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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 07:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kitboga (gamer) → Kitboga (streamer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a misleading redirect; Kitboga is not described a gamer, only a scambaiter. The only mention of 'gaming' in the article is a sentence on the potential future for his channel if scams he bases it on become more infrequent. This page also was created in a very brief and quickly reverted move. Xeroctic (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2nd shift → Shift work  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Second shift → Shift work  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article mentions the phrase "2nd shift" twice, but it does not define what the term means. Readers could be searching this phrase attempting to find specific information regarding the term, and end up finding nothing. There may be relevant information in Shift plan regarding the term "2nd shift" and seems better identified there, but not necessarily defined. Steel1943 (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or retarget to shift (disambiguation), as work shifts are not the only second shifts around, duty shifts also occur, and ice hockey shift and shifting gears, where racers previz a circuit memorizing shifts along the track -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Double burden, as this is a synonym already mentioned prominently there. Btyner (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That target would undoubtably be a WP:SURPRISE due to being about a subject exclusive from the other "shift" subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If I google "second shift" define the first two links that come up are:

  * https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/instructors/ddlgs/guides/secondshift/index.html

  * https://sociologydictionary.org/second-shift/

  so it doesn't seem all that surprising to me... Btyner (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The phrase "second shift" seems to most commonly refer to a certain set of work hours, usually from early-mid afternoon to midnight. The "second shift" definition you are referencing seems somewhat antiquated and not likely to be what readers are searching for. Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Set index with current target, nom's suggestion, Double burden (which is already hatnoted at current target), Split shift and anything relevant per the IP. Jay 💬 09:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since the last one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 21:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cit web → Template:Cite web.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Incorrectly tagged per WP:PROD by Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk · contribs):

rather than having accidental typos — Cit web instead of Cite web — corrected by bot, why not simply delete this page; thank you 23:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The target is a placeholder template for a misspelled name of Template:Cite web that is automatically corrected by a bot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Template:Cite wib and Template:Cite wab? If you get it wrong, the template won't work because it is not invoked. Otherwise a wasted bot edit, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are ((Cit book)), ((Cit news)), ((Cit journal)), ((Cit paper)). 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a redirect for a reasonable typo. Redirects are cheap, especially when they are fixed by bots so that other bots and scripts can process citation templates easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bot unable to fix the error, were one to save Template:Cit web even after deletion of the redirect? Then perhaps the best of both worlds, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jonesey95. If there wasn't a bot, this would be a problem, but there is, so there isn't.^{[clarification needed]} Edward-Woodrow (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We should not encourage lazy editing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jonesey95. We should very strongly encourage things that make providing citations easier. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the bot fixes the link regardless, how does acceptance of typos make providing citations easier? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with the exact same reasoning per Pppery. Keeping it around encourages sloppy editing and more work for bots. Someone not using the Visual editor is expected to be more meticulous while writing citations, and it is not just a case of "cite" becoming "cit". Use the preview which lists cite errors. Jay 💬 13:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Jay, and also because bots use resources, no matter how little, so not beeing lazy and having less bots is a good thing. Also, editors are not idiots, if we make a mistake, let us learn and improve instead of having bots guess us - Nabla (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this really is not a great practice, nor is it a great redirect. The word "cite" can & should be easily spelled out, and keeps people more liable for their edits doing so. If people don't have enough time to write the full 7 letters by shaving off a random character... that could indicate an entirely different problem. The less extra work for bots, the better. Could also be worth taking a look at Cit book, news, journal, paper, etc. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pppery. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. I am creating one based off of Electric train. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Diesel train → Diesel locomotive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Proposing a set index or disambiguation page as this could also refer to diesel multiple unit; in line with electric train. Fork99 (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. You could just have overwritten the redirect with such a page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I'm aware, I'm currently busy with stuff outside of Wikipedia at the mo, thus I'd rather leave it to the community. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a DMU is a diesel train without a diesel locomotive, then this should be disambiguated between the two senses. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• setindexify also could be a tanker cargo train carrying diesel fuel; diesel engine train, diesel-electric train, DMU -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Use a hatnote. There's only one other thing "diesel train" could realistically be confused with, so just put a ((redirect)) hatnote at Diesel locomotive. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That implies that there is a primary topic, and google results suggest that there isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Setindexify as original nominator: I oppose the hatnote suggestion per Thryduulf, all other comments seem fine to me. The article Diesel multiple unit seems to encompass all types of DMUs (e.g. diesel-electric, diesel-hydraulic, whatever). Regarding the comment about it referring to a freight/cargo train carrying diesel, I think the relevant article might be Tanker car, a type of train wagon/car (albeit it's quite skewed to a North American perspective and is a North American term). Fork99 (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Direct wave → Line-of-sight propagation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This title is possibly fine, and am nominating as this seems to be an edge case. The phrase "direct wave" does not appear at the target article, and it feels there may be other possible targets which could be confused. For example, "DirectWave" is the name of a virtual instrument in FL Studio, mentioned onwiki. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the current target seems to be fine, and there are no ambiguous usages that stand out. It was linked from Terrestrial locomotion#Type of movement which I have just unlinked. Jay 💬 08:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no DirectWave Sampler either as an article or redirect that may be used in a hatnote, and moreover will be too much of a stretch to disambiguate with "Direct wave". It is only a 2-word mention at FL Studio. For the seismic wave context per IP below, we can look at a hatnote when there is a section for direct wave (at Seismic wave or any other article) or a redirect title that can be used. In summary, I'll stick to Keep. Jay 💬 15:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• dabify per nom, there's FL Studio, the current target also doesn't work well for earthquakes, as it seems to treat only vacuum and air (and perhaps water) as the medium for waves, acoustic and EM. Earthquakes are acoustic, but don't propagate through air or water. It should have some coverage at Seismic wave but does not, though is mentioned at Seismic interferometry and Plus minus method instead. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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, set indexify. There's a unanimous consensus that this should not be kept, but a large disagreement over whether to set indexify or retarget to Christmas music. The set indexify arguments boiled down to that retargeting to Christmas music is biased toward Christianity and that some sources used the term "holiday music" to refer to multiple genres of music. On the contrary, the arguments for retargeting boiled down to the fact that most of the wikilinks to "holiday music" were referring to Christmas music and that Christmas music is the primary topic. I do not see any consensus between these equally strong arguments, thus I have set-indexified as the most conservative option.

Thank you and Happy Holidays, (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 07:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retarget to Christmas music. There is no mention of music in the Holiday article and nearly all of the current links to Holiday music are related to Christmas music (broadly construed). older ≠ wiser 17:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support retargeting per nomination. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert into set index or disambiguate there is also Hanukkah music and Halloween music. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Setindexify do not target Christmas music, as that is highly biased for Christianity; and Christmas isn't the only holiday with music either, even in Christianity or commercial holidays. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. While Christmas music isn't the only type of music, it is overwhelmingly the primary topic to the extent that I have to specifically exclude "Christmas" from my searches to find anything else and even then about 40% of the hits are still about Christmas music with almost all the rest being about music education during school holidays and organisations/products that have "holiday music" as part of their name. Most results for "holiday music" "Chanukha" and "holiday music" "Hanukkah" mostly seem to use the "holiday music" term to refer to Christmas holiday music or are not using it with any specific meaning (e.g. "songs for the Christmas and Hanukkah holiday period"). I have no objection to a set index, but it should not be at the base title. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert into set index or disambiguate There shouldn't be any reason why Holiday music doesn't deserve its own article, as the previous comments have mentioned, Christmas isn't the only holiday that has their own music, articles like Halloween music, Hanukkah music, and American patriotic music exist for a reason lol, there's even reliable articles that prove the existence that Holiday music is a lot more than just "Christmas music" as seen below.

https://www.allmusic.com/genre/holiday-ma0000012075

https://www.musicgenreslist.com/music-holiday/ Tommyvercetti098 (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Set index seems to be the most valid option to me. More links showing that this apply to more than just Christmas:
  • https://itunes.apple.com/us/genre/id8 (Chanukah + Christmas + 10 Christmas sub-categories + Easter + Halloween + Holiday: Other + Thanksgiving)
  • https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/holiday-music/ (Carols (incl. Advent, Christmas, Easter ones) + Christmas + Halloween + Marchinha)
  • https://id.loc.gov/authorities/genreForms/gf2014026795.html - Library of Congress does not have a general category of holiday music, but shows that there are dozens of concepts dedicated to the music of individual holidays. Solidest (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition to Christmas, Halloween and Hanukkah, the types of holiday music may also include Carol (music), regional Parranda and Rara and arguably Category:Carnival music, incl. Murga. Solidest (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is saying there is no music associated with other holidays. However, virtually all of the links to holiday music intend the music associated with the Xmas season. older ≠ wiser 17:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly this, the Christmas meaning is by all measures the WP:Primary topic for the term "Holiday music" so people using the term should be taken to our content about that meaning. Content about other meanings (whether that's a dab, set index or article) is should be accessible via a hatnote and/or see also. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I understand that and although I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I'm not sure it's the right approach in this case for several reasons:

  1. We shouldn't follow those 100 uses on wikipedia, which can easily be fixed by a bot (wikipedia is not a reliable source), considering that the article Halloween music was made only a few weeks ago and also has 100 uses, while Christmas music has 3k uses. [[Christmas music|holiday music]] - already appear quite often and it seems that's how it should be corrected. Also, there are probably enough phrases where those links just wasn't made yet, like Music of Tajikistan#Holiday music.

  2. another reason is the already mentioned Christian-centric view, in times when wikimedia projects are aiming for divercity and inclusion as much as possible. (It may feel like other traditions aren't that important)

  3. and another reason is the reason why it became WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Because in the musical industry Christmas music is the most profitable thing among other subtypes. But I think wikipedia should not follow it as is, because it is similar to the situation with world music, also a purely industry and artificial category, with which WP has been in conflict for a long time. Most likely, in the religious context, this term has a meaning closer to liturgical. In Latin countries the meaning is probably closer to "carnival music". And in a neutral context it is more like "celebration music" (from my experience, is literally how the term is perceived in eastern Europe, although probably many people from there are also aware of how the term is interpreted as primarily Christmas in the US). So it seems that we should look at the term as "neutral term by its literal meaning" instead of "industry-biased Western-centric term".

  But I'm honestly not sure if these 3 points are substantial. Just trying to think in favour of neutrality and naturalness in this case. I'm not sure if this reasoning fits in with what the wiki rules tell us to do. Solidest (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the other types of holiday music you mention are not typically known as "holiday music". While they may be about music associated with a holiday, there really is only one season that is typically know as simply "holiday music". Regarding #2, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Re #3, I'd be happy if the article on Xmas music were named something else, but that is not what this RfD is about. older ≠ wiser 21:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On #1 - why do you think it should primarily be about the type of holiday music you are thinking of? I mean again it's "Holiday music" (disambiguation utility term) vs "Holiday music (industry)" (US term). Should the meaning of the popular music industry take precedence over other senses and areas? I think not. For the same reason we have Punk as a disambiguation page at first, instead of what would be primary topic as the most obvious option. Solidest (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about what I think -- it is about what readers are looking for by that title. Punk is not very comparable as there are many things that are commonly known as simply "punk" Very few people would refer to Halloween music as "holiday music" (at least not unless the context were clear). older ≠ wiser 22:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's regional bias. By the way, on the Discogs forum in the styles thread a few months ago there was exactly the same discussion about the "Holiday" style, after it was added to the site at the beginning of this year. And there were many opinions there, too, about what is primarily meant by the term. Some said, like you, it is an aka for Christmas, others said the same thing I did. As far as I remember, there was even someone who said that in Europe the term primarily refers to 80's soft rock (which I don't agree with), it seems there were other opinions as well. I honestly don't think most readers outside the US would tell you that Holiday music is an aka for Christmas music at first (or if we're talking in percentages - 90% of its meaning). It's just primarily wider than any concrete subtype. Solidest (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about what we think the meaning should be, it's about what the evidence tells us people are looking for when they search Wikipedia for this exact phrase. All the evidence presented here shows that the vast majority of them are looking for Christmas music. If you have evidence that this isn't the case then please present it and we will gladly reconsider. However, as an anecdote (which is not data) I'm in the UK and I've never heard the term used to mean "80s soft rock" or indeed anything other than Christmas music - although "Christmas music" is a term I've heard used far more than "holiday music". Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And how are we supposed to determine what people want to see when they search for "holiday music"? By checking the redirect's "what links here" page only? Or maybe by such messages Talk:Holiday music? Or maybe taking in consider Allmusic usage as well as other similar catalogue sites? Or maybe getting in sync with Category:Holiday songs? Solidest (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By a combination of whatlinkshere, what context the phrase is used in on the English Wikipedia, and what context the phrase is used in on the wider internet. Category naming follows article naming, not the other way around. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Most people outside of the U.S. don't use the term "Holiday music" as an alternative for Christmas music, I feel that it is very unnecessary to make Holiday music exclusively for Christmas music when other genres exist too that would be considered Holiday music. Tommyvercetti098 (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And remember, it doesn't matter from the fact that you're from the U.K. and use the term "Holiday music" as an alternative for Christmas music, that really doesn't speak for everyone else that refers to Holiday music as a lot more than just Christmas music, and the only thing on the talk page is some dude complaining about how he couldn't find something related to Halloween music and felt that the need to call Holiday music as an alternative to Christmas music is completely unnecessary. Tommyvercetti098 (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If everyone elserefers to Holiday music as a lot more than just Christmas music -- you should be able to provide examples from reliable sources of people using the exact term "holiday music" without qualification to refer to other things. older ≠ wiser 16:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Me and Solidest just included reliable articles that prove the existence of Holiday music a couple of comments back lol, I don't know what more you want from us Tommyvercetti098 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some further discussion on what could be considered the primary topic for the term holiday music.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are actually named and created by the out-of-context meaning of a phrase, not by the separate interpretation someone want to assign to a neutral phrase. Unless there is a specific article describing the concept on wiki. No use of article redirects can serve as a criterion for filling a category of the same name. In this case, the additional category to the neutral "Category:Holiday music" would have to be "Category:Holiday music (industry)" (which is actually 90% replaceable with "Category:Christmas music"), not "Category:Holiday songs (non-specific)". If you create a category that says that the primary topic of "Category:Holiday music" = Christmas, and then have subcategories of specific holidays inside it, it would look a bit illogical and confusing, don't you think?

Category:Holiday songs already contains enough examples of what can be labeled as "Genre = Holiday music" that is not related to Christmas, and does not contain "holiday music/song" in the text of the article, and yet sources are easily found for it, such as New Year's Eve (song) = holiday song, or Easter's Peter Cottontail (song) = holiday song, and so on. I seriously don't see how we can judge based on the fact that someone once decided to put wikilinked redirect, while someone else decided to leave direct links to articles. This only indicates that the redirect was set this way for a long time and not another. While according to the links and examples above, the redirect was set imprecisely. So judging by what is already listed in whatlinks doesn't seem like a valid reason for your point. It's just a reason for not fixing the imprecise redirect.

But there is no point in denying that most of the uses of the term on the internet refer to Christmas - it does. (one could even say to the winter season, as it is also widely used for Hanukkah and New Year's Eve). It is indeed used less often for specific Halloween songs (but still happens in some cases, like in this not-so-RS [1]) and more often for compilations and playlists. And regarding other holidays, it's more common to find articles complaining how "holiday music" for those holidays is much weaker than Christmas music lol. But nevertheless the use of the term for individual non-Christmas songs can still be found in RS. And I just think it would be more foresightful and accurate to do a set index or disambiguation for this term, but either way it's up to the majority to decide. Solidest (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between things that are holiday songs and what people refer to specifically with the title "holiday music". That there are many holiday songs does not lead to conclusion that there are many things known as "holiday music". older ≠ wiser 14:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you support this with RS? I don't think this difference is any worthy in the context of this discussion. Song is used to specify the form of a composition, not any significant difference in meaning of the category. For example, here is the source I mentioned earlier (regarding complaints) about music of individual holidays which is alternately using "winter holiday songs", "holiday music for the spring season", "Easter songs", "Easter music", "Christmas music", "Christmas songs". Solidest (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that matters for this discussion is what people are looking for when they use the unqualified search term "holiday music". Neither you nor anybody else has yet provided any evidence that the primary topic is something other than Christmas music. What people could mean is irrelevant, as is why anybody uses any particular term to refer to any particular thing, all that matters is what they do use it to mean. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. While I don't entirely agree with the wording about "what people are looking for when they use the unqualified search term "holiday music" - obviously this hardly works as a generalisation (at least in relation to the representativeness we have above), and I remain convinced that in many regions people will search for quite different things under this term, because regarding "Christmas music", they're more likely to be searching that exact phrase. But the rules do seem to mandate that set index articles should only be used when there are at least multiple equally important subjects referred to by this term (as far as I understand it). And here is really a clear dominance of one meaning over the others, so we have to stick to wp:primary instead of WP:SIA. The only further solution to resolve this would be to create an article about the term. Thanks for engaging in the reasoning :) Solidest (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct redirect for "holiday music" is to "holiday" until someone can write an article about different musics for different holidays. Many cultures around the world have many different types of music for many different holidays. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except the holiday article says nothing about any type of music whatsoever. How is that of any use to any reader looking for "holiday music"? older ≠ wiser 18:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague and ambiguous. It shouldn't take too long for a Searcher to work out they need to be more specific. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All the evidence suggests that this is not vague and there is a very clear primary topic. Anything actually (rather than just theoretically) ambiguous can and should be handled by a hatnote and/or disambiguation page. There is absolutely no case for deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course there's a case for deletion. Look how much effort has been expended above trying to second-guess what someone who enters a Search term might have meant. In my opinion, this is a case where we should say "No, that's too vague. Be more specific". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been a lot of back and forth between participants, but few new !votes since then. Additional editors are encouraged to weigh in on the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert into set index or disambiguate per 65.92.247.90, Tommyvercetti098, and Solidest. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Indexify per Champion, anon, and Solidest. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 14:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Christmas music per Thryduulf. Also create a set index, but I'm not sure at what title, perhaps Holiday music (set index), or a Category:Holiday music under Category:Music genres. We have holiday song redirecting to Christmas music, and holiday season redirecting to Christmas and holiday season. However holiday (song) redirects to Holiday (disambiguation)#Songs, hence I have similarly retargeted holiday (music) to Holiday (disambiguation)#Music. Jay 💬 15:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mercury vortex engine → Vaimānika Shāstra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure about any of the following.

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to put this, but I don't know what to do with Mercury vortex engine, and somebody said to post here.

Currently, it redirects to Vaimanika Shastra, which doesn't mention mercury anywhere, so that's no good. In fact, after reading the translated text of V.S. I think the "mercury vortex engine" is probably based on Samarangana Sutradhara and not on V.S. at all, V.S. makes various mentions of mercury as a component of alloys but nothing about using it by itself or about it rotating, and from the translations I've seen S.S. does, very briefly.

It seems unfortunate not to have anything on this, as a lot of people seem to be under the impression that this is a real scientifically recognised thing and it would be useful for Wikipedia to have something on it that people could find if they searched for it. I suspect that if it's deleted, somebody will just put it up again with some shouting that Wikipedia is suppressing the truth. But I can't find good sources on it, even ones saying that it doesn't exist. The places where it's widely discussed are all non-RS-type places - ancient astronaut books from small publishers, forums, YouTube videos and so on.

A search only turns up this Grunge article https://www.grunge.com/1179379/just-how-possible-is-anti-gravity-technology/ which mentions it in passing, this https://www.skyfilabs.com/project-ideas/mercury-vortex-engines which doesn't look real, this https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a25242578/apollo-fusion-mercury/ which I don't think is the same thing, and this https://techiescientist.com/is-mercury-magnetic/ which seems to be about a different phenomenon, along with various YouTube videos, crackpot sources and forums which aren't usable sources.

Google Books has only assorted small press stuff.

Google News and Google News Archive add this https://thewire.in/education/satya-pal-singh-ancient-vimana-shivkar-talpade-research and this https://thewire.in/education/charles-darwin-satyapal-singh-ram-madhav .

Google Scholar has a long list of articles in Indian engineering journals, but I don't have the background to know whether the authors or the journals are reliable sources or not. One article I glanced at appeared to make the rookie mistake of confusing benzoin (the chemical name) with benzoin (the plant substance, which is mainly a different compound called benzoic acid) in a recipe for an alloy, so that's not promising.

There are frequent references to NASA working on some kind of ion engine involving mercury and possibly solar power, which the authors often seem to think is the same thing, but I'm not convinced that it is.

Possible options include:

• Delete the thing as a bad job.
• Redirect to Vimana#Samarangana Sutradhara, which at least makes a passing mention of mercury.
• Redirect to Die Glocke (conspiracy theory), which does describe something self-explanatorily similar and seems to be the other source for the "mercury vortex engine" idea.
• Add something to Vimana, Vaimanika Shastra or David Hatcher Childress saying what the "mercury vortex engine" theory is and what its status is among reputable sources and redirect to that.
• Write a "Mercury vortex engine" article. Somebody else will probably have to do it if so, I'm sick of the dratted thing and I don't know Sanskrit and I don't know what is or isn't a reliable Indian scientific article and I don't have access to any of David Hatcher Childress's books (he seems to be the main populariser of this theory in English) except snippets online.

Wombat140 (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first liquid-metal-cooled nuclear reactor, Clementine, used mercury as a coolant, which is perhaps the closest thing to a "mercury vortex engine" in real life. There also exist mercury batteries composed of mercuric oxide (not elemental mercury). Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A liquid-mirror telescope (such as the International Liquid Mirror Telescope recently built in India) also relies on an engine for a rotating vortex of mercury to create a paraboloid reflector. Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I know some Sanskrit and have a medium-sized collection of books by David Hatcher Childress on the bookshelf here. The term "mercury vortex engine" sounds vaguely familiar so I might have read it somewhere at some time. The idea of a "mercury vortex engine" though is for the most part just science fiction (pseudoscience) as far as I know. Childress' books are written primarily for entertainment as science fiction. Redirecting to the vimana spacecraft theory seems appropriate if there is any literature connecting this (science-fiction) term to that theory. Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks User:Nicole_Sharp - by all means do something with it if you want to, or don't. From Google Books, the ones of Childress's books that mention his hypothetical "mercury vortex engines" are "Atlantis and the Power System of the Gods", "Technology of the Gods", "The SS Brotherhood of the Bell", "Vimana: Flying Machines of the Ancients" (good summary on page 190 https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Vimana/E4pXDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=mercury+vortex+engine&pg=PT190&printsec=frontcover ) and "Vimana Aircraft of Ancient India & Atlantis" (may not be a complete list, but those were the ones I could find in the first two pages of results). Wombat140 (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• While doing a Google Books search for references in Childress's books, I also found two mentions of it in books from actual large publishers. "Weird Science and Bizarre Beliefs" by Gregory L. Reece https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tg-MDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA172&dq=mercury+vortex+engine&hl=en&source=newbks_fb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=mercury%20vortex%20engine&f=false is from Bloomsbury, "Religion and Outer Space" edited by Eric Michael Mazur and Sarah McFarland Taylor (vimana chapter is by Wendy Doniger) https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Religion_and_Outer_Space/TBi-EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=mercury+vortex+engine&pg=PT36&printsec=frontcover is from Taylor and Francis. Wombat140 (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, rather than trying hard to fit it into one of the things it might refer to. Specific term with no mention on enwiki. Jay 💬 07:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of San José in California#Primary schools. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy Spirit Catholic School (San Jose, California) → San Jose, California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Holy Spirit Catholic School California → San Jose, California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  Bundled. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target which itself is a pretty broad topic. Nobody searching for this school would like to read up on the city that it is in. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are very brief mentions at Almaden Valley, San Jose#Education and Roman Catholic Diocese of San José in California#Primary schools. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no mentions are substantial enough to warrant a redirect. I've found one more that I've bundled. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just because the thing exists doesn’t mean it warrants a redirect, there are very few mentions of this place. Yoblyblob (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the school district, or in this case, Roman Catholic Diocese of San José in California as mentioned, as with other redirects of primary schools AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of San José in California#Primary schools, where the school is mentioned. Seems reasonable to point to district (or, in the case of being parochial, diocese) when the school itself is not notable and when the school is mentioned in the redirect target. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Roman Catholic Diocese of San José in California#Primary schools, where there is relevant content. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of San José in California. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Roman Catholic Diocese of San José in California per above. Both redirects seem harmless and potentially useful. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 "Second party" and retarget the hyphenated version there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Second party → Party (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Second-party → Party (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target is a disambiguation page that does not disambiguate or mention the term "second party". Readers searching these terms will most likely be confused why they arrived at the target page, and not find what they are looking for. (The redirect Second party is a ((R with history)).) Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Maybe restore it to a two-entry disambiguation page, something like:

  Second party may refer to:

  • party of the second part in civil litigation
  • Second-party developer, a video game developer tied to a console manufacturer by contract

--Muchness (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should also include Grammatical person as the second party is the second person; and a see also for second person (disambiguation) -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the disambiguation page suggestion. I'd add a see-also to Second Party System, as while it is a partial title match I can easily see someone unfamiliar with the terminology parsing it as (second party)(system) rather than the correct (second)(party system). Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I see Second-party developer too as a see-also entry, as a PTM. But perhaps we can have an entry for Second-party source in Muchness' dab. Jay 💬 14:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafted a dab at second party. Jay 💬 06:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per the aboves -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 23:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reddit mania → GameStop short squeeze  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. A few sources use the term "Gamestop Reddit mania"^[2][3] or "Gamestop mania" to refer to the short squeeze, but without the word "GameStop", the term is too ambiguous and may be used to search for Reddit's coverage of mania, or one of a number of Reddit-incited economic incidents.^[4][5][6] –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 23:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only reference to 'Theedishland' is on Reddit r/Anglish, which argues for linguistic purism. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:RFOREIGN and/or it being WP:MADEUP. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thryduulf. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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! 17:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nyfw → New York Fashion Week  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Sentence case acronym without any pages linking to it. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Where else would this target? NYFW (disambiguation) doesn't exist. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 15:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 'NYFW' already redirects to New York Fashion Week. Therefore, 'Nyfw' and 'nyfw' should also redirect to New York Fashion Week. Castncoot (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 speedy deleted by Fastily per criterion G8. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Military Engineer Services (Bangladesh) kk → Military Engineer Services (Bangladesh)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Requesting for deletion as it's an erroneous rdr targeting another rdr in the draftspace already published in the namespace. Intrisit (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: meh, it's harmless. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Draftspace is not for redirects, and redirects shouldn't target redlinked pages. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 07:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:XY: this is a misspelling that could just as easily mean "Jiangxi" as "Jiangsu", and should therefore be deleted. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is Jiang Xu, but not sure how likely a typo it will be for that. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 12:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: hopelessly ambiguous misspelling and not worth a disambiguation page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --(Roundish ✡t) 01:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Jiang Xu Seems like a possible transliteration of the name (姜敘). Skyshifter ^talk 16:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jiangxu is not a correct transliteration of Jiang Xu: it's wrong to omit the space between a person's surname and given name, and also wrong to write the given name in lower case. As such, the overall point of the nomination & Mx. Granger's comment remains: lemmas which could be typos/misspellings for multiple things should not point to just one of the possible errors, and should not be occupied by a disambiguation page consisting solely of errors either. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Wikipedia:Citing sources#Duplicate citations. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:DUPCITE → Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes#Duplicate Named References (DuplicateNamedReferences)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Duplicate citations. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, most of the links pointing to the page probably meant to target that page. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Duplicate citations. Made this redirect a long time ago, and now I figured yeah, the new target would be far better than what we have right now. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Duplicate citations per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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