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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Artsakh prisoners → Armenian prisoners of war during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Artsakh Prisoners → Armenian prisoners of war during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Similar rationale to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_6#Armenian_prisoners, the search term as written could equally refer to people imprisoned in Artsakh, or POWs from other wars. In this case, we don't even have a List of prisons in the Republic of Artsakh as an alternative target so deletion seems like the clear way forward here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 13 April 2022 (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 00:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned in target article. The only mention of this term on Wikipedia is for a 2017 Malayalam film that doesn't seem to have an article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, useless. BD2412 T 21:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now to encourage article creation. Seems to be a specific spear weapon used in Indian martial arts. I got hits for the movie as well but I'm not sure if that passes notability due to lack of English language sources.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:58, 17 April 2022 (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 00:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was a stub mentioned here for about a month and a half back in 2005, but then it was WP:BLAR-ed. However, at the present time, it's not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After some searching, this is likely a hoax in my opinion (and if not, quite obscure, as I couldn't find a single result). eviolite (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I found some companies that are named as such in Southeast Asia but not sure if they are notable. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:56, 17 April 2022 (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 per G7 by Ponyo. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Flybe (1979-2000) → Flybe (1979-2020)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Please delete. This redirect is the result of a typo in a page move and should never have existed. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy tagged G7 Happy Editing--IAmChaos 19:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IAmChaos: I moved your close down to a comment. The discussion should stay open until the redirect is actually deleted in case the CSD is denied. (I'm not saying it should be denied, but it's the proper etiquette). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Got it Happy Editing--IAmChaos 19:49, 13 April 2022 (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 Samurai#Weapons. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Samurai sword → Katana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Samurai swords → Katana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Samuri sword → Katana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently, this phrase could also refer to the wakizashi or the tachi. I'm thinking all of these redirects should be retargeted to either Samurai#Weapons (1st choice) or Japanese sword (2nd choice). Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there is confusion in what the English term Samurai sword specifically refers to. I second Steel1943's first choice. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there's also the Daishō (stereotypical samurai pair) with a hatnote for the other two choices -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Samurai#Weapons which I think is the most helpful for our readers. Said section also has link to Japanese sword.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 17 April 2022 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unneeded Qwv (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete any need is covered on the dismabiguation page for Gia -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Someone searching this will presumably find what they are looking for. The difference in spelling is explained (sort of, via links) in the very first line of Kia. A7V2 (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We have a style for disambiguating, and using the forward slash for alternate names is not one of them. Jay (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2022 (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 prodedural close. Nominator is a blocked sock, and the only other participant would seem to be okay with the status quo. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nation of Israel → Israel (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Israelis based off of precedent like Irish nation, Nation of Pakistan or Pakistani nation. See also Jewish nation redirect. Balkovec (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate to the Israelis, Israelites, Israel, and Kingdom of Israel (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  then, in fact, you vote "keep", since it is already targeting a disambiguation page with all these entries. Balkovec (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2022 (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 00:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Honour blade → Wakizashi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I do not see a connection between this phrase and the target. Ive been looking around third party engines for a bit, and most results are for a subject named "Honorblade" related to The Stormlight Archive. In addition, the variants Honour Blade, Honourblade, Honor blade, Honor Blade, and Honorblade do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think this is because it is used as a blade for Seppuku, an honor related ritual suicide. Then again, that makes it vague since other weapons like the tanto can do the same job as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:00, 17 April 2022 (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 00:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:AFDAFD → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2022 (Part 1)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This section contains a serious redirect for discussion nomination. Such material is not meant to be taken as an April Fools' Day joke.

Assuming that "AFDAFD" means "April Fools' Day AfD" (yes, "AFD" by itself is ambiguous), then there are several past years that could equally well be the target of this redirect. So, this redirect should be deleted, since it is not worth retargeting to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2023 etc. every year. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom since the redirect requires annual maintenance, which are redirects that tend to get deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Would Wikipedia:Rules for Fools#Joke deletion nominations be a useful target? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no incoming links, not useful as a shortcut. Jay (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2022 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confusing search term which is not mentioned at target article. Not sure if any connection exists between the redirect and the article's subject, and why it even points there to begin with. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely a misspelt word of Vettathunad that is mentioned in the lead of the article Kingdom of Tanur. There is nothing like the term Bettettnad documented anywhere in South Indian history records and is better to keep the redirect as it is.R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 09:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if that's the case, wouldn't deletion be preferable then? Since there isn't any other term that resembles this word, given that Vettathunad is not even slightly similar. And, in my opinion, deletion would also prevent confusing the casual reader, who would end scratching their heads and not knowing what this term refers to. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• See Special:Diff/393403699 by the redirect's creator for an explanation. But see also Special:Diff/392225917 for the redirect's creator's attitude to stuff that has never been recorded. Uncle G (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probably made up name. No search results outside of wikipedia. Jay (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2022 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Maan Kunwari → Mariam-uz-Zamani  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Princess of Amber → Mariam-uz-Zamani  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I wish to nominate Maan Kunwari for deletion and Princess of Amber for either deletion or conversion to Disambiguation page. Mariam-uz-Zamani was not refer to as Maan Kunwari but as Heer Kunwari or so. And Mariam-uz-Zamani wasn't the only princess of Amber (former state of Jaipur), at least one other princess of Amber has an Wikipedia page. It does not seem right to associate "princess of Amber" with one lady but only two Princess of Amber has seem to have Wikipedia articles. I request to turn this redirect to a disambiguation page or delete it.
Manavati (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about turning Princess of Amber (which I created as a redirect) into a disambig page if there is more than one existing WP page. Dsp13 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Manavati: which is the other princess of Amber who you say has a wikipedia article? Jay (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: The other princess is Manbhawati Bai (later Shah Begum), a niece and daughter-in-law of Mariam-uz-Zamani. Manavati (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was looking for "Princess of Amber" and this is "Princess of Amer" (which is actually the same). Delete given that neither of the two people are referred to in their articles with these royal titles. Delete Maan Kunwari per nom. Jay (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unusual third relist since proposal for deletion has not been opposed, same as the other discussion below (which I also relisted).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @CycloneYoris: Trying to understanding the relisting statement. If it is the deletion proposal of Maan Kunwari you are referring to, why is a third (or even first or second) relisting required to wait for someone to oppose an otherwise unopposed deletion nomination? If the "other discussion below" is #Three Powers Agreement, then isn't that a different case where both votes implicitly opposed deletion by suggesting disambiguation and retarget? Jay (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jay: Because you're the only participant above that is openly supporting deletion. The nom is also suggesting deletion, but more as an alternative to disambiguating, so that's why I figured that maybe a third relist would be helpful in gaining some much needed clarity for reaching consensus. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still unclear which redirect you are referring to. Is it Maan Kunwari or Princess of Amber? The nom has different proposals for them. Jay (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm referring to Princess of Amber. Maan Kunwari on the other hand has already reached consensus for deletion, so no point discussing that one. Sorry if I wasn't as clear in my relisting comment. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dsp13: Do you know if Mariam-uz-Zamani was referred to as Princess of Amber any time either as a title, or otherwise? Jay (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was following the Dictionary of Women Worldwide, online version here. Dsp13 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Princess of Amber and tag as ((R without mention)). We don't know if Manbhawati Bai was referred to by this royal title. Jay (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jay: The term "Princess of Amber" is simply an english term used to refer to the daughters of the King of the kingdom of Amer/Amber; just how Ottoman and Mughal princess are referred to as. Both of them might have been referred to as Kunwarisa/Baisa or a term equivalent to "Princess" but certainly none could possibly be referred by the English term "Princess" in their lifetime. Modern dictionary do mention the more famous ones as princess of certain state/country (Mariam-uz-Zamani is arguably the most famous Mughal wife to be Rajput princess whereas Manbhawati Bai is barely known to people) but the contemporary books simply refer to them as daughter of (father's name). Manavati (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Manavati: Given that we are at the end of the discussion after 3 relistings, what is your choice for Princess of Amber for a delete vs disambiguate? Jay (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Delete Mariam-uz-Zamani is listed already in Category:Rajput Princesses along other Rajput princesses. I think the page for only two princesses is unnecessary, especially when these women are more famous as Mughal wives and there are several other princesses like them. It's unlikely people will search for Princess of Amber. Manavati (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was not particular either way, but will go with you for the consensus. I have struck off my keep vote. Note to closer: the other redirect Maan Kunwari was always Delete, and there was no argument on that. Jay (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2022 (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. There was no participation despite two additional relists. There was no support for the current target. Retargetting to the Tripartite disambiguation page. Jay (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Three Powers Agreement → Association Trio  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, internet and Google Scholar searches suggest that this phrase has been used to refer to myriad different three-way pacts historically, and often informally, making it a poor candidate for disambiguation. Delete unless a justification can be provided . _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like this could be disambiguated, noting in particular that Three Powers Accord exists and redirects to Tripartite Accord (1988). BD2412 T 00:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What about retargetting to the disambiguation page Tripartite (where Tripartite Accord already redirects)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketiltrout (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:41, 13 April 2022 (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 Pump#Impulse pumps. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Impulse pump → Hydraulic ram  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Pump#Impulse pumps, which lists other kinds of impulse pumps too. 1234qwer1234qwer4 08:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom, unambiguously a better target. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:02, 17 April 2022 (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. Jay (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2020 Saint Peter's Peacocks soccer team → Saint Peter's Peacocks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2019 Saint Peter's Peacocks men's soccer team → Saint Peter's Peacocks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2019 Saint Peter's Peacocks soccer team → Saint Peter's Peacocks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such information in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a likely search term, not a notable topic, not mentioned in target. GiantSnowman 09:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:05, 17 April 2022 (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. Jay (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Solmikrosystems → Sun Microsystems  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a translation of the company name, but is not used outside of Wikipedia, and was created (as an article) by a disruptive, and since indef blocked editor. Fram (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RLOTE. This American company has no specific affinity for the Nordic languages. Not a particularly plausible way of searching for the company in English. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:02, 17 April 2022 (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 Engl. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Engl. → Adolf Engler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per Engl, this can also refer to "England" or "English" (see, e.g., Engl. J., Engl. Lit. Renaiss., Engl. Stud., Engl. Today), and therefore should point to the disambiguation page Engl. BD2412 T 05:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The editor proposing this change seems to be confusing "Engl." with "Engl". There is no ambiguity with Engl. - it refers to the German botanist Adolf Engler. As an editor who writes plant articles, it is difficult enough to remember which author abbreviations are ambiguous (such as Druce for George Claridge Druce, Gris for Jean Antoine Arthur Gris and Sieber for Franz Sieber). There is no chance that a person reading "Engl." in the taxobox in the articles about Asteranthe asterias or Sarcomelicope will think that "Engl." refers to "England" or "English". For a similar reason, it will not be necessary to create a disambiguation page for Hook.. Gderrin (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gderrin: Please see, e.g., Engl. J., Engl. Lit. Renaiss., Engl. Stud., Engl. Today. Each of these includes "Engl." with a period at the end. In each of these cases, "Engl." means something other than "Adolf Engler". For example, Engl. Today refers to English Today, and not Adolf Engler Today, even if you expect it to mean the latter. The question of whether their is a WP:PRIMARY TOPIC of the term, "Engl." is based on what the average reader would think, not on what people in a specialized field might expect. For example, if you were a pastry chef, it might be obvious to you that "Napoleon" refers primarily to a dessert.
  • Some additional examples of uses within the encyclopedia that demonstrate that "Engl." often refers to "England" or English" include N. Engl. Hist. Geneal. Regist., N. Engl. Q., J. Engl. Ger. Philol., Anglo Sax. Engl., Leeds Stud. Engl., Eur. J. Engl. Stud., Russ. J. Phys. Chem. (Engl. Transl.), and Old Engl. Newsl.; furthermore a Google Books search yields primarily uses such as:
    • The Metamorphoses, in Engl. blank verse, tr. by J.J. Howard (1807).
    • Æschylus, tr. into Engl. prose by F.A. Paley (1871).
    • James Raine, Simplicia Florentina, York, A.D. 100. [2 lectures. In Engl.] (1901).
  • Contrary to the expectations you suggest, these do not indicate, e.g., Æschylus, tr. into Adolf Engler prose by F.A. Paley, or The Metamorphoses, in Adolf Engler blank verse. What a person reads in a taxobox in a botanical article is no more relevant to this inquiry than what a person reads on a dessert menu about the availability of a "Napoleon". BD2412 T 15:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Engl per nom. At minimum, if kept there would need to be a hatnote at the current target pointing to the dab, but I don't believe there is a primary topic here, so redirect to the dab. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems to me that Engl. on its own refers to the Botanist. It's use in journal names is always as part of the name and would never be wikilinked. I don't recall ever seeing the abbreviation used alone for England/English in the text of books, journal articles or newspaper articles, so I assume its very rare if used at all. Moreover, if someone was searching for the abbreviation Engl they wouldn't add the punctuation. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "If someone was searching for the abbreviation Engl they wouldn't add the punctuation." With all due respect, this is a culturally driven assumption that is not globally true. In the United States, anyone searching for an abbreviation of anything would customarily add a period to the end. I realize that this is not the case in all English-speaking countries, but this is a global website and we can't assume that all our readers will conform to one culture's conventions. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Personally I would always prefer to pipe botanical abbreviations, rather than use redirects. However, I do agree that "Engl." on its own in a plant taxobox is unambiguous. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the Botanical abbreviation is probably the PT for the form with full stop, but it needed a hatnote, which I have now added. I suggest that all similar cases (ie where "Foo." is an author abbreviation but "Foo" has other uses) need a similar hatnote; I've expanded the hatnote at the target of Wall. as a start. PamD 13:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. Clearly ambiguous in many contexts, and the abbreviation will not necessarily be found only in taxoboxes in botanical articles. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. Wikipedia is not just a plant encyclopedia. This cannot be unambiguous since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not restricted to botany -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2022 (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 withdrawan. Jay (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ILGA Purges → International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Old redirect that gets no views with a very problematic history. This was originally written as a pure POV piece promoting a pederast agenda; take the quotes "The Gay and Lesbian Association Against Defamation (GLAAD) itself spread lies about a gay association, NAMBLA, in order to score political points with the right-wing" and "It's a great victory for gay liberation when one of it's more vocal exponents is a McCarthyite red- and pedo-baiter distorting history in order to maintain a prejudicial social order, and shit on the grave of one of the Movement's founders". It was redirected a few weeks later; as it currently stands, I believe this is a completely unneeded pov redirect. Moneytrees^Talk🏝️ 19:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to nom: was this purge a real thing? Other than the two paragraphs you quoted, is the rest of the page encyclopedic (given 2003's standards of Wikipedia, when there was no strict sourcing)? Jay (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay The ILGA gained consultative status on the UN Economic and Social Council in the 90's and were then removed because pro-pedophilia organizations such as NAMBLA were members of it. As a result, the ILGA cut ties with those organizations- that is the "purge" this article refers to. I hadn't noticed that some reliable sources actually do describe this event as a "purge", so the title's ok. The real problem is the page that existed before hand, which was not encyclopedic by 2003 standards either; see this talk page section from 2003, where it was noted that the subject was encyclopedic but that the content on the page was an issue. It had no sources, painted the pro-pedophile organizations as unfairly persecuted and heroic, and attacked modern gay activists for distancing themselves. The article could also be construed as a BLP attack page, given that it attacks Andrew Sullivan near the end. Taking that into account and that old pages with content such as this have been suppressed before, I've decided to delete the page under an IAR-ish G6/A10 and restore it as a redirect, since the problem is with the history, not the title. I get this is a unusual action to take but I believe it is the correct and easiest solution to the problem. If any other admin has an issue with this, feel free to restore it. I would like if this RfD was closed, as I no longer have an issue with the title. Moneytrees^🏝️Talk 00:58, 22 April 2022 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Decke → Sound board (music)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I cannot see how this redirect makes sense; it's tagged as ((R from alternative language)), but it seems wikt:Decke refers to covering cloths and ceilings/roofs rather than any musical term; the dewiki article for the target is de:Korpus (Musikinstrument) (not Decke). It was created as part of Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/10, but that does not provide any insight. eviolite (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

de:Decke (Saiteninstrument) is the relevant article for string instrument sound boards. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. I merged the Wikidata items accordingly. I still lean towards deletion per WP:RLOTE, however. eviolite (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Petersglocke. Jay (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay: I may be wrong, but my reading of that article is that it is referred to as "Decke Pitter" or "Dekke Pitter", rather than "Decke" by itself. The dewiki article has a few references that mention "decke" but it's always in the phrase "decke Pitter" or "decken Pitter". eviolite (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was misled by the way it was mentioned at that article. I have fixed it there and struck off my vote. Jay (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This could have been deleted by now if it was not for my intervention. Delete as RLOTE per nom. Jay (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First relister here. I noticed you had updated your comment, I relisted because I sensed a bit of uncertainty around the position that the current target is inappropriate (and also, I know a lot of audio equipment is manufactured in Germany, so I wouldn't be surprised if German terminology has entered English usage). At the time, I tagged the target article for relevant wikiprojects, hoping that the article alerts would draw in participation from the experts. That hasn't happened, so yeah: deletion (possibly of the soft variety) is the right outcome of the discussion as it stands now. – Uanfala (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2022 (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 refined to Royal College of Physicians#Fellowship. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FRCP (Lon) → Royal College of Physicians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• FRCP(Lon) → Royal College of Physicians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects are not mentioned in any variant in the target article, leaving the target article unclear on what the redirects are meant to refer. The article does contain some variants of "MRCP" with "(Lond)", but "Lond" and not "Lon". Also, any unstable of "FRCP" in the article is not designated with any type of "Lon" or "Lond" suffix. It does not seem as though readers will find what they are looking for if they use these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep FRCP stands for Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. Once you pass the exam and you become a consultant you can apply for fellowship, once you pass a more difficult exam. FRCP(Lon) is the standard term that is used in documentation, for that process. It is worth keeping. There is an FRCP in Edinburgh as well. So the London part is needed. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine FRCP(Lon) to Royal College of Physicians#Fellowship. The missing space is not a concern as this is a standard (and not a Wikipedia) disambiguator per Scope creep. Similar redirects FRCP(Ed) and FRCP(Glasg) exist. I assume the spaced FRCP (Lon) is not a standard term, and can be deleted. Jay (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to Royal College of Physicians#Fellowship per the above, and add a sentence to the article describing the notation. BD2412 T 06:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine both to Royal College of Physicians#Fellowship. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2022 (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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Π (mathematical constant) → Pi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as erroneous (WP:RFD#DELETE). The mathematical constant is represented by lowercase pi, while capital pi has other uses: Multiplication#Product_of_a_sequence. Joofjoof (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the first letter of an English Wikipedia article title is not case sensitive. Thus a link or search like π (mathematical constant) uses this redirect. The redirect is WP:CHEAP and unambiguous because the use of a capital pi for multiplication does not represent a constant. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The redirect has been tagged with ((lowercase title)). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You cannot have article titles starting with a lowercase letter in mediawiki Π (mathematical constant) and π (mathematical constant) are the same page. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet you can have lowercase and uppercase differentiated titles with MediaWiki. English Wikipedia has turned this feature off. So, effectively, on English Wikipedia, there is no difference. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2022 (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.