template, or should it be TFD'd? -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest asking this question at Wikipedia talk:Cleanup. Thryduulf (talk) 03:05, 6 January 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.