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. With the caveat that this consensus is largely independent of the rationale advanced in the nomination. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:BC → Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page should be made a disambiguation page, for the reason that I outline for other redirects (edited) of this ilk: undue focus (to quote another RfD commentor) on a niche WikiProject, when there are a few other pages (like WP:Bureaucrats) that can also fit this acronym. Even though the Brit. Col. WikiProject is not as dormant as others, it is still not fairly accommodating all navigators of this redirect. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For another example of provincial WikiProject being dabified this way, see WP:MB and its RfD. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all my comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#MS and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#EE. Unless you can show some evidence of this redirect being actually (not theoretically) problematic (for example by a significant proportion of links being intended for a different target than the current one) then there is only harm and no benefit from change. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate, but not per the nominator, who has failed to advance any convincing rationale for why this should be disambiguated. Potential ambiguity is not on it's own a sufficient reason to break incoming links, nor are vague assertions that the target is niche. The whole point of shortcut redirects is to provide a quick way of navigating to pages, disambiguation essentially destroys a large part of the utility of them. This should be disambiguated because it originally targeted WP:Bootcamp, and was widely used in welcome templates for new users before being retargeted to point at the wikiproject, in fact WT:BC still points to the old place. Doing a spot check of incoming links to this redirect suggests to me that a significant proportion of them (certainly several thousand) are supposed to be targeting the help page. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per 192.76.8.70. There appear to be a very large number of incoming links intending the Bootcamp, and as far as I can see only about two dozen uses for the British Columbia project. The dab page could then also have entries for MOS:BC (probably a more plausible target than any other), Wikipedia:Basic copyediting, and possibly others. – Uanfala (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per Uanfala. Many possible targets, and a dab page with those would be helpful. In addition to what Uanfala has pointed out, WP:Bureaucrats, WP:Content assessment/B-Class criteria, WP:Birthday Committee and perhaps Wikipedia:Broadly construed could be added to the disambiguation page. eviolite (talk) 16:21, 1 March 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 restore. I'm not a fan of procedural AfDs following RfDs so I won't be the one to open one. Anyone who wants to take this to AfD is welcome to file one at any time. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lynching of Wollo University professors → Timeline of the Tigray War (July 2021–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; misleading redirect. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to pre-redirect version. This along with some 100 articles were part of an AfD which closed to encourage smaller batches of nominations, but this was not re-nominated. The talk page discussions had support for redirect with the suggestion from Platonk that if, after doing the redirect method, there is objection then one could always undo the redirect and start a proposal.. Jay (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and AFD, noting that the editor who BLAR'd the redirect has since been blocked as a sockpuppet (which would normally be grounds for a speedy restore, but in this case they had the support of a few editors in good standing). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to pre-redirect version. Then happy for a AfD to help generate a consensus for the future of the article. Gusfriend (talk) 01:58, 20 March 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 Wes Craven's New Nightmare. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New Nightmare character) → Nancy Thompson (A Nightmare on Elm Street)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No articles link to redirect. Created by user who has a nine-page talk page archive of notices for deletion of redirects, categories and orphaned images, the majority of which have been removed. AldezD (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget, same as § Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New Nightmare character) WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 28 § Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New Nightmare) Paradoctor (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You would have meant WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 28#Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New_Nightmare). Jay (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoops. You're correct. Paradoctor (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Paradoctor. This is a character in that movie, it is discussed at the target. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume you mean Retarget? Because that's what I propose, and what you said below. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no anchor for the paragraph Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) at Nancy Thompson (A Nightmare on Elm Street); this current target article discusses the topic. The rationale for keeping the redirect is the same, the target is different. It should keep pointing to the Nancy article. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What you are saying here makes no sense. Both redirects should go to the same target, yet on one you !vote retarget, and on the other you vote keep. Would you please clarify what you are voting for? Paradoctor (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This redirect contains "character", and the target is a fictional character article discussing the fictional Heather. The other redirect is missing "character" and could equally refer to the actress herself instead of her fictionalized version, thus should target the movie, since both are equially represented there under the topic of "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" instead of "Wes Craven's New Nightmare character". The "character" redirect thus justifiably redirects to a character article, where a variant of that character occurs with the name "Heather" in a paragraph of coverage. The "character"-less redirect should point to the film article, as it could be referring to the real-ife actress as well as the fictionalized actress character, and thus points to the film article where both occur in the context of that movie. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If "Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New Nightmare)" could also refer to the actress, it would be ambiguous between the real actress and the fictional actress. If the real actress is the primary meaning, the redirect should point to Heather Langenkamp. If the fictional actress is the primary, it should point to the same target as the other redirect, as both are about the the fictional actress.

  Either way, it should not point to the Nancy article. Subtopic redirects go to their supertopic, not other articles excerpting the supertopic. Paradoctor (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Although the nomination gives no proper reason, delete, unless we have a pattern of creating disambiguated redirects of actors to their character roles. I believe this redirect has been disambiguated to distinguish the fictionalized character from the person Heather Langenkamp, and we already have Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New Nightmare) that does that. Jay (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I still prefer retarget, if for no other reason than WP:CHEAP, but with this rationale I could live with a delete. Paradoctor (talk) 07:20, 11 March 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!} 19:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• PopCap Games Framework → PopCap Games#PopCap Games Framework  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Section this is pointed to was removed by IceWelder for a lack of RS, wanted consensus for what to do with this. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:13, 14 February 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, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and re-add to the article somehow. This is one reliable source about it. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: we are now two weeks later and neither the section nor its content has not been added back; currently this redirect is misleading. Veverve (talk) 20:02, 1 March 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 03:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ask The Big Banana → Space Ghost Coast to Coast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure that this is an acceptable alternate title, episode title, or quote from the show that meets the notability guidelines. Google search results are inconclusive. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 20:03, 1 March 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 03:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Birdman Coast to Coast → Space Ghost Coast to Coast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure that this is an acceptable alternate title, episode title, or quote from the show that meets the notability guidelines. Google search results are inconclusive. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 20:04, 1 March 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 delete per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sophia the Martyr (Q15916381) → Sophia of Rome  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per numerous past discussions, we don't keep redirects with Q numbers. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I think this is a mistake on my part. The redirection should only be from Sophia the Martyr to Sophia of Rome.--Parsedan (talk) 07:53, 1 March 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 03:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Gamma-aminobutylic acid → Gamma-Aminobutyric acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

a potentially misleading misspelling that might incorrectly imply the compound contains a butyl group, otherwise an unlikely misspelling in any case. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:11, 1 March 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. ✗plicit 14:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mini-Pufts → Stay Puft Marshmallow Man  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No articles link to redirect. Created by user who has a nine-page talk page archive of notices for deletion of redirects, categories and orphaned images, the majority of which have been removed. AldezD (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, mentioned and described at target. Alternative would be to retarget to Ghostbusters: Afterlife. A lack of links is not a sufficient reason to delete a redirect, as redirects are also search terms. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no valid reason for deletion provided. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:11, 1 March 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 Thai numerals. ✗plicit 03:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ๐ → 0  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• ๑ → 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• ๒ → 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• ๓ → 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• ๔ → 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• ๕ → 5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• ๖ → 6  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• ๗ → 7  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• ๘ → 8  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• ๙ → 9  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think that these redirects would serve our readers better targeting the article on Thai numerals, rather than pointing to the articles on the value that each of these characters represents. The articles on the numbers only contain a passing mention of these characters in the infobox, as opposed to the article on Thai numerals which contains a wealth of information on how they are pronounced, how they are used, their etymology etc etc etc. We have several hundered of these redirects for various numeral systems and a lot of these redirects are ancient, so I think it would be good to have a discussion about which target is preferable. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as suggested. I think this is much more likely to be helpful to readers than the redirects to the individual numbers. After all, if somebody is interested in one Thai digit then it is very likely that they will also be interested in the others and in how they are used. If we think that some readers might actually want the individual number articles then we can link them from Thai numerals so that they are still within easy reach. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to Thai numerals * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all before someone redirects A to 10, B to 11 (number), C to 12 (number), etc. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About 15 years ago: A (digit), B (digit), C (digit), D (digit), E (digit), F (digit). ;) Paradoctor (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all per nom and DanielRigal. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Thai numerals per everyone above. It's best we retarget those to where the most reliable information exists. Regards, SONIC678 16:10, 1 March 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.