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 speedy retarget to Personal standard of Adolf Hitler. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 15:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal standard for Adolf Hitler → Adolf Hitler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Personal Standard for Adolf Hitler → Adolf Hitler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/[((fullurl:(({redirect))}|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%2FLog%2F2023+February+26%23%7B%7B%7Bredirect%7D%7D%7D%5D%5D+closed+as+delete&wpMovetalk=1)) delete] ] 

This should be so uncontroversial that it's probably overly bureaucratic of me to bother listing these here, but obviously retarget to Personal standard of Adolf Hitler. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget and close discussion early. Yes, it's overly bureaucratic to list something so obvious. That said, I'm glad you did, because this drew my attention to some related redirects such as Führerstandarte which I've just updated. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive my inexperience, but although I'm familiar with the AfD equivalent, I'm not sure how exactly one withdraws a RfD early. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy retarget Drapetomanic (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Roadrunner Records. Jay 💬 07:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Joyous Wolf → Messer (band)#Self-titled debut album and Make This Life Tour (2013–2018)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm nominating Joyous Wolf for deletion, as the redirect leads to another article that has little to no notability or information regarding the subject at hand. Magnumchaos (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Tagged redirect with the RfD tag, since it wasn't tagged by the nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep as target is mentioned in article. If this cannot be kept, it should be retargeted, or an article should be created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is it's merely a mention in the article, but absolutely nothing else pertains to the band Joyous Wolf. It would make the redirect cyclical if someone connects Joyous Wolf article in Messer. It's, frankly, pointless. Magnumchaos (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - If both have articles, they can link to each other. If both do not have articles, then they should both link somewhere else. If only one has an article, the other should link to the most logical target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply - If a redirect is to remain, at the very least, it should be retargeted to Roadrunner Records, as they are signed to the label, and are on the roster in the Wiki. Magnumchaos (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply - I am ok with this being the redirect target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Jay 💬 07:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Political correctness gone mad → political correctness  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I propose deletion through non-neutrality of this old redirect.

P.S. By mistake, I first created the discussion in the wrong place and so a couple of opinions, that must be taken into account, too, are here.

Suitskvarts (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Political correctness gone mad" is a reasonably popular phrase, as a quick Google search shows, and this is the most appropriate target. WP:Redirects are cheap and don't have to be neutral, and we should avoid deleting old redirects unnecessarily per WP:RFD#KEEP point 4. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mx. Granger. There is discussion of the pejorative usage of the term in the current target. If there was an article titled Criticism of political correctness then that would be a better target, but there isn't. I think most other potential articles someone searching this could be looking for are found in the see also section]]. A7V2 (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pageviews have never gone above 27 in this redirect's history and it only has eight incoming links which can be redirected to PC itself in little to no time. We shouldn't keep a redirect just because it's a common slogan when our page history shows it's little used. Nate • (chatter) 01:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a common phrase and thus helpful redirect to have. This redirect helps ten people a month – certainly worthwhile. J947 † ^edits 02:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. There was no support for the wiktionary retarget. Jay 💬 07:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Probably soft redirect to Wiktionary, as anyone searching this is presumably trying to define the term, not get pointed directly to uterus. An anonymous username, not my real name 14:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since the wikt definition is "Located or taking place inside the uterus". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or soft redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 14:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – Wikipedia isn't a dictionary; we deal in subjects, not words. We have an article that covers the subject indicated by the term intrauterine, so that's where the term should redirect. If readers are looking for a definition of the word itself, rather than detailed information about the subject, Wiktionary is right down the hall. For comparison, Ocular is a redirect to Eye and Pulmonary is a redirect to Lung.

I wonder, though, if most readers searching for this term are looking for information about intrauterine devices. I suspect that's by far the most common context for laypeople to encounter the word intrauterine, and someone unfamiliar with the topic might assume that intrauterine is the name of the device rather than an adjective describing its use. It might be worth adding Intrauterine device to the hatnote at Uterus, which already has a link to Uterine siblings (presumably to aid readers who got there from the redirect at Uterine). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mx. Granger: I've changed the hatnote but TBH I think it's too long. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Jay 💬 17:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Deaf ethnicity → Deaf culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Technically the term "ethnicity" can refer any grouping of people with shared attributes, but given the way the word is generally used, this redirect would be better targeted to the section "Diversity within Deaf culture". An anonymous username, not my real name 21:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the source in the edit summary from when this was created ([1]), it seems that this is a potentially notable subject, but I'm not sure if it is distinct from the subject of the current target, so it should either be kept, or deleted per WP:RFD#D10. If kept, something could be added to the lede along the lines of "some authors consider the cultural differences to be so great as to make deaf people a distinct ethnicity" (with citation). I don't think it should be changed to target any particular section of the existing target unless one is made discussing this concept in particular. I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deaf. A7V2 (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A search for "Deaf ethnicity" on Google Scholar indicates that some RSs do analyze Deaf culture as constituting its own ethnicity. The Deaf culture article is the most relevant one we have, and it has information about some of the characteristics of Deaf culture that motivate the "ethnicity" analysis. I agree with User:A7V2 that there's no reason to retarget to a specific section. Maybe tag as Template:R with possibilities if we think this analysis is notable enough for its own article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Various alternate targets and keeping outright were proposed, with no proposal gaining much traction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Landing platform vessel → Jacklyn (ship)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Now that the ship has been scrapped, it is unlikely that someone searching for these words will be looking for this article. It is more likely that they will be looking for operational vessels. The use of ((R from alternative name)) was incorrect from the outset. The ship appeared in FleetMon and Vessel Tracker as "LPV", not Landing Platform Vessel. News sources gave the name as LPV and expanded the acronym as an explanation. Deleting the redirect will allow the lengthy hatnote to be removed from the article. -- Tim Starling (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I moved this to the top of the page. I hope that'll help. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 02:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps retarget to Amphibious warfare ship which is the target of Landing platform dock ship. Jay 💬 18:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The article contains the phrase "landing platform ship" which links to Floating launch vehicle operations platform. Is that link correct, and would Landing platform ship and Landing platform vessel be useful redirects to that page? Or could there be a disambiguation page? Peter James (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted a notice for this at WT:SHIPS. - wolf 21:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, now that the project has been abandoned, I see no point in the redirect. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - to my mind, it makes the most sense to retarget it to Floating launch vehicle operations platform, which is the article we have on the general concept. Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Most online uses seem to be to the abandoned Blue Origin project, currently at Jacklyn (ship) (even if it was not an actual alternative name for the ship itself). Although a link to FLaunchVOP might be useful, that can be a hatnote or a See Also in the Jacklyn article. Certainly Landing ≠ Launching, and Platform not really synonymous with Vessel. Davidships (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Jay 💬 17:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lao Please Don't Rush → Laos  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to be an informal backronym from Lao PDR, with tourism blogs saying that it's a widespread joke among locals. I didn't find evidence of this outside of self-published blogs and this is not mentioned in Wikipedia so far. A person searching for this would likely be interested in the slogan itself rather that the country, so the current target is unhelpful. Delete unless a sourced mention is added. Randi Moth (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Second choice: soft redirect to wikivoyage:Laos#Understand, where the term is discussed with some context to explain it. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm not sure the wikivoyage page gives enough information about this slogan in particular to warrant a soft redirect. A7V2 (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Jay 💬 07:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Improper point → Point at infinity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, Wikipedia search engine doesn't show any other article that mentions the phrase. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22improper+point%22 indicates there might be multiple meanings, so a redirect doesn't seem to make sense...? Joy (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, there are multiple possible meanings for this phrase, but nome is sufficiently established for being mentioned in Wikipedia. So, there is no convenient target, not the matter for a dab page. D.Lazard (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and for the reasons mentioned by D.Lazard. Different books use different local meanings for the phrase "improper point" and none is really established. In particular, it does not usually refer to point at infinity. In addition, no other article in Wikipedia links to this. So just delete it to avoid confusion. PatrickR2 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I looked at the list of contributions of the editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Martin_Koz%C3%A1k) who initially created this redirect, and apart from this lone redirect there are no other contributions of a mathematical nature there. In addition, his user page from 2011 (which you can retrieve from the history) does not indicate any specific background or interest in mathematics or related sciences. So it's probably fair to say that this redirect was unjustified. PatrickR2 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Salvio ^giuliano 08:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sam Tai Tsz → Nezha  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at the target. Veverve (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep non-standard spelling of the Cantonese pronunciation of 三太子, which is mentioned. I've added the standard romanisations in the ((Infobox Chinese)). This particular spelling is a likely search term given its appearances in print [2] and in placenames like Sam Tai Tsz Temple and Pak Tai Temple. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:59.149.117.119. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IP's comment. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IP --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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