The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The dichotomy of soul and spirit → The dichotomy of soul and spirit in Islamic philosophy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target of this redirect is surprising, and 1 of the 2 articles that links to it uses it incorrectly. I propose delete as it is unlikely to ever be useful. Rublov (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I created this by default when I moved a new editor’s article to the current target, that editor having created the article using a title that was too broad. It was never my intention that the redirect should persist longer than necessary for anyone involved to discover that the move had taken place.—--Pontificalibus 04:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rublov: can you add more details? What is surprising? Which article is using it incorrectly, and why? I did go through all articles involved, but do not want to presume anything, until I get the gist of this Rfd. - Jay ^(Talk) 05:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay: I find it surprising that it redirects to a page specifically about Islamic philosophy because neither "soul" nor "spirit" are concepts that are specific to Islam. It was used incorrectly at Spirit (animating force) where it was linked in a context that was not specific to Islam. Rublov (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that you have fixed the incorrect usage. As we have the dichotomy article for Islam, and in the absence of similar articles for other religions, the redirect points to that. Is there some other article you expected in its place? - Jay ^(Talk) 13:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tripartite (theology) discusses this in the Christian context, and Soul § Judaism discusses the difference between Nefesh and Ruach, but there doesn't seem to be a broad-concept article here, which means that we should delete per WP:REDLINK. That said, this isn't a very likely search term, so even if an article eventually is created on the topic, I'm not sure if there will be any need to recreate this. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:53, 21 June 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) 21:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Turn, Turn, Turn (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D) → Turn, Turn, Turn (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The series name is missing the last period (see Turn, Turn, Turn (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)), this title was created by a page move and lasted less than 24 hours before being corrected and moved to its current location. Redirect has no incoming links. Gonnym (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —El Millo (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:11, 20 June 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) 21:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe television episodes → Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are several MCU television episode templates so pointing this to one is unhelpful. No need for this redirect. Gonnym (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —El Millo (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Template moved from this title 7 years ago, no incoming links, and I don't think template redirects are a linkrot concern. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per mom. – ChannelSpider (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:11, 20 June 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 delilah. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lisa of agents of shield episodes → List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an implausible title "lisa" instead of "list". Gonnym (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —El Millo (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delisa per nom. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Misspelling on my part. Sorry about that. Nightscream (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. – ChannelSpider (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:11, 20 June 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 Wikipedia:Template index#Article-related namespace. The section seems like a logical place, so I'm treating this as unanimous, but drop me a line if that's not the case. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Article templates → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Article message boxes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I came across this redirect while searching for an index of article space templates, and didn't think the current target would be where most people searching for article templates would expect to end up. My preference would be to retarget it to Wikipedia:Template index. Despite being around since 2007 it has only 11 incoming links, so retargeting shouldn't break too much. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Template index#Article-related namespace. Current target is not appropriate because it is a MOS, and is outside the scope of navigation boxes and infoboxes, which are also article templates. Editors interested in the current target will (and should) look for Wikipedia:Article message boxes, which is another redirect. - Jay ^(Talk) 05:44, 16 June 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) 14:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• First Second Gentleman → Douglas Emhoff  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While Emhoff is the first second gentleman of the US, he is not the first second gentleman globally. Second gentleman, a potential redirect target, redirects to Second lady, which has no meaningful information about the "first" second gentleman (or even much about second gentlemen in particular at all). Thus, I'm leaning towards deletion at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is the first Second Gentleman, if Emhoff is not? I tried to look it up, but Googling "first second gentleman" returns only results about Emhoff, and it's rare for the results to specify that he's the first Second Gentleman in the United States. Limiting those results to before 1 Jan 2020 returns only results about other hypothetical American second gentlemen, other than dictionary results which define the term as the male partner of the vice president of the United States. So while he may technically not be the first globally, he's still the top search result, and I feel like this should be kept absent any other targets. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found Joachim Sauer. I have no idea if he's the first, but we'd have to find someone before 2005. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides having been named this on Wikipedia, is there any evidence that Sauer is referred to as "Second Gentleman" or whatever the German equivalent is? It should be noted that all of the sources used in our Second lady article are American and discuss American Second Ladies (mostly wives of vice presidents but also wives of heads of state senates and such), and the article has been flagged for WP:SYNTH since last November, so I'm very suspicious that applying the American terminology to partners of sub-heads of state of other countries is something Wikipedia invented. Besides that, the Chancellor of Germany is not equivalent to the Vice President of the United States. In parliamentary democracies (including Germany) the order of precedence of elected officials is not usually as clear and rigid as in the United States: in Germany, the President of Germany is the head of state but otherwise their role is primarily ceremonial, while the Chancellor is the head of government and commander-in-chief, and the person normally viewed as the country's leader (more or less equivalent to the American President). However, in the symbolic German order of precedence, the Chancellor is third, not first or second. If we were to apply the American titles to these individuals, I would believe it just as likely for Sauer to be called the First Gentleman. But I think neither applies: American First and Second partners tend to have high-profile ceremonial roles in society (or even official roles in government) while partners of government leaders in other countries tend to be generally private individuals (unless notable in their own right). Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      I've edited this comment because I realized later that I was rambling and repeated myself a bit. Original is in the history. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • OTOH if we take the definition as is and apply it literally, I believe Denis Thatcher (1979) is our man. Any previous first female head of government of a parliamentary democracy (Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir) was elected after their spouse died, except for Elisabeth Domitien whose marriage dates are uncertain. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I lean towards deletion. I'm not sure this is very useful despite the fun turn of phrase. In what contexts would someone link or search "first second gentleman" and not just type the shorter "second gentleman"? It's also confusing. It took me a second to figure out what it meant. I'm not against keeping or retargeting; I just worry it might cause more confusion than clarity. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether or not it is technically correct, it is clear that Emhoff is the primary topic for the search term. We can add a hatnote to Second lady and/or category:Husbands of national leaders if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Second Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States. In the long list of ladies and gentlemen, it will show we have just the one gentleman. I see the purpose of the redirect not to refer specifically to the actual person holding the "title", but rather to the list that shows how men have made entry to the so far exclusive club, and in that list obviously Douglas Emhoff gets his due. And this is regardless of the global vs local, which is what this Rfd was about. There is no other biography page in Wikipedia, that has the "First Second Gentleman" sobriquet, so this is going to be about the US Vice Presidency. - Jay ^Talk 18:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not convinced this is prominent enough as a search term for Doug Emhoff to overcome the ambiguity and/or incorrectness. Even if it's limited to the United States, a spouse of a female lieutenant governor would be considered a second gentleman, of which it looks like Alfred G. Wilson was first. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous, even within the US there is a plausible alternate target as noted by tavix, when viewed from a global perspective the ambiguity is greater still. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - just realizing I never actually gave an opinion on this. It's confusing because it could refer to multiple people depending on how the term is defined (and we don't have a reliable definition), but also it seems evident that while being the "first" something is often evidence of notability, being the first Second Gentleman does not seem to be one of those things. It was only created on 18 May so it's difficult to say, but there have been no views of this redirect at all other than spikes at its creation and at each relist of this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly per Tavix. If Second lady is ever expanded beyond its current SYNTHy stub state, it might have suitable content to redirect to, but otherwise there's nowhere unambiguous for this to point to. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:45, 21 June 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. Editors were split between keeping the status quo and a retarget proposal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Carte blanche → Blank cheque  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this target Blank cheque as the primary topic at this capitalisation, or the disambiguation page Carte Blanche? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• When I saw this my first thought is that most links are looking for the common usage, that is the dictionary definition at wikt:carte blanche. Looking at the search results I see a lot more figurative than literal uses for the lowercase form. Dab page seems like an improvement. (t · c) buidhe 08:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the dab page per Buidhe. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Both the literal and figurative uses are covered at Blank cheque. Proper names are covered at the dab where both words are capitalized (in almost all cases). MB 16:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since the disambiguation is served by another redirect Carte blanche (disambiguation) with same capitalization. - Jay ^(Talk) 05:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MB. It's a broad-concept article, making ambiguity/astonishment less of a concern. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:22, 23 June 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.