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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:RDAB. The target page utilizes the version of the title with the proper spacing. (Also, all main space links to this redirect were bypassed a couple of days ago.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to malformed modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wait a few months, or an year. This was getting many pageviews, more than 1500 a day in 2017, and more than 200 two months back. Perhaps the views were from the incoming wiki links. Jay (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I bypassed all the main space incoming links near the end of March, which coincides with the timing of the sharp decrease (almost 75%+ drop) in page views. (Seems there were even a day or two afterwards where there were 0-1 page views.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. In the 23 full days since this discussion has been opened, the redirect has been viewed a total of...23 times. 1/day, and I'm sure some of the traffic is related to this RfD. If the only reason to keep this is due to page views, that argument has been significantly weakened. However, the argument for deletion is also very weak. It is not confusing, misleading, nor unhelpful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:36, 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 23:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Harry Potter : movies → Harry Potter (film series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:COSTLY. The location of the colon is implausible, especially considering the target page has a list of similar redirects that do not contain such implausibility. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per consensus of previous RfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This used to get good views during 2010 at the time of the previous RfD, but that is not true any more. Jay (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Striking my vote above). I agree the page views are not what they were at the time of past RfD. There was originally article content at this page when created by an IP before being WP:BLARed, but I think it would be a case of WP:SNOWBALL if brought to AfD, so delete here (treat as long-expired PROD). Mdewman6 (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Balkovec (talk) 21:55, 14 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. Jay (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• British Soap Awards won by Eastenders → List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders#The British Soap Awards  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a plausible search term and does not benefit readers. (Side note: the title has a miscapitalisation). – DarkGlow • 14:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakish keep. This term doesn't get as many pageviews these days, but it's unambiguous and can help people get to their destination. Plus, per Eastenders, that's also a perfectly plausible capitalization. Regards, SONIC678 00:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sonic. Capitalization is certainly plausible, and redirect is still useful for readers who may be looking for this subject. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:09, 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 soft redirect to MW:Skin:MonoBook. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Monobook & Wikipedia:Minerva are both redirects dedicated to Wikipedia skins, though they redirect to completely different targets, the first one goes to WP:Skin, the latter to MW:Skin:Minerva Neue. They should target to same/similar page. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 12:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• REtarget "Monobook" to MW:Skin:MonoBook same as how Minerva is functioning -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not opposed to it but current Wikipedia:Monobook is tagged as a "Redirect with history", it probably would require a history merge with it's current target? ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 09:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that would be necessary. The history wouldn't be deleted with a retarget, as we are not dicussing delete and redirect. The history would still be accessible from the history tab. If there was a merge, an additional tag ((R from merge|WP:Skin)) could be added to the redirect-shell; The talk page would need to be unredirected, and the various RFD results indicated. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:30, 7 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 and move as proposed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 'hood → Hood  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 'Hood → Neighbourhood  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think these both point to the wrong place. The only thing at the Hood DAB referred to as "'hood" is a neighborhood. The only thing there referred to as "'Hood", at least when using sentence case (and often even in title case) is 'Hood (film). Thus retarget 'hood to Neighborhood and move 'Hood (film) to 'Hood, with hatnotes both ways. But I think reasonable cases could also be made for pointing both to the DAB or pointing both to Neighborhood. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget/move exactly per nom. I agree the other solutions mentioned are plausible, but I think this gets the most users to the content they seek the most quickly, with hatnotes helping the others. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:14, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Clean team → Virtual data room  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, nothing illuminating came up in an internet search, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Here’s a link to the definition and how it relates to VDRs, though I appreciate this is not referred to in the article: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=42ed02a6-2f19-4271-aa93-6f940d25367c (also, that page requests registration after a single view) — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 18:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per cBuckley and tag with ((R without mention)). Jay (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SURPRISE and to reveal search results. There are a whole lot of relevant search results, everything from brands of diapers, to programs, to Guantanamo Bay, but nothing seems prominent enough for disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Tavix. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:30, 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 target both to Lockheed X-17. Jay (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Polaris FTV-5 → MGM-29 Sergeant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Polaris FTV-3 → Lockheed X-17  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the targets, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The FTV-3 was a repurposed X-17 to test technology for the development of the UGM-27 Polaris missile. I can't find a great source to cite for that, but it could be added to the X-17 page. @Neopeius: Help?

• The FTV-5 was also used to test technology for the Polaris missile. It used the same first stage rocket as the X-17, an MGM-29 Sergeant missile, to test a second stage rocket (the Polaris FTV-4, aka 10KS2500). I don't know if it was also an X-17 that was modified to remove the upper stages and attach the FTV-4, or if was a MGM-29 missile that was modified to have a second stage, but it's the same engine either way. Perhaps redirecting to the X-17 is better than the MGM-29, but misleading without explanation. Creating a new page for the FTV-5 is probably the best solution. --Sotakarhu (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sotakarhu Beyond my ken at the moment, sorry! --Neopeius (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Added section to X-17 about the Polaris FTV Program. The FTV-3 redirect should be relevant now, and the FTV-5 should be changed to also redirect to Lockheed X-17. --Sotakarhu (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FTV-3 and retarget FTV-5 to Lockheed X-17 per Sotakarhu since both missiles are now mentioned there. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:12, 14 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 Animal sexual behaviour. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Receptive to mating → Estrous cycle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Receptive to breeding → Estrous cycle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I wonder if Animal sexual behavior may be a better target for these terms. See also a closely related RfD discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have redirected it to that article instead. Jarble (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did, but Flyer22 Frozen objected (who appears to be no longer with us). Let's reach consensus here on the best target. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:42, 9 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 Animal sexual behaviour. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sexually receptive → Estrous cycle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sexual receptivity → Estrous cycle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sexual receptiveness → Estrous cycle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am not sure this is the best target for these terms. The first redirect has at various times targeted Mating season, now a redirect to Seasonal breeder, and Animal sexual behavior in addition to its current target. Some searchers may be seeking more human-centric content than is offered at the current target. My guess is that Animal sexual behavior is probably a better, broader target for these search terms than the current target, but I don't have a strong opinion, and there may be other potential targets too. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also see previous discussion about this issue. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget - 'Animal sexual behavior' is where these all should go given the inherent vagueness of the terms. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:20, 7 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NMX → Moto X (2nd generation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"NMX" (in any capitalisation) does not appear on the target page, I'm *guessing* it might mean "New Moto X", but I shouldn't have to guess. I haven't got time now to do full research but the Nama language (Papuan) and New York Mercantile Exchange articles do mention the term (others may do too, I've run out of time to search) so a dab and/or hatnotes is needed - especially as search results are filled with a reference used on numerous articles about roads in New Mexico (the main New Mexico article doesn't use the acronym anywhere). The question is whether this target should be primary or even an entry on the dab page? Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget - This should go to 'New York Mercantile Exchange' given that the organization's parent company, NYMEX Holdings, Inc., uses 'NMX' (see this article here as an example). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate to Nama language (Papuan) (ISO code), New York Mercantile Exchange (NYSE ticker), New Maynaguri railway station (station code), Marxgrün station (station code), the NMX instrument at European Spallation Source -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per the IP - don't believe any of those stands out particularly above the rest in terms of abbreviation uses. eviolite (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While I feel that the NYMEX Holdings usage is a bigger matter than the others mentioned about, I wouldn't object to creating a disambiguation page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per IP --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have attempted a disambig draft at the redirect. Jay (talk) 10:21, 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.