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 speedily deleted per WP:G7. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Vitue-signals → Virtue signalling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

my bad, it was a typo Davide King (talk) 20:17, 14 July 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 23:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Chinatown, Tampa → Chinatowns in the United States#Tampa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chinatown, Staten Island → Chinatowns in the United States#Staten Island  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chinatown, Kansas City → Chinatowns in the United States#Kansas City  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chinatown, Charlotte → Chinatowns in the United States#Charlotte  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chinatown, Raleigh → Chinatowns in the United States#Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The sections they redirect to do not exist. There is no mention of the specific Chinatowns at the target. There is no information on Chinatowns at the specific place articles, with some of the place names being ambiguous. Delete. Jay 💬 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 03:09, 16 July 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. The term has different meanings in addition to the current target's subject. Alternate specific redirect titles starting with "Adult use" have been suggested. Jay 💬 07:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Adult use → Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Adult use does not mean Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States. Adults use things outside of the US and adults use many things other than cannabis. Ridiculous misnomer.

Failed CSD R3. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searching online, "adult+use" brings up exclusively cannabis-related results for 10 pages on Google and Google News. Same was true for Bing and DuckDuckGo. Most results on Google/Bing/DDG were specific to the United States, but not all were. (eg. Switzerland, Europe, Australia)

Results on Google Scholar, however, appear to be predominantly in the general sense of "use by adults" of e-cigarretes, alcohol, prescription opioids, emergency department services, and so on, with some results related to adult use of cannabis. Results on Google Books were mixed with cannabis-related results appearing frequently in early pages and results becoming increasingly general; notably, many of the general uses were about tobacco.

It's clear that "adult use" has a particular meaning in relation to cannabis (legalisation) beyond just "use by adults". – Scyrme (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I created this redirect because "adult use" is a euphemism for recreational cannabis that's recently come into vogue in US law. I think the best redirect target is probably Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States, but maybe there's a better one. Wikipedia has an article Recreational drug use, but no Recreational cannabis use, which would seem the most obvious target. —Kodiologist (t) 17:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too vague, "adult use" can mean lots of things only adults can do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Scyrme. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in opposition of Scyrme's point: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. Let's let both do their appropriate functions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My only point was that this has a specific meaning in relation to cannabis and that this term is widely used in this way, so the current choice wasn't arbitrary, random, or inexplicable. I haven't actually decided anything regarding what should be done about Adult use.

  Ordinarily search results like these would be taken as good evidence for a primary topic, but it's obvious why treating it that way would be surprising to many so idk.

  The only thing I'd suggest is that more specific redirects like adult use of cannabis, adult-use cannabis, adult-use marijuana etc. could be created and may be avoid some of the issues with this one. I'm not sure what the best target for them would be though; the current target of this redirect is US-centric but I'm not sure the term itself is exclusively restricted to the US (although it probably originated there).

  Regarding Wikipedia's own search results, the current target does not appear on the first page of results. The results that do appear are either unrelated or only tangentially relevant. – Scyrme (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hopelessly vague. A7V2 (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kodiologist: It seems the main article for cannabis use (both illicit and not) is Cannabis (drug), in contrast to Cannabis (which is about the plant itself). I think that might be the most appropriate destination due to its more global focus. What would you say to targeting the more specific "adult use" redirects I suggested to that article? – Scyrme (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems fine to me. I'd suggest keeping Adult use itself as well to help users who've seen the term and don't know what it means. As you can see from the other comments in this discussion, awareness of what it means as an idiom is not universal, which makes sense because it's a euphemism and obfuscation is part of the function of euphemism. —Kodiologist (t) 12:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a US-only website. "adult use" is not restricted to cannabis. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The idea that the phrase "adult use" refers exclusively to the United States, or to cannabis, is nearly absurd enough for this to meet speedy deletion criteria. What about creating With a hat on to Gettysburg address because Abraham Lincoln was wearing a hat when he made it? jp×g 23:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Literally no-one has argued that it refers exclusively to the US or cannabis; that's a complete mispresentation. – Scyrme (talk) 06:03, 23 July 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 💬 10:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ARHS ACT → Australian Railway Historical Society  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• ARHS NSW → Australian Railway Historical Society  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• ARHS Qld → Australian Railway Historical Society  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• ARHS QLD → Australian Railway Historical Society  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• ARHS Vic → Australian Railway Historical Society  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• ARHS VIC → Australian Railway Historical Society  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Uncessary series of malformed redirects, adding state abbreviations to the Australian Railway Historical Society abbreviation. Propose deleting all. Jeistyphade (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As the creator, I oppose deletion of any of these redirects. These have all been in official and/or unofficial use to refer to the sub-divisions of this particular organisation. For example, the ARHS NSW website is arhsnsw.com.au. The bottom copyright notice of that website states 2022 ARHS NSW Division All Rights Reserved. Fork99 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A quick Google search of any of these also provides secondary sources which use the abbreviations mentioned.

  In addition, the disambiguation ARHS already links to Australian Railway Historical Society. Could you explain your rationale for what constitutes a “malformed redirect”? Fork99 (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  State abbreviations for Queensland and Victoria are Qld and Vic, not QLD and VIC. Jeistyphade (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While yes that is correct (officially), there are many of us that are not pedantic enough to remember that an abbreviation of a singular word usually results in the letters subsequent to the first letter being uncapitalised. But even then, that’s not necessarily correct for everything. For example, the US state of California does not get abbreviated to Ca but instead CA. Plus, when you’re typing into a search engine, such as Wikipedia’s, trying to look for the relevant article, I would imagine a lot of people would type their query like this: arhs vic. Who has the time or the brainpower to type in ARHS (Vic Division)? Fork99 (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Haha I even forgot the full stop (.) after “Vic”, to show how how cumbersome writing the entire name would be. And even then, if you were gonna search like that, why wouldn’t you just type out the full name of the organisation anyways? It’s fine to have these as redirects as well, as it can also help remove the possibility of someone thinking that the article doesn’t exist when they type ARHS NSW as an example, then writing an article and then finding out that one already exists, when someone patrolling realises an article on the topic already exists. Fork99 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Fork99 as not inaccurate, or refine to the Background section. J947 † ^edits 01:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fork99's reasoning - well put, considering the variations of commonly used and trading names over time (over 50 years now) by the branches/divisions is such that any indicator that facilitates linking is worth keeping. JarrahTree 02:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ARHS NSW as there is very little about the NSW branch specifically, and it is spread throughout the article. Refine the others to Australian Railway Historical Society#Background (or just keep) as they are all discussed. I don't see any issue with "VIC" or "QLD". A7V2 (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with deleting NSW, the ARHS was initially founded in Sydney, NSW, and ultimately became its own division in its own right. If we need to expand the article to include more info about it, then by all means I will do that. Fork99 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 14 July 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• William Abbot (martyr) → William Knight (martyr)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target page describes William Knight and Henry Abbot, but no William Abbot. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. William Abbott (the DAB page) describes him as a English Catholic martyr, executed along with William Knight, but I can't find any evidence of this. Everything seems to point to Henry as the only Abbot being executed. Perhaps RFD, who created the redirect, or Tassedethe, who added the link to the DAB page, can shed some light here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From this history William Abbot (martyr) was first added in this edit. That changed:

William Knight (martyr) (1572–1596), real name William Abbot

to:

William Abbot (martyr) (before 1576–1596), English Catholic, from Yorkshire town of Howden, who was executed on 29 November 1596 along with Catholics William Knight (martyr), George Errington and William Gibson

On the web there is this page Venerable William Knight (Author: Catholic Encyclopedia) that has:

"Put to death for the Faith at York, on 29 November, 1596; with him also suffered Venerables George Errington of Herst, William Gibson of Ripon, and William Abbot of Howden, in Yorkshire."

William Abbot is not mentioned again. Henry Abbot (martyr) is also 'of Howden' so perhaps this is a mistaken conflation of 2 or more names? Tassedethe (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm thinking a mistaken conflation is probably the most plausible explanation. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing, and no encyclopedic content available. Jay 💬 10:18, 22 July 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 redirect both to White noise. Participants agree that actual work would be on the targets being consolidated, and that will solve the redirect problem, and the current retargeting solution is only until that happens. Jay 💬 10:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaussian white noise → White noise  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• White Gaussian noise → Gaussian noise  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should these point to the same target? To me the design flaw is two endpoints: we should merge White noise and Gaussian noise in to Noise_(spectral_phenomenon), producing one strong article rather then three weak ones. And you get the redirect solved as well. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Johnjbarton that these three articles should be merged someday (though I'm not sure it's uncontroversial enough that I could do so boldly). In the meantime I think that Gaussian white noise should be retargeted to Gaussian noise (and White Gaussian noise kept), since noise being Gaussian is a much stronger condition than it being white. Duckmather (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both to White noise, which has numerous references to Gaussian white noise throughout the whole article. Gaussian noise only has a single passing mention of white noise. While I would otherwise agree with Duckmather that "Gaussian" is probably more pertinent to the reader than "white" and consequently one would expect the relevant content to be located at Gaussian noise, the current state of that article makes it a less helpful target. Regardless of any future plans to merge, for now the best outcome is to take readers where the relevant content is presently located. – Scyrme (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd support Scyrme's proposal too. Duckmather (talk) 16:56, 15 July 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. Editors are evenly split, with weak !votes on both sides as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 911 War → War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While this could also redirect to War on Terror, I suggest deleting it to avoid an unhelpful link clogging up the search bar that could lead readers to an unwanted target. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't have 9/11 war or similar, and this could possibly be confused with some sort of war involving 9-1-1 or other things listed at 911. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We don't have 9/11 war because it's not a particularly common name for it, but it is a name that has been used for the War in Afghanistan. Dropping the slash makes plenty of sense. This is not an ambiguous topic, no war has ever started over the use of 9-1-1 or anything else listed at 911, so no confusion is really possible. Given the topic is unambiguous, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, I see no reason to delete. (I would support the existence of 9/11 war as well) Fieari (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: The War in Afghanistan is definitely based on 9/11 with the AUMF being enacted just 7 days after 9/11. I had some concerns if this could be ambiguous with regards to the 1973 Chilean coup d'état which is referred to by the term "11 de Septiembre", but it does not seem like that is referred to by pretty much anywhere as the 9/11 war, so this seems like an unambiguous enough topic. TartarTorte 12:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: The War on Terror is a plausible alternative target, but I find the slash in 9/11 to be essential; if anything, the redirect should be 9/11 War. Other 9/11 redirects have the slash and very few don't (911 attackers - 9/11 attackers, 911 denial - 9/11 denial, etc.), so I'd be wary having a redirect for 911 War; at least not without 9/11 War to accompany. It's a plausible search term though (WP:CHEAP), so this is a weak delete from me. 〜 Askarion ✉ 16:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, I think creating redirects at 9/11 war and 9/11 War is a good idea. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk of the suggested alternative target War on terror.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and hatnote War on terror using some clever words (but not "911 War redirects here"). Jay 💬 10:38, 22 July 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).