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 and retarget. Disambiguate Green pig and retarget Green pigs there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Green pig → Green fluorescent protein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Green pigs → Angry Birds#Gameplay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Both redirects point to different targets and should point to the same target. Both target articles have similar page views.[1][2] Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate If a term has two equally plausible meanings, a disambiguation page is called for. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per Mdewman6 --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Green pig → Green fluorescent protein. The term is so vague as to have almost no association with GFP. If the consensus is to disambiguate then "Green Pig" should redirect to the "Transgenic Pets" portion of the GFP article where the only mention of pigs expressing GFP in their skins is found. Synpath (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We usually keep Singular redirects. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm new to these types of discussion, so if that's the norm, that's fine. And on second thought a quick sentence contextualizing Green Pig → GFP in a disambiguation might be better than just linking the subsection where it comes up. Synpath (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by we usually keep singular redirects? You mean any redirect of a singular noun? Mdewman6 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 01:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't follow then, because there are lots of reasons a particular noun might not make a good redirect, and redirects are deleted here all the time for such various reasons. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have drafted a dab below the redirect at Green pig. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Use Mdewman6's dab page. This is a surprisingly insightful dab page, and thanks for taking the time to make it. I have struck out my comment above. ― Synpath 18:13, 7 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 23:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nicolas Haelg → Charlemagne (song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete or retarget. Near as I can tell, Nicolas Haelg is a musician of some sort, but the redirect only sends me to one song he seems to have been credited on one remix of. Seems tenuous at best. A retarget would be most useful, perhaps, as someone looking for the artist is likely looking for something other than this one song. If a better target cannot be found, it may be best to delete it and just let the article get created later by someone who finds it worth creating, if Nicolas Haelg is notable. As it stands now, it doesn't seem like this is helpful as a redirect. Jayron32 21:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. They are mentioned in a few other places but all are just passing mentions/song credits. Better to let search do its job unless/until an article is written. A7V2 (talk) 00:40, 4 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 💬 18:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shimucchi → Pokémon Diamond and Pearl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in article. Google doesn’t seem to bring up anything Pokémon related when searching for this term. reliable sources don’t tell me anything either. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Special:Permalink/78617496, it's a "pre-evolved form" of Minomucchi. The article was written only a day after the Japan release, and reads as very speculative. This forum thread, while not a reliable source, sheds some light on the historical context, although ultimately doesn't resolve the question of whether this was a real game element or just a rumor. If someone can show that it's a real game element, they should add a mention at List of generation IV Pokémon § Burmy (target of Monomucchi); I would support keeping if that happens. Otherwise, delete, as the article in the history would have a snowball's chance in Hell of being kept at AfD if restored. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:46, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 23:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tiagaga → Pokémon Diamond and Pearl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article. Google results barely show anything related to Pokémon. No reliable sources talk about “Tiagaga”. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, word with no coverage. Also the pre-BLAR revisions had just one line and was unsourced. Jay 💬 18:20, 8 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 💬 12:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I looked up melanophobia, and it's a fear of the color black, rather than black people (negrophobia). I suggest that we retarget this to Chromophobia, where it is mentioned. --Ricciardo Best (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget back to Chromophobia, which is where this redirect used to target, but was changed without explanation in 2015 by a now inactive user. Possibly an act of subtle vandalism that should've been reverted back then. CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as is. In scholarship, melanophobia exclusively refers to fears of black heredity/demographics, or is used as a more graphic synonym for racism; feel free to check Google Scholar or paid databases. I notice that Google search results define it as "fear of the color black", but that new definition reflects no actual use that I can discern, whether in scholarship or in common language. I'm not aware of a single scholarly paper that uses it like that. I suspect the new definition may have originated in Robertson's 2003 book on phobias, in a likely copyright trap. DFlhb (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: DFlhb's explanation is spot on and the regular google results legitimately made me feel like I had learned this in a book that defined it completely incorrectly, but it seems that for whatever the reason, someone redefined this term, but in most non-trivial usage the current target is what it is referring to. (N.B. there does also seem to be a very specific usage for this term in lithography relating to the property of something I don't understand as I don't really know anything about lithography, but I couldn't find a place to target on wikipedia that mentions this in reference to lithography and it seems to be a rather niche usage.) TartarTorte 20:39, 2 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 12:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Noam Chomsky/Comments from Chomsky → Noam Chomsky  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another mainspace redirect made to match a talk subpage. (Note: While this page is old, it still significantly postdates the mainspace-subpages era.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fine as a talk page, but not useful as a mainspace page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wouldn't WP:R2 apply? DFlhb (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a cross-namespace redirect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not all talk page articles need a corresponding non-talk version. Having said that, creation of these pages is still accidentally encouraged in my view by having it so if you're on say Talk:Grand station (CTA Logan Square branch)/GA1 (just a recent GAN that I saw, no specific reason I picked it), if you click to Article it takes you to Grand station (CTA Logan Square branch)/GA1 and the create a page dialog, but also any solution to that problem (if others even perceive it as such) is far outside the scope of this RfD. TartarTorte 20:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete confusing, could probably be deleted under G6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to deleting admin: If closing as delete, please do not delete the talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:41, 2 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Legoktm (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Birchville/Comments ? Birchville  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A different flavor of mainspace-page-for-talk-subpage, using the old /Comments subpage system. Delete (but keep talkpage) for same reason we've deleted /Archive mainspace pages. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC) ed. 08:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, same comments as right above. DFlhb (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As the original creator of this redirect it needs to be kept to retain the attribution for the Talk:Birchville/Comments page, which I also contributed to. I strongly object to having the attribution record of my talk page contribution(s) deleted, as they have now been copied to another talk page and see any attempt to delete the Talk:Birchville/Comments page as a breach of the copyright/copyleft GFDL/CCbySA licences. At the time, the purpose of the redirect was to direct any comment page readers to the Birchville article directly, rather than having them think the page did not exist. However, now I think about it, perhaps the redirect on both the article and talk pages, should now be targeted at Talk:Birchville#Assessment comment, which is where the text that was on the Talk:Birchville/Comments page has moved to. I was thinking one could simply Merge the Edit History of Talk:Birchville/Comments into Talk:Birchville but I see that would corrupt the historical record. I do not understand why you think it necessary to actually delete this page, instead of simply redirecting it to where the comments that were on the Talk:Birchville/Comments page have now been placed by a robot on the Talk:Birchville. Your explanation for deletion does not refer me to the rationale for deleting this page and the problems this addresses. You only say that it is the same as for deleting other pages with a similar structure. Please explain why is it necessary in this instance, here, and why having a redirect is problematic? In my view, in the absence of knowledge that I am not privy to, all I can say is ABSOLUTELY NOT! until you can explain exactly what you are proposing to do, clearly. If you intend to retain only the Talk:Birchville/Comments page, then the article tab on that page needs to functionally go somewhere, if only to stop vandalism; which is the prime reason I added the redirect in the first place. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cameron Dewe: I've clarified my nomination statement to note that the talkage shouldn't be deleted. (Although it isn't actually needed for attribution: A comment's signature is its own attribution.) The reason that this should be deleted is that mainspace redirects are meant to help readers find useful information, and this does not do that, while it does run the risk of confusing various (semi)automated processes that are based on that assumption. See my example in the bulk nomination below about the bot that got confused based on a page like this. Meanwhile, there's no antivandalism beneit, and in fact the opposite! Vandalism beneath a redirect is oten missed, whereas new pages with vandalistic content are usually caught within minutes. (Note also that these days, an account must be autoconfirmed to create an article in mainspace.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: If you keep the talk page then you still leave the article link a red link. This becomes a vandal target. If the issue is the link currently doesn't point to useful content that means the article link should be targeted at Talk:Birchville#Assessment comment, where there is useful content of what was previously on the page. There is also the temptation for users, like me, to again add a redirect, because there is a non-existent page for a talk page. If you want to protect these redirects from vandalism, then apply protection, if it becomes a problem - although it hasn't been for this page, and for 7 years nobody seems to have touched it. If automated processes are becoming confused by these redirects then fix the process, not delete the redirect. Use some R_CAT templates for the redirect to explain why, like Template:R to talk page, or similar. Someone is always going to want to create a redirect for a page that doesn't exist, so deleting a redirect is going to create a hole that someone will want to plug, perhaps with something even less appropriate than the current redirect. While new page vandalism is usually caught, the operative word is "usually". To stop it, you either need to block it or or prevent the opportunity arising. Putting a redirect in place of that hole will plug the gap. Bots that play with Wikipedia ought not to become confused by redirects that point at the appropriate content. If the bots do go awry then their handlers need to up their game and improve the bot's programming so it doesn't get confused. I have no sympathy for confused bots. If you want to stop these redirects being created for sub-pages where talk page sub-pages exist then you need to have a preventative measure in place. A redirect is a form of preventative measure that stops worse things happening. Please develop a guideline that explains why these sorts of redirects are bad to have, and why we should not create them. Because until that sort of thing happens, and I understand what the real problem is, I will continue to think these redirects are actually a good idea. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete confusing, could probably be deleted under G6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crouch, Swale: Speedy deletion criteria under G6 are for uncontroversial technical deletions, which does not apply here, because it is contoversial. However, now you bring it up, G8 would apply to the talk page, and, if it is desired to keep the talk page, which is also a redirect, then it either needs to be G8-exempt or you need to keep the redirect. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Valid talk subpages are by definition exempt from G8 (any page that is useful to Wikipedia [emphasis added]; the explicit example given is talkpage archives, but the list is non-exhaustive). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. From the previous RfDs (Nov2 2019, Nov10 2019, Jan 2020), here is my takeaway (If there is a summary or an essay elsewhere, my apologies):

Subpages have been disabled in the article namespace (WP:SUB), however forward slash is an allowed character in titles (WP:TITLESLASH). Mediawiki treats titles with slashes as genuine titles, and not as subpages. Subpages are allowed in article talk namespace (WP:Subpages#Allowed uses), and mediawiki doesn't see the article page of a talk subpage as a subpage. This is the behaviour of the software, but it doesn't mean we get to fashion this functional hole to create "article subpages", and use it as redirects or for any other purpose.

We have 66,000 article talk archives (per Jan 2020 RfD), but only 130 "article subpage" redirects (per Nov2 2019 RfD), created by a dozen editors (per Nov10 2019 RfD, all of whom were pinged at the Jan 2020 RfD), and now we are down to the last few, although it was understood that this problem will never go away until one of the suggestions is implemented.

False article subpages show up in search results and are confusing. This is not a problem with the search software, because again, they are seen as genuine titles, not subpages.

Suggestions were:

• Have the developers hardcode a link to the main article from a talk subpage (similar to the link to get to the main talkpage from a talkpage archive, or any other subpage for that matter). by Tavix at the Jan 2020 RfD.
• Edit the Template:Talk archive template that goes at the top of archive pages so that it includes a link to the article. by Richard75 at Nov10 2019 RfD and subsequently at Template talk:Talk archive/Archive 1#There should be a link to the article page too. And include a link to the article in the archive templates (eg: on ((talk archive)): "This is an archive of past discussions for FOObar..."), with a parameter to include the name of the article. by Tavix at the Jan 2020 RfD.
• It would be nice if MediaWiki could "figure out" or "be told" where the "Article" tab should lead to in cases of talk subpages by dcljr at Nov10 2019 RfD.
• Trigger an edit notice or edit warning upon attempted page creation for the pattern (Main:)*/Archive* by Deryck Chan at Nov10 2019 RfD.
• Provide a working bluelink in place of a redlink using local CSS or JS by dcljr at Jan 2020 RfD.

Jay 💬 03:28, 9 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 23:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Irish Act 1782 → Roman Catholic Relief Act 1791#The Irish Act of 1793  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's not clear why the Irish Act 1782 would redirect to a section of a 1791 Act discussing a 1793 Act. There are no links using this redirect, so I think it can safely be deleted. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Repeal of Act for Securing Dependence of Ireland Act 1782 or Constitution of 1782. Constitution of 1782 seems to be the wider target, and includes the repeal act, so that may be a better target. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are multiple retarget suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if there is no act that is alternately known with the redirect's title. Jay 💬 06:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since it doesn't look like there is any actual act which is known as the Irish Act 1782 (at least not one on Wikipedia). Hut 8.5 18:21, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 23:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Deb → Pittsburgh Dad  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. The redirect is tagged with ((r from catchphrase)) and the article even has a corresponding section, but this is not listed. Searching indicates there are other videos and such by this name. MB 03:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hey Deb" is now mentioned in target article. No need to delete redirect InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not seem to be a specific catchphrase just to this show. I assume there are other videos, etc, that use the common phrase "Hey Deb". Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you cite examples? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why we need this redirect, but since mention has been added to the target, and it is unambiguous on enwiki, keep for a few months and see if there are page views. Jay 💬 05:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tamzin's cleaup. Jay 💬 08:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed 1.2kB of information that lacked any secondary sources, essentially as fancruft. The "Hey, Deb" detail did have a secondary source, but that source didn't actually explain the reference or call it a catchphrase, and there were no other secondary sources indicating that a catchphrase section was warranted, so I removed the "Hey, Deb" line as well. So, delete. (That said, I disagree with the arguent that the phrase is ambiguous, absent evidence of other noteworthy usage.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:24, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 List of Super Smash Bros. Melee tournaments. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Melee-FC → Super Smash Bros. in esports  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection and context unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Super Smash Bros. Melee tournaments, to which the relevant content was split off after the redirect's creation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. Jay 💬 07:43, 8 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 06:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Left over from a 2005 move war:

(diff) 19:14, 4 November 2005 . . 65.83.139.146 (talk | block) 252 bytes
(diff) 19:12, 4 November 2005 . . 65.83.139.146 (talk | block) 207 bytes
(diff) 18:16, 4 November 2005 . . Golbez (talk | contribs | block) 22 bytes (rv to last version before radiojon)
(diff) 17:43, 4 November 2005 . . RichardWeiss (talk | contribs | block) 34 bytes (rv crapy message solely designed to confuse readers)
(diff) 16:48, 4 November 2005 . . Radiojon (talk | contribs | block) m 207 bytes
(diff) 16:30, 4 November 2005 . . RichardWeiss (talk | contribs | block) 34 bytes
(diff) 16:24, 4 November 2005 . . Radiojon (talk | contribs | block) m 183 bytes (Rootkit/archive moved to Rootkit)
(diff) 16:23, 4 November 2005 . . RichardWeiss (talk | contribs | block) m 183 bytes (Rootkit moved to Rootkit/archive)
(diff) 15:23, 4 November 2005 . . Radiojon (talk | contribs | block) 183 bytes (****WILL SOMEONE PLEASE DELETE THIS BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE REVERTS IT?! rootkit has MORE THAN FIFTY TIMES the number of results on Google as "root kit" and therefore root kit needs to be moved here!)
(diff) 14:56, 4 November 2005 . . DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs | block) 22 bytes (it's a better name)
(diff) 11:39, 4 November 2005 . . 81.45.251.196 (talk | block) 723 bytes
(diff) 11:38, 4 November 2005 . . 81.45.251.196 (talk | block) 326 bytes
(diff) 08:42, 4 November 2005 . . Trainthh (talk | contribs | block) 183 bytes (sorry I made a mistake!)
(diff) 08:37, 4 November 2005 . . Trainthh (talk | contribs | block) m 22 bytes (why this could not be a redirection?)
(diff) 07:11, 4 November 2005 . . Radiojon (talk | contribs | block) 183 bytes (((DELETE)) to move root kit here (rootkit is over 50x more common than root kit!))
(diff) 06:41, 4 November 2005 . . 217.132.66.34 (talk | block) 22 bytes
(diff) 05:35, 4 November 2005 . . Radiojon (talk | contribs | block) 155 bytes (((DELETE)) to move root kit here (rootkit is over 50x more common than root kit!))
(diff) 20:37, 3 November 2005 . . ReyBrujo (talk | contribs | block) 52 bytes (Categorized)
(diff) 07:39, 16 May 2003 . . JohnOwens (talk | contribs | block) m 22 bytes (#REDIRECT root kit)

Negligible pageviews, so can be deleted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete confusing, could probably be deleted under G6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:44, 2 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 03:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran into one of these at Special:PageHistory/Talk:Rose (Doctor Who)/Archive 1, where Bot1058 has incorrectly retargeted a talkpage archive I moved, confused by an existing mainspace redirect for that archive. There is no way to fix this other than to exclude the bot or create yet another mainspace archive redirect. At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 10 § Mainspace archive subpages, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 27 § Mainspace archive subpages, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 9 § Emu War/Archive 1 I see a strong consensus that such redirects are inappropriate. Let's finish this. I propose to delete all (but not their talkpages) and add to title blacklist. (I believe the correct regex would be (?!(?:User|Wikipedia|File|MediaWiki|Template|Help|Category|Portal|Draft|TimedText|Module)( talk)?:|Talk:).*/Archive( \d+); this intentionally has false negatives on Group 4 entries, which are harder to differentiate from potential legitimate titles.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Will tag all by JWB run. No easy way to notify this many page creators, but anyone else is welcome to if they want. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pulled most of Group 3, as it turned out they had significant page history. Will renominate those ones individually or in small batches. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Worcester/Archive. Could probably be deleted under G6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I (apparently... lol) created the The Apprentice (UK TV series)/Archive 2 redirect page, which (now) redirects to The Apprentice (British TV series). I took some time and reviewed my contributions and relevant logs during that timespan of this page's creation, and I'm honestly left scratching my head and asking myself, "Yeah, ...wh... wha?... Okay.... yeah... I agree; Why did I create this redirect?" Unfortunately, I can't answer that question and I have no idea as to why I did so. Given the fact that I apparently created this redirect page, I agree that it's useless. There are no logs associated with the moving of this page to another, nor are there any deletion logs present on this page. So... yeah... go ahead and delete it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:54, 6 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 💬 06:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, for obvious reasons. Extremely few page views, no mention on target page, and almost no results on Google. How this redirect survived this long is a mystery. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, first result is an urban dictionary entry and that's never a good sign. 452 hits in all and they mostly don't even relate to the target subject. Rusalkii (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rusalkii's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 2 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Future of Santa Claus (47th Series) → Santa Claus Conquers the Martians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Future of Santa Claus → Santa Claus Conquers the Martians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Confusing, not mentioned in target. Not sure of intent. MB 03:25, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 💬 02:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 🧑🏽‍🍳 → Cook (profession)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not useful MB 02:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 18 § 🧑🏾‍🍳. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous discussion and per WP:EMOJI. Emoji redirects have proven to be harmless and useful, so no need for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: See WP:EMOJI. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the previous discussion less than two months ago. A two-word nomination (especially since "not useful" isn't necessarily a reason to delete anyway) is not enough to renominate something which had a clear consensus after such a short time in my opinion. A7V2 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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! 01:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Invalid cookery → List of diets#Diets followed for medical reasons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned anymore at target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am assuming this means "invalid" as in the noun, e.g. "cooking for sick people". Googling shows this term is in fairly widespread use to mean as such, and this seems like a reasonable target (fairly synonymous) for the concept generally even if the specific term isn't namedropped, so Keep. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added this redirect when linking to it from toast sandwich. jnestorius^(talk) 01:49, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 delete. CSD G8 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• El Assico → KENGRIFFEY24FAN  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted. It was already reviewed in the last year, and the wikipedia decision was to delete it. 71.237.70.164 (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I moved this to its proper chronological space on the page. I hope that helps, since new requests go on the top of the page. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 01:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I went ahead and tagged this for speedy deletion per criterion G8, as the target is non-existent. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:58, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. No suitable target found. Jay 💬 02:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Performing arts festivals → Market research  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't know what a good target for this is, but I'm pretty sure that it was redirected to market research accidentally. Please suggest a good target if you can find one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No obvious target at Performing arts. Possibly something in Arts festival, but retargeting is complicated by Performing Arts Festival existing, Performing arts festival and the plural going different places just seems confusing. Rusalkii (talk) 06:56, 1 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).