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 Cryptid whale. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cryptic cetaceans → Whale#Cryptid whales  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects to a section that doesn't exist. Seems like an unlikely search term anyway. Was prodded by Samalou (talk · contribs) but redirects can't be prodded so I'm moving it here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Could it be retargeted to Cryptid whale? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the solution Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) Samalou (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Cryptid whale as a not-entirely-unreasonable term. Failing that, delete. Seems this (the missing section) is a case of cetacean needed... firefly ( t · c ) 17:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cryptid whale as a close match. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:20, 2 May 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 23:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Western expansionalism → Colonialism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The subject of the redirect doesn't seem to be what the target article is about, nor does the subject of this redirect seem to be mentioned or identified in the target article. I would believe there could be a retargeting option out there, but I'm not able to find it at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It could refer to many things. Veverve (talk) 08:41, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

No obvious reason why this non-reader-racing project page should have a cross-namespace redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The main space ant the rest of WP should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are quite a few such redirects. Earlier today I thought about RfDing Interface administrators & Autoconfirmed users, as cross-namespace redirects. But then I realised that the pages Administrators & Bureaucrats, both have hatnotes on top of them directing to the project's admins and crats, probably because of the plausibility that a new editor would attempt to find/learn about an admin/crat/autoconfirmed user/etc. without the "WP:" prefix. Now, the thing is, we don't already have mainspace pages on interface administrators or template editors or autoconfirmed users to put a hatnote on, and probably so the redirects were created. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed the hatnote from Administrator since it is redundant (Wikipedia administrators is already listed in the content section of the dab page), and would support deletion of any of the remaining redirects and hatnotes as well. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I've also removed the self-ref hatnote from Bureaucrat for similar reasons, just for the record. firefly ( t · c ) 17:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need this cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Anyone familiar with template editors should be aware of the Wikipedia namespace. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:36, 3 May 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 23:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User block templates → Category:User block templates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No obvious reason why this extremely internal-facing category should have a mainspace redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note: I declined a G5 speedy tag on this since, even though CG was quite likely a sock, that was not proven as far as I can tell. But I support deletion per above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: The IP that did the tagging is probably CG avoiding their block. An IP edit from algeria (where CG states they live on their userpage) coming across this obscure redirect that CG made then instantly going to hand out a block template to another editor just like CG was doing prior to being blocked? WP:QUACK. Congrats on the adminship by the way. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Damn, that's a good catch. Guess that means my first block will be of one of my own supporters (well, former supporters—struck by a 'crat)... Heh. Thanks, 192. When's your turn? I've said before, you're one of the only people who could RfA in under a year of creating an account of they wanted. User:That Oxford IP (with apologies to the late Possibly/ThatMontrealIP) isn't taken. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Anyone who needs to be looking for block templates (i.e. administrators) should be aware of namespaces. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:48, 3 May 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 23:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• BMT Rockaway Line → IND Rockaway Line  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• BMT Queens Boulevard Line → IND Queens Boulevard Line  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• BMT Sixth Avenue Line → IND Sixth Avenue Line  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• BMT Eighth Avenue Line → IND Eighth Avenue Line  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• BMT Concourse Line → IND Concourse Line  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #8: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful." The Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation never operated the Rockaway Line, and it is never mentioned in the line's article, either under its full name or its abbreviation. Neither has the BMT operated any of the other lines, which were built for the Independent Subway System and taken over by the New York City government. Epicgenius (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I second that, the creator has created dozens of these redirects. Cards84664 13:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cards84664: Yeah. It seems to be a trend for this user to make up fictitious titles that conform to some "pattern". There's even a second discussion about the very same user's road-related redirects below. I don't know what the creator's goal is, but it definitely doesn't help that there are almost 100 RFD notices on their talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added four more redirects (I think BMT Second Avenue Subway is at least reasonable, as it connects to a BMT line at one end, and BMT Crosstown Line can refer to a surface line). Epicgenius (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Stuff like Blue Line (IND Queens Boulevard Line) is a bit much too, no? Cards84664 14:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cards84664, yes, I think all of these redirects should be deleted. I've nominated just five for now to see whether there would be any objections. Even though these names are clearly implausible to you and me, others may think otherwise - I've nominated redirects by this user before, which I thought were clearly implausible but were kept. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I'm thinking five days without any dispute is a good starting point to nominate the rest. Cards84664 19:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just nominated some of this user's other redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#IND West End Line for a similar reason. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these redirects are extremely misleading. Vcohen (talk) 20:33, 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 keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Chick slaughtering → Chick culling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The concepts of "slaughtering" (specifically Animal slaughter) and "culling", though both involve death of an animal, are both distinct topics. I did not see adequate information in Animal slaughter for this redirect to target; in fact, there probably isn't an adequate target fir this since I do not believe that chicks are ever technically slaughtered due to the concept of slaughtering not being economically feasible for baby chickens. Steel1943 (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is more than one definition of the word "slaughter" (including "kill in large numbers," which is applicable here). People may search for "chick slaughtering," and they presumably want information about chick culling (especially given that chicks aren't customarily killed for food), so having this redirect is helpful to readers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, here's a reliable source using the term "slaughter" for just this.[1] Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep – readers interested in this topic may not know the correct terminology; in particular, some laypeople don't know the word "cull". It can be tagged with Template:R from incorrect name. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nom based on a mistaken interpretation of "slaughter" – the Slaughter of the Innocents took no notice of economic feasibility (did it?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:25, 3 May 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 Animal slaughter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Chicken slaughtering → Culling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The concepts of "slaughtering" (specifically Animal slaughter) and "culling", though both involve death of an animal, are both distinct topics. I did not see adequate information in Animal slaughter for this redirect to target; I also looked at the articles Chicken, Chicken as food, and Poultry farming, but did not find information in any of those either to warrant a retarget. I'm thinking deletion may be the best option here. Steel1943 (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to animal slaughter, I think the table in the lead alone is enough justification for a redirect. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to animal slaughter per J947. I was surprised not to see any obvious links to Chicken as food and similar articles from there though so will add Template:Meat to it. A7V2 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per User:J947. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-target. Chicken slaughter is a redirect to poultry farming, but broiler would probably be a better target; whatever is done for that should be done for this too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:21, 3 May 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 19:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• El Assico → Iowa–Iowa State football rivalry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This link should be deleted because it promotes an obscure SB Nation article that coined the term, and fits Wikipedia's criteria for deletion under reasons three (the link is abusive), four (it's spam), and most significantly, reason eleven (which appears to be lacking from Wikipedia's list, but clearly is missing): the link is just dumb. It's not relevant to either sports team. No one in popular media uses the term 'El Assico', except the SB Nation author and a handful of obscure social media commenters with grudges against Iowa or Iowa State. While using 'El Assico' to refer to the Iowa/Iowa State game may have been funny and amusing for a small segment of frat bros five years ago, it's clearly been exhausted; and, it's odd that Wikipedia continues to enable the outdated link. 71.237.70.164 (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned at target. The previous RfD's consensus IMO deferred excessively to blogs as sources. There's times at RfD where it's appropriate to use non-RS, like "Is X a plausible misspelling/abbreviation of Y?", but for justifying an ((r without mention)), I would expect RS in most cases. The previous RfD was also procedurally invalid since the redirect was never tagged. On that note, admins: Please see edit request on the redirect's talk. (The 7-day timer for this discussion shouldn't be considered to have started till that's actioned.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The page is fully protected, so only an administrator can add the RfD tag. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I just said that? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Page finally tagged. 7-day timer starts now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural for the full seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a second opinion for the reason that although the lone vote supported deletion, it was not an endorsement of the nomination's deletion reasons.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned at target. Veverve (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not discussed in target article and borderline abusive (blogs are split on celebrating versus objecting to the moniker. Sports articles all come from a small group of current or former SB Nation authors associated with Spencer Hall). Carizona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carizona

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) 22:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Slow Blind Driveway → John Gorka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of this name at the target, nor could searching yield any proof that Gorka ever used this name. Last RFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment first RFD suggested "keep" because apparently Gorka uses this as a stage name. Their source in the first RFD was a blogspot link. Since then I have not found any reference to "Slow Blind Driveway" being one of Gorka's aliases that does not trace back to Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rich Farmbrough: @Hammersoft: Pinging for your analysis here. In 2015, you both cited a source claiming that Gorka did use the "Slow Blind Driveway" name, but said source has been domain-squatted and I can't Wayback it. The other source cited by Hammersoft in the 2015 AFD was a personal blog on Blogspot, which is not a reliable source. Have either of you found any reliable sources tying the "Slow Blind Driveway" name to John Gorka? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*shrug* I didn't remember the prior conversation. It's been too long. I did find this. I don't care either way. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This article title has a very interesting history - see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Slow Blind Driveway. schetm (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is the most reliable source, but even it teeters on the edge of reliability. Also, the creator's comments from his talk page give other sources, mostly forums and blog posts. However, given the very low pageview stats and the fact that this was one of Wikipedia's earliest and best-known hoaxes, and that all the sources are given after the original hoax, I think we should air on the side of caution and delete this. There's no harm done if it disappears, but there's potential for greater harm if we leave it stand. schetm (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  On the other hand, this has a better veneer of reliability. I still think it should be deleted, but it's plausible that Gorka has used that name. schetm (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for possible maximum participation since there have been only two participants and the previous RfD earlier this month had none.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:39, 29 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 23:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Interstate Highways in Manitoba → List of Manitoba expressways  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Interstate Highways in British Columbia → List of British Columbia provincial highways#Major routes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Interstate Highways in Alberta → List of Alberta provincial highways#1 - 216 series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Interstate Highways in Saskatchewan → List of Saskatchewan provincial highways#Primary (1 – 99)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Interstate Highways in Ontario → 400-series highways  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Interstate Highways in Quebec → Autoroutes of Quebec  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Interstate Highways in Nova Scotia → 100-series highways (Nova Scotia)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are no Interstate Highways in Manitoba. Canada does not even have states. Rschen7754 06:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—per nom, the term just doesn't make any sense. Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I would also add the following for the same reason: –Fredddie™ 07:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Interstate Highways in British Columbia → List_of_British_Columbia_provincial_highways#Major_routes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Interstate Highways in Alberta → List of Alberta provincial highways#1 - 216 series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Interstate Highways in Saskatchewan → List of Saskatchewan provincial highways#Primary (1 – 99)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Interstate Highways in Ontario → 400-series highways  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Interstate Highways in Quebec → Autoroutes of Quebec  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Interstate Highways in Nova Scotia → 100-series highways (Nova Scotia)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

  The above redirects have now been added and tagged. Steel1943 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - per nom. An American lost in Canada, sounds like a Broadway musical! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and WP:RFD#DELETE criterion 8. Canada has no Interstate Highways, so all of these are implausible misnomers. Epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Interstates are a US concept, nobody in Canada would refer to their freeways as Interstates. Dough4872 18:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Interstate" is not a synonym for freeway/expressway -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete all These make no sense

NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:24, 2 May 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. Proposals for disambiguating and retargeting did not gain any support. And after two months of discussion, there's no point in prolonging this any further. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sabji → Sabzi#Culinary uses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target is a section of a disambiguation page with 3 entries, 2 of which are Iranian dishes, with the spelling variant sabzi, and are partial title matches. Note that sabzi is the Persian word for herbs.

The other entry in the DAB that has the bluelink Indian cuisine says that sabzi or sabji is a vegetable cooked in gravy, however Indian cuisine doesn't have a mention of sabji but has mentions of some states using the word sabzi as a generic food menu item.

I would have preferred a standalone article, but if that is not happening, what would a better target be? The previous target was Curry which had no mention of sabji (or sabzi). Moreover, curry can refer to non-vegetarian dishes, whereas sabji would be vegetable-based. Jay (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a fallout of the ongoing WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 28#Shabji. Jay (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate (drafted below the redirect). Many of the major languages of India don't have /z/ as a native sound (and if they do, it's usually confined to educated speech), so sabzi (a loanword from Persian) is often adapted as sabji, and this has made its way into English spelling as well. I don't know if 'cooked vegetables in Indian cuisine' deserves an article, but the term is something readers will definitely want to look up here. Given that there's no current article that clearly defines it and that there exists another (much less common) meaning, it's most practical to disambiguate. That should happen separately from Sabzi, because the spelling with j isn't used for the other entries on that dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure about the dab as the second entry bhang has no mention of sabji, sabzi or subjee. Jay (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's from the OED [2]. Sorry, I've hid the ref on the dab page inside an html comment: explicit refs on dab pages tend to attract editors who swoop in to remove them as part of "cleanup". – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sabzi: This article is a mispelling of the word Sabzi and we already have a disambiguation page for that article. It was already moved to Sabzi by User:Cookmughlai in 2009 as is evident in the page log, which states: "Sabzi is the correct spelling and pronunciation. Sabji is a regional z->j colloquialism." Moreover, this is English Wikipedia and such an article shouldn't exist here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab pages regularly combine similar terms (like AWA or Awa), but usually two conditions need to be met: 1) there needs to be significant overlap between the referents of the terms (e.g. acronyms aren't always written in all caps, and readers mostly search for them in lower case), and 2) the average reader can be expected to eaily figure out what can be referred to by each term (e.g. readers know how letter case is used). This is not the case here: the dab page Sabzi can have at most two entries for "sabji" vs. almost a dozen for "sabzi", and readers who aren't from the region will not know that e.g. "sabji" can never refer to the Iranian topics. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - currently the only usage other than Sabzi#Culinary at the drafted standalone DAB is an old-fashioned slang term for bhang/cannabis that doesn't have its own article. Given the circumstances, it seems pretty clear that the bhang usage is derived from either the culinary usage or the Persian term and can be inferred by the reader. If that's the only other usage for the new dab page, I think the status quo is fine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I'm in agreement with Rosguill. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:38, 14 May 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 00:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Karungulam,tamilnadu,india → Karungulam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete due to too many errors. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unlikely misspellings --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,per,nom. Steel1943 (talk) 10:21, 29 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.