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! 00:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rectal sex → Anal sex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It is never referred to with that term, plus it isn't even mentioned in the target article. Colgatepony234 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As much as I am not a fan of these terms, "anal" and "rectal" are synonyms, so this redirect directs readers where they intend to go. In other words, there is next to no chance of this redirect being ambiguous or vague to a point where the current target is not a reader's intended target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added a cited mention at Anal_sex#Western_cultures. Pinging User:Steel1943 User:Colgatepony234. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 24 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 03:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Highly improbable misspelling of "icicle", consisting the lack of a second vowel and since the "l" (L) is before the second "c" instead of after it. All third party search results for "iclce" return acronyms for various organization which use the acronym "ICLCE". Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 24 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 03:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wanted articles → Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deleted as an unwanted cross-namespace redirect over 10 years ago, which seems long enough ago that a new discussion is more appropriate than WP:G4 deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete XNR to non-readership content -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do think that it's a genuinely useful redirect, though it literally only has 1 pageview according to this (which I don't know is even accurate because you and me have seen it at least a couple of times). G-Toasty (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: separate the main space and the rest of Wikipedia. Veverve (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting wedge → Golf club  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. My knowledge of golf is so-so regarding types of golf clubs; I've never heard of this specific phrase before, so I looked around third party search engines for a bit, and the subject of this redirect is most likely a type/subtopic of the target's subject, but a more specific article probably exists or could be made. At present, the two articles I could find that could be related to this topic are Wedge (golf) and Putter, and if I had to guess which one of the aforementioned topics the subject of this redirect s connected, it would be Wedge (golf), but this redirect isn't mentioned in that article either. With all of that being said, the best options here would probably be to retarget to Wedge (golf) or Putter (Wedge (golf) preferred) after adding a mention of this redirect to the respective article, or delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Golf club#Chipper as I assume this what is meant, and add mention there. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think an assumption and an unsourced mention is good enough here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't be difficult to source the term since at least a couple of better known companies have released products with this name, e.g. [1]. As such it would also would be a reasonable search term, even if not mentioned directly. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:12, 23 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 20:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R from grapheme → Template:R from ligature  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Completely implausible; graphemes are much more than just ligatures (and the target is not even about single ligatures but about titles spelt with them). Retargeting to ((R from symbol)) might be an option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If ligatures are a subset of graphemes, perhaps we should consider moving R from ligature to R from grapheme? Mdewman6 (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would be far too broad. Retargeting to R to symbol seems incorrect, or at least too broad. Therefore I think deletion is probably best here. There was only one incoming link from mainspace, which I have replaced with R to ligature directly. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. What could be the intended use of such an rcat? ((R from ligature)) is for redirects like Æon –> Aeon. But what would redirects from graphemes look like? Redirects from an actual grapheme to the article about it (say Ж –> Zhe (Cyrillic)), or from a form with one grapheme to a form with another (which would subsume the rcats for ligatures and diacritics)? If there's no explanation here, then I'd agree with deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 00:20, 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 retarget to Harry Potter. MBisanz ^talk 19:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Harry Potter's → Harry Potter (character)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect displays a form of ownership. (Over the years, redirects such as this one [with an 's at the end of the title] have been discussed at RFD and I believe more times than not, consensus has been to delete. Unfortunately, I cannot find any examples at the moment, so I can't provide any examples.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Harry Potter as the primary topic. Yes, consensus is usually in favor of deletion for these, but I've been consistent about my view that this class of redirect is useful for linking (as is the case for this redirect). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I accidentally just came across Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 19#Castro's, so it turns out I have not been as consistent as I had remembered (unless "consistently against consensus" counts). -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete useless. You can just add "'s" after the ]] of the link. Super Ψ Dro 16:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a sentimental attachment to a redirect that has been around almost untouched since 2003 and dates from the era when people without accounts could create articles too. That's not a policy-based rationale, though. And I do put both s and 's after internal links, not in them. Trying for a policy-based rationale, I cannot see that any of the reasons for deletion apply. And the fact that we already have one userspace draft that accidentally links this indicates that this is a useful mis-spelling redirect, even if none of us here would create such a link. So setting aside sentiment, I think that I agree with Tavix. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 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) 06:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Tavix's reasoning that possessive redirects such as this are useful in linking and otherwise harmless. That being said, it is currently correctly targeted because any use of the possessive is more likely to be in reference to the character (as is the case in Tavix's example) and not the series of novels (or film series or other aspects of the franchise). Mdewman6 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Has views, that could maybe potentially perhaps be harmed by the deletion of this redirect. Who knows. Likely a safer bet to keep it. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:27, 27 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 03:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nstitute of Aerospace Sciences → American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unreasonable typo. We're not chopping off the first letters of words for redirects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A different arrangement of words is one thing; misspellings are another. The correctly-spelled redirect is in place; delete this one. Xenophore; talk 04:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a typo. Delete. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:39, 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.