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!} 03:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yard Ball → Wiffle ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, name could refer informally to any ball game played in one's yard. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as vague at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:47, 18 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!} 23:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mossy Land → Peat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Besides the fact that this redirect uses proper case when its current target is not a proper-cased subject, this redirect does not seem to be an alternative name for the target, leaving the connection to possibly seem WP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because peat is just mossy land, not everyone knows the actual name of it and could be useful Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 21:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDELETE item 10: This redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article based on content published in Rees's Cyclopædia under the heading of Mossy Land. The target article contains no information on the subject of Mossy Land. Paleorthid (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Talk:List of Rees's Cyclopædia articles indicates Mossy Land is one of many redirects created in 2012 during this AfD discussion. On review of the AfD discussion, I am maintaining my support for deleting this redirect. Paleorthid (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unspecific, improperly capitalized term (Mossy land does not exist). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No need for redirect. Gusfriend (talk) 02:40, 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 Jagat Gosain. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Jodhi Bibi → Mariam-uz-Zamani  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I request for deletion of the redirect Jodhi Bibi as Mariam-uz-Zamani is not referred to as Jodhi Bibi in any books, articles, television shows, websites, discussion,etc. Jodhi Bibi is used rarely for her daughter-in-law, Jagat Gosain but since its barely even used, I think it's okay to not redirect to her either. Also no articles link to Jodhi Bibi and is a rarely visited page, so it removal possibly would not cause any problems.
Manavati (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jagat Gosain, as nominator suggests that it is a valid nickname for this individual. —Ost (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 21:52, 16 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 move to Sweetest Pie (Curve song) and create a new redirect pointing to the base title. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 04:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sweetest Pie (song) → Cuckoo (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The base page, "Sweetest Pie", links to the Dua Lipa and Megan Thee Stallion song. It feels disingenuous to have a redirect called "Sweetest Pie (song)" that links to a different album (which does, in fairness, have a song called "Sweetest Pie") when the main target is also a song. — GhostRiver 19:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Sweetest Pie (Curve song) and then redirect to the Megan Thee Stallion and Dua Lipa song. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move without redirect and recreate with new target per C,S, or retarget and create new redirect—basically same effect in practice. WP:MOVEREDIRECT doesn't really apply to suppressredirect moves, so I favor the former as clearer history-wise, but know some others here favor the latter. I'd just as soon leave it to closer's choice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Sweetest Pie as ((R from incomplete disambiguation)), and then create Sweetest Pie (Curve song) if desired (Tamzin's latter option). I would also be fine with Tamzin's first choice. I agree, closer's prerogative. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Sweetest Pie (Curve song) and retarget redirect to Sweetest Pie as ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) per above; common practice in these situations. Maybe we need to add a speedy criteria for these type of situations as they seem to be happening more and more frequently. Sean Stephens (talk) 05:57, 21 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. Jay (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yash jha → Yash Kumarr  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to be a portmanteau of Yash Kumarr, the current target, and Nidhi Jha, an actor who has played parts opposite Kumarr, left over after a disruptive page move. Delete as a case of WP:XY. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:XY clearly applies. Fieari (talk) 05:04, 17 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. Jay (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't spell 'steal' without EA → Criticism of Electronic Arts  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

You can't spell 'steal' without EA is not mentioned in the redirect target. According to the R-cat, it's a meme, but I can't find any reliable news coverage of the phrase being a noteworthy meme. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I checked Google Trends and it doesn't come up with anything, so it wasn't much of a meme then. Looks like it may have been an in-joke with extremely limited scope. Fieari (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obscure meme at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable. Gusfriend (talk) 02:40, 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 merge. A merger seems to me like the most elegant way to resolve this discussion so I went ahead with it. Since it is true that a formal merge close is a bit outside of the scope of RfD, consider this a WP:BOLD editorial decision that can be reversed and discussed if desired. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of K-pop artists → List of South Korean idol groups  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Having this page redirect to List of South Korean idol groups is confusing for many different reasons:

1. 'K-pop' (as per what the proper noun is short for) is not solely defined by Korean pop music performed by idols;
2. not all K-pop acts are groups (e.g. Lee Mu-jin, IU);
3. and some K-pop performers are not even South Korean (i.e. Lisa).

I also nominate this redirect for deletion because reverting the redirect back to List of male K-pop artists would result in strong implications of gender bias, plus the creator of this redirect (Khendygirl) stated the list would be too long if it were to be an actual article. lIl-†V!^{wanna talk?`} 12:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We could make this a WP:LISTOFLISTS with links to List of female K-pop artists and List of male K-pop artists. - Eureka Lott 14:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge lists. Male/female is only a useful distinction to draw for fields where people are generally categorized by sex or gender (like athletics, acting, and modeling) or for cases where a field is historically dominated by one gender (in practice basically always men) and where there's RS coverage of the other gender's role as a discrete topic (e.g. List of female astronauts). At Special:PrefixIndex/List_of_male, I only find one other page that breaks this rule List of male jazz singers; given that there is no List of female jazz singers, I'm inclined to move it to List of jazz singers and expand based on Category:Women jazz singers... Although to be honest I question the utility of "List of <broad genre musical artist>s" anyways. I'm not a big fan of reader-facing categories, but this does seem like a case of That's what categories are for.
  Anyways, most of that's beyond the scope of this RfD. There's no reason to divide K-pop artists by gender, so let's merge the lists at this title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A merger proposal would also be outside the scope of this discussion, I'm afraid. There's no reason to expect that anyone watching either of the lists would be aware of this discussion. - Eureka Lott 02:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Close the nomination, and tag this and the source lists for merge. Jay (talk) 20:35, 23 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 .uk#Second-level domains. (non-admin closure) eviolite (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• .gov.uk → Gov.uk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally was an article for the .gov.uk domain name but at some point was redirected to gov.uk which is the UK government information website (similar to USA.gov). .gov.uk is still a domain name used by some UK government departments and most local councils. Other UK domain names redirect to .uk#Second-level domains, as gov.uk is never generally referred to with a dot at the beginning I'm thinking maybe retarget to .uk#Second-level domains and add a hatnote for gov.uk, but not sure if it's OK as it is. Bonoahx (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the retarget with hatnote. Jay (talk) 20:28, 23 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 Lists of Olympic medalists. Jay (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Olympic medalist → Olympic medal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an ((r from move)), the move's rationale having been The article is primarily about the medal itself. 11 years later, that's even more true: The vast majority of the article is about the physical medal and its trappings, with the word "medalist" only appearing once. I suggest a retarget to Lists of Olympic medalists, to which Olympic medalists already points. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lists of Olympic medalists as ((R from list topic)) per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lists of Olympic medalists. This makes the most sense. If you search for medalist, you want a person, not an object. And given that this is a generic term, you want a list of people. Fieari (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lists of Olympic medalists as the most plausible target for our readers --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 18 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!} 23:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fairytale Love → Fairytale (Eneda Tarifa song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Possibly a working title, not mentioned on the target or related articles. Suggest delete unless there is a better target in which this would be useful. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly disambig, as there are songs of this title mentioned at Pink Blossom#Track listing, Facelift (album)#Outtakes and non-album tracks, The Black Swan (The Triffids album)#Track listing and Lisa Sniderman#Career (this is actually "fairy tale love" but both forms are clearly plausible search terms for the other). There are also several mentions of "fairytale love" as a concept but I've not found anywhere that discusses or even defines what that is - the second paragraph at Fairy tale#Aarne-Thompson gets possibly closest but even that would make a poor target. There is nothing useful at Wiktionary either. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Titled based purely on an assumption The song title of the 2016 Albanian entry for Eurovision isn’t confirmed yet, but it will most likely be called "Fairytale Love" [1]. It was never used and is unlikely to be helpful for readers as it requires them to search for more text than the target. Grk1011 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As above. Fieari (talk) 03:55, 17 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 URL redirection#Redirect chains. There is a consensus that both these redirects should target to the same page, if they are to exist at all. There isn't a consensus for deletion here, and there are concerns with redirect being an appropriate target. The target with the most support, especially after it was proposed, is URL redirection#Redirect chains. If this is unsatisfactory a future discussion could be held, and I don't see that as a problem since it will be more focused (delete or not) than the several issues being discussed here, thus more likely to reach a consensus on that specific issue. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Double-redirect → Redirect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Double redirect → Wikipedia:Double redirects  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

If these article-space redirects should exist, they should both lead to the same target. The problem is that neither of the current targets is appropriate - the disambiguation page at Redirect doesn't mention double redirects at all, and the project-space page is not something that is aimed at or particularly useful for readers or very new editors. I think I favour deletion, but pointing both at the article-space page is better than two XNRs. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' double redirect, common word on Wikipedia, less common elsewhere, points the readers at the right page. Don't care much about what happens to the hyphenated version, retargetting to Wikipedia space or deletion both seem acceptable. —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:Cross-namespace redirects, although only an essay, has some interesting points to consider. I was disappointed to find that Double redirect doesn't redirect autologically to Wikipedia:Double redirect as suggested above. Certes (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Retarget the first to the second's target. Both can be used as shortcuts on talk pages. Some editors might use the hyphen, some won't. These should be retained as long-term shortcuts under the consensus described at WP:XNR. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 14:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Double redirect to Redirect or weak delete both. The value of these redirects as WP:XNRs is questionable. At the present time, Redirect contains a hatnote directing readers to go to Wikipedia:Redirect for the policy if they arrived at Redirect erroneously; if anything, the setup of having these redirects target Redirect with the hatnote at the top of the page will help new readers understand how the "Wikipedia:" namespace versus the article namespace work, specifically in regards to using the "Wikipedia:" prefix to reach pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace and learn to navigate Wikipedia using the prefix when applicable. Absent of that ... delete them both to allow the search results to populate appropriate articles (which honestly isn't helpful ... but is more helpful than WP:XNRs) and the fact that "Double redirect" is not an exact match for the title "Redirect"; the former option (retargeting Double redirect to Redirect) is probably more helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh ... the more I read my statement, the more I don't know. I guess I'll just accept that I don't know and bow out, but anyone is free to read my struck out statement if they want to contemplate the stance. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both We shouldn't have redirects to project space, and there is no good reason to make this an exception. If someone has a good article space target, I might change my mind, but I seriously doubt that one exists. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget double redirect to redirect. That takes care of the cross-namespace redirect issue. Wikipedia:Redirect is linked prominently at redirect (i.e. in the hatnote for those looking for a projectspace target) and it covers double redirects in its lead (a link to Wikipedia:Double redirect, even in a hatnote, can be considered at redirect if it is deemed critically important). Largely neutral in regard to the fate of double-redirect. Whether it is left alone or deleted is not something I care to opine much about. However, I would oppose retargeting double-redirect to Wikipedia:Double redirect (e.g. if it is decided that double redirect should continue to point there); it is not plausible enough (i.e. it is an uncommon variant with a hyphen) to warrant existing as an XNR. Therefore, if double redirect is left as-is, I prefer double-redirect be deleted. Lastly: it probably goes without saying, but leaving the two redirects up for discussion here pointing to differing targets is also a bad idea. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think that an ((R without mention)) to URL redirection#Redirect chains is a good solution (if it can be sourced and mentioned at the target, then it might be a reasonable idea along with mayhaps a hatnote to Wikipedia:Double redirect). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Oiyarbepsy. No article in mainspace uses the phrase double redirect (except in error messages from ((R avoided double redirect))). No page linked from the Redirect dab page contains the word "double"; the closest conceptual match is found in the URL redirection article, which has a section on redirect chains. Wikipedia:Double redirects (unlike some other contents of the Wikipedia namespace) is of little interest to those readers who don't edit Wikipedia, so hard to justify an WP:XNR to it. Finally, people who do edit Wikipedia should not need this XNR as they are expected to be competent enough to know that discussion of Wikipedia-specific terminology is found in the Wikipedia namespace and not in mainspace. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Target both to Redirect, avoiding a cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to URL redirection#Redirect chains, which seems to be the only article we have that discusses this concept. Oppose the cross-namespace redirect, as readers are likely to think they're reading an article rather than an internal maintenance page. Double redirects are quite an esoteric and technical concept within the project, so this XNR is less useful than most – readers who don't know how to find the projectspace are unlikely to be looking for Wikipedia:Double redirects. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:49, 13 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 22:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Oiyarbepsy. Veverve (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both: Redirects should not exist from mainspace to Wikipedia namespace. Double-redirect is probably not an useful search term for the casual Wikipedia reader. I don't find it in pages listed under the Redirect disambiguation. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains per Mx. Granger as the place in mainspace that talks about this topic. As for Godsy's concern that the article section doesn't explicitly mention the term: if a reader searches for "double redirect" and they're taken to a section whose title is "Redirect chains" and whose first sentence is "One redirect may lead to another", then I don't see how they may be confused. – Uanfala (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains per Mx. Granger. Schleiz (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Potential closer comment: If compelled to close right now, I would invoke WP:NCRET and retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains. I am wary of doing so because that could just kick the can down the road. It creates another situation (redirecting without mention) ripe for deletion. A further relist doesn't seem likely to help much, so I'd just generally ask participants to consider breaking the deadlock some way. In no particular order, that could look like adding explicitly discussion of double redirects at the proposed target, switching to a delete vote, or even writing an article on the concept. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it not possible to add something about them at MediaWiki? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A third relisting to prepare participants for a possible inevitable re-nomination in the near future. And to give an opportunity for participants to re-evaluate based on the late support URL redirection#Redirect chains has got.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I added a mention in the target article, thus retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains. --Balkovec (talk) 15:55, 5 April 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/2012 proposed revision → User talk:Bison X/2012 proposed revision (List of Negro league baseball players)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @UnitedStatesian per speedy deletion criterion G8 as a talk page for a non-existent page. Courtesy ping for @Liz. FASTILY 00:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cross-namespace redirect to a user talk page, zero substantial page history. -FASTILY 00:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reason to have this cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rationale at #Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 16 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 no consensus. No compelling reasons to either keep or delete, and the lone move proposal did not gain much support. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test → User talk:Bison X/2012 proposed revision (List of Negro league baseball players)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @UnitedStatesian per speedy deletion criterion G8 as a talk page for a non-existent page. Courtesy ping for @Liz. FASTILY 00:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cross-namespace redirect to a user talk page, zero substantial page history. -FASTILY 00:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reason to have this cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep G8 is not applicable: This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular: * Pages that should be moved to a different location First, I moved the "non-existent" page from "List of Negro league baseball players" to "Lists of Negro league baseball players" (plural) but I missed the subpages; that means this redirect should be moved to a different location excluding it from G8. Second, this redirects to a page I userfied to preserve its history as it was part of a contentious XfD several years ago, the redirect is linked to in several WP & talk archives so deletion would break the links, so therefore the redirect is useful to Wikipedia and again excluded from G8.

Regarding Cross-namespace. This applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace to any other namespace.... "Mainspace" is defined as The main namespace is the default namespace and does not use a prefix in article page names. ... The main namespace does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes, such as: * the talk namespaces for discussing what the content of articles in mainspace should be. Since this was in the "talk" space, it is excluded from "cross-namespace redirect" criteria as it specifically is for "main namespace."

And finally, this redirect was attempted to be deleted last week by UnitedStatesian when they moved the target of the redirect from my user-talkspace to my userspace here, causing the redirect to show on AnomieBot's broken redirect list, causing it to be deleted by Liz. This is a direct violation of UnitedStatesian's page mover permission which only allows for the redirect to be deleted if Moving pages within a requester's own userspace to another location if a desire for deletion is expressed. No such request was made, and if a pattern of such misuse is shown, it is grounds for removal. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any irreparable issues I caused, that was not my intent. But it would be helpful to know why the subpage targeted by both redirects is in the User talk: namespace, and not in the User: namespace. Can you enlighten us? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are sandboxes required to be in "User" space as opposed to "User talk" space? And, why is it of such an interest to you to move it after so many years? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't want to answer my reasonable question, so why should I answer your questions? And you seem angry with me for some reason, I am not sure why. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you to show where sandboxes should be in user space, which you have not done. Until you can do that, your questions, and actions, are baseless. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I base it on WP:OWNTALK, which says "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier." Of over 3,000 pages that transclude ((draft article)), congrats, yours is the only non-trivial transclusion in the User talk: space: pretty strong evidence that draft articles are not supposed to be there. You could have also saved all these spilled pixels by tagging both redirects with ((G8-exempt)), along with any others you find useful for some reason. Hope this helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OWNTALK, nor any other page, disallows sandboxes to be kept in user talk. Why are you focused on only one of my sandboxes, after so many years? I have several, yet this is the ONLY one you target. Stop moving users' sandboxes. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to make clear, this was the only one in the User talk: space tagged with ((draft article)). UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented out said template. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did delete this page when it showed up as a broken redirect and because I thought it was a cross-namespace redirect. It seems like this dispute hinges on whether cross-namespace redirects refers ONLY to article space or if it can it apply to other spaces as well.

An essay, Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects is delightfully vague and states that this is a "controversial" issue and presents arguments both for and against deletion of cross-namespace redirects. But it does specify MAIN space so it is questionable whether the Talk space is included in "main space" or whether Talk is a separate namespace entirely that is not covered by the cross-namespace guidance. The only conclusion I can come to is, unlike my opinion before discussing the matter with Bison X, the answer isn't as black and white as I originally thought and that this particular instance will be a judgment call on the part of the closer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bison X, what contentious past XfD is this redirect relevant to and which incoming incoming links do you see as needing to be preserved? – Uanfala (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uanfala: Original 2012 talk page discussion, follow up REFUND request (which another editor took to ANI for for review of admin action), follow up ANI which led to the admin handing in his bit at BN. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    These are not content discussions that we may somehow want to preserve as a functional record of the article's development. These are entirely procedural debates about the deletion and subsequent restoration of a draft page. The page is still around (just moved), and it's only the redirect from the old title that is in question here. I see no need at all to preserve a link from a run-of-the-mill ANI thread from 10 years ago. Anyone meta enough to be digging there could easily figure out that they can click on a redlink and see from the log entry where the page has been moved to.

    If the draft has relevance for the article, it should ideally be moved (back) to a subpage of its talk. If not, then I don't see any reason for a redirect to it to be hanging around as a subpage (even more so when that is now a subpage of the redirect Talk:List of Negro league baseball players, which remains after the article got moved to the plural title). – Uanfala (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Anything. I see no compelling reasons to either keep or delete. Could the closer please pick any option so that we can move on? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move page back to how it was before 2018, which would resolve the XNR concerns. Since the list has since been moved, that would now put it at Talk:Lists of Negro league baseball players/2012 proposed revision. I agree with USian that the User talk namespace is incorrect, WP:UD specifies that user drafts belong in the User namespace. That being said, WP:UD also says that it is for drafts associated with a specific user account. That is not the case here—this draft was written by an IP, not Bison X. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have always disclosed on my talk page that that dynamic range was me for years. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, it's "specific user account" (emphasis added). You don't get to claim everything edited under a given IP range simply because you neglected to register an account. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:R#D6 for cross-namespace redirects does not seem to apply per Liz, unless that criteria is usually used for article talk pages, in which case we can reword WP:R#D6 for clarity. In 2012, I would have supported Tavix's move proposal. But now it is no longer a draft meant for the article's development, and Bison has just removed the draft article tag. All other subpages were moved to articles without redirects. It is not going to help to create a article talk subpage masquerading as a draft. The target page duplicates article content and keeps no record of past discussions, so I do not know if it can be seen as a talk page archive. Jay (talk) 15:15, 3 April 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!} 02:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Electrifying Times → Vehicle-to-grid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This appears to be the name of a website. The target page makes no mention of the website but is about a related concept. There does not appear to be a better topic for this to redirect to.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KIWF, it's just (clever) astroturfing. Greglocock (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not mentioned at target. A7V2 (talk) 23:48, 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 delete. Consensus that an article should be written, but in RfD terms that means deletion until someone pens such a stub. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Military journalist → Military journalism in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Military journalism → Military journalism in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I just linked the former of these titles from List of journalists killed covering the Russo-Ukrainian War to describe a Ukrainian journalist, and learned that such the link will be misleading due to its current target. There is definitely room for an article about military journalism worldwide, so suggest deletion of both per WP:REDYES, to encourage creation of an article (probably at the latter title). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubbify Military journalism, redirect Military journalist there, and add a see also to Military journalism in the United States and war correspondent. The stub should have two sections, stubby paragraphs on journalism covering the military, and journalism by elements of the military. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Turn to stub as per IP. A good approach that keeps a global perspective.Gusfriend (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• How is a Military journalist different from a War correspondent? Jay (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay: In common usage, a military journalist is a soldier who engages in journalistic work as part of their duties, while a war correspondent is a journalist who covers a war. Most military journalists aren't war correspondents, and most war correspondents aren't military journalists. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete both per nom, and start with a draft, unless someone can create the stub per User65. Jay (talk) 14:04, 28 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.