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! 00:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Queen Bitch of the Universe → Sarah Kerrigan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Strange, not mentioned at target. May be a reference to an in-game quote. (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/m79ao4/let_me_introduce_you_kerrigan_queen_bitch_of_the/) QuietCicada - Talk 23:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the top author and GA nominator of the article in question, I'm surprised (and amused) to see this redirect existed, and since 2006 no less. But yes, it is indeed an in game quote (YouTube). Fans do consider it to be one of the most memorable lines from the game, and its usage is covered in secondary sources, including peer-reviewed academic ones (Example [1]). The character is also directly referred to by this title by reliable video game sources (Example [2]). I've mentioned the nickname in the article itself. I have no experience in knowing whether or not that would justify keeping the redirect, but there's definitely plenty of sources out there that she has been referred to by this title. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, is mentioned in the article and sourced by three references at that. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:53, 5 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 Drag. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dragging → Pointing device gesture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

If this were to point somewhere about computers, Drag and drop would be the more obvious target, but I don't see why that would be primary over dragging death, police drag, or any other sense described at wikt:drag § Verb. (I found this while looking for enwiki content on the "criticism" sense, in relation to cancel culture, which should be mentioned somewhere but currently isn't.) So retarget to DAB Drag for want of a primary topic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the dab per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Drag per nom. The verb drag has several definitions. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:15, 5 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Eye of newt → Cultural depictions of salamanders  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned on the target page after removal. This, that and the other (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've reverted the edit that removed the content, see also the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, now that the article content has been restored. No reasons for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:17, 12 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) 06:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause → Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Many quotes have been nominated to Rfd. This one is not particularly notable outside of the fans who insist every line from these movies is pure cinematic gold. The dash makes it an improbable search as well. TNstingray (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know how notable this line is, but if I were searching for it I would likely include the dash so I don't think its presence is a reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to wikiquote:Star_Wars:_Episode_III_–_Revenge_of_the_Sith#Dialogue since this quote is mentioned there (but not even partially mentioned in our own article). Duckmather (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hyphen ruins the chance of this being easily replicated, and this does not particularly serve well as a soft redirect to wikiquote either due unlikelihood of ending up here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Utopes. Someone Googling around for this will finds lots of hits for it at pop-culture sites, no matter how they punctuate it; meanwhile, WP is not a movie-quote repository and our readers generally know that, so don't have a reason to be searching for it here. There are too many lines from too many movies and TV shows and so on for us to be maintaining a "link 'em all to Wikiquote" system.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PANDORA per SMcCandlish. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely do not delete "per WP:PANDORA" because that is an actively misleading essay that has no basis in reality. Redirects are discussed on their own merits, and keeping or deleting one has no bearing on either the creation or deletion of others. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous discussions. Redirects of trivial quotes are unhelpful to readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:20, 11 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 07:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Palatin Technologies → Bremelanotide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a pharmaceutical company that has been involved in the development of several drugs with WP articles. The redirected to article doesn't say much about the company, and other articles about drugs it was involved in also contain other information about the company. Either it's notable, in which case it should be a WP:REDLINK, or else search results would be more helpful than the redirect. (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 4 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. ✗plicit 03:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reebok or nike → The Rhythm of the Night  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should instead be called "Reebok NOR nike" because neither are mentioned at the target article 💀 Jokes aside, this is allegedly a very niche misheard lyric of the main chorus. Google searching this phrase only comes up with reebok and nike related topics, none of which are the song, nor this lyric. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not in target, confusing (t · c) buidhe 04:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 09:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and buidhe. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Seems a bit obscure, although the mondegreen is mentioned in a pinned comment on the music video and links for several YouTube videos are mentioned when I Googled 'rhythm of the night misheard', and googling the song name followed by 'Reebok or Nike' does bring quite a few mentions. Xeroctic (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yoblyblob (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a very unlikely search term. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 21:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This explains it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KywKPORy7BQ Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 6 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. Euryalus (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Liz (garfield) → List of Garfield characters#Dr. Liz Wilson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Improperly capitalized, has received only four pageviews in the past 90 days. QuietCicada - Talk 03:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an entirely harmless ((R from incorrect capitalisation)). Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf: causes no harm to the encyclopedia. Cremastra (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the correct title Liz (Garfield) already exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF. The existence of that redirect does not explain why this redirect needs to be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The existence of the correctly titled redirect means this one isn't needed. I think WP:COSTLY may apply. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, redirects are evaluated on their own merits, not the existence or non-existence of similar redirects. WP:COSTLY is an essay that gets far more wrong that it does right, and you also haven't attempted to explain why you think it is relevant? Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects from incorrect capitalizations can be annoying, if you start typing "United States of Americ" into the search box you are offered the United states of america instead of United States of America. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Annoying" is not a reason to delete a redirect - especially as search suggestions are only available for a subset of ways people use to navigate Wikipedia. Phab:T24251 does exist to resolve this problem, but as it's been open since 2010 I wouldn't hold your breath on it being implemented soon. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I originally was going to vote delete on this if this was a one-off instance of this miscapitalization in a redirect, but I decided to run a quarry to check for other pages that shared similar lowercased redirects, in this search. If it were the only one I'd personally lean more on the deletion end because unlike other mis-capitalizations, Garfield is always going to be a capitalized word regardless of the situation, and the correct version also exists. That being said, I'm more neutral here because while deleting this does help consolidate the redirects we do maintain, there's several other examples that are perhaps worse offenders and more unlikely of search terms, for example using a lowercased "garfield & friends" as a disambiguator when "garfield" would have been totally sufficient, (even if it remained lowercase) On second thought, I'd consider it to be equally likely, but still redundant and excessive). But because this is not the only time a lowercase "garfield" is used as a disambiguator (there's 11 others), deleting this page only does not solve the entire problem, so no need to delete just one unless the entire set of "garfield" pages is attempted to be solved in one go. Going to that length feels like a hassle to check for damages, and then there'd have to be a check for other proper nouns that are lowercased in redirects, so I don't know whether we'll even be able to capture everything in the first place. Deleting this page is unfortunately not a full fix, I'm afraid. Weak Delete in spirit, but I don't expect it to stick. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Entirely typical typo redirect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's a reason the redirect category "Redirect from different capitalization" exists. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 19:10, 6 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 move without redirect to List of gendered animal names. For what it's worth, WP:MAD specifically includes moving (eg: to a talk subpage) as an option for what merge and delete can look like. There shouldn't be any confusion because the move log will show where it has been moved to. I also will update ((copied)) at Talk:List of animal names so there's another breadcrumb to follow. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• List of gender names → List of animal names  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The meaning of "gender name" is too ambiguous, hence why it is a red link. The history is not worth keeping, as it has been merged with List of animal names. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a ((R from merge)). Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that really how attribution via ((R from merge)) works? It just has to be kept even if it points somewhere that it otherwise shouldn't? If attribution really is necessary for what is essentially a completely non-creative list of words, then at least could the history be moved somewhere like List of gendered animal names or the target be changed to List of gender identities? –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 21:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If it has to be kept, I think List of gender identities is where I would expect the redirect to go. (t · c) buidhe 09:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 12:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not overly familiar with Wikipedia copyright policies, but - if the history were moved to another page - wouldn’t it present a problem for the history entries that link to the old page name for attribution? Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 16:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete if a page is merged then we have to keep the edit history to comply with legal restrictions, see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. We can delete the redirect but we'd have to copy the edit history to a subpage of Talk:List of animal names and reference that in the edit history of List of animal names, or move the redirect to a subpage of Talk:List of animal names and then link to it from the edit history. If we don't do one of these then deleting the redirect violates our legal obligations under the CC-BY-SA licence. Unless the redirect is actively misleading it's easiest to just keep it. No objection to retargeting it or turning it into a disambiguation page. Hut 8.5 19:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Move edit history to List of gendered animal names per above, to indicate what the content of the edit history is and to be a useful redirect name. retarget the current name to List of gender identities per CopperyMarrow15; update the attribution templates to indicate the new edit history holding page name. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I support the idea to move history to List of gendered animal names, but I would still rather delete than retarget, since as I said earlier, "'gender name' is ambiguous, hence why it is a red link." A Google search for the term reveals that it does not refer to anything in particular; subjects of results include unisex names, gendered names (the opposite of unisex names, about which Wikipedia has no article), and gender identity. I only suggested retargeting as a last resort, as I was then unfamiliar with the specifics of the attribution policy. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redlinking the current title is also fine by me -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be consensus that this cannot be deleted due to attribution; however, there is not consensus on what to do with the redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 02:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to List of gendered animal names (with the same target, but without leaving a redirect) in order to keep the history. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wouldn’t it create a problem if the history was just moved to another page name? As then all the attributive links to the old page name would then no longer serve as valid attribution. The problem I see with 65.92.247.90‘s suggestion to update the attribution templates is that we don’t know how many places (both on and off-wiki) point to the List of gender names title for the legally required attribution. (We also wouldn’t be able to change any attributive links that have been made from edit summaries, a method of attribution suggested at WP:PATT.)
  As far as I can see, while we can retarget this redirect (I think), we can’t move the history to another page or we risk breaking attribution. However, as I’m not overly experienced in this area, I may be wrong (and would welcome being told if this is the case). Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 17:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I understood it, someone can just make a dummy edit to List of animal names—which is the only thing that I know of that needs this for attribution—explaining the history move in its edit summary, and it will override any previous edit summaries. But take that with a grain of salt, because I'm inexperienced and definitely no lawyer. So far, here is my stance, which it seems like consensus supports: If List of gender names absolutely cannot be deleted for legal reasons, retarget it to List of gender identities; but otherwise, move it to List of gendered animal names, leaving no redirect. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 00:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: I have left invitations to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights and Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia, as (in my opinion) it would be helpful for this discussion to have input from editors experienced in attribution requirements/policy. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 14:45, 5 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 Relocate. Creation with of the title with quotes was unintended; moving the redirect to the quoteless title as originally intended per author's wishes (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Project Things" → Mozilla#WebThings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This title's content on the page does not have any specific affinity with being put in quotations. I presume the quotations' existence comes from the one time it was referred to as "Project Things" in a Mozilla blog post. Beyond that, the quotes simply impede this title's possible use cases, and its use of quotes in one blog post does not seem to justify the need for this title to be in quotes here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes I forgot to remove the quotes, just relocate without quotes. Greatder (talk) 05:17, 4 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. ✗plicit 03:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Possession (upcoming film) → Dr. Cheon and Lost Talisman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Upcoming film redirect which is no longer upcoming. The film was released in september, and pageviews fell off a cliff when the links were removed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 09:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a good example of when to nominate an "(upcoming film)"-style redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:UFILM and the lack of pageviews. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per UFILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:20, 11 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).