This was left over from a move in 2009 (the year in the title), but I'm not sure we should still have this thing around. It appears to promise a revision from 2009 (which I'm not sure Wikipedia would redirect to), so it might be misleading. Thoughts? Regards, SONIC678 04:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These should generally redirect to the same topic, either the authority over Customs within the country, or to "culture of"/etc. articles. Instead, we have a split between those two – articles like French customs target the Customs agency within the country, while articles like Singapore customs target "culture of" articles. (There's also the oddball Nigerian Customs, which appears to be a basketball team that is probably not the primary topic.)
There's a few related articles here that are relevant but were not included in the request because they should be fine at their current titles; Regional customs of France targets a section of Culture of France, several ethnic groups target either an article or section on their cultures (including Malay customs, which I did not include because Malay is not a demonym for Malaysia), and Customs of Barcelona (which may be ambiguous, but it doesn't really fit with this RFD).
I think capitalized "Customs" (as in French Customs) is fairly unambiguous per WP:SMALLDETAILS, but the uncapitalized "customs" and "Customs in [country]" seem ambiguous between the two usages. It's worth bringing this to RFD at least, because I have no idea where these should target.
There are three factors which should be distinguished here:
"customs" vs "Customs"; since Wikipedia can't distinguish case for first letter of a title, so if the title begins with the word, it should be assumed to be lowercase as in the context of internal links in article text that's how it's most likely to appear.
"of" vs "in"
demonym (eg. French) vs country (eg. France)
For each of these, the former should preferably point to cultural customs while the latter should favour national agencies. I suggest they be given priority in the order above; so "customs of France" would point the cultural customs of France, despite naming a country not a demonym ("customs of the French"). If appropriate, ((redirect)) should be used to deal with ambiguity rather than creating a disambiguation page for every single country. The exception to that might be the Nigerian redirect, since there are three possible targets. – Scyrme (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If something is "Place Customs", like French Customs, I think it should redirect to border control: if you enter a capital letter, you probably want an official agency. If something is "Place customs", like French customs, I lean toward cultural practices. Maybe "Customs of place"/"Customs in place" could be disambiguation pages that cover both the official agency and the cultural practices? This assumes the place is a sovereign entity that can have its own customs service; because Wales isn't an independent country (and customs agencies didn't really exist when it was independent), we should leave Wales out of this. Finally, delete Nigeria, because the Nigeria Customs are a successful professional basketball team (the article says they were runners-up last year) in one of the world's most populous countries, and they definitely deserve their own article, not a redirect to their league. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these numbers are currently mentioned anywhere in the target (they used to but have since either been corrected as a typo in the case of 292,277,026,296 or removed as WP:OR for the other two cases).
So, they should all be deleted for the same reason that 10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223 was deleted back in 2021. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for the phrases "legions of Hell"(corresponds to this redirect) and "Hell's legions"(no corresponding redirect exists) on Wikipedia bring up a number of results unrelated to the book series which is the current target.
It was previously a redundant stub that was blanked and redirect to the current target by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on 10 August 2011. The current target relates to its previous content and that target is unlikely to be the primary topic. Searching on Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Bing bring up mixed results, including the book with this title alongside unrelated results.
Wikipedia's search results might provide enough entries for a disambiguation page, although I'm also open to suggestions to retarget. – Scyrme (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change into a disambiguation page if there are enough Wikipedia entries for "Legions of Hell", otherwise Keep. A search in Wikipedia for "Legions of Hell" yields a handful of possibilities unrelated to the book series (the target of this redirect), but I don't know if it's sufficient to justify a disambiguation page. —Bruce1eetalk 07:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DAB - I can imagine a christian, or someone encountering the phrase in the christian-sphere, searching for this title and being utterly confused why a work of fiction comes up. When these people talk about the "legions of hell" it's in all full sincerity and earnestness. The disambiguation page should contain a link to Demon at the very least, which I would consider to be the primary topic... but it's a primary topic in a field that has been used by many writers in many contexts, so I still think disambiguation is probably the way to go. Legion (demons) would also be another good inclusion, and Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac as well. I'm sure there are more novels and comic books and movies as well that could be put on such a DAB page, but I'd leave that to others. Fieari (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above me. It's also a reasonable search term-Commonwealth English doesn't use periods after initials, it's still helpful with all these pageviews, and President Biden is about the most notable J. Biden we have on Wikipedia. Regards, SONIC678 04:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word is nowhere in the target. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the edit summary of when the target of this was changed, and looking at IMDB[1] (not a reliable source), this is an alternate name for the director. I wasn't able to find anything more concrete however (but I didn't look for long). Note that this originally targeted Lil Wayne, whose birth name was "Dwayne Michael Carter Jr." so this is potentially a valid search term for him as well. I'm not sure. A7V2 (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to film credits, Harry Fraser (director) was billed as "Wayne Carter" in 1938's Songs and Saddles (available on YouTube.) It is correct, of course, that the alternative name "Wayne Carter" should be mentioned in the article delineating Harry Fraser. Taking that into account, if there is consensus for making Wayne Carter a redirect to Dwayne Michael "Lil Wayne" Carter Jr., I would not oppose it.
An alternative possibility might be the creation of a Wayne Carter disambiguation page that would list Wayne Carter, pseudonym for Harry Fraser (director) (1889–1974), as well as Wayne Carter, rapper Lil Wayne (born 1982), birth name Dwayne Michael Carter Jr. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DABify, I don't see a reason either is a particularly likely target. Can be changed later if pageviews signify a primary topic for the term. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 04:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General election can be a drastic and unexpected change.
Pi.1415926535prodded Yellow Green Line with the rationale : Neither of these lines appears to actually be known as the "yellow green line", either officially or unofficially. Creator is indeffed for creating useless disambig pages and redirects. If that is true, the same would be true of the redirects. --Tavix(talk) 00:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]