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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Eminems → M&M's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Potentially confusing redirect that conflates the rapper with the candy. Not sure how plausible this is as a search term for the candy. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is a new redirect and did not work properly as a redirect even before nomination to WP:RfD as it had an improper disambiguatory sentence at the bottom. 22:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TartarTorte (talk • contribs)
• Comment: I went ahead and tagged this for speedy deletion per criterion R3 since it was created earlier today. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. According to WilyD, criterion R3 is not applicable for speedy deleting this redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is only one Eminem, as I'm sure he'd be quick to point out, and he is so well known in popular culture (about on the same level as the candy itself) that I find it very doubtful that anyone will conflate the two, even if they are aware of how it rhymes (I probably shouldn't have to point out that Eminem himself very likely chose the name in reference to the candy based on his first and last initials, which will likely be obvious to everyone even if we aren't saying so ourselves due to the lack of a source to support it). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:36, 19 February 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 1800. Kept at the same target page, but unrefined, as entries for March are available in other sections as well. Jay (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• March 1800 → 1800#March  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect that is unlikely to be useful. I also want to head off any efforts that might be brewing in someone's head to create 12 new redirects for every year that has a WP article (which, by my back-of-the-napkin math, could be upwards of 30k+ new redirects). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as creator since redirects are cheap, there's no harm in having this redirect here; The whole purpose of Rfd is to get rid of potentially problematic redirects, a redirect to a month in a year is not one of those. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Plus a page already links there, User:Rich Farmbrough/months, I see no issue with having just a 70 byte redirect to a month in a year Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is also a great list of a bunch of other redirects that serve the same purpose yet are still up Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep this one, we're implicitly saying that it would be ok to have a redirect for every month of every year that has a WP article. There are over 2500 articles dedicated to a year, which potentially means over 30,000 redirects. I'm not sure if 30k redirects can be described as "cheap", especially when the usefulness of those redirects as a plausible search term is likely to be rather low. Yes, there are already some redirects that exist for more recent months, which makes somewhat more sense the more recent they get. As dates get further and further back in history, the specificity of dates becomes less important. That's why we might talk about something that happened "30 seconds ago", or "earlier today around 3:15pm", or "last November", or "in 1989", or "in the 16th century", or "in the 3rd millienium BC", or "40-50 million years ago. Naturally, the further back you go, the less specific you get. No one is talking about something that happened at 3:15pm on November 24, 3579 BC. For this reason, I think it's highly unlikely that anyone will ever search for "March 1800" to find out something that happened in March of the year 1800, because it's just too specific. I'm sure that even history experts couldn't say what happened in October of 1682 or February of 1837. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah fair enough Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion then Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unrefine. I don't have a problem with redirects of this type so long as there is content at the article for the given month. As far back as March 1900 is a separate article so I can see this being a plausible search term. However, there's separate sections for events, births, and deaths, so it shouldn't be anchored to one of them arbitrarily. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and unrefine per Tavix. Someone searching this will be taken to exactly what they are looking for. A7V2 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Unrefine per Tavix. And I'd definitely support creating 30,000 redirects for each month, or at least all in the past 500 years, as they will be quite plausible. Plus, since they could all be handled by bot, it hardly would harm anything. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and unrefine per Tavix. I would also support the creation of redirects for month and year to year articles which contain content about that month, if that is 30,000 then we gain 30,000 more useful redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is but perhaps reserve this scheme for months already elapsed. I was going to list some examples including March 2022 but even going as far out as 2029 I could only find ones that existed already, and thus could not generate a WP:REDLINK that would resolve to blue once my targeted timeframe passed (e.g. in this case I was going to say don't create March 2022 as a redirect until April 2022), so it would seem to me, based solely on this very cursory glance at them, that most if not all of the redirects the nominator seems to fear already exist, so bot or no bot, there may not be such a workload looming. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep + expand - Redirects like this provide value to people who are using the in-site search feature. The purpose of the redirect is clear and direct and there's no reason why someone should have to change their search terms or use Google when a simple solution like this is already in place. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 07:43, 21 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Scratchy monster → Caillou  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, or any where in wikipedia. External search lists the Caillou show, and more references to eczema and skin rashes. Jay (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't even have a separate article for a list of episodes of the show as far as I can determine. My (very) cursory Google search turned up a concept that appears in just one episode and does not seem to recur in any other. It isn't helpful to have a redirect that may indeed denote a term that appears in a given show, but which we do not refer to at all because we do not discuss the show itself in such depth. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:53, 20 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nombre complexe → Complex number  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Complex getal → Complex number  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RLOTE; no affinity to French or Dutch. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. According to Google Translate, these are French and Dutch respectively for complex number. I see no reason why these foreign phrases should redirect to an English article.—Anita5192 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:22, 17 February 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 speedy keep, withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 21:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

It seems like a long time ago it was determined that combat is the primary topic for fight, but to me it seems like disambiguation would make a lot more sense, so I am arguing for a retarget to Fight (disambiguation). TartarTorte 20:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong venue What is needed then is a requested move discussion to consider moving Fight (disambiguation) to Fight (i.e., to reach consensus on whether combat is still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or if there is no primary topic). Mdewman6 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's true. Withdrawing now. TartarTorte 21:58, 15 February 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 Nelly Restar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:RLOTE; no affinity to Spanish. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Nelly Restar as a ((R from surname)). There are no other notable people or topics with articles. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and tag per Thryduulf. Narky Blert (talk) 10:02, 18 February 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 Field extension#Extension field. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Quadratic field extension → Quadratic field  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 18#Quadratic extension, Field extension#Extension field might be a more suitable target, as quadratic extensions do not need to be over the rational numbers. In any case, this and Quadratic extension should have the same target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support redirecting to Field extension#Extension field, per nom, and also because at least one of the few links to this redirect is not about a quadratic field. D.Lazard (talk) 08:02, 16 February 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 Redirect turned into article.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Schrödingers katt → Schrödinger's cat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RLOTE; no affinity to Swedish. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably retarget: I googled and it looks like this is the title of a scandinavian (Norwegian?) children's TV program. From WP:RLOTE I think it should either be made a stub for this program, or be deleted, but should not be a redirect. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a Norwegian science for children tv program from 1990 to 2016. It has an article in no-wiki: no:Schrödingers katt (TV-program). Could be translated, I guess. --T*U (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it won some awards. I think it should be translated. Any Norwegian speakers willing to do it? --Chetvorno^TALK 07:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to make a stab at it during the coming weekend. --T*U (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I can help in any way, contact me --Chetvorno^TALK 18:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Article created about the award-winning Norwegian TV series, based on article at no-wiki. --T*U (talk) 14:20, 18 February 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 13:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Plant protein → Protein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Plant proteins → Protein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target page does not adequately identify or define this subtopic. There are some mentions of "protein" in Plant-based diet, but I don't see that being a plausible retargeting option due to lack of describing the subject of these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How about retargeting both to Protein (nutrient)#Sources? Like the RfD below for fish protein, this would assume a dietary context. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Category:Plant proteins exists and I think an article should be created to complement it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to allow for article creation in the future. wizzito | say hello! 22:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too nonspecific. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 17 February 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 01:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• High protein → Protein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• High protein liquids → Protein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target page doesn't seem to identify or define these terms. Readers won't seem to find the information they are looking for if searching these terms. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both High protein to Protein (nutrient) where the term is used repeatedly. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High protein liquids as it is not used as a term anywhere on WP, and could refer to many things. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vague undefinable term. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 17 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Classis of Amsterdam → Amsterdam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, 'Classis' is not even mentioned in the target. Thesmp (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Classis of Amsterdam is pretty unrelated to Amsterdam itself,^[1] and it's very much a surprising redirect. TartarTorte 20:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing special about this particular Classis (ecclesiastical) (a topic which has well-developed articles at de:Classis (Kirche) and nl:Classis (religie)). Narky Blert (talk) 10:08, 18 February 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. Jay (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• PP environmental science → AP Environmental Science  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn't appear to be an alternative title or a likely typo, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This strikes me as, given the other edits at the same time, a typo from a user trying to redirect various capitalizations to the page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:09, 16 February 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. Jay (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned at target; only use on enwiki is an undefined term at Bootstrap error-adjusted single-sample technique. Most search results are about commercial products not mentioned anywhere on enwiki. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find no connection between anything called a "hyperline" and a square. Paul August ☎ 15:16, 15 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Jai Singh Sadana → SpiceXpress  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, and not in any way notable enough to be included there. In fact, his role there isn't even verifiable[1], the Medium.com source in the original article (before it was turned into a redirect) is not a reliable source, and no official or reliable sources seem to confirm his role. Fram (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jai Singh Sadana is the Chief of Aircraft Operations in SpiceXpress and this redirect is not necessary. 2006nishan178713^t@lk 13:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not significant enough in the company for a redirect to be warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As a contested BLAR, restore and take to AfD. Jay (talk) 16:10, 22 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fucks per minute → List of films that most frequently use the word fuck  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Completely non-standard (and puerilely humorous) metric, which doesn't necessarily relate to films at any rate. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 19:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Umm – OK, so what's the problem? It seems like it's directed to an appropriate target, and it's not something that will be encountered accidentally. The target article has a column in its main table that measures the fucks per minute in each film, and some of them have very impressive scores in that column. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep someone searching this term will find directly relevant and useful information at the target article, and they will not find anything better elsewhere on Wikipedia. The only thing other than films that this term is used for is television episodes, but we have no information about that as far as I can tell. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep mentioned in the article but I think adding a cited definition won't hurt. Also bonus points for making me snort while drinking coffee. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: too vague. The expression can refer to how many time the word "fuck" is said per minute in any media (film, music, play, etc.). It can also designate how many times people have sex per minute during a certain period of time. Veverve (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It could in theory be used in all those ways, but in actual use only film and television get used and of those the only content on Wikipedia is about film. So while theoretically ambiguous it isn't in practice. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it seems that Boing Boing disapproves of your removal of "fucks per minute" from the list, Ravenpuff, but you were correct to remove it. The best I can find that use the term are referencing the Wikipedia list in question: there's The A.V. Club as well. Because external sources now quote us as documenting "fucks per minute", I think we need to keep the redirect for historical purposes (and there are a couple of other flippant uses, [2][3]). It's not so grossly obscene or irrelevant to necessitate deletion. — Bilorv (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per Thrydulf--it's the way the term is used. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This title is vague, seems completely implausible, and the target title also looks very questionable. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 20:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you actually read any of the comments above yours? This title is plausible, precise, and has a clear single target. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This can also refer to other media, like television, Internet videos, or speeches. Because of how ambiguous it is, I do not see it as a plausible redirect. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 00:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As noted multiple times above, it is only theoretically ambiguous. In practice it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I understand concerns mentioned earlier, but I would argue, at the very least, that this should be the exception to any such rules. I would also argue that, even if someone took gleeful advantage of said rules to create this redirect, the intention does not make it any less valid. And I fully support its existence anyway. In rebuttal to the point that movies are not the only media that can have a considerable number of fluorine bombs lobbed in them, it is, at present, what most people think about when they think of terms like this (let's be honest, quarantine makes people do strange things, as we have seen often). If this balance should shift, especially as miniseries and full-blown shows become more commonplace with the advent of streaming where regulations are far less stringent, we can cross that bridge when we come to it — and no sooner. It does have a very low view count as of late, but it's non-zero, so clearly someone out there is coming here looking for it (and likely not leaving feeling dissatisfied). I also find it more likely that the term itself likely just refers to the term itself, if that makes sense; I find it very unlikely that a significant, noteworthy amount of media, at least outside of pornography, would actually depict enough sexual acts in such a short amount of time as to require the use of the descriptor, um, "flourine bombs per minute" (and even within pornography I find it unlikely to happen either; it just takes too long compared to just saying the word). (I have not once used the F-word on this wiki as far as I can recall, and even in this context I am loathe to start now.) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:52, 19 February 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 13:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dictator of Letters → Voltaire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I've never heard the target referred to by this title, and the phrase is not in the article. Searching online for this phrase just resulted in mirrors. Is POV as it currently stands. Delete.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a term used to refer to Voltaire ([4]) but it also seems to have been used (less) for Samuel Johnson and Callimachus. And probably some others, as it is derived from a secondary definition of the word dictator; someone who dictates text. In this scenario it is probably best to delete, as in many circumstances when a reader searches this up after seeing the phrase, the phrase won't refer to Voltaire and the reader will be much more confused. (This situation is where an unorthodox disambiguation would be helpful. Or heck, create a Wiktionary entry and redirect this there.) — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should there be an attempt at disambiguation or a wiktionary entry, or is delete probably best?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the term has been used for Voltaire, but also for others. It's non-specific. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 17 February 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 Blank. An unusual outcome at RfD, but appropriate for talk-space pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Template:Largest Israeli cities → Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Largest Israeli cities  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Khokababu → Template:Editnotices/Page/Khokababu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Moved from the talk page to the main one, but seems rather confusing. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note nominations merged, the Largest Israeli cities one was nominated 3 minutes later without an explicit rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Blank or replace with talk page content. If they're ((R from move)) redirects then they should be kept for attribution reasons. but if they are confusing then there is no problem with a blank talk page, or a talk page with a template pointing to where edit requests, etc. should be posted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen a couple edit notice talk pages target the talk page of the page the edit notice applies to; maybe this could be done here. How are redirects from moves required for attribution reasons though? The page history is always still available at the target page. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:41, 15 February 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 01:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• History of cats → Cultural depictions of cats  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target seems misleading since it's not about the history of how domestic cats came to be in general, but rather cultures' connections to cats. One possible retargeting option may be Evolution of the domesticated cat (considering Origin of the domesticated cat redirects there). Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Open to more creative ideas, but my initial take on this is retarget to Cat, which covers both the biological and cultural sides of this in its sections Evolution and History and mythology, which have hatnote links to the two articles Steel mentioned. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also retarget to cat since "history of cats" could encompass their evolution, domestication, and/or cultural history. – Joe (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The first section has a See also to Evolution of the domesticated cat for interested readers. Readers who don't find what they want will know to go to the base Cat article anyway. Jay (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Typing just 3 letters takes everyone to the page Cat, which contains all the relevant links to subpages and to the family. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Misleading. History of cats means the evolution , not the pihistory of depictions of cats. It's not necessary even there, becauseit's obvious--we would be making a redirect for History of anything and everything. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The current target is not satisfactory; Cat is where a reader would naturally go if that's what they're looking for; and it's ambiguous (see Cats (disambiguation)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:02, 20 February 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 01:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cat tenderizing → Kneading (cats)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the two terms unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator - It's a lesser used term for kneading. It's hard to find a major source since it's just a cutesy colloquial term, but here are some references to it: [5] [6] [7] [8] --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 17:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: it is not at the target, and the creator has admitted that no RSs discussed the expression. Veverve (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if there is a reliable source, delete otherwise. Jay (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely agree that a reliable source would be needed for inclusion in the article itself, but search terms are mostly about redirecting users to the right article and generally don't require the same level of sourcing that actual content would. For example, redirects like Amzon_rainforest and Gooogle exist to help out people who misspelled the proper name in the search box despite a lack of official sources that mention the incorrect term (because why would they?). In this case, the term tenderizing is used enough that I think it's beneficial to keep it as a redirect to the more proper, well sourced name. Besides the links that I posted above, here are some additional links that mention the term "tenderizing" in that context: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] The term very clearly gets used on occasion in pet circles and cat blogs but the trivial nature of the subject means that you aren't going to find anything about it on a major site like CNN. And again, I'm not arguing that it's notable enough for inclusion in the article itself, but the primary purpose of a redirect is to get users to the right place, and I think that there's enough evidence that this one could be helpful. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 19:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concern is it is too trivial a term. I had gone through the earlier links, and now went with the new ones, and all of them treat tenderizing in the context of a joke, except for maybe mrcatmandu.com (another blog) which attempted to list different names for the term. Is there an article or book on cats that uses the term? Jay (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we're not a directory of trivial slang DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 17 February 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.