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 Computer humour and created Software humor as suggested below. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Software humour → Easter egg (media)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's tricky to pin this down to a single topic. The phrase "Software humour" or "software humor" does not appear anywhere, and "humor" only appears at the bottom of the page as a category this page is in. Computer humour and Humor on the internet I think are both more likely targets for this phrase, as opposed to JUST limiting it to easter eggs, being one form of software humour. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Easter eggs aren't always humerous either. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not synonymous ;; could be a comedy routine about software -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we have no specific content on enwiki for this to be a redirect or dab page. Jay 💬 09:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Computer humour, which as a bonus mentions the current target. Create Software humor to match. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 09:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Computer humour Generalissima (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Computer humour as plausible subtype --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 07:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Aspen Academy → Savage, Minnesota#Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Aspen academy → Savage, Minnesota#Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect is useless because there is no reference to the school in the article. Often when an elementary school or middle school is redirected, there is a list of schools in the target article. In this case, there is no list in which the school appears. The Heywood criterion is to insert a mention of at least the school and possibly other schools. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a mention then keep. There were no verifiability concerns brought up at the AfD, which resulted in a unanimous consensus to redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is a private school in Colorado with exactly the same name and two other public schools with similar names according to NCES. So the options seem to be, convert this to a DAB page that will most likely never lead anywhere (all the schools are K-8), or delete. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologise in advance if I’m missing something here, but if there are other schools with the same name, what would be the problem with a ((school disambiguation))? (As in, why would deletion be preferable?) Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 11:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In my mind, a DAB page that doesn't contain any links that lead to useful information are a waste of the reader's time. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per non. Not found in the target section. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 08:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: I’ve bundled the avoided double redirect Aspen academy into this nomination. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 12:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. Unless the Schools section is rewritten, I don't see how a mention can be added, and even a mere mention needn't be sufficient to justify the redirect since it is a name for multiple schools. Tagged the first with ((R with history)). Jay 💬 06:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for a full week to pass since the tagging of the second redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 on whether to delete outright or restore and send to AfD, and hence we default to the latter action. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aseguradores de la calidad → Quality assurance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:FORRED. However, this redirect is a ((R with history)) with some content in English, and I'm not sure what should happen to that respective edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move page to a title in English to preserve its history, and either keep as a redirect or restore and send to AfD. The Spanish version should definitely be deleted, though, as per nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's nothing in the page history worth keeping. It's completely unreferenced and looks like it was ran through a machine translator. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix. It appears to be a translation attempt of a textbook-languaged version. Jay 💬 08:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AfD per Cyclone Yoris as a contested BLAR. The article content is not speedily deletable (the article contains more information than the existing Software quality assurance article) and so must be discussed at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore then send to AfD per WP:BLAR --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. I see the discussion tending towards keep, and there are some concerns – albeit resolvable – along the lines of WP:Merge and delete. However, this discussion has been relisted thrice without clear consensus, so I'm closing it as such with no prejudice against renomination. ^Complex/_Rational 02:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Paupers deck challenge → Magic: The Gathering  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The appropriate content currently lives at Magic: The Gathering formats#Pauper. Maybe retarget there? (Maybe not. There's significant distinctions between the non-redirect content in the history here and the second paragraph there - to wit, neither is about the pauper format per se, but its implementations on Magic: The Gathering Online - the one player-organized, and the other officially-run and implemented in software.) —Cryptic 06:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged with ((R from merge)). This was a stub which was merged to the current target in 2004. Jay 💬 08:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Don’t delete as an ((R from merge)), per K1 (and, given the page has existed since 2004, possibly also per K4). This redirect was merged into Pauper magic, which was in turn merged into Magic: The Gathering. At some point, Pauper magic was retargeted to Magic: The Gathering formats#Pauper (although I’ve not yet looked in that page’s history to check for merges).
  I’m not overly familiar with the subject, so I wouldn’t feel comfortable opining on the best target; however, I’ll leave invitations to this discussion at Talk:Magic: The Gathering Online and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 15:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This merge argument is ridiculous. There was one substantive edit to the old article, by 192.85.47.1. There, I've provided all needed attribution. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Diff/6695564 should have linked to Pauper magic for full attribution. That would include attribution to Special:Contribs/192.85.47.1, who created this redirect, making this redirect no longer needed for attribution. (There's no right to be attributed under a specific page, just to have your name/pseudonym attributed, or a link to a place where your name/pseudonym is included, such as Special:PageHistory/Pauper magic.) So the copyright angle here can be satisfied by anyone editing the target article to say "content was merged from Pauper magic in Special:Diff/6695564". As to the merits... The term isn't mentioned, but the general concept of the Pauper format is, and the section cites [1], which mentions Pauper's Deck Challenge by name. There's no risk of confusion with anything else called Pauper's Deck Challenge, so weak keep and consider mentioning the term in-article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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! 07:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yellow-Top Cab → Taxis of Singapore  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While it is mentioned at the target, this phrase is used to describe taxis around the world. N.b. this is not a proper noun in RS (see the cited sources [2] [3]), although there are many non-notable companies that use this name in the US, Singapore, and likely elsewhere. Allowing for search results seems more appropriate here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is complicated: at various points in Singapore it has been a proper noun referring variously to a brand of car, a company brand of taxi and a collective term for independent cabs, see [4]. However, while there are plenty of yellow cabs around the world, as far as I can tell the term "Yellow-Top Cab" is largely exclusive to Singapore and the redirect is the right choice until this is spun out into its own article. Jpatokal (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since I'm currently in Singapore myself I used a VPN to Google at Australia, Poland & Spain and look at the top results. Apart from one from Malawi and a few from other places (can't recall all), the top 10 were mostly occupied by Singapore, with links from Singaporean sites, Commons and Wikipedia itself (one of the most repeated result is this from The Straits Times). I'd somehow be more inclined to vote for a disambiguation if it's yellow-top taxis and not cabs. S5A-0043^Talk 10:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If we go by the search results rationale, either hyphenated or non-hyphenated, there is only one article, Murder of Lee Kim Lai which is again Singapore-related. Jay 💬 09:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Without prejudice against recreating as an article, or as a redirect to somewhere where the term is mentioned. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Commenting For Better Reach → Social media reach  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Commenting for better reach → Social media reach  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Although CFBR is a real strategy, it is absent from the social media reach page. Silcox (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP as a plausible search term, or create article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added Commenting for better reach to the nomination, which was created by the same editor as Commenting For Better Reach. Steel1943 (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. That, and WP:CHEAP does not apply in this case since it's not inherently clear why the terms targets where it does. This phrase has some WP:REDLINK potential as a stand-alone topic, or even as a topic identified in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Then we should add cfbr to Social media reach. This redirect needs to be relisted, as "Commenting for better reach" was not added until today. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I am also open to creating a page titled "Commenting for better reach". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since a second redirect was added just yesterday, and further input is still needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. May be recreated as an article if notable, or as a redirect if mention is added elsewhere. Jay 💬 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 at Half measure * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Half measures → Half Measures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a case where following WP:DIFFCAPS means that the sentence-case version should simply be a redlink. There is no encyclopedic primary topic for the general concept of "half measures", and over time a redirect like this risks racking up erroneous bluelinks. While I wouldn't hugely oppose a soft-retarget to wikt:half-measure, I think readers are better served simply by the search results, mirroring redlinks half measure, half-measure, and half-measures. The Breaking Bad episode will still be the top result in those search results. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 09:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting one. The wikt link isn't entirely satisfactory: I'm sure there are literal uses in music and pertaining to alcoholic drinks. I've tried to draft disambiguation entires here, which should probably be at Half measure, to which all other redirects can point. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC):[reply]

Look up half-measure in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• • Half measure, a half bar in music
  • Half, one of several alcohol measurements
  • "Half Measures", an episode of TV series Breaking Bad

See also:

• • No Half Measures (disambiguation)
• Disambig at Half measure and retarget this there per Shhhnotsoloud. Thryduulf (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 merge history into Application program interface and then delete this temporary redirect. ^Complex/_Rational 02:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• API (redirects and miscellaneous) → API  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect has ... a troubled past and an problematic present. The past is ... apparently, this redirect holds history containing article versions for multiple unrelated subjects, as if users were using this page (when it was at API, apparently) as a sandbox or an WP:AFC process of some sort. However, as a redirect towards its current target, the disambiguator is unhelpful and unclear. In other words, it's unclear if the history should be retained, split, or whatever ... but either way, except for the non-article content at this title, the edit history is all over the place. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move the edit history of the redirect to A.P.I. as keep the current destination, as this was created in 2001 as a redirect; making the current title a redlink -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge the 7 January 2010 edits by Armychild (talk · contribs) and Rasputin72 (talk · contribs) to Igor Babailov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an earlier version of the article created later that day. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge this 24 October 2009 edit [5] to Wadih Saadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an earlier effort to create the article currently at Wadih Sa'adeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• We don't need to be dredging through the history a decade later for odd bits and pieces to reattach to other articles. There's a numerically large number of edits here but none of them have any actual value. Just delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As a title, this was created during a 2020 page move by Anthony Appleyard, with the rationale get away from incoming. That makes it sound like a temporary page title in a round-robin page move scenario which never got completed. As such, let's complete the round robin by history merging the pre-move content to Application programming interface and then deleting the redirect (and do the same for the talk). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tavix after preforming the history merge. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Feel free to recreate when there is specific content on this census. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2000 South Korean Census → Census#South Korea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target section does not exist. In addition, I've looked around Wikipedia, and I'm not seeing any existent articles of mentions about censuses that take place in South Korea. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The appropriate target for this would be Population_and_housing_censuses_by_country#South_Korea, at least until there's a more specific page, following a page split in 2012. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there is no 2000 census on both pages (Census#South Korea and Population and housing censuses by country#South Korea). SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As this is re-listed, after having thought about it, I'm going to say Retarget to Population and housing censuses by country#South Korea, for a few reasons. Firstly, the nomination was misinformed, and doesn't present a strong case for deletion. As I previously mentioned, all the modern censuses were moved from the Census page to the aforementioned 'list by country' page, where South Korea is specifically mentioned, shortly after this redirect was created in 2012. That list page is used to collate data before moving to 'Censuses in country' pages, or even more specific pages by year. It's an incredibly slow and lengthy process. In other words, one day this page will exist in some form. It's also a plausible search term, using the same format as other 'census in x' pages, such as 2000 United States Census. These census redirects for many countries are plentiful and cheap. There are incoming links which reflect that this census is explicitly referenced. In an ideal world this link will lead readers to more information about not just this census, but censuses in South Korea as a whole. Actually I think that role is being fulfilled here, as readers will find out that 2000 was not the latest census, and there may be a more up to date source. But lacking a small bit of info for the specific year, for a plausible search term, is not a misuse of a redirect. It's just a work in progress. And it will probably be less work to just mention it on the target page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and SouthPark. May be recreated when we have actual content. Jay 💬 07:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 Toyota Camry#Timeline. Jay 💬 07:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2011 Camry → Toyota Camry (XV40)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There exists two series of "2011 Camry"; the XV40, produced from January to August, and the XV50, produced since August.

Both Camry models have a 60-40 split (in XV40's favour) as regards page views, so I doubt that the (2011) XV40 Camry should be deemed the primary topic for the words "2011 Camry" alone. Thanks. Silcox (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with all due respect, I'm afraid the good-faith nominator may not be fully aware of how the automotive industry works with regards to model years for car sales. There is only one series of the 2011 Camry, which is the XV40. Cars representing the upcoming model year are released for public sale around August-September of the prior calendar year. So, the units produced and sold near the end of 2011 are the 2012 model year (referred to as the 2012 Camry), which is the first year of the XV50 generation. The 2011 Camry is the final model year of the XV40 generation and what readers are intending to look for, as years (when attached to car model names such as 'Camry') basically always refer to model years, not production dates. Left guide (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an American convention that differs greatly from the convention used in most other markets, resulting in an ambiguous situation. See my comment below.  Stepho  talk  07:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, after reading Stepho-wrs's explanation below. Left guide (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In North America the 2011 model year must include 1 Jan 2011, so therefore a North American 2011 Camry was built from mid-2010 to mid-2011. But in most of the rest of the world the 2011 Camry was introduced in mid-2011 and therefore the Japanese/Australian/British/German/French/etc 2011 Camry was built from mid-2011 to mid-2012, which is a full 12 months after a North American so called 2011 Camry. This is blatantly against the long standing guide at WP:MODELYEAR and causes confusion for American vs non-American editors and readers.  Stepho  talk  07:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Left guide has also constructed similar redirects to the 2007-2010 US style model years to cover production for January 2006 to August 2011. Those redirects should follow the same outcome as the 2011 redirect.  Stepho  talk  07:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Stepho-wrs: I appreciate the clarification and guideline about the 2011 redirect, but what ambiguity is there for the 2007-2010 year searches? If readers will land at the intended generation page anyways, then those redirects should be kept, yes? Or am I missing something? Left guide (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Appreciate the civil response - so rare to see on WP.

  The problem is that if there are 2007-2010 redirects then you can bet your bottom dollar that somebody will recreate the "missing" 2011 redirect. We need to think in terms of systems rather than in terms of an individual redirect. And we really need to ween Americans off the idea that the whole world does things the same as them.  Stepho  talk  08:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Toyota Camry#Timeline. If a highly plausible search term is ambiguous then we should retarget to a page that disambiguates it, and the timeline does exactly that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sooner or later somebody will say "why not just redirect it to Toyota Camry (XV40). And then we will be back in exactly the same situation as now. Model years are fine for cars sold only in North America but are utterly incompatible with cars sold internationally due to ambiguity with almost every non-American market.  Stepho  talk  21:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Retargeting to the timeline is actually not a bad idea, and if edit wars or other disputes ensue, then the redirect can be protected as necessary. Left guide (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone asks that question the answer is that retargetting would be ambiguous and/or they can be pointed at this discussion. If someone retargets it without discussion then that can be reverted per this discussion and WP:BRD. We don't make the encyclopaedia harder for readers to navigate in order to make editors' lives possibly quieter. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Toyota Camry#Timeline this time around. Left guide (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Googe.com → Typosquatting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, no indication it's a frequent misnomer of Google. Creator has a history of redirect issues. Star Mississippi 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More frequently searched for than tyopsquatting. It is true that user:JayCubby (It says in the upper corner of my screen that I am user:JayCubby but one shouldn't believe everything one reads on Wikipedia, if Wikipedia is to be considered an authority on that matter, anyways) has an issue with creating redirects, if his revision history is to be believed.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=googe,typosquatting&hl=en-US  🇺🇸🇮🇱JayCubby probby haz NPOV on the Isr.-Pal. Conflict🇮🇱🇺🇸  talk 01:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks like a fairly plausible search term. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's a misspelling of the typosquatting website Goggle.com, but some people searching the term might also be looking for the regular Google search engine. Since we don't have DAB pages for misspellings, I would suggest deletion. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It does appear to be an example of typosquatting itself (do a search for "googe.com"), but it is also a very plausible misspelling of Google itself. Delete per SouthParkFan to avoid confusion. Cremastra (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cremastra. Jay 💬 08:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Incorrect and ambiguous. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).