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 to make any changes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kingdom of Australia → Monarchy of Australia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Kingdom of Canada → Name of Canada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Kingdom of New Zealand → Realm of New Zealand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We need to discuss what to do with these redirects. Now they all have different targets. Is it OK, or should we have a common policy for them? I suggest to redirect to articles about the countries themselves, with the exception of New Zealand, since the Realm of New Zealand also includes two associated states except for New Zealand itself. I did already the same with all 16 Commonwealth realms. But I don't know if this is the best solution? I want to listen to the opinions of more experienced colleagues. Somerby (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. I think you have the right idea. I'm tempted by the "Monarchy of" articles, just because they're more specific, but ultimately, a kingdom is a place, and a monarchy is an institution. So the right targets are the geographic areas corresponding to the realms, which in all cases but one are coterminous with the country. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Somerby, you have only just created Kingdom of New Zealand. I'm curious – why did you create it? Nurg (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nurg, this term is used in sources, where it denote the geographic area corresponding to the Realm of New Zealand. Thus I redirected it to the Realm of New Zealand. if you think that the target should be different, then let us discuss your proposal. Strictly speaking, the state is headed by a female, but there is no such word Queendom --Somerby (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Somerby. Could you give references to two of those sources please. Nurg (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No references have been provided for "Kingdom of New Zealand" so I am unable to verify what they might be referring to. In fact, I am left with the suspicion that "Kingdom of New Zealand" is just a name made up on Wikipedia. In that case such a redirect is not needed. If it is kept, it might as well redirect to Realm of New Zealand, in the absence of any information about the name. Nurg (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a United Kingdom of New Zealand group, I'm not sure exactly what it is but it isn't anything recognised by the rest of the world. The sentence "The Kingdom of New Zealand also includes the self-governing autonomous states of the Cook Islands and Niue, and Tokelau." appears on many of the different websites operated by flagtheory.com which seems to be a private organisation dealing with small businesses wanting to do business internationally. Other than that I can't find any other uses of the term. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Thryduulf. We can ignore the UK of NZ one, as that is not the redirect term. I hadn't found the flagtheory.com use in my own searches so thanks for that one. They appear to be mistakenly using "Kingdom of New Zealand" when they mean "Realm of New Zealand", so that redirect is ok as it is. Nurg (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TRAINWRECK; each one of these is different and there's no point in discussing them together. The only really common element is that these are colonies of the British Empire which acquired responsible self-government in the 19th century while maintaining allegiance to the British Crown, but Britain used the term Dominion to purposefully avoid calling them Kingdoms. But since we're already here:
  • Keep Kingdom of Canada, and refine section per 85.67. That section best explains the origin and use of the term, and why it didn't become the name of the country. A see-also could be made there to Monarchy of Canada for interested readers but there really isn't a lot there on the "Kingdom of Canada" name.
  • Keep Kingdom of Australia. There is a Name of Australia article but the word "Kingdom" appears there only once, and as you would expect that instance is immediately preceded by "United"; that is, there is no information there and no apparently prominent uses of the term "Kingdom of Australia", except I did come across an anti-government and anti-vaccine Kingdom of Australia group on Facebook.
  • Neutral on Kingdom of New Zealand. This appears to be a situation like the Kingdom of Denmark redirects that came up recently, where the sovereign country consisting of the North and South islands is called "New Zealand", but there are related partially-self-governing territories which rely on the Monarchy of New Zealand for defense and foreign relations, as described in the Realm article. But I find that confusing and don't really want to give an opinion. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that there will be benefit in further discussion on whether we ought to harmonize these redirect titles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all: Australia and Canada per Ivan, New Zealand per Nurg. Jay (talk) 17:56, 14 November 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 11:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The most common language in Mexico → Spanish language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Don't see the rationale in this redirect, the only one of its kind, no other language has a redirect like this, and with good reason, I can't imagine anyone at all is going to be searching up this instead of just the article title. Loafiewa (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a plausible search term and creating redirects from random questions to their answers isn't common practice. Anyone who was interested would just go to Mexico or Languages of Mexico. Hut 8.5 19:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Accurate, but better left for search engines, and that's not a reasonable search term as Hut 8.5 argues above me. Regards, SONIC678 21:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No one would ever search for this. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though I wouldn't go so far as to say no one would ever search for this. Winston (talk) 02:08, 29 October 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 Deleted per CSD:G7.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Joshua Jonathan/Breast tax → User:Joshua Jonathan/Breast tax  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Yep. Delete. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 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 11:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fifth borough → Staten Island  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fourth borough → The Bronx  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Third borough → Queens  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Second borough → Brooklyn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• First borough → Manhattan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 5th borough → Staten Island  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 4th borough → The Bronx  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 3rd borough → Queens  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2nd borough → Brooklyn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 1st borough → Manhattan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

How are the five New York boroughs ordered in this context? Plus, the term "borough" itself does not exclusively denote New York City. feminist (+) 13:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. No evidence the boroughs are ever referred to that way. It's not alphabetical, chronological, based on population, size, or any traditional order. Seems like actively misleading WP:OR. - Station1 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Made up identifiers for the boroughs--RegentsPark (comment) 15:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The image caption to the map in Boroughs of New York City also numbers the boroughs, but in a different order. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, Station1, and RegentsPark. Although they are often called "the Five Boroughs," that still doesn't explain the redirects. The first, second, third, fourth, or fifth (and so on and so forth) boroughs of where? How? Why? They don't even correspond to how Stefan2's cited map numbers the boroughs, making these redirects implausible. Regards, SONIC678 16:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Implausible re-direct, as only place I know of their numeric designation being uses is in databases and NYC Property Tax Lookup (which includes the County with the number. Even then order is wrong as its Manhattan,Bronx Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island Slywriter (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This redirect system is completely impenetrable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. Other than "2nd Borough" which was (afaict) a one-off comedy(?) night in 2012, Google results are just for the first, etc borough that is the first to be, do or achieve something (e.g. "London's first Borough of Culture"), or in constructions like "second Borough MP calls for Dominic Cummings to go". Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 1 November 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 11:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Syracuse County → Onondaga County, New York  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Even if "[City] County" → "[the county where City is located in]" were a generally accepted format for redirects, which is itself doubtful, Syracuse is an ambiguous term and hence there are multiple counties containing a place named Syracuse. feminist (+) 11:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Station1 (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This redirect implies that there is a county by that name. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as both incorrect and ambiguous. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:52, 31 October 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 11:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Downtown subway → Pittsburgh Light Rail#Downtown subway and Beechview Line (Stage I)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous with Downtown MRT line and by extension any subway/rapid transit line that serves a downtown area. feminist (+) 11:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This redirect is far too broad for its target. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Susmuffin. Winston (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:12, 29 October 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 List of bridges in Portland and retarget the rest there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bridges in Portland → List of bridges in Portland, Oregon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bridges of Portland → List of bridges in Portland, Oregon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of bridges of Portland → List of bridges in Portland, Oregon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of bridges in Portland → List of bridges in Portland, Oregon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is ambiguous with at least List of bridges in Portland, Maine, and it is likely that one would be able to find bridges in the various places named Portland. feminist (+) 11:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate at List of bridges in Portland (like we do at List of rivers of Georgia, for instance) and point the other pages there. - Eureka Lott 16:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have created a DAB at List of bridges in Portland. Jay (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Create a list at List of bridges in Portland and redirect the others there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 1 November 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 TTC. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The TTC → Toronto Transit Commission  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous with some of the topics on TTC such as the places ending in "Center". feminist (+) 11:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to TTC. Otherwise it might get recreated. Station1 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to TTC: There are too many potential targets. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to TTC per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:13, 29 October 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 CTA. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The CTA → Chicago Transit Authority  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous with lots of topics on CTA. feminist (+) 11:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to CTA. Otherwise it might get recreated. Station1 (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to CTA: Again, there are too many potential targets. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to CTA per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:13, 29 October 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 11:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Findlay Airport (Pennsylvania) → Pittsburgh International Airport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Anyone who knows that there is an airport in Findlay Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania will already know what the airport is named. feminist (+) 11:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When I finally managed to get results about this airport ("findlay airport" pennsylvania -wikipedia -ohio -FDY -KFDY) nearly every single one of the uses was actually "the Findlay airport". Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 1 November 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 11:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Moon Airport → Pittsburgh International Airport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The logic of this redirect is that the airport is partly situated in Moon Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. However, anyone who can associate the airport with a place called Moon will already know how to search for the airport without needing this redirect. feminist (+) 11:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google results were for a non-notable travel agency in High Wycombe; New Moon Airport, Queensland; Valley of the Moon Airport, Mississippi; Half Moon Bay Airport, California; a fictional Full Moon airport in Second Life; a restaurant at Miami International Airport; and various other partial title matches for non-notable things. I was surprised to find no discussion of aviation on the moon. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 1 November 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 GTA. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The GTA → Greater Toronto Area  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous search term as this can refer to any car or hiking trail listed on GTA. feminist (+) 10:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to GTA: There are many different potential targets here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:15, 28 October 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 11:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• West St. Louis → West End, St. Louis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous search term. It can mean anything west of East St. Louis. feminist (+) 10:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. West St. Louis is not a well defined term, but the current target is definitely too narrow. It would probably be most used to refer to the neighborhoods surrounding Forest Park and could be extended to Clayton and U City. Otherwise, I could see it referring to St. Louis County, Missouri generally (or even West County). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This redirect is too vague, considering how broad "west" is. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:16, 28 October 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 11:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• New York (upstate) → Upstate New York  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• New York (downstate) → Downstate New York  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is not how parenthetical disambiguators work. Upstate and downstate New York are never referred to individually as just "New York", nor will anyone search for this. feminist (+) 10:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: These regions are never referred to in this way. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:17, 28 October 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, which is where this discussion is trending. Once a disambiguation was proposed, there were no objections to it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ST9 → Star Trek: Insurrection  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The source phrase of "ST9" does not appear in the target article. I'd propose that the redirect be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can't find anything in search results that could be an alternative target let alone enough for a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While this is an abbreviation of the film's name, it is far to vague to be useful. Furthermore, I support the deletion of ST8. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - only the second through sixth Star Trek films are series numbered in their titles, but this was the ninth Trek film made. Absent any other uses, this is harmless. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am the one who made this redirect page, as well as notes on the disambiguation pages for ST3 and ST6, the redirect page ST8 and a note at the top of the page ST10 redirects to, because when I typed ST7 (expecting Star Trek Generations) that page had a note at the top redirecting me there. The disambiguation pages for ST1, ST2, ST4, and ST5 had redirects as well. I figured it would be harmless (as well as balanced) unless there was something else that was referred to by this name. --Specialsam110 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per creator's statement immediately above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate for the things which actually meet WP:DABMENTION (ST9 in the ST postcode area, the Sarsılmaz Arms ST9, the ST9 exam of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries) and put the current target in the "See also" section. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify, since this is certainly referred to as ST9 in the wider world, (ninth Star Trek film), and there are other ST9 uses. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:46, 27 October 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 Māori culture. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Te Ao Maori → Māori people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Te ao Māori → Māori people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Te Ao Māori → Māori people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Wanting to have a discussion around the best target for this redirect (and the similar Te ao Māori. This concept translates loosely as the Māori world, and is generally used to describe Māori concepts, beliefs, and ways of doing things moreso than Māori themselves as a group. As such, I feel like another page that relates to this, such as Tikanga Māori, Mātauranga Māori or even Māori culture might be better suited as a target. I'm not quite sure which of these however, and I'm keen to have a kōrero (talk) about it, hence putting it up for discussion. Turnagra (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment tagged Te ao Māori and other capitalised forms and added them to the discussion. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Māori culture. I was unfamiliar with the term until today - when this article in The Guardian informed me. Narky Blert (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Māori culture based on your explanation, a cursory Google search, and the fact that Māori culture is a pretty developed article. Winston (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is not a clear-cut matter. We don't have an article that is an exact equivalent to te ao Māori. I was responsible for making these redirects to Māori people. It was a toss-up between that and Māori culture. I am happy to support retargeting them to Māori culture. I do think that is a better target than Tikanga Māori or Mātauranga Māori, as "Māori culture" encompasses those and more. Nurg (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps there's scope for an eventual article on te ao Māori? I'm not sure whether I could do such an article justice, but given the increasing importance of the concept it could be worth looking at. Turnagra (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced. I'm not sure what it would cover that is not covered by existing articles such as Māori culture and Māori people. Nurg (talk) 09:51, 30 October 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) 22:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned at target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in Wikipedia/WMF jargon, suwiki refers to su.wikipedia.org, the Sundanese language edition of Wikipedia. su.wikipedia.org and Sundanese Wikipedia both redirect to List of Wikipedias, the latter as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundanese Wikipedia (June 2013). Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unlikely search term. I'd note that List of Wikipedias does not mention "suwiki". feminist (+) 11:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The target used to have a section on SuWiki, written by the editor who made the redirect. Jay (talk) 05:42, 12 November 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 redirect to Wiktionary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikiholic → Wikipedia:Wikipediholic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this should actually be a G4 per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 2#Wikiholics, Wikiholic, Wikiholoc, Wikipediholic, Wikipediholism → Wikipedia:Wikipediholic but since we're here no harm in re-establishing the consensus in a more recent discussion. Regards, 2A0A:C802:4:1:0:0:0:34 (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can live with a soft redirect here per Thryduulf, weak preference over deletion; sorry about not checking back on this earlier. Regards, 2A0A:C802:4:1:0:0:0:34 (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak soft redirect to wikt:wikiholic, this is actually the 8th time a page has been created at this title (7 times as a redirect, once as a dicdef), although the first time since 2006-7. This suggests that people are looking this up and so we should have something here, and a soft redirect to Wiktionary seems fine, and I've added a link to the project page to Wiktionary's entry for someone who wants more than the definition. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikt per Thryduulf. Jay (talk) 16:21, 27 October 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 Octopath Traveler#Legacy. There is consensus that the search term primarily refers to the game and is unlikely to refer to Triangulation (politics). (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 11:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Triangle Strategy → List of Square Enix video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This also seems like it could reasonably point to triangulation (politics), which describes a political triangle strategy. Unsure if the Square Enix video game is the primary use. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I cannot find any real-world instances of triangulation (politics) being referred to as "triangle strategy". There are some other topics actually called "triangle strategy" [1] but I don't think we have coverage of those. All uses of the phrase "triangle strategy" in Wikipedia are in reference to this game, meaning there's nothing else that meets WP:DABMENTION to create a disambiguation page either. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Octopath Traveler#Legacy and leave it as a redirect with potential. It's notable enough to make its own article if someone were to make it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Octopath Traveler#Legacy per Zxcvbnm. I believe someone can turn it into a proper article now if they are willing to do it. There should be enough coverage from RS. OceanHok (talk) 16:09, 1 November 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) 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Section du Théâtre-Français → Jean-Paul Marat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Yes, I get that at one point this subject was named after the target. But does it have to redirect towards his article? I don't think he ever represented there or had any special connection to it other than it being renamed in his honor.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Someone who knows nothing about the connection would be confused by this redirect. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on fr:Section de Marat, it looks like there's room here for an article or at least coverage in a broader article. Delete per WP:REDLINK, awaiting either an article at Section de Marat or some amount of coverage at the current target or (preferable) Revolutionary sections of Paris. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:56, 31 October 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 Withdrawn/Procedural close. Proposal requires a requested move discussion. Nominator requests closure, and all other participants support early closure. Involved closure to restore utility of redirect for this common term given unanimous support for close. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alamo → Battle of the Alamo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Alamo (disambiguation). One could make a very reasonable case for either Battle of the Alamo or Alamo Mission in San Antonio being the primary topic of the title (personally I favor the later) however, as both have near equal claim to the title of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it would be best if the Alamo redirect simply pointed to the disambiguation page. BSMRD (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Battle of the Alamo get 6 times the pageviews of Alamo Mission in San Antonio. And since the Alamo building is noteworthy primarily (not entirely) for the battle, and the battle article has a prominent hatnote pointing toward the building, I'm inclined to leave it as a primary redirect. That way the probable majority of the 48 readers per day using the redirect will more likely wind up at the article they're looking for. Station1 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To propose that there is no primary topic for Alamo, a requested move discussion is required to move Alamo (disambiguation) to Alamo. You cannot simply redirect the base term to the disambiguation page and keep the "(disambiguation)" qualifier there. See WP:DABNAME and more generally WP:DAB. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, is there a way to close this? RFD is not my forte. BSMRD (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! It should probably be left open for the moment as someone has already commented, and there still could be discussion about whether the battle or the mission is the best primary topic. Someone not involved might nevertheless come along and do a procedural close. In the meantime, feel free to start an RM discussion at Talk:Alamo (disambiguation), probably a good idea to link to this discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to closing this. Station1 (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I too would support a close since it's the wrong forum and the nominator and all other participants support an early close. I'm going to go ahead and close it to restore the use of the redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:33, 28 October 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 deleted by Athaenara per G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Laura Brehm → Losing You (Ephixa and Laura Brehm song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think there's any good possible redirect target for Laura Brehm, so this redirect should be deleted. She's worked on multiple songs/albums. No redirect target we have provides much useful information about her that a reader would be looking for, and the current target is somewhat WP:ASTONISHing. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this is the only song with an article that this artist has worked on. When a more notable, more successful song that Brehm contributed to releases, we can retarget there. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not suggesting retargeting to any song. Any user searching for Laura Brehm would not find the information they'd like to know on Losing You (Ephixa and Laura Brehm song). Could for example also redirect to TheFatRat who she's worked on multiple songs with - but that wouldn't be a good idea either, because that doesn't provide much useful info on her. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to encourage article creation, and facilitate uninhibited Sarch to the 14 other mentions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Shhhnotsoloud. Station1 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are several articles which mention her or songs she's worked on, there's no good reason to pick that one as the target over search results. Hut 8.5 19:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Striking through my vote and changing to Delete. I can agree to allow search results to take precedence over one specific target based on others' voices. If an article were to be created, however, we would need to go to deletion review, as there was a previous AfD with a delete result. As creator of this redirect who has voted delete with no opposition, this redirect is now eligible for G7. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure we'd need to go to DRV, the discussion had low participation and new sources would likely be in the article to demonstrate notability anyway. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:25, 28 October 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 13:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Latin civilisation → Western culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, doesn't unambiguously refer to it; a GScholar search suggests that this term often alternatively refers to the Roman Empire, the sphere of influence of the Roman Catholic Church, and/or the southwestern European region of Romance-language speaking countries and their colonies. In the absence of a clear target, deletion seems like it may be the best option. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally made the page in reference to the work of the polish historian Feliks Koneczny, who used the term in his theory of civilisations, with the latin civilisation being characterised through its legal, ethical and cultural heritage gained from the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church (note: Koneczny did not view civilisation as inherently tied to religion, he did view it as being fundamentally tied to it. He viewed England as a country that kept much of its former Catholic heritage even when it became protestant.). His usage of the term aligns with what one would call the 'Western civilisation', with it being commonly synonymous in Poland. It also has a Polish Wikipedia page. Nonetheless I see that I failed to consider other usages of the term, as such I would propose to convert the redirect into a disambiguation page. Kanclerz K-Tech (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC) :[reply]

I'm liking the idea of a disambiguation page - it very clearly is an ambiguous term with multiple meanings. A disambiguation page would mean also that the reader would get some context about why they should be going to the western culture article (assuming that is where they wanted to go), even if nothing is added to that article. --Xurizuri (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no obvious target (unlike, say, Arabic civilisation, which would clearly go to Arab world). Western culture would be defensible, as would be Legacy of the Roman Empire (probably the closest to the sense Kanclerz describes). As would Roman Empire/Ancient Rome. Yeah, a most logical solution would be to have short disambig page with a longer than average write-up to explain the concept, and then links to the plausible targets. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the October 10 log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate due to the various potential links noted above, as well as others like Latins (Italic tribe). Curbon7 (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate or delete - I can think of plenty of plausible other targets for this, including Ancient Rome, Romance-speaking world, Latin America etc. Hut 8.5 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate: There are a massive number of potential targets here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have started a draft of the disambiguation page at the redirect. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Continue with the drafted disambig page. Jay (talk) 05:48, 12 November 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.