Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title, Othello (board game), is a redirect that targets the same location as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking through the target article, and I don't see any information about why this redirect targets this page, such as representing constants or something of the such. My guess is that this redirect is shorthand for "Nullspace (algebra)" (which currently does not exist), but there is no evidence in the target article of that nor any reasonable expectation any readers would know that otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title, Umrani (khosa), is a redirect that targets the same location as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title, Go! (album), is a redirect that targets the same location as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title is this redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title is this redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much in the way of incoming links to worry about. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion. Belarusian mythology is not connected with Slavic paganism, these are superstitions inscribed in Christian motives. There is Christ, the Virgin Mary, St. George and other saints, the church calendar is used. Maksim L. (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The proposed target for the second redirect is not entirely clear. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 23:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try for the second redirect. Notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed target Data structure alignment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The instrumental version can also refer to instrumental music. I'm sure this is a better retarget to the page Instrumental. 176.33.242.229 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree that "instrumental version can also refer to instrumental music"; "version" wouldn't generally be used for a song or album which was instrumental to begin with. Remix defines "remix" very broadly and includes "additional versions of a song for use as bonus tracks or for a B-side" (emphasis added). The article also explicitly mentions "instrumental" mixes and tracks a number of times. Instrumental, however, doesn't appear to include any discussion of instrumental music in the context of alternative versions of music which originally had vocals. – Scyrme (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to instrumental. The instrumental version is an instrumental. Point it there. The instrumental version can also be the original version, and vocals are added in covers and remixes, and beatbox/acapella versions. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 20:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides being vague/ambiguous, it could also be considered a WP:PTM for various musical performances or recordings. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Joe Chamoun
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 delete. CSD G7 LizRead!Talk! 20:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target article. Without a mention with a reference, this redirect's existence is most likely a WP:BLP violation of some sort. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this one should be deleted indeed. When I created it, that name was mentioned and referenced in the article, but for some reason it is not anymore. I probably should have checked the source. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll get this one marked ((Db-g7)) then. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 21 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).
Not mentioned in the target article. What is this supposed to represent??? Seems like some sort of made-up neologism. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: Any way to get that added into the article with a reference? If so, it could potentially validate these redirects' existence. (Otherwise, readers won't know why they are redirected to the target article when searching these titles.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: Fountain pens aren't the only type of "[o]ld style pen"s. In fact, the quill is an "[o]ld style" writing tools whose shape can plausibly lead one to believe that it is an "[o]ld style pen". Silcox (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Pen#Historic which is a section that discusses historic (and thus "old style") pens, maybe? Duckmather (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Responding to Silcox, a quill is not a pen, and would sooner occur to someone's mind as a feather than as a pen. Fountain pens are recognizably pens, and thus would be a more suitable target. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Festucalex: This is valid, but per Pen#Historic, fountain pens are not the only type of historic pens (or even a type of historic pen, for that matter). Duckmather (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Festucalex But the fact that a quill and a pen serves essentially the same purposes (i.e. to write) means that the man on the Clapham omnibus can plausible come up with the (wrong) conclusion that the two are equivalent. Silcox (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Duckmather and Silcox: I'd be fine with a retarget, but I argue for keeping because fountain pens are the most common "old style" pens in use today, and thus would be most likely what the Clapham bus man is thinking of. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible that anyone would search for the film in this way. ★Trekker (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur. Additionally, we shouldn't encourage multiple years for films otherwise it will get confusing for really sucessful films that last over two years like The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which is still in limited release in theaters to this day. Inomyabcs (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect doesn't make sense. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was only at this name for ~7 minutes in 2010: move to [2] move from [3]. Skynxnex (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we can call AN/I all sorts of things: A swamp, a happy place, a time sink, whatever. But calling it a Cesspit (and if you don't know what one is, please check the link), is well nigh starting to get into civility territory. And honestly could be seen as a personal attack. Telling people that they are constituent parts of a cesspool, or even merely that they are in a cesspool? Not good. This just isn't what we should be doing. Delete all. jc37 13:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreeing with WJBscribe who said (in part) in a previous RfD: It's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously...We should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. --Tavix(talk) 16:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for two reasons. One, I've seen no actual evidence that this redirect confuses or demoralizes new users. I do not believe this to be true, and would want to see some evidence before accepting it. In the absence of that evidence, I'd like to err on the side of not policing this kind of dry humor. Two, can we please stop expanding the use of "civility" and (especially) "personal attacks" to include situations like this? It just normalizes actual incivility and personal attacks when we use those labels so frivolously. Kind of like how we've made the terms harassment, stalking, trolling, and gaslighting so meaningless. -Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "expandng" anything. To call a place where we want people to come together to discuss in good faith, a Cesspit, is not Civil, is not AGF, and yes, it's a personal attack on anyone who does contribute there. I can understand that you don't mind this, but I think it's fair to say that that has not been what we've seen concerning repeated uncivil things said by editors. You're fairly active there, have you not seen editors banned for repeatedly saying such things to, or about, others? My intent isn't to spoil fun, it's to try to add more light to a place that can already get dark. And as I said, this really isn't something we should be doing, or showing as an example of what we should be doing. - jc37 18:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I personally don't mind it; it's that it is simply stretching the definition of "incivility" past the breaking point to say that referring to ANI as a cesspit is uncivil to the people who post there. And it is even more fundamentally wrong to say doing so is a "personal attack", which by definition has to be directed at a specific person. You might as well say it's gaslighting. Or harassment.
I also disagree that we want people to come together at ANI to discuss in good faith. It is a horrible place to try to resolve disagreements. Especially for new editors, who often get absolutely stomped on. It is not fit for purpose. It is dysfunctional. A better way to keep people from calling it a cesspit is not to worry about a few redirects (which have been around for 14 years, and have survived 2 previous RFD's very convincingly), but to do something useful to stop it from being a ... well, a cesspit. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you have ideas on how to change the tone there, I think people would be happy to listen to your ideas. But calling the place a cesspit, does not sound liike a positive solution to anything, but, based upon what you are saying, honestly just becomes another contributory example... - jc37 19:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to effect change at AN/I. Recently I opened a discussion on the talk page about adding an explanation of how the board should function for the benefit of editors who haven't posted there before. It was ignored except to state that it would be impossible to add an explanation and that the board should be avoided.
AN/I is Wikipedia's main forum for resolving behavioural disputes, so it's very disappointing that the level of apathy there has reached the point where even explaining what the forum is for is too difficult. On that basis I fully support even seemingly small attempts to improve its culture, including this one. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As someone who was involved in the big drama, ANI is unquestionably a cesspit. Why would a redirect that describes perfectly the project page it leads to be deleted? LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based off of your comments, it's therefore ok to call you a "cesspit contributor"? I'm not being hyperbolic. You're saying that "ANI is unquestionably a cesspit", when it's not. It's not a place of excrement. It's a virtual place for typing text, amongst many others on Wikipedia. What you are saying that what you find there is "like" that. And really, is that what we should be saying? Experienced editors set the tone. Is this the tone that you want to agree that we all should be setting? - jc37 20:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The first step in changing the culture of an institution is changing the language used. If no one calls ANI a cesspit, people will be less likely to treat it like one. --Tavix(talk) 20:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Removing the redirects won't magically make AN/I a bastion of civility, but in a small way it well help shift attitudes. Wikipedia shouldn't in any way encourage its main forum for the discussion of editors' behaviour to be considered a cesspit. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amelia Bolanos does not and should not appear anywhere in the Football War article, per this 2012 discussion --Scolaire (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this after reading a recent Slate article that mentioned multiple breweries making "ranch water (a cocktail typically made using tequila)". There is indeed such a product described at the target page, but it doesn't seem a good target if the cocktail doesn't necessarily use Topo Chico. The only other relevant usage I found is at Karbach Brewing Company, which claims a "Ranch Water Original". (Plenty of uses about water supplies for ranches, but I don't think we need to worry about that.) This seems like a good case for WP:REDLINK deletion. BDD (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DAB This is the opposite of REDYES. As you say KBC also exists and thus search will not work. Additionally we do need to worry about water supplies for ranches. DAB these 2 with Farm water. — Invasive Spices (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that I suspect there are other companies among those we have articles on that make a ranch water product. We'd be highlighting the two just because that's where we found mentions. Search results would be more appropriate. I suppose you're right about the agricultural usage, though. My ideal would be an article about the type of drink with a hatnote to Farm water. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 20:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk of Farm water. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A page exists at Pontic Greek genocide (note the lower case g, and this redirect causes confusion D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pontic Greek genocide. Even though it's not our style, a reader could certainly assume we use title-case capitalization for a specific event. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CHEAP. If it were me, I would not have created the redirect in the first place, but since the redirect has been created, we can let it stand. Silcox (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, read the first part of the nomination wrong. In this case, definitely retarget per BDD. Silcox (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quotation mark at the end make it an unlikely search term. Possibly created in error. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 10:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the strange quotation mark. Silcox (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]