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) 03:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Zones of the Benishangul-Gumuz Region → Template:Districts of the Benishangul-Gumuz Region  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Template:Woredas of the Tigray Region → Template:Districts of the Tigray Region  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These template-redirects (batch #4, the final batch of 82 redirects) are left over after completing a month-long project to organize, simplify and update 167 outdated and disorganized templates (many old redirects, duplicates, and overlapping) into just 12 remaining templates. All of those in this batch point to the master template for their region, and have been double-checked to ensure there are no remaining articles using them. Removal of these old redirects will help to reduce any confusions as to which templates are to be used in articles, and simplify maintenance of named administrative divisions in a country (Ethiopia) which frequently renames, splits, and merges their zones and districts. Platonk (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 07:10, 7 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Resident Evil 1 creatures → List of Resident Evil characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - Gamecrufty redirect whose contents are not even mentioned in the target article, which is a list of characters rather than monsters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:09, 6 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of creatures in the Resident Evil series → List of Resident Evil characters#Creatures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Resident Evil creatures → List of Resident Evil characters#Creatures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of resident evil creatures → List of Resident Evil characters#Creatures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of recurring creatures in Resident Evil → List of Resident Evil characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of recurring Resident Evil creatures → List of Resident Evil characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Creatures in Resident Evil → List of Resident Evil characters#Creatures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - Gamecrufty redirect whose contents are not even mentioned in the target article, which is a list of characters rather than monsters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:08, 6 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of creatures in Resident Evil 4 → List of Resident Evil characters#Resident Evil 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Resident Evil 4 creatures → List of Resident Evil characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Resident Evil 4 creatures → List of Resident Evil characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Resident Evil 4 monsters → List of Resident Evil characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - Gamecrufty redirect whose contents are not even mentioned in the target article, which is a list of characters rather than monsters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:07, 6 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. I find the arguments about the lack of coverage the strongest. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lil Duke → YSL Records  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I've found "Lil Duke" mentioned in at least 2 different articles (including the one it redirects to, which mentions it exactly once), but neither gives good coverage. For another example, see TK Kravitz below. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging AshMusique who had BLARd the article with comment "WP:EVADE", and it is not clear who was the user evading the block. IP 2600:1700:511:59A0:75E5:96B8:E964:ECA6 had added bulk of the article content, but I don't see a record of a block being applied there. Jay (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping Jay. I can't remember why I didn't file an SPi report on the user who, as you noted, added the bulk of the content - I've reported numerous socks of the sockpuppeteer before. But I redirected the article as per WP:EVADE because the IP appeared to me to be a sock of Rishabisajakepauler (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler): all three other IPs that edited the page were/are now-blocked socks of that user; 108.217.3.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 12.251.184.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 72.48.206.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (see their individual talk pages). One of those IPs went onto another user's talk page, requesting for the initial redirect to be made, here: User talk:CAMERAwMUSTACHE#Lil Duke. Hope that explains it, although an SPi case would've probably been the correct route. Either way, as I'm here, I vote to keep the redirect, as the target is the record label Lil Duke is signed to. AshMusique (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AshMusique: IMHO, the whole point of a redirect is to take someone to a place where more information about the redirect's subject is stated. You can attribute many qualities to a redirect and redirect it to many different pages. But the problem is, if that target has little to no coverage of that subject, it's not really an appropriate place to redirect it to. I noted earlier that there was exactly one mention of the person in the article it pointed to, and that still stands today. So I believe that unless an article with more coverage is found, or the redirect is turned into an independent article, it should be deleted - otherwise, what's the point of having it go to a place where it has no coverage and barely any information is stated about it? Note also that the page has redirected to a different article in the past. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, and I partly agree, but I still deem it to be a reasonable target as the record label is something he is associated with. With all due respect, I'm not particularly interested in having a discussion about this, because I did not create the redirect, I was merely voting because I was pinged here, and decided to vote based on what I said at the beginning of this message, but thank you for your response. AshMusique (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I respect your decision. I wasn't trying to convince anyone or anything like that, just stating my point of view. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 28#FlyingKitty and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#PmBata. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not know if socks who are suspect (and not confirmed nor commented upon during the investigation) typically have their contributions reverted. If the IP's revision is not restored, then delete. Jay (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:12, 2 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:FOAMER → Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Foamer apparently means an obsessive railfan, but the term is both pejorative and ambiguous. It may be inappropriate for this unused redirect. Certes (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (As creator). Hello, I created this redirect in a serious purpose, and in a comedic sense. I have a base for this redirect as Foamer redirects to Railfan. I thought to myself, why not make the wikipedia redirect of foamers, and make it go to the home of railfans, which is Wikproject Trains. Since it is used in a comedic sense, I could leave a warning on the talk page or redirect saying that it can be used for more serious purposes in the future, but in the meantime, I see no reason why not to keep it. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SCJARGON. This is a confusing term to most people who are not railfans. I would not necessarily say it's as pejorative as the nominator says, as I'll joking call myself one and while I'm generally loath to cite a message board for this, there is a good discussion here on the term foamer becoming less pejorative recently.^[1] Having said that, generally for ALL CAPS redirects, more widespread understanding of the term is the norm. With the recency of the redirect, I do not think that people defaulting to using WP:FOAMER as a way to get to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains is a significant problem if this were deleted. TartarTorte 13:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE, Item 3--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems justifiable if foamer redirecting to railfan for a while hasn't caused any issues, and despite being created for humorous purposes seems genuinely useful to me (WP:RFD#KEEP, item 5). --YuriNikolai (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - some see the term as perjorative. Evidence is that the shortcut is not used (ignore the spike since the redirect was nominated for deletion). Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The redirect was created two days ago, I would expect for it not to be used. Sea Cow (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes; this statistic does not show whether the new redirect will be used. Certes (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually though, this shows that people do recognize "Foamer" to be a thing. It looks like it averages around 30 searches a month. Sea Cow (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In US English "foamer" (edit add: "often") refers to someone who is "foaming at the mouth" like a rabid dog. It can be used for any fanatic on any subject. Although someone may use it humorously it is definitely perjorative. Moon Joon (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was just commenting on the word, but you got me thinking. I'm a "lib-tard foamer" (liberal-retarded and foam somehow), or so I'm told. If somebody wants to know how bad I am they may be confused by "railfan" in that context. Currently "foamer" is often used as a political insult and you may be mis-leading people. Are there more ignorant people or railfans currently using the word? 2¢. Moon Joon (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My defense here is that it's used in the mainspace as a redirect, if that hasn't been contested, I see no reason why this shouldn't be fine. Sea Cow (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no position, I was only trying to give you some background that you clearly didn't know. Hope I wasn't rude, good luck whatever. Moon Joon (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 21:55, 25 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 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's no logic to the idea that something being an acceptable mainspace redirect makes it an acceptable projectspace shortcut. This is a non-neutral redirect. We allow such redirects in mainspace, despite a number of reasons we as a community would just as soon not, because they have a navigational benefit. There's no navigational benefit here. No one looking for this wikiproject is thinking the canonical shortcut will be a disparaging term for its members. Also worth noting that YuriNikolai, who had never participated at RfD before, made his above !vote two minutes after Sea Cow asked him to in an off-wiki comment. Per a bizarre RfC decision, I cannot link to that comment, but can tell people exactly how to find it: Join WP:DISCORD, and then into the search bar enter "discussion from", then hit Tab ↹, and then put in Sea Cow's Discord username. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear I did not ask, I was informing him of the existence. I was unaware of the canvassing rules at the time. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only links to it are from project pages, a user page, and here. The redirect doesn't really see usage, and the term is both jargon and pejorative. Invalid^OS_talk 12:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Full disclosure, I have been aware of this based on discussion on Discord; however, I also monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts daily, where this has been listed, so I would be aware of this discussion either way. This was alluded to previously, but quite a few railfans (including myself) jokingly call ourselves foamers. Sure it's meant to be a derogatory term, but it's not really super offensive. That said, the likeliness someone would find this redirect useful as a target to WP Trains is pretty low. Incidentally, I've been meaning to write a userspace essay that this would be a perfect redirect for, but that's a whole other discussion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:12, 8 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Orthodox civilization → Eastern Orthodox Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The expression is too vague and broad, as Orthodox can designate many things.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete way too broad, and the assertion of an Eastern Orthodox 'civilization' feels POV to me. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I first also wanted to delete, but then User:SmokeyJoe give me the link [1] and then I found other mentions. Now I think that it is ok to keep it. --Heanor (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. “Orthodox civilisation” is the historic POV of the founders of the Eastern Orthodox Church. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heanor and SmokeyJoe: In any case, on WP to refer to those churches and what is related to them, the expression "Eastern Orthodox" is used, not simply "Orthodox". Veverve (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's also a POV. In common use Orthodox usually refers to what some on Wikipedia call Eastern Orthodox. There's no confusion possible with Orthodox Judaism or Orthodox Marxism here. Place Clichy (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above. The entire point of redirects is to take phrases that would be used by people and redirect them to what Wikipedia calls them. See Roman Catholic Church as an example of a redirect going the opposite way. No reason to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This represents a plausible search term, but I'm not sure of the best target. Clearly that can't be the article about the church: even with the ambiguity of "Orthodox" left aside, "civilisation" encompasses a wide range of social and cultural phenomena, not just the dominant religion. Plausible targets are Byzantine commonwealth (matching the redirect Orthodox World), and Role of Christianity in civilization (matching Christian civilization and Catholic Civilization ), and Christiandom. There are things to say for and against each of those potential targets. – Uanfala (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I just found out that Orthodox Christian Civilization, Orthodox Christian Culture and Christian Orthodox Culture exist. Veverve (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what conclusion do you draw from that, Veverve? Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Depending on how this RfD ends, this information may be of interest for the participants. As for me, I do not know what to think of those links, and I have done no research on them. Veverve (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the second relist didn't help, there is more scope for this discussion, and I hope the last two comments prompt the nom and initial voters decide where they want to go with this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• After the comment of Uanfala I'm for retargetting to Byzantine commonwealth. --Heanor (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to go somewhere, as it is certainly a thing. Retargetting to Byzantine commonwealth may be best. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the late support for targeting Byzantine commonwealth, an atypical 4th relist seems appropriate in order to confirm whether or not a consensus can be formed for this suggestion, rather than closing now as no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As the nominator, while I my first choice is deletion, I also accept as one of the least bad options retargetting to Byzantine commonwealth in view of what was said above. Veverve (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I recommend redirecting to Eastern Orthodox Church § Traditions, which was the original target of this redirect. I do not think that Byzantine commonwealth is a better target, as this seems a little-used expression almost only linked to its 1974 creator. Place Clichy (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague per nom. --Thesmp (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Still too vague for me, even if we take for granted that this means Orthodox Christianity. "Civilization" here could mean the culture of the religion, the general culture of areas that are primarily Orthodox (i.e., also extending to secular culture and non-Orthodox people there). I don't see how we can do much better than search results. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 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 move without redirect to SetTheory. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SetTheory/OldVersion → Set theory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page has no history that needs to be merged. Delete it. Q28 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep purely in recognition of its status as one of our oldest pages. Maybe that's a silly reason, but it's not like anything is hurt by keeping it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I note that you are contradicting yourself from only a month ago at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 5#SetTheory/OldVersion, where you said there was history that needs to be merged. Regardless of that, I see no good reason for there to be a page at this title, so delete after any history merging that is deemed necessary takes place. Also courtesy ping to Graham87. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pppery: Q28 did ask for a history merge of that page, which was (correctly) declined by Anthony Appleyard (courtesy ping only). Graham87 07:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP point 4, which says "Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: completely useless, I cannot see any external page finding this redirect. Veverve (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move to somewhere like Talk:Axiomatic set theory/Old version if you must (see below), a harmless redirect from a very old title. There is indeed no interesting history there in any of the database dumps other than the blanking of the page which I imported from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. However, this RFD led me to find and import a lot of old edits, mostly from the August 2001 database dump, and to move the early history at Set theory to its proper location at Axiomatic set theory. The "SetTheory/OldVersion" page is simply a copy that Larry Sanger made of this edit of what was then "SetTheory", whose text was deleted in the next edit. UseModWiki, the wiki software in use at the time, didn't save old history reliably (or at least its functionality in this regard wasn't widely known at that time) so keeping a copy like that was probably a sensible thing to do. Larry later put the text back. As I said above, I see little point in deleting the redirect, but its history could be moved somewhere else if absolutely necessary. Graham87 07:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move without redirect to SetTheory. That title is now available thanks to the moves Graham87 describes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move without redirect to SetTheory per User:Tavix. Worth keeping because of historical interest, but as SetTheory is now once again available, we don't need the "/OldVersion" bit any more. This should be kept as a redirect instead of a full article as Wikipedia's standards and format have changed quite a lot in two decades and the contents wouldn't stand a chance of being accepted as a Wikipedia article today. JIP | Talk 03:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:59, 25 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 19:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move without redirect to SetTheory per User:Tavix. (Don't really have anything to add to my opinion.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 3 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of schools in Algeria → List of universities in Algeria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'd like to see this redirect deleted as it isn't helpful to redirect people looking for "schools" in Algeria to a list of universities. Since only an extremely small amount of schools are universities. Plus it's pretty likely someone looking for a list of universities will search for it using the more specific term "universities" instead of "schools." So this should be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We do not have a list of schools in Algeria, we do have List of high schools in Chlef Province, which despite claiming to list all 46 high schools in the province actually lists 0. Even if it was a useful list, it would be too narrow on too grounds so would not make an appropriate target for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The target has 14 schools listed. Probably the problem is in the title, and the target should be moved to List of schools and universities in Algeria or move to the redirect Higher education in Algeria since all the schools mentioned are higher schools. Jay (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to List of schools and universities in Algeria would only be worth doing if there was going to be articles about schools other then universities that could be added to the list. There's zero chance of that happening though. Especially since secondary and below schools are no longer considered inherently notable. In the meantime creating List of schools and universities in Algeria when there's nothing except university articles is just kicking the can down the road until someone nominates it for deletion because it doesn't contain anything besides universities and we already have a list for that. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Are the 14 schools listed in the article considered as universities in Algeria? Jay (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target article as it stands now, is a listing of universities, university centres, and schools, and this is regardless of whether they have individual articles. The schools may not have articles, but so do 20+ universities in the list. What matters is they are all sourced, and until there is consensus at the target article to delete all entries that do not have articles, the redirect is valid, and so is a change of title. Jay (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is a list of "universities." Sure universities are schools, but that's like saying something like List of production battery electric vehicles is the same as List of vehicles. Which redirects to Vehicle BTW not List of production battery electric vehicles, because it makes sense to up-redirect something to a more general topic, but not to a more specific one. More so in this case because universities are an extremely small subset of schools in the world. Including institutions of higher educations. Maybe it would make sense to redirect this to something like List of institutions of higher education in Algeria or something. At least that would be slightly less narrow. Or hell Education in Algeria for that matter. Although I'm still of the belief that just deleting it is the best option here. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are have having different views of what a "school" is. For the whole of Wikipedia (and not just for Algeria), I would go with what's mentioned at WP:WikiProject Schools/Article advice, which is lower secondary and upper secondary (also known as Middle school, High school, Junior High, Senior High, etc.) The target article has entries of types "public higher schools", "private higher schools" and "public higher national schools". Education in Algeria#Educational System has no mention of a "higher school", but says "national schools" are public institutions for higher education. If the understanding is that "higher school" in Algeria is the equivalent of college, then I don't have a problem striking off my vote (but would still like the target title to be made more appropriate). Jay (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to category per IP 192. The category is more encompassing than what we have at the current target. Jay (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Category:Schools in Algeria, until we have a proper list article. The category contains a lot of content related to Algerian schools, and I think it is likely that a reader would find it to be a reasonable substitute. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we redirect a list to a category? I don't know why, but that seems like a weird thing to do for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: It's done semi-frequently, e.g. List of insects, List of Queenslanders, List of cricketers, List of toy companies, ... 192.76.8.73 (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks for the info. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of the late retarget proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 2 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vladimir Dvorkin → Oz Almog  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was created with the edit summary redirecting the name of his art fabricator, mentioned in the entry. The inclusion of a mention of Dvorkin was contested at the target. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if a DUE mention is added and sticks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally a full length documentary on this being aired on national television in a major country ... but feel free to ignore it I guess, not a hill I plan on dying on if the artist can quash it with the community. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is apparently contentious with WP:BLP issues. This redirect cannot exist without a reliably-sourced mention at the target, which (currently) is not the case. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if this is the Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin who has mention in multiple articles on enwiki. He would need a standalone article. Jay (talk) 19:15, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Writer's craft → Plot (narrative)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This term does not refer to plotting anymore than any other part of writing. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Creative writing.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or retarget to Writing style which is the target for redirects Writer's voice and Type of writing. Jay (talk) 19:08, 9 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. Target section was restored after being removed by an IP. (non-admin closure) Invalid^OS_talk 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• V formation (American football) → List of formations in American football#V formation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Invalid^OS_talk 13:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a mess. The target of this redirect, section titled "V formation", was removed by an IP at 20:45, 29 April 2020‎, then reinstated by User:Flyer‎22 Frozen (now deceased), who then immediately reverted herself, so removing it again. It's not clear why this section was removed. The edit summary suggests it was incorporated into section "Swinging gate" but that didn't happen. I suggest it should be put back where it was. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Repaired An IP screwed up the formatting here when they added text on the same line as the header markup. Another IP blanked the whole section with the edit summary "changes made flying V part of swinging gate" meaning the edit made the sections appear as one due to screwed up wiki-markup. I restored the section sans vandalism, so hopefully this is resolved. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:59, 3 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) 08:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Turreters → Turret  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Turreter → Turret  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unexplained redirect. A translation of Turret (architecture)? In what language? Creator is indef blocked. Schierbecker (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think it's more likely supposed to mean someone who operates a turret (like a gun turret), but the word doesn't seem to actually exist. By the way, I think it's not too late to include turreter in this nomination instead of having it as a separate nomination. Obviously the arguments and outcome are going to be the same for both. Lennart97 (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merged the two nominations. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the word isn't mentioned even once in English Wikipedia. Every Google Books hit that's not an OCR error seems to be about an old brand of fluorescent lightbulb. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 11:54, 2 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) 08:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonglingkong or Baba Kailashor Chhota Kailash → Adi Kailash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hmmm, I don't think I've ever seen an X or Y redirect before. And while both entries do indeed refer to the targeted mountain, this redirect doesn't make sense as it is. Each name should have its own redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no sense. All three shorter terms (Jonglingkong, Baba Kailash and Chhota Kailash) are redirects to Adi Kailash. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I had listed it for speedy deletion. The typo is "Kailash or" is made as "Kailashor", normal typo as redirect is fine, but this typo is about missing a space. So nobody will ever search for "Kailashor". Crashed greek (talk) 07:33, 4 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• MIST PSI PRESS → Hatoful Boyfriend  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Malformatted redirect for a company to one game (of at least two) it published. The target article contains no information on the company beyond a name drop in the infobox, making the redirect unhelpful. IceWelder [✉] 09:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User Zxcvbnm split the target and moved the infobox to Hatoful Boyfriend: Holiday Star, so if there is no outcome to this discussion, that can be a new target. Jay (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unhelpful redirect. The game articles mention it as MIST[PSI]PRESS in all caps and without spaces. Don't know what to make of it. Jay (talk) 05:36, 9 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 Google Go (disambiguation). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Google Go → Go (programming language)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a redirect to programming, when i search in Google, i found that people commonly refer Google Go as a search engine, not programming language. Vitaium (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to be an app instead of a programming language. It might cause confusion at best. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Misleading redirect. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 07:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For reference, the lowercased RfD is at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Google go. Jay (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Google Go (disambiguation) where it is discussed. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As Google Search#Smartphone apps is the primary topic of Google Go (disambiguation), it should retarget there. Jay (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Google Go (disambiguation). I've said the same at the other RfD. In response to User talk:Jay's comment, I'd suggest it's not entirely clear cut that the app is the primary topic, given Google search results for the term "google go" include Android Go and the programming language prominently. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed the primary at the dab. Jay (talk) 06:20, 9 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 no consensus. This had limited discussion despite two relists. There was no support for the current target, retargeting to Editor (disambiguation)#People referred to as editor as a better target. Jay (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The target article does not describe the term. Maybe there is a better target to point this at? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are several "editor" articles listed at Editor (disambiguation), while many other "editor" redirects point to editing; and chief sub-editor points to a different article -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget To Editor (disambiguation)#People referred to as editor Happy editing--IAmChaos
• Retarget to Editor-in-chief where the term is mentioned as a ((R from related word)). Mdewman6 (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:05, 2 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!} 01:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FNF' → Friday Night Funkin'  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to plausible initialism. 👨🏻‍💻 Rng0286 (☎️ talk) ✍️ conts ;) No running gag for now (☑️ rights) Not even here D'oh! 09:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rng0286: Could you please specify why you would like this redirect to be deleted? CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Punctuation is unnecessary in initialisms. Faster than Thunder (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Unclear nomination, the redirect looks fine. Keep. Jay (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible abbreviation with punctuation. Faster than Thunder (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• These kinds of RfD are always a bit frustrating, because Google doesn't distinguish between "FNF" and "FNF'". However, I dug through a considerable number of reddit comments, thinking that would be a good place to see real-life usage, and didn't find any with the apostrophe. So, delete, although I'd reconsider if anyone can show this having any currency, even slight. Also, @Rng0286, could you please pick a signature that isn't so confusing? You have enough text after your username that it looks like you've appended some sort of postscript to your comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:55, 2 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.