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 23:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• When Worlds Collide (upcoming film) → When Worlds Collide (1951 film)#Remake  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There doesn't seem to be any information in the target article about the subject of this redirect. However, this redirect is a ((R with history)) as a page that was an article from 2011 to 2012. Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. With only 1 hit this year and none since May this is very clearly no longer useful. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 12 September 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 23:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Spooky Jack (upcoming film) → List of unproduced DreamWorks Animation projects#2017  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems as though the subject of this redirect was canceled, leaving the disambiguator erroneous. Also, a related redirect, Spooky Jack (film), exists and targets the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No hits this year so clearly no longer needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Formerly untitled/upcoming media which apply to these kinds of redirects. Input is welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:24, 12 September 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. BD2412 T 17:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Teddy Ruxpin (upcoming TV series) → Teddy Ruxpin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There doesn't seem to be any information about this subject in the target article. There also doesn't seem to be any information in The Adventures of Teddy Ruxpin, which seems to be the only other article in existence that is related to the subject of the redirect's current target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with only two hits this year, one in February and one in April, this is clearly no longer useful and we don't need to worry about whether we have relevant information anywhere else. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Formerly untitled/upcoming media which apply to these kinds of redirects. Input is welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nominator is correct, and there never was a WP:SNOWball's chance at a valid reason for having created it. It is not even a functional search keyword, the idea of the show is just gossip, and the mentions of it in Teddy Ruxpin had to be deleted as WP:FANCRUFT. — Smuckola(talk) 19:34, 12 September 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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeds of Change → Seeds of Change (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retracted, wrong venue Move Seeds of Change (disambiguation) here: No clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, per pageviews. Paradoctor (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand why we're having this conversation here. User:Paradoctor, why did you move the article at the base title to Seeds of Change (company) and open this discussion instead of using WP:RM? - Eureka Lott 16:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch, fixing. Paradoctor (talk) 18:03, 12 September 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 Demographics of Uzbekistan. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Uzbekistani → Uzbek  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Uzbekistanis → Demographics of Uzbekistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should these point to different places? Uzbek is a disambiguation page that includes "Uzbekistani" and notes that "Uzbekistani" can mean both the citizens of Uzbekistan (covered at the demographics article) and members of the Uzbek ethnic group (as well as other uses that are not pluarlisable). Neither target currently links to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Point both to Demographics of Uzbekistan and disambiguate there with a hatnote, I am not aware of there being any non-erroneous use of "Uzbekistani" to refer to Uzbeks more broadly, although it is an understandable error for English-speakers not familiar with Central Asian history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Demographics of Uzbekistan per Rosguill. We frequently disambiguate these, but here there is no Uzbekistani language to offer another meaning. BD2412 T 17:45, 17 September 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 Demographics of Uzbekistan. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Uzbekistani people → Uzbekistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Uzbekistani people" are people, while Uzbekistan is a country. Therefore, they are not the same thing. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Demographics of Uzbekistan, and add a hatnote explaining the potential confusion of Uzbekistani vs. Uzbeks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Demographics of Uzbekistan, per Rosguill. BD2412 T 17:44, 17 September 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 both.

• Retarget Augustus Pugliese to She-Hulk: Attorney at Law#Cast and characters
• Retarget Zoe Zimmer (Marvel Cinematic Universe) to Ms. Marvel (TV series)#Cast and characters (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Augustus Pugliese → Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: M–Z  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Zoe Zimmer (Marvel Cinematic Universe) → Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: M–Z  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target or its A-L counterpart, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Augustus Pugliese to She-Hulk: Attorney at Law#Cast and characters and Zoe Zimmer (Marvel Cinematic Universe) to Ms. Marvel (TV series)#Cast and characters, where the characters are mentioned. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per InfiniteNexus. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per InfiniteNexus to wherever the characters are described. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:21, 16 September 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 23:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bootlace killer → Death of Theresa Allore#Suspected Murder Series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly-sourced mention can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject of the redirect is no longer mentioned in the article it redirects to, making it irrelevant. Silent-Rains (talk) 17:34, 11 September 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 no consensus for 2013. ✗plicit 23:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Witness (2011 video game) → The Witness (2016 video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Witness (2012 video game) → The Witness (2016 video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Witness (2013 video game) → The Witness (2016 video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Witness (2014 video game) → The Witness (2016 video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Witness (2015 video game) → The Witness (2016 video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Incorrect disambiguation. IceWelder [✉] 13:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Witness (2013 video game), as it was originally planned to release in that year-as the article says, The Witness had been planned as a launch-window title for the PlayStation 4 in 2013 [and] remained in development, missing the planned 2013 release while [Jonathan] Blow and his team continued to fine-tune the game. Delete the rest, however-the article doesn't mention any plans to release that game in any of the other years, which might confuse readers unlike the somewhat informative 2013 one. Regards, SONIC678 15:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all They are misleading/unnecessary redirects, as the game only released in 2016. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - These are all redirects created by pagemoves which should generally be kept. The delays in release are mentioned in the article. A7V2 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to Keep 2013 and only others which are verified as released dates (if any). Neutral on the others. A7V2 (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except 2013 unless any axed other-year release dates are verified. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all including 2013. These are disambiguations, not likely search targets. And that would be "upcoming video game" per WP:NCVGDAB anyway, not 2013. We don't create year redirects for every year every game is delayed. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 14:34, 16 September 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! 01:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Autonomous zone → Temporary Autonomous Zone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect doesn't seems to match what sources say about what is an "autonomous zone": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/style/autonomous-zone-anarchist-community.html C933103 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget or add a hatnote to Autonomous administrative division to match Autonomous area as this is a plausible search term for that concept. If retargetted consideration should be given to adding a hatnote back to the present target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect, where the concept of the (temporary) autonomous zone is discussed. Alternative target list of autonomous zones already exists in List of anarchist communities. It wouldn't make sense to redirect to autonomous administrative division because that isn't how the term is commonly used. I originally leaned towards disambiguating but I don't think we have many other elements besides the aforementioned list of autonomous zones and the existing dab at Free Zone (Q522773). czar 16:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Thryduulf and C933103, in case you didn't see my reply czar 05:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that article has been kept at AfD it forms an OK target, but there needs to be links from this title to the targets I suggest above, as well as Capital Hill Autonomous Zone. That can be primary disambiguation or hatnotes, I don't have time right now to investigate fully which is best. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:07, 11 September 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! 11:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Phi nu pi → Kappa Alpha Psi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. According to this, it is the secret motto. For this redirect to not WP:ASTONISH, the secret has to be revealed in the article. MB 05:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to have it here, but it should be put in the article as well (https://archive.org/details/blackgreek101cul0000kimb/page/126/mode/2up) Black Greek 101 by Kimbrough. "The other prominent nickname is Nupe, a reference to the Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity. The fraternity is unique in that it has two names Kappa Alpha Psi and Phi Nu Pi." (and goes on for a paragraph or two). I'll try to add this to the article when I have a chance, if someone else doesn't do so.Naraht (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeSupport - MBI just added the information on Phi Nu Pi (and the fact that the nickname "Nupe" is derived to it to the article. References to Black Greek 101 by Kimbrough. (Not as a secret motto, but merely as a second name)Naraht (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC). After discussion over at WP:FRAT, I think we've decided a large scale delete of all of the redirects which have lower case greek letters should happen.Naraht (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep given it is now mentioned in the article, but if so, the properly capitalized Phi Nu Pi should be created. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. I created Phi Nu Pi and directed it to the specific section that I added the mention of Phi Nu Pi. As for Capitalization, given that (for example) Kappa alpha psi, Sigma nu, Phi beta kappa and Alpha phi omega all exists as redirects, I think that keeping the init cap version should be OK. Note, if a general effort to remove the init cap versions of *all* GLO articles was made, I'd *probably* be neutral on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 13:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear if this should be deleted or kept...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now that there is mention at the target. This was not nominated as a capitalization issue, and any consensus to delete based on capitalization can be a separate effort, and will have to be done in bulk. Jay 💬 07:03, 18 September 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. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:ElfCom → Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target. Implausible. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't remember the context for this redirect creation, but it seems harmless. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd hazard a guess it flowed from WikiElves, described as editors who function behind the scenes - who are probably much more likely to be called before said ElfCom. –xeno^talk 17:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the joke cannot be comprehended even by the joke-maker, it should not continue to linger. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mellohi!. Like Xeno my guess is also that it originated from WikiElves, but with Arbcom being the elves in question. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mellohi! (Wikisleuthing/speculating hat on: Considering the date the redirect was created, I'm suspecting "Christmas Elves" rather than WikiElves, personally, perhaps inspired by this ArbCom carol that had been posted a few days prior on the ArbCom Noticeboard in a thread MZMcBride was active in.) AddWittyNameHere 21:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not established. ElfCom would be the Christmas task force a la Christmas elves. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:40, 13 September 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 United States Tenth Fleet#Fleet Organization. Any merits of the alternate suggestion Information Operations (United States) may be discussed at the redirect talk. Jay 💬 06:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Navy Information Operations Command → Naval Network Warfare Command  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect is not correct. Navy Information Operations Command (NIOC) is not the same as or part of Naval Network Warfare Command (NAVNETWARCOM). See [1]; in upper right hand corner, hover over "Organization" then "Operational Support". NIOC is separate from NAVNETWARCOM.

This will break some links on other pages but I've made sure that the links that should be to NAVNETWARCOM are switched to link directly to that while the ones that should be linked to NIOC will remain so and would become red links if this redirect is deleted Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Information Operations (United States). I have inserted a sentence there about NIOCs. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jasonkwe: what do you think of Anythingyouwant's suggestion? Jay 💬 14:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anythingyouwant @Jay Actually, after doing some more reading, I think it should be redirected to United States Tenth Fleet#Fleet Organization. NIOC's predecessor was NAVSECGRU which was broken up in 2005 and the NIOCs and NIODs were given to NAVNETWARCOM (so the redirect was correct for back then). But in 2009, NETWARCOM gave the NIOCs to 10th fleet which was reactivated to provide Naval Fleet Cyber Command under US Cyber Command. So.....I think it should redirect to tenth fleet's page (and be updated if it ever gets moved somewhere else).

  Information Operations (the page) covers the mission but I guess the Tenth Fleet is a better destination for the redirect of the actual unit. Freaking government reorganizations lol. Probably improves efficiency but still hard as hell to follow for outsiders. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Either Information operations (United States) or United States Tenth Fleet would be okay. I initially favored the second, but switched to the first because the First is entirely devoted to the subject of information operations, but the second is apparently where all the NIOCs (or most of them) are located. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are currently split between two potential targets...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:56, 11 September 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.