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 00:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:SUS → Template:User Among Us  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pointless crossname redirect to a user template. The terminology of sus wouldn't point to a userbox template and sus (meme) already exists. – The Grid (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization of all letters suggest an acronym formed of the letters S, U, and S, which sus (meme) the template name is referring to is not. There is already a Template: Sus (“correct” capitalization) pointing to Template: User Among Us. ((SUS)) (as a redirect) is therefore superseded by ((Sus)).

Considering template name space and the capitalized name: Back in February I did already change this template to be a shorthand for ((man)) using Single UNIX Specification, but this change was reverted. I would like to restore revision 3FBF109A, but I admit it’s a bit of unnecessary, so deletion could be an adequate resolution as well. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 15:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a revert back to the original creation because I was unsure about the usage as Single UNIX Specification - I thought a better template name would be wanted in that instance. This RfD at least provides discussion on the redirect. For the record, I am not against reverting back to revision 3FBF109A. – The Grid (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete opaque name to a template that is not high usage needing a shortcut -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear if this should be deleted or restored…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unused and misleading. eviolite (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 10:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unhelpfully misleading. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:21, 10 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 soft redirect to Wikt:minor-attracted person. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor Attracted Person → Chronophilia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person was concluded with consensus to delete, rejecting a proposed redirect to chronophilia. Given that the only difference between the article that was deleted rather than redirected and this article is a hyphen and a capital A (neither of which are germane), this redirect should likewise be deleted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See further comment below. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft-redirect to wikt:minor-attracted person. The sources presented in the AfD make it clear that this is a term that is likely to be searched for, and the definition there does a good job of neutrally explaining the connotations of the word. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wiktionary per Thryduulf. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as nom. I oppose a soft redirect to Wiktionary per WP:SSRT, which states that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. Simply put, the redirect is not commonly wikified (it has zero incoming links from mainspace) and this page has not been repeatedly recreated (its logs show it has never previously been deleted). As such, a soft redirect is inappropriate at this time. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SSRT is not an exhaustive list of the only times soft redirects are appropriate, merely examples of some of the occasions they are (you are not the first to make this mistake). When there is a plausible search term (which this clearly is), no (likelihood of) encyclopaedic content (AfD decided there isn't scope for an article here) and relevant content at a sister project (in this case Wiktionary) a soft redirect is significantly more helpful to readers than search results which may be several clicks/taps away (it depends how they navigated, what device they are using and whether they have the ability to create pages) and may or may not contain a link to the content. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SSRT only topics that meet its criteria should become soft redirects. Only does not mean "sometimes", it means "only". The guideline very much reads as an exhaustive list of the only times soft redirects are appropriate. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been a while since I read it, but it doesn't match what actual practice is (and has been for as long as I can remember). Style guidelines (which cannot dictate content), like policy, should be describe practice rather than dictate it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wiktionary per Thryduulf. – The Grid (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wiktionary per Thryduulf. MikutoH (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MOS:EUPHEMISM, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and WP:SSRT. If we do retarget this term, I would recommend targeting it to child sexual abuse, as chronophilia is too broad and pedophilia is too narrow. Admittedly, “child sexual abuse” does not apply if the adult does not succumb to temptation, but it does explain what would otherwise happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  MOS:EUPHEMISM is irrelevant (as it's about words we use in articles, not search terms), WP:NOT#Dictionary is also about article content and soft redirects are explicitly intended for situations where people are looking up dictionary content in an encyclopaedia. WP:SSRT is discussed above. Retargetting to Child sexual abuse, which does not discus the term, would be inaccurate and non-neutral so I strongly oppose that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reply, User:Thryduulf, okay I’ll just stick very closely now to the deletion reasons described at WP:Redirect. “The redirect is offensive or abusive” because it’s a euphemism for pedophilia, a point which is also elaborated upon by footnotes at Wiktionary. I am not objecting to the Wiktionary entry right now, but giving it a higher profile is unnecessary. Another reason for deletion is “It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space” which applies here. Another reason for deletion is, “If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target….” and of course the proposed target itself is novel and obscure (Wiktionary does not exclude novel and obscure terms). This is a non-neutral redirect, and “non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term” whereas the Wiktionary entry does not contain a neutral title. If this redirect is not deleted, then this requirement applies: “Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with ((R from non-neutral name))”. As for our article “child sexual abuse”, if it did mention the euphemism “minor attracted person” then I wouldn’t see a huge problem with a redirect there, because the only people who engage in the former activity are the latter, and the desire of the latter is invariably for the former. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As for our article “child sexual abuse”, if it did mention the euphemism “minor attracted person” then I wouldn’t see a huge problem with a redirect there, because the only people who engage in the former activity are the latter, and the desire of the latter is invariably for the former. Is an opinion that is completely at odds with all the research I am aware of into paedophilia and child sexual abuse - not all people who are sexually attracted to minors abuse children and not all people who (sexually) abuse children are paedophiles. The term is euphemistic, but it not a euphemism for "child sexual abuse" (or even "person who sexually abuses children") it is euphemistic for "person who is a paedophile, nepiophile, hebephile and/or ephebephile" (and I believe arose in part because there is no single commonly accepted term that encompasses all of those aspects). The redirect is offensive or abusive - see Wikt:Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/July#is minor-attracted person offensive? where the clear consensus was that that the term is not offensive (even though what it represents is offensive to many, that is not relevant). Soft redirects are not cross-namespace, so that is irrelevant (see WP:XNR for the reasons why cross-namespace redirects can be problematic, none of them apply here). Wiktionary entries do not have to abide by Wikipedia's article titling policy, so I'm not sure why you think that is in any way relevant? Wiktionary's Criteria for inclusion do exclude novel and obscure terms (just not using those words), but if the term was novel and obscure then nobody would be suggesting keeping this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reply, I'm always happy to learn stuff and change my mind accordingly. However, I am not convinced, and will explain why in a little while. But first, I want to strongly DENY having views you attribute to me, re. child sexual abuse, namely that all people who are sexually attracted to minors abuse children ("all people who are sexually attracted to minors abuse children"). I never remotely suggested that. What I said is that the people who sexually abuse children are "minor atttracted", i.e. they are attracted to children for the purpose of abusing them; that certainly does not mean that all "minor attracted" people do so, many of them are capable of more self-control and exercise more self-control, but nevertheless the defining characteristic of a "minor attracted" person is a desire to engage in child sexual abuse. As to the word "pedophile" there is a narrow psychiatric sense of the word that applies only to prepubescent children, and there is a broader sense of the word that applies to minors more generally, so you're correct to say in the psychiatric sense that "not all people who (sexually) abuse children are paedophiles" if they instead abuse older minors, but I was using the layman's definition. Moreover, I did not remotely suggest that "minor attracted person" is "a euphemism for 'child sexual abuse'", instead I said it is a euphemism for pedophilia, which can include desires and fantasies without any action at all, so I DENY that too. As I said, I'll reply further, but please keep in mind that it's very easy to fall into the trap of creating strawmen, and I will do my best not to fall into that trap. I did not know that a link to Wiktionary is not "cross namespace", thanks for the info. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  nevertheless the defining characteristic of a "minor attracted" person is a desire to engage in child sexual abuse. once again this is not true. It is the desire of some of them, but from first-hand testimony there are some who do not wish to engage in any physical behaviour that could be considered abuse at all, and some whose desires are less easy to categorise as black or white. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it is apparently true. Wiktionary defines “minor attracted person” as “A pedophile; including nepiophiles, hebephiles and ephebophiles.” The pertinent (and leading) definition that Wiktionary gives for “pedophile” is “An adult who is sexually attracted to or engages in sexual acts with a child.” That is also indistinguishable from a desire for child sexual abuse per Wikipedia: “an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation.” So I think you are watering down or sugarcoating the meaning of “minor attracted person”. Even supposing (unbeknownst to me) that there is some judge or some psychiatrist somewhere who has said the term “minor attracted person” includes a small minority of them who are attracted in nonsexual ways, that would contradict the Wiktionary definitions that I’ve just quoted. Wiktionary also says about that term, “Coined as a form of abstraction, with the intention of avoiding the stigma attached to pre-existing terms….” Can we agree that’s true? If so, I find it highly offensive to try to destigmatize a term so closely connected to child sexual abuse, and that seems to be your intention as well, unless I’m misunderstanding you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your mistake is treating "sexual attraction to a child" as being identical to "desire to sexually abuse a child". "Using a child for sexual stimulation" is not the same as "sexual attraction to a child" in the same way that "sexual attraction to women" is not the same as "using women for sexual stimulation". I have no idea whether any judge or psychologist has ruled on what "minor attracted person" means, but some paedophiles do state they are attracted in romantic rather than sexual ways (I would guess that's more likely towards the upper end of the age spectrum, but I have no data to back that up). Whether that is a large or small proportion is unknown as there are no studies (that I am aware of) that have quantified how many people are attracted to children (romantically, sexually or otherwise), only those that have been assessed as paedophiles (etc) by medical and/or legal professionals plus a very small number who admit to those feelings - this could be very nearly all of them, it could be almost none of them, I can't think of any way we can know without mind reading.

  My goal is not to "weaken" or "destigmatise" anything - if it were I'd be arguing about adjusting the definition at Wiktionary, as without reading the context there it would be easy to assume it has far fewer connotations than it does. My goal is to uphold the neutral point of view (we tell people the facts, the consensus view of them and what the relevant and DUE alternative views are, we don't beat people over the head with the mainstream view and pretend that other opinions don't exist) and avoid deleting something out of (an apparent) desire to right a great wrong (which sexual abuse, of children or otherwise, absolutely is).

  All that matters here is two questions - 1. is this a useful search term? and 2. If so, what is the best target? Almost all of your comments are completely irrelevant to both. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I spent a lot of time and space denying your mischaracterizations of what I had said. I also spent time arguing that “The redirect is offensive or abusive” because it’s whole purpose is to destigmatize pedophilia; I’m sorry you think that is irrelevant, but this quote is straight from WP:Redirect. As for other reasons for opposing the redirect, I’ll have another comment about that a little later. Incidentally, you say that “some paedophiles do state they are attracted in romantic rather than sexual ways” but if so then they are not pedophiles per the pertinent Wiktionary definition (“An adult who is sexually attracted to or engages in sexual acts with a child”); that is clearly the pertinent definition used by Wiktionary to define “minor attracted person”. (I won’t be surprised to see Wiktionary modified in this regard by people intent upon making this term more sympathetic and widespread.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll only add that it would be wise to follow WP:SSRT in this instance regardless of whether we always have to do so. I agree with User:Red-tailed hawk about that. Not every word or term at Wiktionary has a Wikipedia article or redirect, nor should it. As SSRT says, “We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia.” Maybe we should have a Wikipedia article about adults who are attracted to minors but don’t try to have sex with them, and maybe someone should invent a term for such people, but this euphemistic redirect is an offensive attempt to destigmatize much more than that. That’s all I want to say about it, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not specifically opposed to a soft redirect, but it would be odd to soft redirect this lingering ((R from miscapitalization))/((R from other punctuation)) redirect when the properly titled page remains deleted due to the AfD close. The close explicitly left the door open for redirects following further discussion, but not sure how this Rfd fits into that. I wonder if a discussion in another venue (talk page of one of the articles or at the appropriate WikiProject) about how to handle this term would be better, with deletion of this specific redirect until such a discussion reaches a consensus for having redirects. On the other hand, I suppose if there is consensus for a soft (or other) redirect here, an analogous redirect could be created at Minor-attracted person? Mdewman6 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot think of any reason why anyone would want to treat all the reasonable capitalisation and hyphenation variants identically to this one, regardless of what the consensus is. Minor-attracted person would almost certainly be the consensus title if we were to have an article on the topic, with Minor attracted person a uncontentious redirect to it. Disagreement about a specific redirect would be about whether it was a grammatically reasonable variant rather than anything to do with the substance, e.g. Minor attracted Person would almost certainly be deleted, but Minor-attracted Person could go either way (I wouldn't create it, but wouldn't argue for deletion if someone else did). Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, on the back of Mdewman6's comment. Attested alternatives are given their own Wiktionary entries so soft redirects to Wiktionary should be 1:1. Therefore, Minor Attracted Person should only be a Wiktionary redirect to wikt:Minor Attracted Person, which does not exist. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wiktionary - From the like-for-like variant following a deletion if required. In the long run, I don't see how having no article is sustainable, given the 200+ (?) G Scholar citations for "minor attracted" and "minor attraction" and multiple controversies and references on mainstream media platforms such as FOX News. --86Sedan 22:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wiktionary per Thryduulf. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Going strictly by the AfD close this should not have been created without prior discussion. However this differently-cased redirect was created in January, and has come up for discussion only now. I don't see why this RfD need not be that discussion (in response to Mdewman's comment). I have listed this at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender and pinging the AfD participants Acidsetback, Asilvering, Austronesier, BakuFromAus, Bob drobbs, Crossroads, Dronebogus, Eastmain, HumanBodyPiloter5, Imaginatorium, Legitimus, Necrothesp, Philosophy2, Pokelova, Pyxis Solitary, Qwaiiplayer, Sideswipe9th, and Wreckoning90125. Jay 💬 12:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wiktionary on the basis that it has no exact synonym with an article, is too obscure for a disambig, and is not notable enough for its own article. Dronebogus (talk) 12:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Con artist → Confidence trick  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Con man → Confidence trick  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A charlatan is a person who practices confidence tricks, so these redirects should target that page, not the article discussing the tricks themselves. Carguychris (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep From charlatan: A distinction is drawn between the charlatan and other kinds of confidence tricksters. The charlatan is usually a salesperson of a certain service or product, who has no personal relationship with his "marks" (customers or clients), and avoids elaborate hoaxes or roleplaying con-games. Paradoctor (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per Paradoctor. These titles' longstanding target (since when they were created in 2003 and the next year respectively) covers con artists in general as opposed to specific types like charlatans. It wouldn't make sense to potentially WP:ASTONISH readers to a degree, especially redirecting them to a page with sentences like the two cited above. Regards, SONIC678 23:00, 9 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 Cabinet of Morocco. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• President of Morocco → Prime Minister of Morocco  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete, Morocco doesn't have a president. Privybst (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I added R from incorrect name. They'll be directed to the proper page if they search the incorrect term, which I think makes the redirect valid. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hey man im josh at first I thought so too, but there are very strong arguments (especially from @Scyrme) that such redirects should exist, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Prime Minister of the United States. Privybst (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They actually don't look like they take a side in that discussion. I align with TartarTorte and I think there are strong arguments on the linked discussion to keep the redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Cabinet of Morocco which explains that the country is a monarchy and people can follow the links to the king or prime minister depending which aspect of a president's role they are interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cabinet of Morocco per Thryduulf. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cabinet of Morocco: As there is no article on Government of Morocco, as it is just a redirect to Cabinet of Morocco, which I don't find to be a great target, I don't really think there's anywhere else to target. The role of a president varies from head of state and head of government to just head of state. In this situation, the prime minister is head of government, but the King of Morocco has more than nominal power and serves as head as state. I think with this essentially being an WP:XY between King of Morocco and Prime Minister of Morocco, so at least the Cabinet article mentions both. I would like to have the new redirect tagged this with ((R avoided double redirect|Government of Morocco)). TartarTorte 13:44, 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! 12:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Maulana Azad College, Ranchi → Ranchi University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

DELETION proposed. Meaningless redirect. May be affiliated to given university but can't pose as university itself. Drsharan (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A college affiliated to this university. This is the standard procedure for non-notable colleges and it causes no harm. How does redirecting make the college "pose as the university"? Also, the redirect includes history per so deleting it is harmful. --Muhandes (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no default assumption that a redirect is a synonym of the target. To clarify, I have tagged the redirect as ((r from related)). Paradoctor (talk) 19:57, 9 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 💬 09:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Histroy of UCL → History of University College London  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

implausible search term -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the user who moved "Histroy of UCL" to "History of UCL" for typographical error that made by User:Biomedicinal in 2015. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:35, 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Flora of New South Wales → Category:Flora of New South Wales  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is there a better target for this redirect than a Category? There are no other redirects to Category space of the form "Flora of...". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not revert it to this old revision? Someone declared it "unworkable" over ten years ago, and unilaterally redirected to the category. But that article doesn't look so bad to me. Given that NSW is not a biogeographic region, this seems to me more suited to a listy article (with plenty of potential for prose text to be added) than a category. Hesperian 08:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That old revision is just a massive wall of links with no headings; it's basically no different to the category, except it's worse because the category has headings and subcategories. – Scyrme (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, write an article or listify. This should not be a redlink, and the category is not a bad target but an article and/or list would be better. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would prefer an article or section be written on this subject, but until one is the current target seems the best. Another target to consider is Flora of Australia, although it doesn't talk much about New South Wales specifically * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to New South Wales#Geography and ecology, which resolves the cross-namespace issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There really is nothing wrong with redirecting to categories. no other redirects to Category space of the form "Flora of..." is an odd objection. I am not involved with this redirect but I did create #Insect pest of grape and I don't understand the problem. Why is this unacceptable? ((R to category)) exists because this is so commonly the best choice. Invasive Spices (talk) 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Invasive Spices et al. Harmless example of a ((R to category)). CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:59, 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 move TND (disambiguation) to TND. Jay 💬 14:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• TND → TND (TV station)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Moved non-primary topic away, now this needs a new purpose. I propose redirecting to law of the excluded middle.

Going by pageviews, the primary topic would be Tomorrow Never Dies. But I submit that long-term significance clearly outweighs pageviews here. For one, pageviews of initialisms are never the same as for the topic itself, so the stats we have on the articles are not a reliable indicator for the initialism.

More to the point, the law of the excluded middle is one of the laws of thought. It doesn't get much more significant than that. As for "long-term", no contest either. LEM has been discussed since antiquity, far longer than all the other topics taken together. Paradoctor (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? I'm lost on whether "TND" is actually commonly used to represent some of these topics, such as the proposed Tomorrow Never Dies and Law of excluded middle (from tertium non datur) or The Needle Drop (included in the above link); it seems that they are not unheard of but are more than uncommon in RSes. If the abbreviation isn't used in the article it certainly shouldn't be a primary redirect. Move TND (disambiguation) here instead. eviolite (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read a bit on the foundations of logic, so I can vouch for that use. But this not a hill I'll die on, seeing as I dislike redirects to primary topics. Moving dab to TND would be fine. Paradoctor (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move content at TND (disambiguation) to TND because there’s no primary topic. Not even the Turkish Neurological Society (TÜRK NÖROLOJ DERNEGi). Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move content at TND (disambiguation) to TND I am not convinced there is a primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move content at TND (disambiguation) to TND In fact, if I search "TND", the first search result is The National Desk. No clear PRIMARYTOPIC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:36, 14 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.