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 💬 16:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sardinops agax sagax → Peruvian Pacific sardine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect makes no sense, and this misspelling is not so common. Jj1691 (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delets as unlikas synonax and misspellax. MusiBedrock (talk) 07:45, 9 January 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. Regarding the former article SmartMusic, it is not noted in the deletion log but it was also likely a copyright violation. If an article can be written about the software, it should be written from scratch. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned in target. Seaching indicates there is a software program called Smartmusic that is a music practice tool, but that is different than Scorewriter. There is a mention of software by this name in Jim Walker (flautist), so it could be targeted there, but that does not appear the be more well known product. MB 01:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - creating accompaniment files for SmartMusic is mentioned in the Finale documentation here. It appears in the deletion logs, here. Looks like it was last deleted in 2012 due to being too much like an advertisement. I suggest that notability could be re-assessed (based on some idea of market share, discussion in appropriate music and education forums, appearance in publications, press, etc.), and another attempt could be made at creating an objective NPOV stub article at SmartMusic (and redirect Smartmusic to that). — Jon (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If someone is up for cleaning it, we can request Fastily to draftify SmartMusic deleted in 2012. Jay 💬 03:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Clyde!_Franklin! 04:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to Jim Walker (flautist). Though, the mention there is very short so I am not too sure if should be done. If the SmartMusic draft gets accepted, it can be retargeted there. Carpimaps (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Getting the draft accepted is a long-term solution. For now, I guess delete. Retargeting to Jim Walker is not more helpful than what a search result would do. Jay 💬 06:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:15, 5 January 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 💬 12:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Westlake Middle School → Thornwood, New York#Education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are multiple schools with this name, including in California (List of Oakland, California middle schools), in Illinois (Glenbard Township High School District 87), in Pennsylvania (Millcreek Township School District), and in Colorado (Adams 12 Five Star Schools). None of them seem to be notable, and I see no reason to favor the New York school over the others. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate - with a new dab page called "Westlake Middle School" that offers blue links to each school or its district. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I voted to "disambiguate" above, but if that prevents a consensus I can support deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see a good reason to disambiguate between list entries, we should let search do its job here. Note that there is an article in the history, but I don't think it is necessary to restore as it is unreferenced, but happy to support that if others feel it is necessary. A7V2 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 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 Web performance#Metrics. Refined current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Largest Contentful Paint → Web performance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• First Contentful Paint → Web performance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• First Paint → Web performance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. Searching indicates this is "a Google user experience metric that became a ranking factor in 2021." The time to render the largest image of a webpage or something like that. It is related to Web performance, but apparently Google specific. Delete unless content is added somewhere. (same for the second two) MB 06:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, these are fairly well adopted across the industry. Ways of measuring these metrics are included inside React, NextJS (there are modules available for integration with Vue/Nuxt.js etc) and even Wikimedia tracks/tries to track these values. While yes these metrics are heavily pushed by Google (and Google Chrome), my understanding is that they are somewhat used in the industry and there would be a benefit in having these redirect to Web Performance. Sohom Datta (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: These should in theory be mentioned at Web performance as indicated above they are pretty notable metrics for checking webpages and are relatively important when it comes to SEO and UX, but they seem to not be mentioned anywhere really. I feel odd voting to delete, but they are totally unmentioned. If mention is added to article, then keep. TartarTorte 21:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll add it in the next few days. My idea would be to add a new heading of metrics and then talk about these metrics that are used in the industry. Sohom Datta (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sohom data: just wanted to let you know that nominations at RFD are listed for a minimum of 7 days, after which a closer is allowed to make a decision on the redirects. Jay 💬 06:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay Thanks for this, I was unaware of this time limit. I have also updated the article with the content, @MB, @TartarTorte let me know if whatever I have written at Web performance fulfills the specification for a redirect. Sohom Datta (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine all to Web performance#Metrics, the new section added by Sohom. Jay 💬 03:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine per Jay, is mentioned now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:30, 24 January 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. ✗plicit 14:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Universidad del Sur de Oregón → Southern Oregon University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not English and the target university doesn't seem particularly associated with Spanish. Rusalkii (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Language and Culture, is offered as a BA.[1]https://sou.edu/academics/world-languages/programs/spanish-language-ba/ Rusty5231B (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of universities offer Spanish as a major, so that alone doesn't mean that any of them have a particular affinity towards the Spanish language. Delete. Duckmather (talk) 21:13, 8 January 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. and restore Jay 💬 08:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2023 in tennis → Template:Years in tennis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cross namespace redirect. Suggest deleting for now, I assume something similar to 2022 in tennis will be created soon. Rusalkii (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to make space for an article I can only assume this was some person's rant about how 2023 is not displayed in the template of redirection. Regardless, just mention it in the talk page of the redirect. No need to be pointy. Someone-123-321 (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone-123-321, I had previously created this article to have it available for expanding/properly sourcing when the 2023 tennis season unfolded. It was speedily deleted upon initial creation, thereafter I recreated it, unable to find any sources back then, I redirected it to its corresponding template, given there wasn't, and still isn't, a namesake page (Years in page), which to redirect to.

The creation of the aforementioned article wasn't a product of no rant, but moreso of a need to have all 2023–related tennis pages/templates/navboxes ready, aka on standby ready to go, when the 2023 came around and more sources surfaced to back said pages up. Had I known there wasn't any 2023 backlink in the template, I would have added it there.

Furthermore, @Rusalkii:, what template did you subst on the redirect's talk page? Inquiring to learn about new templates.Qwerty284651 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, whatever Twinkle automatically substs? I never do this sort of thing manually. Rusalkii (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac:, any idea on what the template at topic's called? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but feel free to drop me a note on my talk page so as to not derail this too much. As a direct answer to your question above, though, Twinkle adds the ((RFDNote)) automatically (it is also linked in the commented-out text in the source of the page). Primefac (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac, well, that is verbatim what I saw on the talk page, which is all I needed to know. Thanks, Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and restore article which is hidden in the page history. There's no need for deletion if the article will be recreated anyway (and is already available, only hidden). Pinging Qwerty284651 who created the article for their opinion on this. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Missed the article in the history. Support keep and restore of Qwerty's article. Rusalkii (talk) 21:51, 6 January 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Saladin Campaign → Salahuddin campaign  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Primary topic in a google search is the Age of Empires campaign. Removing that gives a wide variety of historical Saladins, none of which seem to be relevant here. Rusalkii (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Salahuddin is one of Iraq's governorates, more commonly called Saladin JohnnyYeet (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but. This is a correct ((R from alternative spelling)), but is ambiguous. I suggest we use a hatnote ((distinguish|text=the campaigns of [[Saladin]])). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rusalkii: is your nomination for deletion or retargeting to the primary topic? Jay 💬 08:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Deletion, as far as I can tell we don't have any content on the Age of Empires campaign, though if this is actually a common name for the province I don't have an objection to it being kept. Rusalkii (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and hatnote per Shhh. Jay 💬 18:54, 12 January 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 disambiguate Ukrainian partisans, keep Ukrainian resistance during World War II. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ukrainian partisans → Ukrainian Insurgent Army  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ukrainian resistance during World War II → Ukrainian Insurgent Army  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A WP:GOOGLE search for "Ukrainian partisans" largely shows pages about Ukrainian resistance during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I believe this redirect should be retargeted to that page. The UPA was not the only Ukrainian partisan or "resistance" movement during World War II, there was also a pro-Soviet partisan movement (see Soviet partisans § Ukraine). I believe this redirect could be turned into a disambiguation page. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Dab this. But I'd prefer to redirect the partisans to the dab page too. Let's avoid too much recentism. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree DAB is best solution, as more than one possible target. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Attempted a dab draft at the (Ukrainian partisans) redirect. Jay 💬 07:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like consensus has formed around DAB at Ukrainian partisans so far, but no one has expressed much opinion on what to do with Ukrainian resistance during World War II.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 20:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Piotrus, Bobfrombrockley, and Jay: Just to clarify, do y'all only support creating the DAB at Ukrainian partisans, or also support redirecting Ukrainian resistance during World War II to that DAB? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's tougher; but yes. Polish resistance during World War II doesn't redirect to the dominant force (AK) but to an article explaining various faction, so if Ukrainie doesn't have such an article, dab will do for now. Btw, there's a related dab at Ukrainian resistance (compare Polish resistance). PS. Polish partisans redirects to Leśni and probabl needs a RfD too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Since Ukrainian resistance during World War II is one of the entries at Ukrainian resistance, this entry leading the reader to a dab about partisans will be confusing, unless the lead of the Ukrainian partisans dab mentions a word or two about "resistance". Jay 💬 05:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See below comment. Jay 💬 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this discussion still open? Stara Marusya (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Stara Marusya, yes it is. TartarTorte 20:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I support the disambiguation option. Stara Marusya (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, perhaps 'Ukrainian resistance during World War II' should be another separate and shorter disambiguation page.Stara Marusya (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Stara Marusya: what will it have? If it's only two entries, I believe the current target will be the primary topic, and we can hatnote the Soviet partisans from there. Jay 💬 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ukrainian resistance during World War II per above comment and hatnote to the partisans. Jay 💬 15:15, 22 January 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 History of Taipei#Japanese rule and leadership. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Taihoku County → New Taipei City#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Taipei County was established after Japanese rule so the Japanese pronunciation Taihoku is not in its native language. (In Japanese era it was part of Taihoku Prefecture instead of Taihoku County.) Konno Yumeto 19:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a plausible enough search term, but I'm neutral between keeping at current target which I think is more likely to explain the confusion, and retargeting to Taihoku Prefecture which is perhaps more likely what someone searching this is actually looking for (noting of course that it is linked in the relevant section of the current target). A7V2 (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target and Taihoku Prefecture talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yumeto: I could not understand the nomination. Is Taihoku County a real name used by Japan either in the past or present? Was it used to refer to Taipei County from 1946 to 2010? Is your suggestion to retarget the redirect to Taihoku Prefecture? If so, why? Or is your suggestion to delete as not a proper name? Jay 💬 03:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  before 1945: part of Taihoku Prefecture, Taiwan, Japan. There was no Taihoku County.

  1945 to 2010: Taipei County, Taiwan, Republic of China. It was not called Taihoku County since Japanese language was not used.

  2010 to present: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC

  So my suggestion is deletion. Konno Yumeto 04:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If "Taihoku County" was not a real name, how is it that multiple books have mention of it? And are they referring to the county or the prefecture? Jay 💬 06:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• From the few books in the search that use the phrase, it seems they are referring to some pre-1920 Japanese political divisions, perhaps Taihoku ken (zh:臺北縣 (日治時期)) or Taihoku chō (ja:台北庁, zh:臺北廳). Hard for me to tell if it's one or both. The current target seems reasonable, or History of Taipei#Japanese rule and leadership seems about equally reasonable. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's Taihoku ken / Taibei Xian (zh:臺北縣 (日治時期)). The dates match better: this source refers to the 30th year of Meiji (1897) and this source mentions 1895. According to the zh.wikipedia articles, Taihoku ken existed 1895–1901 while Taihoku chō was established in 1901. Also, the Chinese word 縣 is typically translated as "county" in English. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to History of Taipei#Japanese rule and leadership per Adumbrativus. Jay 💬 15:08, 22 January 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 due to the confirmation of the use of this alias by the target. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jamie Peacock (actress) → Kayzie Rogers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No evidence put forward that this is a suitable redirect - not mentioned in article. Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Jamie Peacock appears to have been a pseudonym of Kayzie Rogers. See [2]] and [3] (see entry for Super Smash Bros Ultimate). Not sure if this can be verified by reliable sources, a quick look didn't turn any up but there are a lot of questionable ones all saying the same thing (eg [4], [5] etc). A7V2 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, my concern is that the sources discussing this are generally not reliable or user-generated and in turn could well be referencing each other. That isn't to say it's not true, but I can't find anything reliable that associates the alias to the individual in question. Usually we'd consider a pseudonym to be an acceptable redirect but in the absence of anything that discusses this as being a notable pseudonym (or even just something reliable that validates it conclusively), i'd probably lean on deleting. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Two more sites: Amazon page selling a Pokemon DVD and a looper.com article. Looper's fact checking policy says they strive to ensure accuracy. Also note we have another page Jamie Peacock (voice actor) which was merged to the same target in 2006. Jay 💬 11:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of additional evidence provided by Jay.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at Talk:Kayzie Rogers#I am Kayzie Rogers, User:KZRogers said that she had to make COI edits because the article was turning out to be inaccurate. Jamie Peacock was mentioned as an alternate name at this edit which was commented as I have added back my original biography. Yesterday I made some edits to correct inaccuracies by someone who thinks they know my life better than I do. Then my whole bio was gutted. The person who gutted it is JJMC89. Thank you. Kayzie Rogers. I have linked JJMC89's name only out of courtesy :) Jay 💬 03:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The COI edits were notified at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Kayzie Rogers, but did not see further action. I have re-added Jamie Peacock to the target using the looper.com reference, and will see if it sticks. Jay 💬 03:50, 11 January 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. ✗plicit 03:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Line 34 (Shenzhen Metro) → Line 6 Branch (Shenzhen Metro)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I can't find any sources using a term like "Line 34" for the Line 6 Branch. This source mentions provisional plans for a Line 34, but it's in a different part of Shenzhen from the Line 6 Branch (Longhua District rather than Guangming District). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:27, 6 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MC EU TV → Gülen movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• MC TV → Gülen movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mention at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 5 January 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. ✗plicit 03:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lawa, Chakwal → Lawa, Talagang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be incorrect, as Chakwal is a neighboring district. Not clear that there's any reason to expect readers to make this error. Deletion seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as potentially confusing to our readers at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:55, 7 January 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 💬 02:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaker of the House → Speaker (politics)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In my opinion when people think of "Speaker of the House" they think more of the one in the United States and not the general form. I think the redirect target should be changed to Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just about every state legislature in the United States also has a Speaker of the House, as do many other countries. I am dubious about the term having a primary topic. BD2412 T 01:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? I thought those were called heads of Parliament. RPI2026F1 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed - the lookahead in the search box appearing when 'speaker' is input shows 'speaker of the house of commons UK' as the first suggested article. Simply too many options to assume that the US Speaker of the House is the primary topic worldwide; likely primary in the US, but not outside it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Speaker of the House of Representatives as a slightly more specific target, or keep. Given that this more specific term is presently a dab page, I agree making the U.S. position primary is likely too U.S. centric. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Forgot about House of Commons, so the current target seems the most encompassing. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And... my long explanation has been deleted by the XfD voting tool. That's annoying. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's my reasoning for the strong keep: See this list. There are 30+ speakers of the house, and that's only including the ones on the national level. Also, looking at the pageviews analysis [6] from 2022, the US speaker is only ahead in the lead up to the speaker election and a single week at the start of August. This isn't enough for me to think that the redirect should be changed, as the pageviews for the US speaker will die down over the next few weeks following the election. My original reasoning for the strong keep was longer, but I can't be bothered to rewrite that all. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, avoid US-centrism. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to avoid systemic bias --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:56, 7 January 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).