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:Closure requests. I will add a hatnote to the new target. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 09:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:CR → Wikipedia:Cleanup resources  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Proposing retarget to Wikipedia:Closure requests, which was recently moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure (WP:ANRFC) in Wikipedia talk:Closure requests § Requested move 22 March 2021. Multiple editors in the requested move suggested usurping this shortcut for the closure requests noticeboard.

According to pageview data, the closure requests noticeboard received a combined 7,353 pageviews in the last 90 days, while Wikipedia:Cleanup resources received only 344 in the same time period. — Newslinger talk 11:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would probably be best to Disambiguate this, as the current target has a hatnote with 4 other pages this could reasonably be targeted to, and we now have two processes with this initialism which have a reasonable claim to it, one because they've been using this shortcut for 15 years and have hundereds of backlinks, the other because it's a widely used noticeboard. I think a reasonable dab page would include Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Closure requests, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, probably a couple of others I've missed. Perhaps claim a new shortcut for the closure requests noticeboard, e.g. no one is using WP:CLR yet. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Closure requests per nom; shortcuts are meant to shortcuts, not longcuts. The incoming links will need to be fixed however. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would strongly lean toward retargeting if it weren't for the issue of all the historical links to the old shortcut. Is there any way to mass change those so that they don't start pointing to the wrong place? If so, we should do that. I oppose disambiguation, which combines the worst of both: disrupts the history, and prevents WP:Closure requests from obtaining a convenient shortcut it was specifically moved to the new title so it could have. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ​Yes, either AutoWikiBrowser or JavaScript Wiki Browser can change the old WP:CR links into piped links that point to Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. I can do this if there is consensus to retarget, and anyone is welcome to join in. — Newslinger talk 01:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, in that case, Retarget. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or disambiguate - This redirect is more than one decade old, so in my opinion, the time for changing it has passed. However, a disambiguation page may be helpful, if that is something done for Wikipedia space. Per WP:ONEOTHER, "If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that." --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate seems to be best -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per above. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Closure_requests#Requested_move_22_March_2021. I proposed Wikipedia:Requests for closure initially, but that was rejected due to lacking a suitable acronym, indicating editors cared for a suitable acronym to the page when agreeing to move that title. (the retarget was mentioned in the proposal and nobody made a comment opposing the retarget, and a few explicitly made arguments for why it was appropriate to hijack the redirect). TBH, I thought that discussion was consensus to enact that consensus until I saw this RfD exists when I was looking to implement the retargeting today (I suppose all retargets need to go via RfD? TIL.) Anyway, Wikipedia:Cleanup resources is absolutely not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Incoming links should probably be updated if this is retargeted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• COUNTER Proposal: Why not CRN (Closure Requests Noticeboard) as the new shortcut? Solves the history/archive problem, short, and logical. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a mouthful to (unnecessarily, IMO) add "noticeboard" onto the end and makes the title more convoluted. I'm not convinced ATM the history/archive problem is major (it's solvable in the manner Newslinger says above), and would happen every time a dab page is created (per WP:DAB) or removed (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), and happens in other areas too (like when templates are deleted). But I could be wrong, as redirects aren't my specialty. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for closer: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Closure requests#Requested move 22 March 2021, which passed, was in large part predicated on hijacking WP:CR, something that was explicitly spelled out in the nomination. Given the large amount of participation at that discussion, the closer may wish to give some amount of weight to the views of the !voters there. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. We should always be very conservative about changing the target of shortcut redirects because doing so has the potential to cause old comments (linked and unlinked), edit summaries, etc. to become misleading and causing the same problems for new comments - people do not expect shortcuts to change so they will continue to write and read them as meaning the old target while others will do the same for the new one causing miscommunication and confusion. This shortcut has been established as referring to the current target for over 15 years so any change will be disruptive. That a newly renamed page has the same initials does not come close to justifying or outweighing that disruption, especially when it is already linked in a hatnote. I also oppose disambiguation as that just makes all the old (and new) links ambiguous causing nearly as much disruption while benefiting nobody. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Closure requests. The now renamed closure requests is are more valuable page to quickly link to than the current.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. Here's the thing. I agree that we should be super careful about retargeting a longstanding shortcut. But this particular shortcut is currently an obscure page that's likely cited very rarely. The cost is comparatively small, and the gain comparatively large. Wikipedia talk:Closure requests#Requested move 22 March 2021 indicated a strong consensus to usurp this redirect, and I think that was the right call. Tamwin (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment (because pings don't work within the template): pinging Buidhe, Calidum, Mikehawk10, S Marshall, Smerus, Paine Ellsworth, LaundryPizza03, Ymblanter, Sandstein, SmokeyJoe, Serial Number 54129, Dennis Brown, Jackattack1597, Asartea, Levivich, Beyond My Ken, Fastily, Robert McClenon. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - thanks for the ping; retarget per the other retargeting comments here and in the prior RM. The new target is much more active: the old target has 127 page views in the last 30; the proposed target has over 1,800. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Logical retarget to the closure requests noticeboard.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the closure requests noticeboard. Seems to be the most logical choice here, and there are tools to use piped links to fix historical links broken by the retargeting. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the closure requests noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the closure requests noticeboard. There is no hatnote there yet, so a "You might be looking for..." hatnote would suffice. WLH cleanup is also warranted. The hatnote at the present target of WP:CR will have to be updated, of course. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, and add a hatnote to the top of Wikipedia:Closure requests pointing to Wikipedia:Cleanup resources -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 06:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, obviously.—S Marshall T/C 07:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. I agree we should be conservative in changing shortcuts like this, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make any changes. WP:Cleanup resources is a relatively obscure page, which is why I first floated the idea of moving WP:ANRFC to WP:Closure requests in the first place. -- Calidum 15:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, certainly.--Smerus (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Thryduulf makes good points, even if I supported before. This really isn't a lot of convenience, but it might be more inconvenience by breaking 10 years of links. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently I'm using WP:RFCL every time I want to link (and in my head this feels so strange, because it stands for Requested closures, although the page is titled Closure requests, so I frequently mix it up.) It absolutely needs a better acronym, and the convenience benefit exists thus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DisambiguateRetarget as PTOPIC, although there are incoming links from 337 different pages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate this is a long-standing and used shortcut. Given the move there is no primary topic but just retargeting it is not a good idea. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Calidum that Change is natural, the stats per Newslinger that show the closure noticeboard as the overwhelming favourite, per LaundryPizza that show that the redirect has ONLY 337 links (251 user pages), and again per Newslinger who has promised to fix all the links. Jay (talk) 23:46, 15 May 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. —Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Karoline Henry → Carol Henry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Karolina Henry → Carol Henry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Carolina Henry → Carol Henry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a follow up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Caroline Henry and the same arguments apply. These are different names, and there is no evidence that anyone listed at the disambiguation is a [K|C]arolin[e|a]. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy pings to the participants of the previous discussion: Rocknrollmancer, Roman Spinner, Shhhnotsoloud, Jay, and Explicit. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per previous nomination - no reason for this to exist. (Thx Tavix for the nomination and ping).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly legitimate redirects in the same manner as "Phillip" may redirect to "Philip" or "Stephen" may redirect to "Steven". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phillip" and "Philip" are different spellings of the same name. Same with Steven vs. Stephen. However, Carol is not a just different spelling of Caroline—it is a separate name in its own right. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The target does not disambiguate these terms. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as already pointed out in the last discussion, full name redirects to targets which don't discuss anyone known by that variant are not legitimate, and are regularly deleted. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/question The proposed redirect takes the user to a Wikipedia page that shows a list of three Carol Henry's. Why redirect there? It will just make the person self-redirect again to the appropriate Carol Henry. Why not just redirect directly to the correct Carol Henry. --Greysonsarch (talk) 16:40, 18 May 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 00:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No mention of museums at the target, other than a brief mention of a statute of an effendi held in a museum collection. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Enwiki has nothing about the subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:38, 11 May 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. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sumarian flood → Sumerian creation myth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted. Nothing links to here. It is a seldom used misspelling, according to Google, 1:35. marilyn.hanson (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a harmless ((R from move)) and ((R from misspelling)). Almost 30 people were helped by this redirect last year, whereas nobody will benefit from its deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 9 May 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 Sumerian King List. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sumarian rulers → Code of Hammurabi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted, is a misspelling and originates from a seemingly dyslectic article of 2005, "THE CODE OF HAMMURABARI": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sumarian_rulers&oldid=28347392. Or, at the very least, it should redirect to Sumerian King List. Nothing links to here. It is a seldom used misspelling, according to Google, 1:35. marilyn.hanson (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom to the king list, as a ((R from typo|Sumerian rulers)) -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 09:49, 11 May 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 Speedily deleted by Fastily per WP:CSD#R2. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• H.I.H Jacob, Prince of the Vlachs → User:Veni.Sponsa.Samurai/H.I.H Jacob, Prince of the Vlachs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect. Super Ψ Dro 16:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged for WP:R2 Speedy Deletion. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 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 Speedily deleted by Fastily per WP:CSD#R2. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Principality of Vlachia → User:Veni.Sponsa.Samurai/Principality of Vlachia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect. Super Ψ Dro 16:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged for WP:R2 Speedy Deletion. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 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 per [[WP:CSD#G6|]] Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Principality of Vlachia → User:Veni.Sponsa.Samurai/Principality of Vlachia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect. Super Ψ Dro 16:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G6 - unambiguously created in error (I can't tag the page due to an edit filter). 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 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 per [[WP:CSD#G6|]] Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:Principality of Vlachia → User talk:Veni.Sponsa.Samurai/Principality of Vlachia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect. Super Ψ Dro 16:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged for WP:G6 deletion as a redirect left over from a page that was obviously created at the wrong title. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 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 09:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Karen Henson → Temecula Preparatory School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think the name 'Karen Henson' is distinctive enough to assume that it is referring to the COO of what seems to be a barely notable preparatory school in California, a school with a three-line stub, and Karen Henson only mentioned a single time in the infobox. I stumbled upon this while clicking on the cast list of a drama, and indeed the eight pages which link to the redirect are all with regard to the actress. It's possible that they're the same person but it seems a lot more likely that it's an error, but either way the reader has to guess. Scatterkeir (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and remove unencyclopedic (and probably out-of-date) list of non-notable officials from the article's infobox. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- dylx 15:18, 13 May 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 Contemporary Voices. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 09:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Journal of Terrorism Research → Terrorism and Political Violence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I believe that the target of this redirect should be Contemporary Voices, the current name of the journal which was called Journal of Terrorism Research from 2010 to 2017, and which has been cited as such many times. If you look at Talk:Terrorism and Political Violence and the information I have put into the lead of this article, you will see that that journal has never actually been called Journal of Terrorism Research, but only referred to as such in a single "editorial manifesto". I think that this may have been the title once thought of for this journal, but it was changed before publication, registration, etc. and they just forgot to change the name in that manifesto.Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Does @Headbomb: have a view: they'e often interested in journals? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• My view is mostly that the first journal named that way should be the target. It's not a particularly strongly held view, I just know I'd want a community discussion on it, rather than one person deciding what the target of the redirect should be. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• My view is that the "first journal" was never published under that name though, and all citations to the two journals (and ISSN, Library of Congress name authorities, etc.) all point to the first one only ever being referred to as Terrorism and Political Violence, and the second one as Journal of Terrorism Research and later, Contemporary Voices. Hence need a couple of other people to opine on this one. I have not done extensive work on academic journal articles, but am looking at it from a librarian's point of view. Always happy to accept consensus and defer to usual practice. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom (t · c) buidhe 23:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. No reason to redirect to a journal who originally thought of the name but did not get to use it. Jay (talk) 06:14, 11 May 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Russian-Romanian bilingualism → Languages of Moldova  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect, nobody would search "Russian-Romanian biliguism" to search for the languages spoken in Moldova. The redirect got 0 visits in the last 30 days, and probably in the last months too. It must also be noted not everyone speaks Russian in Moldova; only 15% of the population declared using Russian on a day to day basis (while Romanian is spoken by everyone in Moldova). Super Ψ Dro 09:58, 1 May 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.