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 Music of Deltarune. ✗plicit 23:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Now’s your chance to be a big shot! → Deltarune  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am unsure where to put this as it not mentioned in the article but the article Music of Deltarune does have the mentions of "NOW'S YOUR CHANCE TO BE A" and "BIG SHOT" though separated. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 23:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Music of Deltarune, it's a recurring and prominent lyric in the songs mentioned.--Alexandra^IDV 00:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Music of Deltarune per Alexandra above. 193.37.240.164 (talk) 11:57, 13 October 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, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

A simple meme/joke not mentioned in article. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 23:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, minor fan community joke not mentioned in the article.--Alexandra^IDV 00:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The term has no connection to the subject outside of it being an anagram without significance. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --CiaPan (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unlikely search term and not mentioned at target. Jontesta (talk) 23:35, 17 October 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! 22:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiFox → User:TheresNoTime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a plausible search term. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, clearly not.. I'm not entirely sure why you thought it was a search term to be honest — it serves as much a use as the rest of the "humorous" WikiFauna.. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 04:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Ah, Red-tailed hawk, you're no fun! Lighten up a little! Nothing egregious here. Or, maybe we could write a WP:WikiFox article instead if other users are adamant on not having it redirect to User:TheresNoTime. We'll see how this plays out, but I think it's fine honestly. Or, as another alternative, we can keep the user redirect and add a tag:

  This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

— That Coptic Guy (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If TNT wants to claim to be a unique and sole claimant WikiFauna, that's up to them, but frankly I can't find any valid WP:RPURPOSE here and frankly the redirect doesn't serve a clear purpose; there are no wikifauna mentioned at TNT's talk page and the mere appearance of a fox in the infobox doesn't mean that this redirect makes sense. If I were to take WP:WikiHawk and redirect it to my userpage, it would be similarly nonsensical. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been deleted per G7. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TheresNoTime originally G7 speedied this. However, since there was already a keep !vote, and G7 is normally construed to not apply to pages someone has !voted to keep, I have restored it, and will now relist it so it can get a full seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• With all that being said, keep. Amusing, ambiguous with nothing. Its existence is considerably less harmful than spending any RfD resources on deleting an unobtrusive non-mainspace joke. Perhaps we shouldn't use RfD to discourage long-term contributors from enjoying the work they do. Just a thought. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I'm sure that if people feel a mention of the term "WikiFox" is needed, TNT can find a place to include that on her userpage once it's back to its normal state. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's in Wikipedia space so it's pretty unlikely anyone who isn't already somewhat familiar with wikipedia will come across it and the search term itself is pretty unambiguous as there's no WikiFauna that was ever called WikiFox. TartarTorte 00:28, 12 October 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, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

A minor enemy (or friend) in this game. Not mentioned in article and no reliable sources to warrant a mention. Probably also WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 23:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Gamecruft, not mentioned. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not mentioned, and there may be several valid targets. Let this just be an ordinary search term. Jontesta (talk) 23:30, 17 October 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, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Croácia → Croatia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Horvaatia → Croatia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kroasia → Croatia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kroasië → Croatia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:FORRED as, based on Languages of Croatia, there is no affinity between Croatia and Portuguese, Estonian, Indonesian or Afrikaans. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:52, 12 October 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 Jeopardy (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In jeopardy → Tag out  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to Jeopardy (disambiguation): "In jeopardy" is too common of a phrase to redirect to a page as specific as tag out (a baseball concept). WPscatter ^t/_c 21:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I nominally agree with the nominator's rationale, but the DAB page lists the phrase and gives the current target as the definition. I feel the more specific target is thus warranted. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It didn't appear on the DAB page until I added it today, and it was since edited for consistency in a way that I think makes it seem more like "in jeopardy" is strictly a baseball term, which it isn't. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. In that case, I am in favor of retargeting per nom and others' comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Also a common term in the context of Double jeopardy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Jeopardy (disambiguation) The term is ambiguous, but also I do not think tag up is the appropriate target for the term in baseball. It seems to not be used in baseball very much, which does match up with my inherently non-WP:RS lived experiene playing and being a fan of baseball. I hadn't heard the term much, but when I have and from the research I have done as well this does not inherently apply to a tag out. It applies to any time a base runner can be out that's not a force out. It sees, at least from some sources, that a runner who is in danger of being doubled up off of a fly ball is also "in jeopardy" TartarTorte 00:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to edit or remove its entry on the DAB page, it seems like you have more of a handle on its usage than I do (and likely a better ability to verify it from RS). I added it to the DAB page after I noticed the redirect, both in anticipation of a retarget and because if it is a common term, it should be listed there regardless. But my only knowledge of that comes from the redirect and tag out article itself, I just added it to the DAB for internal consistency. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries. Your addition to DAB was pretty helpful. I only had to tweak that slightly. I updated/simplified the definition on the Glossary of baseball (I) page with a citation from the MLB rule book's definition of phrases. TartarTorte 13:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, I noticed you reverted my closure of this discussion. I figured 4 unanimous votes (counting myself) was enough for consensus. What's the usual protocol here? WPscatter ^t/_c 18:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, Wpscatter, sorry I didn't see this message until now. Normally a discussion needs to run 7 days and can then be closed by an uninvolved editor. There are a few ways that discussions can be closed early (they're documented at WP:EARLY). The first way is that it can be withdrawn by the nominator per WP:WITHDRAW, but the discussion can only be closed that way by the nominator if everyone else has express opinions only to keep. Speedy keep, which has a variety of reasons to be invoked, but largely is because the nomination was baseless/intended to cause issues; there are other times it is used less perniciously. Speedy delete, which is only if any of the criteria at WP:CSD apply. For redirects that would be cross-namespace redirects, implausible typos, or file namespace redirects with names that match wikimedia commons pages. There are a few other CSD criteria that could apply as well from the G group of criteria. The last way an early close can occur is WP:SNOW. That is invoked when it's very clear the discussion is over and consensus has been reached, by an uninvolved editor. TartarTorte 18:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry if that was too jargony. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any more questions. More than happy to help! TartarTorte 18:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all! I didn't realize an uninvolved editor was usually the one to do it. Thanks for the help! WPscatter ^t/_c 18:35, 13 October 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 List of opera genres. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The word "eroica" is not mentioned in the target article, making it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Also, for some reason, third party search engines primarily return results for Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven), seemingly erroneously most likely due to the aforementioned subject being alternatively named "Symphony Eroica", but the nominated redirect doesn't seem to refer to that either since it uses "opera" instead of "symphony". Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Retarget to List of opera genres. Opera eroica translates as “heroic opera”. It’s a specific genre of opera. A basic WP:BEFORE search easily finds sources in google scholar and google books; no symphony results came up in my search because I bracketed the term. A redirect to opera is fine.4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All the "WP:BEFORE" that was necessary was noticing that the term is not mentioned in the article since the target doesn't explain the term, and low and behold, you have now provided a reason that supports deletion by identifying the redirect as an subgenre of the target article's subject that is not presently identified in the target article (and essentially validating the first part of my nomination statement.) At this point, I would believe that the weight falls on the redirect's creator to fix the issue identified here, one option being finding a way to add it to the article. (And haha, I did even more WP:BEFORE by finding the information on third-party search engines with the Beethoven symphony issue. So ultimately, this accusation of not doing research before doing this nomination is completely unfounded.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of this statement doesn't apply anymore per Scyrme's comment. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of opera genres and add it to the list. Enrico di Borgogna can be linked as an example. – Scyrme (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution. I added it to the list and changed my vote above.4meter4 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think BoIivia is not a common search term. Despite the look being similar visually, the search term is uncommon. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the nominator didn't make it clear and most browsers have both the redirect and target appear the same ... the nominated redirect's third letter is a capital "I" (i) instead of a lowercase "l" (L). Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DeIete: Despite simiIar appearances, an uppercase I and a Iowercase l are different Ietters. TartarTorte 20:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep It does no harm by existing and redirects are cheap. Also I and the L in the keyboard are right next to each other so it is a plausible typo that can go undetected. Roostery123 (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that the creator has been blocked as a sock (of an LTA known to use the I/l thing in usernames all the time... I should've known when I saw this the other day). But since there's a keep !vote, I won't delete it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy ping to @Roostery123 as the only keep !voter. Does the creator being blocked as a sock alter your opinion? (note I'm not trying to influence you either way) Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I & L are not really that close and then there is the obvious issue of miscapitalisation. It is very unlikely that a person types "Bo" correctly, then types a capital "I" (i) instead of small "l" (L), then types "ivia" also correctly. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searching finds article name in any capitalization if the exact hit is not found (try typing e.g. wiKiPEdiA in the search box), hence there is no reason to use the Capital 'i' vs. small 'L' trick. This can be only seen as a joke or trolling, not a plausible search term. --CiaPan (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've G5ed the redirect given that it has no obvious purpose on being a redirect. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:22, 13 October 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. After 3 relists there hasn't been enough participation to determine consensus and the current comments are split. Legoktm (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Narrowing (computer science) → Unification (computer science)#Narrowing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Following up on an issue from a recent Rfd, this redirect seems like ((R from incomplete disambiguation)) given the existence of Narrowing of algebraic value sets which seems like a related topic arguably also within the realm of computer science, and should be retargeted to the disambiguation page Narrowing (and the dab page updated) if we can identify a good way to disambiguate these two topics. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think the status quo is fine. If anything has to change, I would delete Narrowing of algebraic value sets as it seems weakly sourced and pretty obscure. As of my edit [1] the only page that links to Narrowing (computer science) is Narrowing with its DAB entry, but I don't think there's enough material on narrowing for a full WP page so the DAB entry and hence the redirect has to stay. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While not currently mentioned in the article on type conversion, there is also an unrelated concept of narrowing within programming as well that has to do with conversion from a type that is able to hold more information, to one that is not. I'll try to see if I can find a place to put it there. If I can, then it should definitely go to the DAB for Narrowing as there will be two programming adjacent entries. TartarTorte 00:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is usually called downcasting. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Narrowing has not been added to type conversion and downcasting has not been added to the DAB page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 19:21, 11 October 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. All redirects are now mentioned in their respective targets. Legoktm (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• K16DO → KTVA  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• K61CB → KYUR  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• K11RK → KTVA  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. MB 02:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These were translators that no longer exist. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:DEGRADE. For as long as I've been involved with broadcasting articles, there's been a revolving cast of SPAs who are very aggressive about weighting our coverage towards current events, specifically pushing the POV that notability and aspects thereof hinges solely on the existence of a current valid FCC license. Did the nominator examine the revision history of the target articles to see if those pushing for deletion were the same ones who made the edits leading to the situation outlined in the rationale? If so, that's called gaming the system and playing dumb about it. At any rate, what credibility is there in saying that we're a historical record when we're allowing these editors free reign to push an entire content area in a different direction? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is true, we can keep it, but same WP:VERIFIABILITY requirements as article content should apply to redirects. That said, providing references (in target article) will most likely result in keep. Otherwise delete. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Without a mention in the article these redirects are confusing. RadioKAOS's comments may be valid but are about edit disputes on the respective targets, and not our business necessarily. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional keep/delete: If a reference can be provided per above, keep. Otherwise delete. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another relist and courtesy ping RadioKAOS since no mention or references have been added to the targets since this discussion began.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 19:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added some Info about K61CB into KYUR, hope that saves the translator from vanishing. --Danubeball (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And also did the same for the other translators. Let’s see how do the translators go from here. Danubeball (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Now that they're all mentioned at the targets, there's clearly no reason for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:24, 19 October 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 implicit agreement that the Columbus School of Law is not the primary topic. However there is no agreement on whether Canon law of the Catholic Church is the primary, or whether there is a primary target at all. Any further discussion on the primary may be had at the disambiguation talk page. Jay 💬 07:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Catholic law → Columbus School of Law  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a nickname of the Columbus School of Law. However, we have Canon law of the Catholic Church and Category:Catholic law schools in the United States which includes 30 "Catholic law" schools. A dab may be better. MB 01:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate as proposed. BD2412 T 01:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Canon law of the Catholic Church with a hatnote to the current target. This is almost certainly the primary topic based on pageviews. The average reader would probably be astonished to get the current target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget at this capitalisation to Canon law of the Catholic Church with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate although Canon law of the Catholic Church gets a lot more hits, "Catholic law" probably isn't one of the most common synonyms for canon law, whereas it is a common nickname for the university. Hut 8.5 18:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would much prefer Retargeting to Canon law of the Catholic Church per Shhhnotsoloud over disambiguation. I think most people around the world would be looking for canon law, not the university. Especially if they are unfamiliar with church jargon, and especially with the lowercase 'l' in law. Canon law is the primary topic, not the university.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. The CUA law school is well-known and I don't think that there's a WP:PTOPIC here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:50, 14 October 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 14:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris Afton → Five Nights at Freddy's#Humans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems to be a fan nickname for the crying child in FNAF 4. We should delete this per WP:FNAFCRUFT. It is also not mentioned in article. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable name of the character. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:15, 17 October 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 14:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• F.o.x.y → Five Nights at Freddy's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Foxy is not an acronym. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The name of this villainous vulpine character does not appear to be an acronym. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible spelling of Foxy. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:14, 17 October 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 Withdraw. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 5naf → Five Nights at Freddy's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inplausible typo. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It doesn't seem to be a typo. Just an alternative abbreviation to FNAF. It seems pretty unambiguous and it's got a bit of usage from googling. Seems like it's a helpful redirect. TartarTorte 12:34, 11 October 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 14:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Events in Five Nights at Freddy's → Five Nights at Freddy's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unsure what the word “events” means in this context. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Presumably it means plot events, don't really see a reason to keep the redirect tho.★Trekker (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unlikely search term when the main article title will suffice. Jontesta (talk) 23:29, 17 October 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 14:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Five Nights At Freddys Story + Characters → Five Nights at Freddy's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It’s unlikely that someone will search for both the characters and the story of a franchise. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reason given.★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 12 October 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 all except Danemark, which is no consensus.

• No consensus Danemark
• Delete Danimarca
• Delete Danmoerk
• Delete Danmörk
• Delete Danska
• Delete Denemarke
• Delete Denmarc
• Delete Dinamarca

Denmarc was deleted because the two keep !votes for it were weak, and there were multiple commenters who explicitly addressed/considered those arguments, noting that it wasn't plausible. On the other hand, Danemark had another keep !vote, and two delete comments noted that it was plausible and had a lot of pageviews, which I treated as "weak" deletes. Legoktm (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Danemark → Denmark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Danimarca → Denmark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Danmoerk → Denmark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Danmörk → Denmark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Danska → Denmark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Denemarke → Denmark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Denmarc → Denmark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Dinamarca → Denmark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are all the name of Denmark in languages that have no apparent affinity with that country based on Languages of Denmark and Minority languages of Denmark. Specifically the languages are:

• Danemark - French
• Danimarca - Italian
• Danmörk/Danmoerk - Icelandic (while there is affinity between Danish and Iceland there doesn't seem to be the same in reverse)
• Danska - Serbo-Croatian, Slovene
• Denemarke - Afrikaans
• Denmarc - Welsh
• Dinamarca - Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese.

Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom and WP:RDEL point 8. Hut 8.5 19:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection to keeping Denmarc per below. Hut 8.5 18:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Denmarc as a plausible misspelling in English due to "mark" vs "marc". Delete the rest per nom and WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure it's a plausible misspelling in English; very few English words end in -rc, and many of them are uncommon, whereas many common words end in -rk. An error would more likely go the other way, although in this case it wouldn't be an error. Searching "Denmarc", most of the English-language results are proper names (often specifically related to Denmarc Creary, a musician). It would probably be best to delete to avoid polluting search results for people who aren't looking for Denmark. – Scyrme (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  English words ending in -rc are common enough that it's not a complete unknown or implausibility. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: None of these languages have an affinity to Denmark. TartarTorte 19:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Steel1943, Weak keep Denmarc & Danemark as plausible misspellings. Delete the rest. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think "Danemark" being a plausible misspelling in English may be a bit of a stretch since "Den" and "Dane" have different pronunciations. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought that Danemark could be a plausible misspelling because people of Denmark are called Danes. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all to allow uninhibited search. I'm not convinced by the misspelling arguments, but of them "Danemark" seems the most plausible because of the demonym and adjective ("dane, danish"), although I'm not convinced that someone would search Danemark rather than Danmark in those cases. – Scyrme (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On the plausible misspelling arguments for Denmarc and Danemark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I do still support deleting all as I don't really think Denmarc or Danemark are particularly plausible; however, Danemark does have a lot of page views for something I would deem implausible, so I wouldn't mind if it's kept. TartarTorte 12:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Danemark, delete the rest it seems plausible as an possible archaic English spelling. The rest can go per nom. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Archaic English spelling? Do you have a source that confirms that, or is that a guess? Afaik, the English "Den-" goes back to Old English. – Scyrme (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW the Anglo Saxon Wikipedia's article on the country is at ang:Denemearc, wikt:Denmark#Etymology gives the origin as Middle English from Danish with the ME word being spelled identically to the modern English. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the relister also mentioned Denmarc, I'll elaborate by commenting on the link Steel posted earlier.

1. The link lists just 12 words ending in -rc, which is already a small number, and 4 of them (1 third) are obscure medical/biological terms.
2. Another one is an nonstandard spelling of "futhark"; far less common than its usual spelling with -rk. It also lists "futhorc" which is the standard spelling for Anglo-Saxon runes in particular, but you're only likely to encountered that term if you have a particular interest in Anglo-Saxon history or the history of runes in general.
3. Also listed is "marc", which although especially relevant, is a loan from French and not a common word unless you take an interest in the production of wine or brandy from grapes. (Personally, I hadn't even seen the word "marc" in my life until this discussion.)
4. That leaves just 5 words which might be considered "common", two of which are slang derived by abbreviating words that otherwise wouldn't end in -rc ("narc/otics officer", "merc/enary"). The others are "orc", "arc", and "torc". While these 5 words are common, they are far outnumbered by word which end in -rk. (The same website lists over 900; many are compounds but compounds ending in -mark are even more relevant since "Denmark" closely resembles such compounds. Even discounting uncommon -rk words and all compounds, the -rk words still outnumber the total -rc words.)

I stand by what I said earlier: very few English words end in -rc, and many of them are uncommon. I do not find it plausible that someone might misspell "Denmark" as "Denmarc". Words ending in -rk are much more common, making misspelling with an -rc improbable. (Unless it's deliberate.) Better to allow uninhibited search of proper names, eg. Denmarc Creary. – Scyrme (talk) 16:57, 12 October 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 💬 06:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rain shelter in park → Gazebo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the target and the redirect unclear. In addition, in terms of this being ambiguous, this redirect's phrase could possibly also refer to trees or outdoor pavillions. Steel1943 (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Gazebos can be rain shelters in the park but they are far from the only things that are, and not all gazebos are in parks and/or available for use to shelter from the rain. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This could theoretically be DABified as there are multiple possible targets as noted above, but this to me doesn't seem like a common enough search term to DABify. TartarTorte 12:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, too vague. MB 13:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too rare and confusing as a search term to be a good redirect. 2601:647:5800:4D2:7DAA:9BA:7B8D:4363 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 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 Delaware River#Course. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delaware River Valley → Delaware Valley  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Following up on a recent RfD, the current target is about the metropolitan area that only encompasses the middle and lower parts of the river's basin, so we should consider retargeting to Deleware River#Course or something along those lines. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This isn't a name that is pretty much ever used to describe the Delaware Valley. It is used to describe a variety of other places on the Delaware River, but none of which are mentioned in a way that could be linked to appropriately on wikipedia and DABifying seems like it would be an exercise in futility. TartarTorte 17:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Delaware River#Course. Per WP:NGEO, for named natural features, if a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The river valley associated with this river is described in the course of the article on the river, and it makes sense to create a redirect as a reasonable search term. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Hawk and tag as ((R from miscapitalisation)). Jay 💬 03:03, 18 October 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sam Speed → Sonic X#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A Reoccurring character in Sonic X. Not mentioned in the article and no reliable sources to warrant a mention. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 23:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate to Batem, who wrote a comic book "Sam Speed"; List of The Catherine Tate Show characters and sketches with a timetravelling cop "Sam Speed"; List of Sonic X episodes where Sam Speed is detailed -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafted disambig below the redirect for evaluation -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• IP65's drafted dab looks good. I moved Samuel Speed to the See also but any opinions on that can be a separate discussion. Jay 💬 02:56, 18 October 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.