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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Human spider → Spider-Man  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Human Spider → Spider-Man  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This term does not predominantly refer to Spider-Man. There seem to be several examples of video game fodder referred to as "human spiders." Delete due to ambiguity? TNstingray (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Robert is known as "the human spider"; possibly also other climbers and performers have shared that name ("the human X" is a common stage name format). I don't know if Spider-Man has ever been referred as "the human spider" in the comics; if the character shares the name, then perhaps disambiguation is the way to go. Otherwise, I'd lean to retargeting to Alain Robert where that phrase is in explicitly used in the lead section. – Scyrme (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, Spider-Man (nickname) exists; this term might be a similar situation. – Scyrme (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This name has been used for Spider-Man; see q:Spider-Man (2002 film). - Eureka Lott 23:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Right, it has been. But it does not primarily refer to the comic book character. There are many other examples, meaning the redirect is currently ambiguous. TNstingray (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep or disambig. If a redirect is ambiguous between multiple notable topics then the correct solution is rarely deletion:

    • If there is a primary topic then it should redirect there and a hatnote should be placed at the target pointing to those other (either direct or via a dab page depending on the number of other uses)
    • If there is no primary topic then the redirect should be converted to a dab page.

    If there is only one notable use then redirecting to that target is not at all problematic. Deletion is only best when the redirect title should be the location of an article that has not yet been written, or the term is too vague for disambiguation to be realistic (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#List of imperial characters for an example of the latter).

    In this case, google results are about evenly split between Spider Man and other uses so either keeping with a hatnote or disambiguation would be correct. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate/setindexify "human spider" to all people with that nickname, and human/spider chimera creatures of which many appear in mythology and folklore -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Attempted a DAB draft at The Human Spider. Feel free to remove anything non-relevant. Jay 💬 12:18, 1 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 23:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• KMMA (AM) → KMMA (FM)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

KMMA is not an AM radio station; there is no obvious indication that any AM station has used this call sign. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, can't find any evidence that this is a real thing. Muhandes (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since AM is not the same as FM. Misleading. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obvious typo in page move. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:38, 26 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 05:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bonton Soup → Boston  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can find no evidence of this as a name for Boston anywhere on the internet. Also, this was created by a user whose only contribution was this and whose name is bontonsoup. TartarTorte 20:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yeah I'm not coming up with anything either. Delete unless somone can provide an explanation for this. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per abovementioned findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Muhandes (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Also, how was it created? Mainspace creations are restricted to autoconfirmed users, but this user has a single edit! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Before September 2017 anyone who was registered create an article on wikipedia. Starting in September 2017 there was an autoconfirmed article creation trial. I forget if immediately after the trial, it was implemented, but it was implemented that one needs to be autoconfirmed now before creating articles. TartarTorte 01:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense now. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:52, 26 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 23:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Meekz → M1llionz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since Meekz and M1llionz are different people with unclear relation. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A single mention in the article, but it provides virtually no information. Also a plausible mispelling of Meeks, so potentially astonishing. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. A7V2 (talk) 02:01, 25 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) Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 18:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kill yourself → Kill Yourself  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect target was changed without discussion from Suicide to the disambiguation page Kill Yourself in July 2021 (diff). Previously, this redirect had targeted the Suicide article since 2006, when it was created. This is a procedural nomination because I think this warrants discussion; I have no strong opinion on where this should target. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it is better this way, as the expression can mean many things outside of suicide. Veverve (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget back to Suicide; it seems unlikely to me that someone typing this term is looking for one of four songs that don't even have their own article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget back to Suicide per Pppery, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT [1][2], and WP:DIFFCAPS. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Suicide. – The Grid (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unchanged. a) Noun phrases are a bit preferred for page names. b) Without further context “kill yourself” reads like a suggestion, an imperative, though, so not the activity suicide. c) I hate it when different letter casing yields different results. Since it’s unexpected it would warrant a hatnote. However putting into Suicide “Kill yourself” redirects here. For Kill Yourself, see Kill Yourself. sounds quite moronic. Don’t do that. d) There is already a “correct” redirect Killing yourself → Suicide. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 11:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Suicide for this capitalisation. There is specific guidance for this: WP:DIFFCAPS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- a user who is typing "kill yourself" is probably not going to be looking for the article on suicide, and if they are, it's in the disambiguation page. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rockstone. Suicide is the more common term. If people did follow this train of thought, I think they'd be searching for kill oneself.
  Pppery, it seems unlikely to me that someone typing this term is looking for one of four songs that don't even have their own article I do that often enough. And as kill yourself isn't a common/regular synonym for suicide as a concept I'd say it's more likely someone who enters kill yourself is looking for one of the now 8 songs. (another 4 have been added since your comment) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment IIRC, "kill yourself" used to be a synonym of "drop dead" during mid-20th century. Paradoctor (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm working on Draft:Incitement to suicide right now, encompassing both the legal aspects (Commonwealth v. Carter and such) and the sociological ones (suicide baiting and the ubiquity of "kill yourself"), so I think would make a pretty natural target for this. If I haven't finished it by close, I'd suggest a provisional retarget to Suicide, but then re-retarget to Inciting or assistingIncitement to suicide once published. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the technical term is “abetment” of/to suicide. “Abetment” is mentioned 22 times at Suicide legislation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anythingyouwant: I would think abetment of suicide would be assisted suicide. That article frames things that way in its lede, but doesn't really talk much about assisting a suicide in a non-medical context, and perhaps it should, or perhaps there should be some third article. Or maybe I should title the draft Encouraging suicide? That's a term used in a lot of laws, and maybe better captures the spectrum between incitement and abetment (e.g. People v. Campbell—telling someone to kill themself, giving them a gun, and walking away). A number of U.S. states do have laws on the books that at least hypothetically criminalize telling someone to kill themself while taking no act to aid them (Binder & Chiesa 2018, p. 115), and I've barely even gotten into other countries' laws yet. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You won’t ever go wrong using plain English, like “encourage” instead of inciting or abetting. But the words “aiding” and “abetting” definitely have distinct meanings. The latter primarily means to encourage, see here and here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd expect people searching for the phrase on Wikipedia to be searching for something else called "Kill Yourself", since I'd also expect people directly looking for suicide in an encyclopedia to directly search for it instead. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:13, 27 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. ✗plicit 23:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Empire of Dai Han → Korean Empire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - the current target does not appear to be correct and brief searching inside and outside Wikipedia suggest that this might be an overall invalid English article title. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like the correct target to me. Based on this 1906 book "Dai Han" is evidently an older romanisation of "Daehan", a name for Korea. Searching the exact phrase turns up a number of relevant results, such as this English-language page. – Scyrme (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Scyrme. A7V2 (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scyrme's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:58, 26 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 23:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Portal:European Union/Potals → Portal:European Union/Related portals  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Page created at location with typo, then moved to the correct location. I fixed all of the links to point to the right page, and this is not a likely typo given that it is in portal space, so this page can be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nice work in fixing all the links. As this is an unlikely typo in portal space, deletion certainly seems appropriate. TartarTorte 17:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:13, 25 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 wrong forum. @Dgp4004: this is a move request. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves for the process to request a page move. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete the 'THG (disambiguation)' redirect. This will allow the disambiguation page 'THG' to take the name THG (disambiguation). Which will allow the article page 'The Hut Group' to take the name THG. Dgp4004 (talk) 12:03, 24 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. Jay 💬 12:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Octopus Project (software) → Octopus (software)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"The Octopus Project" is not mentioned at the target, and this redirect may imply incorrectly a connection with The Octopus Project. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: see also @Tamzin:'s edit summary of 17:40, 21 September 2022‎ at The octopus project: "https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software/development-of-the-octopus-project/ uses the phrase, but not in a way clearly indicating that it is a name, rather than a description". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this redirect was automatically created when I moved The Octopus Project (software) to Octopus (software) and given specificity was never needed. jareha ^(comments) 17:21, 30 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. Jay 💬 12:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Noitaton Hsilop esrever → Reverse Polish notation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop

Note: sibling redirect reported at

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_17#Noitaton hsilop esrever and
• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_18#Noitaton Hsilop Esrever. -- CiaPan (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reasons as the others. The capital H and inclusion of "esrever" doesn't make this sufficiently different from the twice deleted Noitation hsilop to warrant keeping it. – Scyrme (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This one has weird capitalization; it doesn't get the joke right as adding "reverse" to the words "polish notation" in reverse makes it reverse reverse polish notation. It's also essentially had almost no pageviews until the RfDs for the other related ones started. TartarTorte 17:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a stupid joke is not by itself reason for deletion, but when there is nothing more to it than the stupid joke, I don't think this serves an encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless joke redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:58, 26 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 List of ships named Rochester. Procedural close after restoration of target article. (non-admin closure) MB 04:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SS Rochester → List of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. No relevant content at the destination (nor has there ever been so far as I can see) Davidships (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems like a silly reason to delete it, considering the issue can be remedied with a single edit to the target page. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 12:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then please add the missing content. Better to do that before creating the redirect, not seven months later - that is what is silly. Davidships (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SS Rochester was built by the Great Lakes Engineering Works, but was sunk by SM U-95 off Tory Island near Ireland. A redirect to Great Lakes Engineering Works (or SM U-95) would be appropriate, especially if followed up by information being supplied to the appropriate article about the vessel. The current redirect to List of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes appears to be incorrect. SilkTork (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to set index. My cursory searches turned up five ships named SS Rochester ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). There may be more. - Eureka Lott 16:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like the middle one is the pertinent one, it’s the only one that sank in the Great Lakes. “Burned June 27, 1912 near Pensaukee WI, Green Bay. No lives lost. Vessel had just departed Green Bay WI. Crew took to lifeboats.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added it to the target page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that spurious addition; that loss already present as Sydney C. McLouth, which was renamed from Rochester six years earlier. Incidentally, the Sydney C. McLouth entry has been set up as a circular redirect via SS Rochester. Davidships (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, User:Davidships. The footnote you just added will (among other things) make it possible for readers to easily find that this ship was previously named “Rochester”. The ship was sold in 1906 to Sydney C. McLouth, Marine City MI, rebuilt and renamed Sydney C. McLouth. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to ((shipindex)) per Eureka Lott -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert. Agree with conversion to index. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 10:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree that a ship index would be a suitable use for this page. However, my inclination is still to ditch this one and create the set index at List of ships named Rochester (or move this one there), as that would give more comprehensive and useful coverage than just steamships. Davidships (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm good with redirecting "SS Rochester" to the more generically named list, but as it doesn't exist yet, we can just start with this, and move it to the more general location whenever someone wants to start the greater topic. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Create and target List of ships named Rochester per above, to have the broadest scope. eviolite (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to undertake this as soon as this RfD is closed. Davidships (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was previously closed as a retarget to a SIA which hasn't been created yet. I've therefore decided to re-open this discussion, since it's completely pointless to close this without having created the set index first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in Asmodea Oaktree's defense, the target SIA did exist, it just got draftified half an hour after the close; see Draft:List of ships named Rochester. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to Asmodea Oaktree, though I honestly wasn't aware that they created the draft. @Hey man im josh: could you please move this back to mainspace so we can close this discussion? Seems ready for mainspace now. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved it back. This RFD can be closed again. MB 03:59, 25 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 disambiguate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dragon flag → Crunch (exercise)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This subject is not covered in the target article. It's a separate topic, not sure whether notable though. (t · c) buidhe 09:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Dragon flag" makes me think more of flags with dragons on them like the Welsh flag. The closest article I can find which collects flags in that way is List of flags by design#Animals, but maybe a disambiguation page like Lion flag would work? I personally like the idea of a disambiguation page, but it depends on whether people are more likely to be searching for the exercise, or for a flag. – DirkJandeGeer щи 17:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the exercise is by far the primary topic on google, three flags that come up quite high in search results - Flag of Wales, Flag of Bhutan and Flag of the Qing dynasty but there are also others: Commons:Flags with animals#Dragon. If we have content about the exercise then this redirect should lead there with a hatnote to either our or Commons' lists/galleries of flags. If we don't have content about the exercise then maybe primary disambiguation is best, I'm not sure? Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't find a relevant page talking about the exercise based on a quick search, but if we disambiguate with it being the primary topic, maybe we could link to bodyweight exercise or calisthenics? They're probably the most relevant, unless there's a better page I missed in my search. – DirkJandeGeer щи 23:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not currently mentioned on either page. this is why I lean towards deletion unless reliably sourced content could be added somewhere. (t · c) buidhe 15:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buidhe: What did you think about the flags mentioned by Thryduulf? Jay 💬 08:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not think any of these flags that contain dragons are commonly known as "dragon flag", so I would not consider it relevant or suitable for adding to a disambiguation page. (t · c) buidhe 17:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate and include the flags mentioned by Thryduulf. A hatnote can also be added to point to the exercise article, though a mention there is also needed. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig seems fairly obvious. I immediately thought this was probably a redirect to the Welsh flag Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist for closing the September 9 log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of flags by design#Animal. For a disambiguation page all the articles listed must mention "dragon flag". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per above, the exercise could possibly be included as an entry in the disambiguation page. List of flags by design#Animal includes flags other than dragons and is only a sample rather than a complete list, so I don't think it's as good a target. Hut 8.5 12:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per Thryduulf with addition of List of flags by design#Animal. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect, it likely needs work. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 25 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.