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 23:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• United States of Applebee's → Applebee's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a common nickname for Applebees and in the uses I've seen for it online it's pretty split between being a nickname for Applebee's and a nickname for the United States of America. Seems like we wouldn't cause a whole lot of issues with deletion. TartarTorte 23:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:24, 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. In Thryduulf's words, no. (non-admin closure) ^Clyde!_Franklin! 22:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Homophile → Terminology of homosexuality#Homophile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this redirect to the Homophile movement article? QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The current target is broader, explains the term and links to the Homophile movement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Context: this redirect is the result of a split that I performed last December. Before that, there was one article that discussed both the term "homophile" and the historical homophile movement. Maybe people disagree with the split, but that is a different discussion. The destination of the redirect "homophile" should clearly discuss the term. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:21, 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 retarget to Special interest group. (non-admin closure) ^Clyde!_Franklin! 21:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Special interest → Advocacy group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I believe this should be redirected to special interest group. I would move this as uncontroversial, but since the special interest group article is a proposed merger to the advocacy group article anyhow, I thought I should bring this up for discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Special interest group: Until the two get merged, Special interest group is a more specific topic. Also, if they to get merged, the double redirect will be fixed by a bot anyways, so no harm there. TartarTorte 21:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Special interest" also describes an aspect of autism ^[1], which I haven't seen mentioned on Wikipedia from a cursory search. Fraxiash (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned in the hatnote to advocacy group - if this is retargeted, I think a hatnote on the special interest group would suffice. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Special interest group. Seems pretty obvious. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Special interest group, for the reasons stated above. Sheldon Rampton (talk) 03:38, 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 (but not G7). Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Warner Bros. Home Entertainment. → Warner Bros. Home Entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I accidentially made this as the result of a page move back in 2018. MightyArms (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: Per WP:G7 TartarTorte 19:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• G7 and G6 (error). @MightyArms, from now on, please place ((db-g7)) and/or ((db-error)) at the top of pages you accidentally created like this instead of sending them to RFD. — Clyde ^{State your case} (please use ((reply to|ClydeFranklin)) on reply) 01:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I'm still learning. MightyArms (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - G7 specifically excludes the case of redirects created as part of a page move unless the person performing the move is also the only author of the target page. A7V2 (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - The accidental part was me putting the period after "Entertainment." This redirect never should have existed in the first place, and I probably should have paid more attention to the title before moving it, but that was four years ago. MightyArms (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  G6 covers pages created by accident in situations like this (although there is a proposal currently at WT:CSD to move it to it's own criterion), so that applies even though G7 does not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 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 retarget to Extras. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Extras (tv) → Extra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Extras (tv) should redirect to Extras (TV series) because it’s the only TV show using the Extras name. Bassie f (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RDAB but retarget if not deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Entirely plausible someone could be looking for extras used in TV. I am neutral on the suggestion to delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Extras which is the dab that covers both the TV series and Extra (acting) per Presidentman. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Extras as that contains what someone searching this could be looking for. A7V2 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Extras, seems like the best solution. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:25, 16 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. Editors arguing for retarget have not given an explanation for why the current disambiguation via hatnote is inadequate. A conditional deletion proposal did not gain additional support. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Extras → Extras (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would like someone to retarget The Extras to Extras by next week because it was originally targeted there when the creator Carbonrodney redirected it. Bassie f (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the current target seems the primary topic for the term with the definite article. I've added a link to the dab page in the hatnote at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt at finding if there is a primary topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Extras, just voting on my own RfD nomination. Bassie f (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to do that. It's assumed that you want to retarget it to Extras just by your nom. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s ok BlazeWolf Bassie f (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The redirect has always pointed to the TV series. When Carbonrodney created the redirect, the TV series was at the title Extras at the time. However, it does not matter where it was targetting when it was created. I don't have a particular preference. I don't see the TV series referred to as The Extras. If it's not the primary topic, and if Al-Kompars is the only article with that title, retarget to the Syrian film. If multiple entries at the Extras dab are referred to as The Extras, retarget to the dab, otherwise delete. Jay 💬 19:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There’s only one entry for The Extras, Al-Kompars so Retarget to that. I meant that page instead of the dab. Bassie f (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Jay can you please close this discussion today and retarget The Extras to Al-Kompars. From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bassie f: Jay cannot do that. Because he has participated in this discussion, he is now considered WP:INVOLVED and cannot also act in an administrative capacity in this matter. Also, please be patient. There is WP:NODEADLINE, so saying something needs to happen "by next week" or "today" is a breach of etiquette. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  23 October is 7 days after the last relist date, so 23 October is coming in a hour on Wikipedia, hence a few hours sounds right today but not any other day on Wikipedia. Bassie f (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Travix can you please close it today in 4 hours because 23 October is 7 days after this discussion was last relisted (October 16). Bassie f (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely not. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:25, 22 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. Legoktm (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Es → Template:Expand section  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently deleted as a redirect to Template:Es icon, this is frequently being mis-used and confused with Commons:Template:Es and ((in lang|es)). It's better to just leave it as a redlink. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Assumed it must've been for ((Empty section)), but then I realized it was actually for ((Expand Spanish)). Oops, wrong again... Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and salt, confusing. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate between ((In lang|es)) (which is what replaces the functionality that ((es)) had in the decade before 2020), ((lang-es)) (the enwiki equivalent of the Commons template mentioned above), ((Expand section)), ((Empty section)), ((Expand Spanish)), and any others this could be taken as the shortcut for. Template disambiguation pages are the best solution in cases like that: if it's expected that people will attempt to use a given shortcut, then deletion won't help them find out the correct template: a template that produces an error upon transclusion and then links to a list of alternatives is much more useful. – Uanfala (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguation seems like a logical solution when a template has been created several times for unrelated uses. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the language would seem more likely. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:10, 16 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Obama's last name → Barack Obama  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure why this was created or what possible use it could have. As Obama's last name is generally known to be Obama, this is just confusing. MB 00:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't say this is a likely misspelling or anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was an Internet meme back in the day, Know Your Meme mentions it in ^[1] MightyArms (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a meme. A mention could probably be added somewhere, but I don't know where somewhere is, so delete for now. — Clyde ^{State your case} (please use ((reply to|ClydeFranklin)) on reply) 04:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ClydeFranklin Maybe Public_image_of_Barack_Obama#In_popular_culture, but you'd need a better source, and per WP:PROPORTION it may not fit anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No natural place to redirect. Not notable on its own. Ovinus (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ovinus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a meme I'm familiar with but I see no suitable target for it. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Obama (surname) which is directly relevant to the search term. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: MEMECRUFT Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. Just a joke/meme and could lead to confusion since it might lead people to believe that Obama's last name isn't "Obama". ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Mehhhhh... some people already believe so regardless of such a redirect. Hank Benson (talk) 20:48, 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Femboy atonality → Post-tonal music theory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

You can easily find a definition for "Femboy", but I have no idea what the relationship to music theory might be. WP:Astonish MB 00:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only mention I can find on the web is this redirect, and seems nonsensical. — Clyde ^{State your case} (please use ((reply to|ClydeFranklin)) on reply) 15:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as atonal, is in fact, post-tonal, or as I've recently taken to calling it, femboy atonality. Atonality is not a compositional system unto itself, but rather the absence of a tonal center system made useful by the absence of tonic-dominant hierarchy, diatonic harmony and conventional musical scores comprising a full work in traditional forms, as defined by the old masters. Many composers use a modified version of tonality every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of polytonal which is widely used today is often called "atonal", and many of its listeners are not aware that it is basically the tonal system, developed by the old masters. There really is atonality, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the style they use. Atonality is the idea: the notes in the work that represent the relationship between them. The tonal center is an essential part of a work, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete work utilising the tonic-dominant heirarchy. Atonality is normally used in combination with avantgarde forms: the whole idea is basically the absence of tonality, or atonality. All the so-called "modern" works are really tonal Hank Benson (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like you're saying it's your own neologism? Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as completely implausible. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only connection between "Femboy" and "atonality" I can find is one non-notable blogger's explicitly fictional works about a non-notable 18th (I think) century German composer, and even then the two words do not appear in the same blog let alone the same sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which composer? Hank Benson (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wilhem von Blumenthal. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice try. There is no composer named Wilhelm von Blumenthal! Hank Benson (talk) 22:04, 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 delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't let the system get you down → Big City Life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. This phrase is part of the song lyrics. It also appears to be the title of an album by an artist not on en.wp (LTJ Xperience / Luca Trevisi), and a partial match with a video mentioned in Radical cheerleading MB 00:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Confusing without a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I have a vague recollection of seeing this as a euphemistic translation of Illegitimi non carborundum but it's not mentioned there so should not be retargetted to it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:LYRICCRUFT Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not mentioned in target. Jontesta (talk) 23:39, 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.