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 23:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of every Wikipedia article → Special:AllPages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page is showing up on a Quarry query we use as a broken redirect, I assume because it is an article page redirected to a Special page. I'd like it to not show up every time we run the query as an error page so I'm just bringing it to RFD to ask whether it's acceptable to link an article page to Special pages which are non-articles and I don't think are intended to be used by readers. I doubt that this is even a useful redirect as it lists millions of pages (including millions of redirect pages) in alphabetical order which is not how readers want to search for an article of interest. They would just use the standard search tool to look for an article, not scroll through hundreds of thousands of these pages. Unless, of course, they want to know all of the redirects that start with exclamation marks or quotation marks. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be okay with either deleting this or softening, but lean toward the former, on the basis that if we've lasted 22 years without this, it's probably not needed for navigation. The important thing is that it can't remain in its current form. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the mainspace and the rest of WP shouldbe kept separated. Veverve (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. I think it might actually be covered by WP:R2. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 18 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Anno reparatae salutis humanae → Anno Domini  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. This is Latin for "In the Year of the Reparation of Human Salvation". The phrase is not used anywhere in the encyclopedia except in Arsh. It seems this redirect was created only to be able to include it in the dab. MB 05:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like wp:Advocacy in this case (see https://www.barnhardt.biz/2013/06/06/starting-thursday-off-right-and-notation-change/ (American Catholic Truth Society blogger). But to be fair, Anno reparatae salutis humanae does seem to have been an expression used by the Catholic Church when everything was in Latin (xref Google search results) although the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't have it. So in principle the term is encyclopedic and I can't think of a defensible reason to exclude it. However the acronym "ARSH" does seem to be a modern confection by a blogger as part of the AD/CE culture war, it is not notable and should not be listed at the disambig. [Full disclosure: I strongly prefer the CE notation.] --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at Talk:Arsh as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Clyde!_Franklin! 20:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and the entry at Arsh. No mention anywhere in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed the entry from the dab. Jay 💬 02:27, 19 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 Pugilism. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pugilism appears to be a better target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget; IMO this is the kind of retarget that doesn't really need RfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. A7V2 (talk) 03:28, 12 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Might also refer to German Solo#Frage. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate using the draft I provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per Shhhnotsoloud --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguation seems fine. This is standard practice of how a ((R from surname)) evolves. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:14, 15 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 14:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• METAL GEAR SOLID 2 SONS OF LIBIRTY → Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete because caps lock is hard to read. 174.27.66.83 (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: several errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE TOO MANY EROORS TO BE PLAUSIBLE ^Clyde!_Franklin! 16:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOO MUCH CAPITAL LETTERS!! Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 23:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The typo combined with the ALL CAPS makes this redirect an unlikely search term. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• DelEtE At lEaSt iT WaSn'T lIkE tHiS! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 16 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 without prejudice to recreation if content is added to the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Gem corn → Flint corn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Glass gem corn → Flint corn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Glass corn → Flint corn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. This is a variety of Flint corn. Searching finds mainly commercial sites such as this. MB 01:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I couldn't find any mention of this variety of maize on Wikipedia, so I made the redirects. (I believe flint corn is an appropriate destination, until glass gem corn has an article of its own.) Glass gem corn has been covered by at least four news organisations:

• ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/05/new-rainbow-colored-glass-gem-corn
• Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-behind-glass-gem-corn-2013-10
• The Statesman: https://www.thestatesman.com/lifestyle/know-glass-gem-corn-1503040477.html
• The Times of India: https://recipes.timesofindia.com/articles/food-facts/is-glass-gem-corn-real-and-can-one-eat-it/photostory/66055246.cms

Tim Ivorson 2022-11-27 20:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would these not being mentioned anywhere on wikipedia be a reason to create redirects (as opposed to articles or sections of articles)? If someone searches one of these terms, they won't find out anything about that variety of corn! A7V2 (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These might well be notable, or at least worth mentioning at the current target or elsewhere, but without a mention these redirects aren't helpful to someone searching them. A7V2 (talk) 08:02, 28 November 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, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag as ((R without mention)). Glass corn appears to be yet another name for flint corn, so I'm not sure why it's not mentioned at the target. Jay 💬 08:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - the web stores and news sources describing this variety do not identify it with flint corn, zea mays var. indurata, but rather with its parent species zea mays. The descriptions further suggest a cross-lineage heritage with other types of corn, with at least one variety of popcorn specifically named in the Business Insider article. It doesn't seem due to include in the general article for Maize nor is it clearly identifiable with a single variety, so deletion pending separate article creation seems most appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's described as flint corn here: https://www.nativeseeds.org/blogs/blog-news/the-story-of-glass-gem-corn-beauty-history-and-hope. Plantdrew (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete ((R without mention))s need strong reasons for existing in my book. These at least tell a reader they mean maize and not another substance called corn, but that's not much. More likely they're looking for specific information, and will be disappointed that we don't follow through on it. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom et al. I agree that these redirects are completely unhelpful due to the lack of a mention, so keeping seems pointless in my opinion. Without prejudice to recreating if anyone adds a mention later on. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, speculative. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Plantdrew (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2023 (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 no consensus. Editors are relatively evenly split between keep and delete without a policy basis for discounting any !votes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS: HYPHEN → Wikipedia:Manual of Style#MOS:HYPHEN  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• MOS: LINK → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• MOS: MARKUP → Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Keep markup simple  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• MOS: NOPIPE → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#NOPIPE  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• MOS: SURNAME → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:SURNAME  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The space between MOS: and the name makes it implausable. All of the correctly formed ones already exist. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 22:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deleting all. Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per WP:CHEAP. I created MOS: HYPHEN after mis-typing the normal shortcut in an edit summary. This actually happens pretty often on mobile devices that add a space automatically after punctuation. Since the "MOS:FOO" format is merely a Wikipedia in-house convention, neither one is more correct than the other. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per Sangdeboeuf. These certainly do nothing more than make it more likely that an editor accidentally (or mechanically) including the space will get where they are trying to go. BD2412 T 23:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. These are all mainspace redirects to projectspace. Cross-namespace redirects like these should have a higher burden than regular shortcuts from projectspace. Given the corrected formations already exist, these should be deleted as unnecessary and unnatural. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really seeing how the WP-specific use of a colon without a space after it is more natural. If anything the opposite should be true. These redirects are necessary to preserve links in various edit summaries, since those can't be edited after the fact. Without them the reasoning behind the edit(s) may be lost. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as nominator: MOS: TITLEABSENTBOLD was nominated here with the same rationale and deleted as an "uncontested PROD". If this is closed as keep, that should be undeleted. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 05:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all MOS:HYPHEN and MOS: HYPHEN are both still in mainspace so keeping it does not matter that much.Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 06:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per Sangdeboeuf. These redirects are clearly necessary, and deleting them could be harmful as already noted above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Yes, people will make typos in their edit summaries, but that doesn't mean we need to create redirects for each variant of typo, like putting a space after the colon. People can figure out that a redlink "MOS: HYPHEN" is really MOS:HYPHEN. There's no CAT: CSD, etc. Legoktm (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, or in this case, does not exist. Someone could create such a redirect, and, if someone else finds it useful, where's the harm? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the spirit of WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as creating an undue maintenance burden. We already generally disallow "MoS:" as a pseudonamespace, so I don't see why this should be treated differently. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all to support easy mobile device editing per Sangdeboeuf. We should not expect mobile editors to have their devices work one way for normal text and another way for Wikipedia, just because mediawiki does not auto-correct pseudo-namespace titles. If I type "Wp: g11", with small p, a space, and small g, mediawiki still shows it as a blue link and treats it as "Wikipedia:G11". Not so with pseudo-namespaces. So the burden is on the editor to create multiple shortcuts to avoid this "shortcoming". I don't see this any different from justification for redirects having alternate capitalization as its hard to switch cases while typing on a mobile device. Jay 💬 08:15, 25 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 move without replacement to Richard E. Mayer (psychologist). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Richard E. Mayer/Archive → Richard E. Mayer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Merged in 2010. Propose to move without redirect to Richard E. Mayer (psychologist). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Jay 💬 07:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: did you relist for further opinions? I would have closed it myself as seemingly non-controversial, but I didn't want to do it without at least one comment or vote, hence my vote. Jay 💬 09:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: yeah. I (possibly incorrectly) assumed that if it was uncontroversial Tamzin would've just done it herself without going through RfD. Legoktm (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Tamzin: to clarify, you are proposing to move the redirect to Richard E. Mayer (psychologist) or the target? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Presidentman: To move the redirect, per WP:MOVEREDIRECT. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I support then. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:30, 11 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 Move without redirect to Rahim Yar Khan (city). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate articles merged in 2006. Suggest move without redirect to Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The concern with the proposed name is that there is also a district and a tehsil with the same name in Pakistan. Jay 💬 07:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jay: I'd say that if the city is the primary topic for Rahim Yar Khan, it's also the primary topic for Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan; but either way, probably best for a redirect-move to be to a title unlikely to see future movement. So, Rahim Yar Khan (city)? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Y Jay 💬 02:11, 12 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 disambiguate, no consensus as to primary topic. I have created a DAB at this title. There is no consensus as to what to do beyond that, as primary topic status is unresolved, and the correct name for the singer is not fully resolved either. Either or both of these two steps could now be taken:

1. RM to move Mocchi (singer) (which was boldly moved from Lu Mocchi during the RfD) to the base title, or to the further disambiguated Mocchi (Uruguayan singer) due to the existence of Kaori Mochida, or back to the previous title.
2. Discussion to merge the DAB to Mochi (disambiguation).

Courtesy pings to BDD and MikutoH, who based on their comments may be interested in those steps. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mocchi → Monster Rancher#Mocchi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Lu Mocchi could be moved to Mocchi. Actual redirect Mocchi is not being used. Per es:Mocchi / MOS:NB. MikutoH (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Mochi as a potential plausible misspelling. The spelling is so plausible that I don't see WP:SMALLDETAILS validating this title associating with anything else. Steel1943 (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep: If Mocchi goes by just Mocchi as opposed to the current article title, per MOS:GID we should move the page to Mocchi (singer) immediately and then have a discussion on WP:PTOPIC at a move request at Talk:Mocchi (singer). Proc keep as this is more a move request than an RfD. MikutoH feel free to reach out here or on my talk page if you want help with the move request or an explanation of my vote. TartarTorte 00:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think regardless at this point, I don't agree with the current target of the nominated redirect and would oppose a move request of the singer to the nominated redirect, so I think this discussion should stay open for now. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate between mochi, Lu Mocchi, the musician from Run Girls, Run!, Kaori Mochida, and the musician from Sakanaction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Mochi per Steel as a plausible misspelling. Not sure if disambiguation would be appropriate, seeing as how most of these entries are rather obscure. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lu Mocchi, and wait for the outcome of a future WP:RM. I don't see this as a plausible misspelling, but will be OK with it if we don't have a potential target, disambiguation page or pages with no mentions. If we're looking at the misspelling angle, the reader may be looking for one the entries at Mochi (disambiguation) and not necessarily the Japanese rice cake. Jay 💬 18:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Both move and create the suggested dab per BDD, now that Super Goku has added mentions at multiple articles. Jay 💬 11:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per LaundryPizza due to apparent lack of a clear primary topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the mentions at LaundryPizza's articles are unsourced and I had added a ((citation needed)) for them. Jay 💬 05:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked into it and was able to find sources for two of the three. The last has mentions, but I am doubtful that they could be used as sources. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Lu Mocchi over redirect. I'm not opposed to a Mocchi (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the disambiguation is unecessary and misleading mispellings with it. Specially when a disambig for Mochi already exists. MikutoH (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2023 (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. I'm happy to restore if anyone wants to do something with it. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahmadiyya in Bosnia and Herzegovina → Ahmadiyya by country  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target is a list article, but there is no entry for Bosniz and Herzegovina. Delete. MB 17:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article and presumably send to AfD. It should never have been BLARed to an article with no content about this in the first place. A7V2 (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and AfD: Per A7V2 and from lack of coverage of the topic at the target. TartarTorte 22:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. List article was created by an editor who was blocked for disruptive editing, so I'm not sure if it's worth restoring. Pinging Buidhe who BLARred the article, in case they want to comment on this. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - per CycloneYoris above, I'd say deletion is also acceptable. A7V2 (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed the entry from ((Ahmadiyya by country)), however there will be incoming links from ((Europe topic)) where the Bosnia and Herzegovina entry gets transcluded and will show up as redlinks, mostly in other Ahmadiyya in European countries articles. Jay 💬 11:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Same with ((World topic)). It shows up as Ahmadiyya in the World. Jay 💬 05:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed from List of Ahmadiyya buildings and structures#Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. Jay 💬 02:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any point in arguing over the recently created and quickly redirected short stub that existed here (its brief content wasn't supported by the source cited). While deletion will likely result in no loss to the encyclopedia, an alternative is to retarget to Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina and add a brief mention of the topic (there is some English-language info about the community: this says it's been present in the country since the early 2000s, the community has a website and its mosque has a Wikipedia article). – Uanfala (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of any useful content at the pre-existing article or currently-existing targets. A google scholar search for "Ahmadiyya" "Bosnia" does not turn up results that suggest that content could readily be added at a relevant target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 27 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 00:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mocchi ball → Navajo Sandstone#Iron oxide concretions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The rocks are sometimes known as Moqui balls, but I cannot attest to this spelling. Possible spelling variant or misspelling of Mochi ball. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is "Mocchi ball" is a mispelling of "Mochi ball" as the only difference is the extra "c" unlike "Moqui." I did not find any such variants to "Mochi ball." There are numerous hits to "Mocchi-Mocchi - ball," which is something different, using Google Search. Paul H. (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems like an unlikely and sort of ambiguous misspelling, deletion seems preferable IMO. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' 'Unnecessary redirect.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:57, 11 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Moo (Monster Rancher) → Monster Rancher  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Moo (monster ranchers) → Monster Rancher  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Moo (Monster Ranchers) → Monster Rancher#Moo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. However, Moo (Monster Rancher) is a ((R with history)) from a WP:BLAR in 2009. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Courtesy ping to the editor who performed the WP:BLAR in 2009. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Monster Rancher (TV series)#Story since Moo is the primary antagonist from that show,--65.92.162.81 (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding is that the subject of these redirects is an antagonist of the series as a whole. For that reason, pigeonholing the readers into going to a section on the television series seems a bit obscure/misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, we could make this into a sort of disambiguation page or hatnote the destination section with ((Redirect-distinguish-for)) / similar? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't consider either one of those options helpful at all since it doesn't look like the subject of this redirect is mentioned or identified on any page on Wikipedia other than Monster Rancher (TV series). Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all (including the BLARd one). The content from 2009 was unsourced and is not in a position to be merged. It looks like there is no article or section with a list of any Monster Rancher characters. Jay 💬 10:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and Jay. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:52, 27 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 00:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Six results on Google; one is DBpedia and the others don't appear to have anything to do with the subject. Previously deleted and then readded due to a user's personal experience hearing the term (see the talk page). The target has many superfluous redirects that probably also belong here, but this is the most obvious. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be deleted. Dino572 (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:47, 11 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 00:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Dotted Line Foundation → Dottedline snake eel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created by hijacking the Dottedline snake eel page. I have reverted the move and restored the content. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also because this redirect doesn't make sense as is. I think this org exists (there's a blogpost and a Crunchbase listing, even though two of the sources in the hijacking revision turned out to be irrelevant), but a Google search shows that it's definitely not notable. Duckmather (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Something created via vandalism. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:48, 16 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).