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. The sole contributor to the former article, SuperWiki, happens to have contributed to the merge target shortly before the merge happened, so, per WP:NOTBLAME, they receive sufficient attribution in that page's history even with this history deleted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Licorice wand → Places in Harry Potter#Hogsmeade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else in the project (under either UK or US spelling). "Places in Harry Potter" seems like a very odd target for a sweet. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it really is pointing at the Village not at the list. But still Delete per nom Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Not mentioned at target article nor anywhere else on EnWiki. There is, however, Liquorice (confectionery) which does feature some wand-like liquorice on an image, but I'm not sure if it would be helpful to retarget there. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The redirect was the result of a merge. Content (only one line though) was moved to target, and later removed, but is available in the history. Jay (talk) 07:15, 8 June 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) 07:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just War Theory Doctrine wikipage → Just war theory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:UNNATURAL. We do not need redirects of the form "foo wikipage" targeting "foo". Created by a student editor in 2016 in what appears to have been a page move accident, moved back a couple of hours later. This should have been WP:R3'd at the time, but it wasn't, hence this discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely synonym at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hurricane. → Tropical cyclone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Typhoon Vongfong. → List of storms named Vongfong  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Typhoon Vongfong (2020). → Typhoon Vongfong (2020)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A bunch of WP:UNNATURAL title modifications with superfluous full stops on the end. Appear to have been created as the result of some kind of botched attempt to move a redirect. The page history is a mess, but contains no article content. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youre right theres a lot of history in there, took me a moment to realize what the moves were. Delete all Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all They don't serve much purpose. The periods make them unlikely searches. They're just products product of a weird series of page moves. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom HurricaneEdgar 04:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no one will likely search with the period at end. Not needed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:28, 8 June 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. Jay (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Antoun issa Khouri → Antoun (Khouri)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I created this as a temporary page as part of swapping the two pages Antoun Khouri and its redirect Antoun (Khouri). The naming convention for Eastern Orthodox bishops is Firstname (Lastname) so the main article should be Antoun (Khouri) and the redirect should be Antoun Khouri; this redirect is redundant and should be deleted. Xenophore; talk 20:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this appears to be a valid ((R from full name)) redirect. @Xenophore: as you probably realize now, if the move function won't allow you to move a page, it's not possible to work around that by moving to an intermediate page because redirects will always be left behind, unless the redirect is suppressed, which only page movers and admins can do. Bringing the move to WP:RM/TR as you did was what was needed, except like most moves, it is potentially controversial (given that the page was moved in the past), and the proper thing to do here is to start a requested move discussion, which is where your technical request is likely to end up. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the subject's full birth name, according to the article, so a highly plausible search term. A7V2 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the Mdewman tag. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:05, 1 June 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! 19:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2021 Oting Nagaland Massacre → 2021 Nagaland killings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is.... anyone really going to search this up on Wikipedia? There are no links to here in the mainspace articles, there's no reason to disambiguate the title, and even if a reader wanted to search up something like this, there's a 99% chance they would type something like Oting massacre. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an ((R from move)) with a significant amount of incoming traffic. The article spent nearly a day and a half at this title after it was first written, and this redirect still gets ~ 50 page views a month. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IP above. Anyone searching this will be taken to exactly what they are looking for. A7V2 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 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. The question of whether MOS shortcuts should strictly point to the MOS pseudo-namespace, could not be addressed. Examples of other MOS shortcuts have been given where they point to MOS-like pages. If in future discussions, there is consensus on enforcing such redirect targets, we can revisit this particular redirect. Jay (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:PSEUDOCODE → Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style#Algorithms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This doesn't actually link to the Wikipedia Manual of Style or any sub-entity, which is the purpose of the pseudo-namespace "MOS". It links to an essay, which appears to be an misuse of the pseudo-namespace. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Whether or not the wikiproject should be using the term Manual of Style is not a matter that can be settled by deleting one of the more than ten redirects of this kind which target the article. This shortcut has been used so obviously some users find it useful. And it links to a manual of style so I don't think it's inappropriate. But I emphasise I don't think this is the appropriate venue unless there is some past discussion on something similar. A7V2 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects for discussion is clearly the appropriate venue for discussing redirects. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologise as I may have misinterpreted your nomination. If the question is in general whether something other than the actual MOS can be called the/a MOS, then that is not something which can be decided here. But failing some broader discussion about pages calling themselves a Manual of Style without being the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, I am of the opinion that this (apparently) useful redirect (to a manual of style) should be kept, and that to say because it's not a link to the Manual of Style it should be deleted is unnecessary bureaucracy. A7V2 (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have no preference as to if this should be kept or deleted, but I would note that many other MOS pseudo-prefixed pages link to places that are not WP:MOS. For example, MOS:IBID links to Wikipedia:Citing sources#IBID and MOS:EL links to a DAB with some MOS links but also two non-MOS links. This argument is to some extent WP:WAXy as it is essentially saying X does this and it's fine, but on the other hand I think it does establish that the rules for the MOS: pseudo-namespace are either not comprehensive or not enforced; neither of which are inherently a bad thing. TartarTorte 02:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if MOS was a true namespace this would have gotten R2'ed. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NotReallySoroka: I'm not following, how would "this have gotten R2'ed" if MOS were a "true" namespace? WP:R2 applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace. Seeing that this is a shortcut, and MOS would not be the main namespace, there's two reasons why that would not work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target is not a Manual of style sub-page but a project essay. None of the "MOS" shortcuts should lead to essays and this and every other one, such as MOS:SYNTAX, MOS:CODE and MOS:SOURCE should be either deleted or retargeted (if there is an actual target). Gonnym (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hall of Shame → Wall of Shame  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A page with that title might be created so let's delete this redirect. In addition, Hall of Shame is something else. TOPaner (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the concept is mentioned in the article. If a page is created with the title the redirect becomes the page, so nomination makes no sense in that context. Dronebogus (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, per WP:SK4 No rationale for deletion presented, nominator is blocked as a sock. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep to WP:DENY per 192.76.8.78. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 19:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was restore pre-redirect version and add sources. Jay (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lot (fineness) → Lot (unit)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention in Lot (unit) of a measurement of "fineness". I can find no such measure in the complete online Oxford English Dictionary; it is difficult to search online for this term, as "lot" is used in the auction sense. The redirect was created over an unsourced article which was a translation of the unsourced equivalent in de.wiki. There is nothing in the target article to help a reader looking for "Lot (fineness)", so the redirect is unhelpful and should be deleted. PamD 08:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting that the word "lot" does not occur in the long and detailed article Fineness. PamD 08:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and recreate (sourced) article. You've summed it up. Lot (fineness) was rather hastily wiped on the basis of being uncited - something that could have been raised on the talk page - and converted into a redirect without checking the target was relevant. I've recreated the article in User space here, this time with references, so it's ready to go. The two articles should then be tweaked to refer to each other. Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Lot" is not mentioned in the article Fineness because it's focussed on the present-day situation; there is no history section. However, the Lot or Loth was a standard unit of fineness (and weight) in the German Empire until replaced by the French 1/1000 system that's still used today. Bermicourt (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: Then please just go ahead and revert the redirect again and upgrade the article, with your sources: the way you initially re-created it was an unsourced as it had always been, hence all this waste of time (though it was mildly interesting trawling through OED trying to find anything related to silver...). PamD 08:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry, I originally just translated the unsourced German article but wasn't expecting it to be wiped without discussion as I can usually find sources quite easily. I'm in the process of upgrading and sourcing the sister article, Lot. :) Bermicourt (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: Just a note that as a holder of the autopatrolled right, there is something more expected of you than dropping an unsourced translation, because you are sidestepping NPP scrutiny. You should absolutely expect such creations to be reverted, and the "easily findable sources" are your responsibility to provide. Alternatively, give up autopatrolled please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. However, WP:NPPCHK actually says "If the article is unreferenced... you may be able to improve the article by adding better references. Otherwise, add appropriate tag(s) to the top of the article (see collapsed box to the right)." So, no, I wouldn't expect it to be automatically reverted; nor should it be wiped and redirected to the wrong target. Far better would be a constructive discussion on the talk page and an appropriate tag. I spend plenty of time adding sources to unsourced material like this, so I really don't have a problem with that. Bermicourt (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be intent on overlooking the fact that using the autopatrolled right implies that your articles are, if not perfect, at least free from fundamental issues right from the start. Because, repeating myself here, you are sidestepping most of the basic scrutiny that every other new article would be subjected to. If you don't realize that this is a problem, you definitely should not have that right. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point I think this discussion can be procedurally closed as the subject of the discussion is no longer a redirect. RFD is not a suitable place to discuss either concerns about user rights or articles. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:46, 31 May 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 12:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NOTAFORM → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No need to have a shortcut redirect from a misspelling. This isn't linked anywhere currently -- and shouldn't be. It existing will allow people to link to it, therefore propagating the misspelling, so there is a cost to not deleting this. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an implausible and unlinked misspelling which spells another word. I really don't see the need for misspelling redirects for all caps one word shortcuts.192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. — The Anome (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no need for the misspelling. Llwyld (talk) 22:22, 2 June 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.