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 14:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Smart Sockets → TIBCO Software  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, internet search suggests that this is not a brand name uniquely associated with the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The brand name is SmartSockets without a space, and is mentioned at the target (they acquired it) and which I redirected to the same place. I don't recall why I also did the variant with the space - it was fifteen years ago - but I was going through red link lists at the time so I suspect it was on one of those. Gurch (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We have the properly titled redirect SmartSockets. Jay (talk) 07:29, 6 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. ✗plicit 23:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Flag of Tanasi → Flag of Tennessee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While the Cherokee town of Tanasi is the etymological namesake of the state of Tennessee, the state flag was only developed much later and was never used by Tanasi. Deletion seems appropriate, as there is no indication that Tanasi ever had a flag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i wasnt even aiming to say that tanasi town had a flag but ok Kxeon (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 01:39, 31 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 Civil law. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Civil Court → Lawsuit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 25#Civil court, which retargeted Civil court to Civil law. This is just the capitalized version and should probably redirect to the same place. eviolite (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retargetper nom consistent with Civil court. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as nom of previous RfD. Sorry for overlooking this one. (Personally for this kind of thing I just boldly retarget with a summary like "Mirroring outcome of <RfD link>".) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget seems to be the best course of action. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strictly speaking, we should have an article on this subject. BD2412 T 22:25, 2 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 procedural keep. Per the header at WP:RFD: If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold! (Although that last line may not be 100% applicable here. This is a controversial topic, and it may be better to discuss first at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics. But you don't have to; just understand that boldly creating it may lead to an AfD or merge proposal.) (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add: Just noticed that the nominator did previously attempt to turn this into an article, and was reverted. Procedurally, under WP:BLAR, it's their right to restore the article (which would likely trigger an AfD), but this all the more makes the case for discussing on talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Gender critical → Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I would like this redirect to become an article in it's own right as the subject matter of the redirect does not encompass the subject sufficiently, they are two separate subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice269 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The target of the current redirect is - for now - the proper outcome. The Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism subsection is comprehensive, neutral, and well referenced, with over 20 references in the section. The mooted replacement was a dictionary definition and unreferenced opinion/WP:OR. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you realise that they *are* different subjects, the Gender Critical point of view is not a part of feminism and many people who would call themselves Gender Critical would not consider themselves feminists. As such the original article mis-represents a subject which has become a community in it's own right. Without a dedicate page, it will force contributors to update the page specific to feminism with increasingly unrelated information solely related to the Gender Critical point of view, which will be confusing for readers. As to the contents of the replacement, without the time to be able to add to it without it being reverted, it's very hard to develop it to a point where it isn't just a definition. Maurice269 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. The "Gender Critical" ideology emerged from feminism, specifically from Radical Feminism, and its adherents still largely present it in that light, albeit with varying degrees of sincerity. The redirect gives a good account of what it is and there is no obstacle to it being expanded further. None the less, I am somewhat sympathetic to Maurice269's view. The rhetoric of "Gender Critical Feminism" has been taken up (again, with varying degrees of sincerity) by many who are unambiguously not feminists at all, even including some quite extreme social conservatives. Meanwhile, a majority of feminists, including many Radical Feminists, do not want anything to do with it for pretty obvious reasons. (Biological essentialism does not go down well in most feminist circles.) It is possible that it will become perceived as fully detached from feminism in the future and then the need for a split into a separate article will be justified. I don't think we are there yet. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:28, 30 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 14:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:RDAB. The properly-spaced title is the redirect's target page. Steel1943 (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete with ((Db-redirtypo)) per WP:R3. D.Lazard (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as malformed modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 31 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Willie Foster → Bill Foster (baseball)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I redirected this to the Bill Foster DAB today but it was reverted by User:162 etc. because of the RMs, see Talk:Willie Foster (gridiron football). There was a clear consensus that the gridiron footballer wasn't primary but not that the baseball was primary. I suggest redirecting to the DAB. The 1st Google result is for Little Willy Foster. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep current primary redirect. There was indeed a long discussion about this at the above-linked RM, which identified that there are three possible targets for "Willie Foster":
  • Bill Foster (baseball), a Hall of Fame pitcher. He was born William Hendrick Foster, usually commonly known as "Bill" but also as "Willie", as seen here [1] [2] [3] [4]. Obvious long-term notability in his case.
  • Willie Foster (gridiron football), who played one game in 2007 for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. Survived an AfD but barely meets WP:NGRIDIRON.
  • Little Willy Foster, born Willy Foster, whose name is misspelled as "Little Willie Foster" in certain sources.
• I'm not aware of anybody else at Bill Foster or William Foster who is commonly known as "Willie Foster". Of these three then, we should ask if there is a primary topic. Based on pageviews [5] and long-term notability, it's clear that that is Bill Foster (baseball). The existing redirect and hatnotes should stay as-is. 162 etc. (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that neither Bill Foster nor Little Willy Foster is primarily referred to as "Willie", and that we do meanwhile have an article on someone who does primarily go by that name, even if they're much less notable, I think it's hard to say there's a clear primary topic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:09, 15 March 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, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin makes a good point. Redirect to DAB. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the dab per Tamzin. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'll note that there is no evidence that Little Willy Foster or Willie Foster (gridiron football) are referred to as Bill Foster. Should the consensus determine that a redirect to dab is the course of action, a new dabpage should be established at Willie Foster. 162 etc. (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm swayed by 162 etc.'s argument, which I think demonstrates that Willie is a sufficiently prominent alternative name for the baseball player to make him the primary target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 17 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 article created. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Space ethics → Ethics of terraforming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not equivalent, "space ethics" is a much broader and independently notable topic ([6], [7], [8]) that is currently primarily focused on the ethics of space debris creation and the ethics of going to space at all. I think deletion to encourage article creation is appropriate unless someone wants to get started working on a stub. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Kusma (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I created the redirect, if a redirect is hindering, then I gladly would write a stub. I have to add, that I have never started a stub, so help is welcome. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nsae Comp has written the stub.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Close Redirect is now an article stub. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:53, 31 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 14:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This redirect was tagged with a speedy deletion tag with no valid criteria offered. So I untagged it but I also question the usefulness of this redirect so I thought I'd send it to RFD for evaluation, if you can see a reason for its presence on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no mention of minus/negative 2 at target. WP:RFD#DELETE number 10 may apply also. A7V2 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Along with the evidence above, there is probably no reason why the page was created in the first place. WikiMic talk 02:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A dab −2 exists and might be the best target, but deletion seems a better option. -1 (number) correctly redirects to −1; -3 (number) redirects to 3 (why?); other -n (number) titles are redlinks. See also a recent RfD for −3…−10. Certes (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why this redirect wasn't included in that RFD discussion but maybe the addition of "(number)" made it less visible to the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bundle -3 (number) to this nomination. I don't see it different from the -2 (number) discussion. Jay (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled -3 (number) and relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Now that these are bundled, it seems clear to me both should be deleted given the consensus from the past RfD. The parenthetical qualifier makes sense given the dab page −2, where there is an entry for the negative number, but the redirect is not used. In the case of -3 (number), it doesn't make sense to keep the qualified version if we have decided to delete -3 and −3. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:17, 1 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a common English word which doesn't really look like a likely search term for its current target (why would, of all things which could possibly be frivolous, someone be interested only in lawsuits? why not List of frivolous political parties or maybe even the specific legal jargon Frivolous or vexatious, or maybe just the adjective itself [although WP:NOTDICTIONARY is a thing]), nor a useful redirect to anywhere else either (for the same reasons: short of a soft-redirect to Wiktionary, something not usually done for common English words since we assume readers have at least basic English knowledge, there is no good reason to favour one of the many plausible target articles over the others) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note that the noun form Frivolity redirects to Silliness. eviolite (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At least there's not too many possible targets for the noun, and behaviour that is silly and not serious, or things that are silly and not important [9] is pretty much a synonym for silliness, so that one would be correct. Again, the adjective is quite in a different situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague and ambiguous. The current target is misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Target is misleading. Gusfriend (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate between the various terms noted above. BD2412 T 00:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or DABify as per above. In any case, the statu quo cannot be maintained. Veverve (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambiguation draft will help to know if it's feasible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:00, 30 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 14:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (EP) → Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Confusing: The target article's subject is not an extended play (the subject which the disambiguator "EP" seems to most commonly be used for), nor is there reference to an "EP" subject in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Having done a lot of investigation into this I'm baffled as to what the "(EP)" is intended to refer to, if it was "Ep" or "ep" then I'd guess it was intended to point to the Only Fools and Horses episode with this title, but that doesn't make sense when the disambiguator is capitalised (and also wouldn't be a good redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This was part of the redirects that I was doing when trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of UK top 40 singles, think I must have seen this down as an EP rather than single. Basically stopped editing because of the way I was made to feel by other editors. Still so many gaps in the coverage.

https://www.discogs.com/release/1459384-Amoure-Who-Wants-To-Be-A-Millionaire-The-Single?msclkid=e22baa99b03d11ec8640f87a1a29fdd2 03md 15:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as incorrect use of EP in the title. Jay (talk) 07:22, 6 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!} 05:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pomeranian (dog breed ) → Pomeranian dog  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB, considering the space between the final word and the right parenthesis. In addition, the title with the proper spacing, Pomeranian (dog breed), is a redirect targeting the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to malformed modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:33, 31 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 withdrawn per Jochen Burghardt's addition since that resolves the concern. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Empty map → Function (mathematics)#empty function  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Map" and "function" are often used synonymously in mathmatics (see Map (mathematics)), making it natural for Empty map to exist and point to the same place as Empty function. – Tea2min (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per Tea2min's above argument. I meanwhile mentioned "empty map" in the target article, so the connection to the redirect should be clear now. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per above. D.Lazard (talk) 08:28, 30 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 Geography of Scotland#Political Geography. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• North-South divide in Scotland → Geography of Scotland#North-South divide in Scotland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect targets a section that has presumably been deleted. There is some discussion of a north-south divide in Scotland in Geography of Scotland#Political Geography so it could be retargeted to that section, not sure if anyone has any better ideas (potentially North-south divide in the United Kingdom but this article seems to discuss a divide between southern England and the rest of the UK, rather than more localised divides within the countries themselves). Bonoahx (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When this was created in July 2008 it targetted North–South divide in the United Kingdom and was later refined to North–South divide in the United Kingdom#Noth-South divide in Scotland. In October 2009 that article was moved to North–South divide in England and the section about Scotland, which read in its entirety "See Scottish Highlands and Scottish Lowlands" was removed. There was a turbulent period in the history of the North–South divide in the United Kingdom title, and a bot reatargetted this redirect to the present target during the 3 hours it was a redirect there (two hours after the move) it was later redirected to North Britain for about 5 hours then became a disambiguation page for 18 months before being restarted as an article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to North–South divide (a dab page) and change the link to this redirect to links to Scottish Highlands, Scottish Lowlands and Highland Boundary Fault (one definition of the dividing line). Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to North-South divide: It would be a perfect target as it would allow people to end up at the right place. Gusfriend (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand the suggestion of the target North-South divide which has entries for all over the world. Is this just for including North–South divide in the United Kingdom which barely mentions Scotland? I would rather go with the nom's suggestion of retargeting to Geography of Scotland#Political geography which has some info in the last paragraph. I see potential for a standalone article though. Jay (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thryduulf and Gusfriend, I was trying to get your rationale for targeting to the dab, which I could not get from your comments. Jay (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My idea was that the dab page would act to provide people with a collection of different options and find the right one but coming back to it now I think that perhaps North–South divide in the United Kingdom is a better option although the page itself isn't that good at the moment. Gusfriend (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not retarget to the disambiguation page, as it would be shot on sight as a title unrelated to topics generally on the page. BD2412 T 04:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This needs disambiguation. Either by making it a dab page or by adding the relevant entries to the main dab page. I oppose North-South Divide in the United Kingdom as a target because that article doesn't (and shouldn't) deal with a divide within Scotland because that's a different topic. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thryduulf, your suggestion implies that the term "North-South divide in Scotland" has several meanings, but the only one I'm seeing is the north-south divide described at Geography of Scotland#Political Geography. What am I missing here? – Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that unsourced paragraph (which I'm about to tag as containing potentially original research) makes it clear that there is a political and physical north-south divide. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, that! I get your point now, thanks. But there aren't separate articles that treat the physical and the cultural north–south divides, are there? Highland Boundary Fault has some discussion of the geology on both sides of the fault line, but the only content it has about a big country-level division is the mention that the fault separates the terrains of the Highlands and the Lowlands, which are precisely the regions mentioned by Geography of Scotland#Political geography in both cultural and natural sense. – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Geography of Scotland#Political geography per Jay. This is the only place on Wikipedia that currently discusses a north–south divide of the country, and the articles about the Highlands, Lowlands and the geological feature are only related topics, already linked in that text. If that content is moved or recreated elsewhere, then retarget there; if it's removed as unsourced, then that would mean the redirect should be deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Geography of Scotland#Political geography per Jay and Uanfala. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 17 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!} 05:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hidan(naruto) → List of Naruto characters#Hidan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kabuto Yakushi(Naruto) → List of Naruto characters#Antagonists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Manda(Naruto) → List of Naruto characters#Manda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Tsunade(Naruto) → List of Naruto characters#Tsunade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete all per WP:RDAB. Each of these redirects' properly spaced variants exist and target the same target, respectively (except Hidan(naruto); for that, Hidan (Naruto) with a capital N exists.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:07, 30 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.