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 Philadelphia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Philadelpia → Ptolemaic Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Implausible misspelling, strange and unhelpful redirect goal (no relevant content at destination, only a useless, confusing and misleading hatnote). The only related redirect is Philadelphia (Faiyum) and leads to Faiyum § Ancient history. I would've speedied, but apparently only admins can do this. Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Philadelphia, unless "Philadelpia" has an actual connection to the original target. Seems to be a plausible misspelling. On the note of speedying, non-admins can tag a page for speedy deletion, but only admins can actually perform the deletion. Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per above as ((R from misspelling)). - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks unnecessary, as the redirect hadn't existed for 20 years before this odd redirect was created in May. I haven't found out how to tag a page for speedy deletion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, put ((db-g2)) on the top of the page. See Wikipedia:CSD. Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarget as plausible misspelling. We already have Philadelpia, Pennsylvania, Philadelpia, PA, and some others. The connection to Ptolemaic Kingdom is the city of Philadelpia or Philadelphia there: "1. An ancient city northeast of the Dead Sea in modern-day Jordan. The chief city of the Ammonites, it was enlarged and embellished by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 bc) and named in honor of him. Amman, the capital of Jordan, is now on the site. ([1]). It does seem that someone searching on "Philadelpia" is much more likely to have miss-typed "Philadelphia" than to be looking for the ancient city. MB 01:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is interesting. The etymology of Philadelphia will give some hint on the usage "Philadelpia" but I agree it's not clear in its current condition. Even Wiktionary immediately points to the historical context. – The Grid (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Philadelphia. Searching for "Philadelpia" already returns Philadelphia as the top result, so I don't know that it's a super useful redirect to have, but if we are going to keep it, then it's much more plausible that someone is looking for the Pennsylvanian city than the Ptolemaic city of that name – and at any rate the Ptolemaic city doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the current article! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Philadelphia. A plausible misspelling for anything with this name, but considerably more likely that anyone typing it will be looking for the city in Pennsylvania than anything else. As that has a hatnote for other uses, readers looking for other Philadelphias should still be able to find them. P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 21 September 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2021 World School Winter Games → Gymnasiade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading. Should be deleted to encourage page creation.

• 2018 World School Winter Games → Gymnasiade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading, like in Gymnasiade#ISF World School Winter Games (Winter High School Games). Should be deleted to encourage page creation.

• 2021 U15 Gymnasiade → Gymnasiade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading, like in Gymnasiade#ISF World School Summer Games (Summer High School Games) U15. Should be deleted to encourage page creation.

• 2022 Summer Gymnasiade → Gymnasiade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 2021 Summer Gymnasiade → Gymnasiade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading, like in Template:Gymnasiade. Should be deleted to encourage page creation.

• 2021 Gymnasiade → Gymnasiade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading, like in 2021 in sports. Should be deleted to encourage page creation.

• 2022 Gymnasiade → Gymnasiade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 2018 Gymnasiade → Gymnasiade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 2016 Gymnasiade → Gymnasiade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 2013 Gymnasiade → Gymnasiade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 2009 Gymnasiade → Gymnasiade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading, like in Gymnasiade#ISF World School Summer Games (Summer High School Games) U18. Should be deleted to encourage page creation. Deancarmeli (talk) 17:37, 15 September 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 Preamble to the Constitution of India. Hatnotes can be added as desired through the normal editing proces. Hog Farm _Talk 21:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India → India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was created based on the introductory passage of the constitution of India, where these words are used to describe the country. I don't think the current target is optimal, I can't see any evidence of India actually being given this name, it isn't discussed in the target article and a few searches turn up results that are overwhelmingly about the constitution. I propose retargeting to Preamble to the Constitution of India. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As the redirect creator, I feel that the new target is better. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom and creator, and tag as an ((r from phrase)). Probably should get a hatnote, though, along the lines of for the country itself... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:31, 15 September 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 for now. As discussed below, In defense of bad music may be an appropriate redirect in the future with a more developed target. Hog Farm _Talk 21:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In defense of bad music → Les plaisirs et les jours  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Proust bad music → Les plaisirs et les jours  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The first of these terms is likely the title of a story (poem?) in the book, but it is impossible to know from reading the target article. Searching for this string online and on Google Scholar, I was unable to find any relevant results. The second term feels like an SEO phrase for finding the firs term. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be willing to support keeping an ((r without mention)) here if it's the title of a part of the work, but looking at fr:Les Plaisirs et les Jours, I don't see anything that would translate to "In defense of bad music". There's also a (rather unencyclopedic by enwiki standards, but useful for our purposes) list of quotations, which also doesn't say anything along these lines. Perhaps this is a translation of a line in "Portraits de peintres et de musiciens" ("Portraits of painters and musicians"), but if so it doesn't seem to be a noteworthy one. Delete #1 unless someone can establish noteworthiness. Delete #2 regardless. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

· It is indeed the title of one of the essays in this collection. I ran across it in an essay I was reading recently. I did some research and it mostly is referred to in passing (eg, 'as in Proust's essay defending bad music') or by quoting one passage that appears numerous places, often without proper linking back to the book. That's why I made the two redirects. I hoped they would at least tell curious people where the information should be. It'll save them time that was not saved for me. Thmazing (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The target is not developed enough to help with the redirects. Delete now, and maybe recreate in future. Jay ^(Talk) 20:35, 15 September 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. Hog Farm _Talk 21:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes → Giraffe#Captivity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typo of "stereotypic" (the only redirect with this misspelling); while from a merge, the exact same content is preserved in the history of the correctly spelt Stereotypic behaviour in giraffes redirect. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Dleete per above. Narky Blert (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleet per above. Now that the history's preserved in the correctly spelled redirect, why do we need this search bar clutter? Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 22:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, gets views for whatever reason. As the redirect is utterly harmless and deleting it is potentially harmful, I think it's best to err on the safe side. I can't help but notice that the misspelled portion of the redirect – otpy – is an anagram of typo. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not like the correctly spelt otyp isn't... ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't seem to have sufficient activity to warrant keeping. A page was created here in 2007 but quickly moved to Stereotypic behaviour in giraffes, and then several years later that page was merged into giraffe. The typo title doesn't have any useful history that needs to be saved. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also possible, I guess, that someone starting to type "stereotypic" into the search box will see this title before any others, because of alpha order. I'm not sure if the search engine actually works that way, it doesn't seem to for me. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a very improbable typographical error. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deltee per above. Winston (talk) 04:09, 16 September 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 Alternative trading organization. Nominally no consensus, defaulting to the suggested redirect in the absence of support for the status quo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• AgroFair → Fair trade (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Oké bananas → Fair trade (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Oke bananas → Fair trade (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These redirects seem to be survivors from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oké bananas, 2004.

My limited researches do not show whether or not these redirects would have pointed to a good target in 2004. Nevertheless, I am certain that they do not point to a good target in 2021. They appear to be redirects from companies which likely fail WP:CORPDEPTH to a DAB page, of no use to anyone. AgroFair is currently, uselessly, linked in Alternative trading organization. The best I could find is that AgroFair is mentioned, but not linked, in en:Nico Roozen and nl:René Leegte. Their websites: AgroFair and Oké bananas. Delete, to encourage article creation if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added another related redirect to this nomination. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, IP! Narky Blert (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Alternative trading organization, add Category:Fair trade organizations. Possible article depending on whether you consider Fruitnet, Freshplaza, and Biojournaal reliable sources. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:37, 28 August 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. I have created Hot chips (disambiguation) which is linked on the redirect target. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 16:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hot chips → French fries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's an ENGVAR issue here: the British/Irish/most-of-the-Commonwealth "chip" means what Americans and Canadians call french fries, while the American/Canadian "chip" means what people from the other group of countries call crisps. Chips/french fries are normally served hot. But many potato chip/crisp companies make some sort of "hot chip", "hot" meaning "spicy", similar to Flamin' Hot Cheetos.

Potato chip has surprisingly little content about flavors of potato chip and none about hot/spicy flavors, so weak retarget there (or to its § Flavoring) as an ((r without mention)), but also open to a WP:REDLINK argument.

Noting also the existence of Hot Chip (a band) and Hot Chips (a symposium). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. No evidence has been provided that spicy crisps are referred to as "hot chips" in any country, but there are plenty of sources available using the phrase in connection with french fries. Plus (according to Wiktionary) "hot chips" and "cold chips" are used in Australia to distinguish, respectively, french fries from crisps where there might otherwise be ambiguity. SpinningSpark 21:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I skipped that bit, sorry! In North America, "hot chips" is used to mean spicy potato chips/crisps. Google ranks that meaning higher, at least searching (incognito) from the U.S. That said, Google has something of a pro-commercial-product bias. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A dab hatnote on French fries will deal with that. The retarget request is still a dumb idea. Creating a dab page and pointing to that with the hatnote at French fries is another possibility since you have found yet more meanings above. SpinningSpark 11:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure calling it dumb is necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate between Hot Chip and Hot Chips (complete title matches) with see-alsos to french fries and potato chip. In countries that call fries "chips", they are called chips, not hot chips, other than apparently in Australia where "hot chips" is a popular pub dish. The United States appears to be the only market where spicy potato chips are branded "hot"; Canada imports a lot of marketing from the US but "spicy" is still FAR more common, and they're called "crisps" elsewhere. Fortunately we don't have to decide, we can just disambiguate between the band and the electronics conference, and leave the other two topics that have different names everywhere as plain-language links and let the reader figure out which topic they're looking for. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Hot chips sounds like hot crisps to most people, although I don't know about the Commonwealth usage. 2409:4061:2DCF:43B5:4BE8:A8D3:8EDE:B551 (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. I don't think I've ever seen substantial use of this phrase to mean "spicy American potato chip" while this does seem to be used to mean fries in a British context. SnowFire (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. This Google image search for "hot chips" shows numerous pictures of the term being used generically for French fries in Australia (especially), UK and New Zealand. Narky Blert (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For you, maybe. For me (based in the U.S.) that link shows basically nothing but spicy potato chips. Google is geographically biased in that way. I do think we should be aware of systemic bias before relying too much on editors' anecdotal experience, too. I have most often heard the phrase "hot chips" in the U.S. in lower-income majority-minority communities—a demographic that sadly does not edit Wikipedia very much. I'm fine with Ivanvector's suggestion to disambiguate rather than retarget, but I think a keep here seriously risks astonishing a large portion of our readers who are perhaps less likely to be editors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Anecdotally, in Canada: "chips" is potato chips, "crisps" is potato chips but folks look at you funny (and "Crispers" are a brand of wheat cracker), "fries" is french fries, "fish and chips" is breaded white fish with french fries (not chips), and "hot chips" are a byproduct of metal machining if not just some nonsense (I picture microwaving a bowl of Lays and then having all your friends be mad at you). These phrases all have different meanings to different people, and per WP:GLOBALIZE we should try to give all readers something useful where we can, which is why I think disambiguation is best here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:46, 15 September 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. Hog Farm _Talk 21:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Teorema folk → Folk theorem (game theory)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RLOTE. I can find no connection between this bit of game theory and the Italian language. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The relationship between folk theorems and the Italian language is unclear. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Winston (talk) 04:12, 16 September 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 Philosophy of human rights#Critiques of human rights. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticism of human rights → Human rights  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Opposition to human rights → Human rights#Criticism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The redirect is created in December 2018 and originally links to the "Criticism" header of Human rights. The article has since then be extensively restructured and rewritten in January 2019, and the mentioned header was deleted, which makes the redirect useless, and it is proposed that it should be deleted retargeted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Opposition to human rights targets the same no-longer-existing section. Would you like to add that redirect to this nomination? Also, there's some relevant content at Philosophy of human rights#Critiques of human rights, though I haven't thought very hard about whether retargeting there is a good idea or not. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think the redirect should also be included in this discussion, thanks!廣九直通車 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per User:61. Jay ^(Talk) 20:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Motion changed to retarget per 61.239.39.90, and many thanks for the IP user's guidance.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:12, 18 September 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.