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. Sources and content added at the target address my issues with the redirect, happy to withdraw this discussion as moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Amphilius grammatophorus → Mountain barbel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Google Scholar results for Amphilius grammatophorus return papers covering the fauna of West Africa/Guinea (region) ([1], [2]), whereas the target describes a fish endemic to Malawi, several thousand kilometers and water-systems away from there. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:

It is a synonym of Amphilius platychir according to ScotCat.

Also, according to FishBase, the mountain barbel lives in "upper tributaries of the Senegal, Niger, Gambia, Corubal, Konkouré and Little Scarcies". All (or most) of these rivers are in West Africa. Calgary341 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In FishBase, it also states that one of the subspecies lives in southeastern Guinea. Strong keep. Calgary341 (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it needs to be mentioned at target, ideally with a citation. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Untitled (In the Aeroplane Over the Sea) → In the Aeroplane Over the Sea#Track listing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another "Untitled" song redirect. I would ask why nearly every song needs 2, 3 or many more redirects, totally 60+ for one album as shown [here] and [here]? Richhoncho (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not a redirect I would go out of the way to create, but harmless at worst and somewhat useful at best given that there is in fact a song named "Untitled" on that album. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Nitpick, the song isn't named "Untitled", it's just an untitled song, but it's generally referred to as if that were its name, so yes, keep. I find song→album or song→track list or song→discography redirects quite helpful; our notability guidelines are quite opaque, and it's not at all intuitive to readers which songs we'll have an article on and which we won't. Supporting variant spellings and such is then just as valid as supporting variant spellings of an article's title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Slightly weak keep per Rosguill and Tamzin. The song is untitled, and since people know it as "Untitled," they might search for it using that terminology. Regards, SONIC678 23:03, 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Made up. Delete. Super Ψ Dro 18:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. I found nothing through a Google search. Veverve (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above mentioned findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:56, 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 disambiguate. There is a clear consensus against retargetting to Ulster Scots people as originally proposed. Later comments at this discussion have favoured disambiguation by moving Ulster people (disambiguation) to the base title. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 04:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ulster people → People of Northern Ireland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More commonly used to refer to Ulster Scots people. Retarget to Ulster Scots people.Olchug (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per Paradoctor, see below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olchug (talk • contribs) 08:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose This is astonishingly ill-informed. Ulster Scots are only one grouping within the people of Ulster and are a minority thereof. (That said, the current redirect is questionable as Northern Ireland is only part of Ulster). Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that all the people of Ulster are Ulster Scots. I just stated that the term 'Ulster people' usually means Ulster Scots people. Naturally, the term can also mean simply a resident of Ulster.--Olchug (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely doesn't mean that, ever, let alone "usually". Your multi-article campaign of the last two hours is becoming a menace. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please study this. And count when 'Ulster people' means Ulster Scots people and when it means just resident of Ulster. Olchug (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing supportive that I can see. It's up to you to do the work as you're advancing the proposition. Cite quotes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for example The Ulster People: Ancient, Medieval and Modern, Ban-gor. 10 Lunney, L., 1994,“Ulster attitudes of Scottishness: The eighteenth century and after” Olchug (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check this source. There 'Ulster People' means 'Ulster Scots people'. Olchug (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the latter a quotation from the (fringe) source or your interpretation of it ? Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Google searches show that the most common usage is to mean "people who live in or are from Ulster" (where "Ulster" refers to the 6 counties of Northern Ireland most often but can refer to the wider 9 county area). This is perhaps most clearly articulated in this 2015 article in The Times In the most general terms, Ulster people claiming an Irish identity tend to be Roman Catholic. [...] In equally broad terms, many Ulster-Scots folk are Protestant, chiefly Presbyterian [...]. A minority use refers to people from Ulster County, New York; the use of "Ulster people" as synonymous to "Ulster Scots people" seems to be largely confined to the single work cited by the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Ulster people" is wider than just "Ulster Scots people". The region was never depopulated and filled again with people from Scots origin. The Banner talk 20:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate The term is clearly ambiguous between people from Ulster, people from Northern Ireland, people from Ulster County, and the Scots subset, so I created Ulster people (disambiguation). The only question left is if there is a primary topic. Unless sourced, citable evidence is provided that there is, the disambiguation page should inhabit Ulster people. Counting random search engine results won't do. Paradoctor (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Including Ulster Scots at your dab page is like saying Italian Americans=Americans. I've removed it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

like saying Italian Americans=Americans No, it is not. That is exactly not what disambiguation pages are for. They list possible meanings, even mistaken uses. As the discussion above has shown, this is the case here.

If the terms were equivalent, then I wold have !voted to do as Olchug asked. Paradoctor (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages are for listing the mistaken use of one Wikipedia editor and a solitary work they claim to support them (though no supporting quotation has been provided)? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. This is not about the redirect under discussion here. It's about the dab page, and we're already have a discussion there. Take it there, please. Paradoctor (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're allowed to raise your preferred solution of the dab here but you hide my response, to this very thing you raised, as off-topic, whilst retaining your own comment which prompted it? That's outrageous. And as you well know, I have "(taken) it there". Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

raise your preferred solution of the dab here I did no such thing. You raised the question here: Including Ulster Scots at your dab page. I should've pointed to the dab talk right then. So I was one reply slow. Does not change the fact: This issue is entirely unrelated to the purpose of this page, and does not belong here.

I have "(taken) it there" And I did not complain about that, did I? Here is not there. Paradoctor (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: If a discussion goes off topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using ((Collapse top))/((Collapse bottom)) or similar templates. Paradoctor (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By stating "Disambiguate" you are doing no such thing as proposing (and enacting) disambiguation? If it's off-topic, blank the lot, not just the responses to it. My point about your directive for me to "take it there" was the redundancy of ordering me to do something I'd evidently done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really not get that "does X need disambiguation" and "is Y a possible meaning of X" are different questions?

The topic of the redirect is ambiguous, that has been established.

Any question about the specifics of what to include belong at the disambiguation talk, not here. Paradoctor (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but potentially a compromise could be adding a hatnote to Ulster Scots people within Ulster people - perhaps a different discussion to be had. Bonoahx (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, within People of Northern Ireland. I see that there is already a hatnote redirecting to a dab page now per Paradoctor which I think would also be fine. Bonoahx (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination was altered from retarget to disambiguate following the initial responses. I have indented the change in nomination with timestamp so that the initial responses are seen in proper context.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate - per Paradoctor, above. No comment on whether there exists a primary target, but clearly the disambiguation is necessary. Fieari (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• DABify as per Paradoctor. Veverve (talk) 09:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Our Lady of Regla → Havana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect title seems to to refer to a venerated image/sculpture of an Afro-Cuban version of the Virgin Mary. Regla is a part of Havana. When Bellerophon created this redirect, Regla did not have an article. Now it does, but no mention of this relic is mentioned on either Regla's or Havana's articles. What should be done?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Perhaps we need a separate section in the Regla article. The Virgin of Regla is regarded as the counterpart of Yemaya in Cuban santeria, and is one of two important figures of Mary in Cuba. Beardo (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If there were multiple articles having the same name, we could disambiguate, but all we have are mentions. Our Lady of Regla is present is different countries, see Black Madonna#Belgium, Cathedral of Chihuahua. Jay (talk) 06:10, 25 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!} 21:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Earthquake (lady gaga song) → Lady Gaga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned on target article. Per the history of the redirect, looks as though this is or was intended to be the title of a song in Artpop, but it doesn't seem there is a song by the name "Earthquake" in the aforementioned album. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete given that there is no content to point to and that the correctly capitalized Earthquake (Lady Gaga song) does not exist. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:39, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Monster (fragrance) → Lady Gaga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, even though the word "monster" is used in the target article several times, the term's use in the article refers to either a fan of the target article's subject or related to an album released by the article's subject. Also, there are the articles Lady Gaga Fame and Eau de Gaga which are fragrances related to the target article's subject, but neither seem to have the alternative name of "Monster". Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, it appears it was to be the name of Lady Gaga's first perfume (see also here and here). Veverve (talk) 09:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fame Monster: The Lady Gaga Story → Lady Gaga#2011–2014: Born This Way, Artpop, and Cheek to Cheek  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not seem to be mentioned in target article, and doesn't seem to be mentioned in The Fame Monster either. (The latter article's subject is an album, whereas the apparent subject of this redirect is a film.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fresh Produce → Seaway (band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Someone searching for "fresh produce" is likely to be looking for the topic Produce rather than a compilation album. For that matter, fresh produce is a red link. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 07:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*(Creator of the redirect here) Surely this doesn't need a discussion? Wouldn't it be easier by being bold by changing the redirect to produce and then creating Fresh Produce (album) to link to Seaway (band)? MusicforthePeople (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so clear that that is what should be done, why didn't you do it when you created the redirect? You added categories and talk page content specific to albums to the current redirect, so it's not just a simple retarget. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't occur to me at the time; I guess I thought it would be an obvious redirect (fresh produce to produce) that should've already existed. I support Mdewman6's suggestion. MusicforthePeople (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as valid album redirect briefly described at target, but create Fresh produce as a redirect to Produce per WP:DIFFCAPS to avoid astonishment. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Follow Mdewman6's above suggestion. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Produce per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:03, 12 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!} 05:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've gone ahead and created the fresh produce redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but put a hatnote at Produce: ((redirect|Fresh produce|the album by Seaway|Fresh Produce)), and similarly at Seaway (band). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:17, 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!} 05:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Canned edit summary → Wikipedia:Canned edit summaries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This XNR's creator left the summary Not likely to be searched by readers, which I'll recycle as its RfD rationale. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, not likely to be searched by readers. I'd think it fairly likely to be searched by new editors though. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR to nonencyclopedic content, that is not using a pseudo namespace prefix. Edit summary exists and targets a topic in the encyclopedia, while this does not. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Wiki#Edit summary, the target of Edit summary. I'm "weak" on this since at the present time, the target mentions nothing about what "canned" means in regards to its use as an adjective for the subject "Edit summary", but that could be resolved rather quickly by adding a sentence to the aforementioned article section retargeting recommendation. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 15 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!} 02:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - cross namespace redirect without a prefix. Fieari (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the mainspace and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated if possible. Veverve (talk) 09:53, 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.