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! 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• B-rail → National Railway Company of Belgium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I do not think people would search up B-rail for this. SNCB, NMBS or even SNCB/NMBS together is more appropriate JuniperChill (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to B Line, which is a likelier target IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep per Thryduulf finding evidence this is a former name. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep, definitely don't retarget. This seems to be an older brand used (possibly c.2008-2013) by SNCB/NMBS (see e.g. [1], and was previously their main website URI and pages/forum posts from that era show it was used (e.g. [2], [3], [4], ). However, articles (e.g. this from 2021 and from 2023 state that Barraqueiro Group have a subsidiary called "B-Rail" registered as an open access operator in Portugal, although services are still several years away and we don't have relevant content (yet) so disambiguation isn't sustainable at the moment. I can find no evidence of "B-rail" being used to refer to anything called "B line", just the above and various partial title matches for non-notable products and companies. Thryduulf (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Thryduulf. Older, defunct names are valid redirects, and they're useful if people are researching older topics. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2024 (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 05:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hui (animal) → Canidae in Meitei culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Taoba → Canidae in Meitei culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Huijao → Canidae in Meitei culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Huithou → Canidae in Meitei culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Huinao → Canidae in Meitei culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Shahui → Canidae in Meitei culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Sahui → Canidae in Meitei culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Keishal → Canidae in Meitei culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Keisal → Canidae in Meitei culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Lamhui → Canidae in Meitei culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ridiculous number of redirects for this article. This is not sensible destination for a word that just means 'fox'. PepperBeast (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've bundled these nominations. The nomination statements defined the words as variously "dog", "wolf", "wild dog", "hunting dog" and "puppy" (but not necessarily in that order). Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the current target is nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canidae in Meitei culture. A7V2 (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. This is an English language Wikipedia. Furthermore, this is basically just spam. If you look at the creator's drafts, they got a bunch of other such spam articles they're working on (all while claiming to be semi retired per their user page). An admin really needs to tell them to knock it off, all they're doing is clogging AfD and RfD. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all : Those are the Meitei language common names of the article's main topic. Besides, those terms are explicitly mentioned as well as discussed in different degrees inside the article, along with due citations. Those are not baseless claims or spamming. --Haoreima (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an English language Wikipedia. If those terms are not in use in multiple reliable independent English Language sources, then there is no reason a page should exist for them on Wikipedia, whether as a redirect or otherwise. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Brusquedandelion, that's really not how WP:RLANG works. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But it is. That page explicitly gives Common words or concepts as an example of an inappropriate redirect. The creator of these redirects themself tells us, immediately above my comment, that these are the Meitei language common names of the article's main topic. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I expect this table will not be included after the merge. Possibly keep Hui (animal) itself? However, I don't believe we have a habit of redirecting [animal name] in a language to "[that animal] in [that culture]." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, and indeed such a practice is explicitly contraindicated by WP:RLANG. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Ridiculous" isn't a valid reason for the deletion nomination. It sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haoreima (talk • contribs) 10:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Due to this edit to merge Canidae in Meitei culture (the target of all the nominated redirects) to Meitei culture as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canidae in Meitei culture (closed to merge), I'm not sure how relevant or applicable some of these votes are now. Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notwithstanding the moving targets, these terms aren't mentioned now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your concerns too. However, these terms were not mentioned now because the nominator didn't bring the particular information to the targeted merged page. One can re-add them at any time. Haoreima (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ꯃꯨꯊꯠꯄ (which is, according to Google Translate, Manipuri for Delete). WP:FORRED (admittedly already mentioned as WP:RLANG) neatly covers all of this. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The target was merged to Meitei culture#Animals and birds which mentions story titles having words Loushing and Keishal. However, these needn't be redirects. A search can show if non-English words the reader is looking for is part of any article. Jay 💬 17:00, 2 March 2024 (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 2023 in Qatar per snowball clause . (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 22:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Qatar 2023 → 2023 AFC Asian Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Qatar 2023" is not unambiguously affiliated with the 2023 AFC Asian Cup and I propose retargeting to 2023 in Qatar. I've tried to change the target, as has another editor (Significa liberdade), and instead of edit warring I'm seeking feedback on this.

It is my belief that "CountryName Year" redirects should be pointed to YYYY in CountryName. I made a similar nomination here, where I nominated a number of CountryName Year redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Google search gives a couple different results, and the first one is the 2023 Qatar Grand Prix rather than the AFC cup. No clear primary topic, and even if there was it seems somewhat wrong to declare that a search for country + year gets some specific sporting event. Rusalkii (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom in the absence of a primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as per nom, many events in Qatar in 2023. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above rationale - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 16:52, 21 February 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• January 6 hostage crisis → Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading/POV redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see mention of "Jan 6 hostage crisis" in the citations. Could it belong on one of the Trump articles? DN (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget. Some section about Trump's comments (or those of other Republican politicians) about "January 6" might be a better redirect target. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack#Related activities and proceedings where usage of the term "hostages" to refer to those arrested for their involvement is discussed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so sure about the WP:WEIGHT there, but regardless nobody is calling it a "hostage crisis". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do far-right fringe opinions from Marjorie Taylor Green's and Elise Stefanik necessitate a redirect? DN (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If they're included in the article, I see no harm in having a redirect. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete politically loaded, NPOV fork to score cheap points. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE Refine Retarget to Rhetoric of Donald Trump-Falsehoods (or) possibly DUE for Trumpism-Falsehoods or Delete. UNDUE for J6 redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknipples (talk • contribs) DN (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to DELETE since there has been practically no new coverage using this term for the last 3 weeks. DN (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darknipples: Please be aware that your !vote is actually a proposal to "retarget", and not to "refine", as the article you're suggesting is completely different from the present target. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, retarget, or refine?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not needed 83.168.141.16 (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No hostages, no crisis. Feoffer (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there is coverage in sources. The target does talk about "hostages" and exactly that way in quotes. It does not talk about a crisis per Feoffer, and certainly not about a hostage crisis. Jay 💬 18:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not in WP:RS or concluded in articles that the charged/convicted are hostages. IP75 (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2024 (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 Gear#Types. Given that Cog#Types hasn't been created, the result that makes the most sense is retarget to Gear#Types, where there is a list of cogs. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Cogs → Gears of War#Setting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no list of cogs at the target article. Perhaps in the past (and before the offshoot into List of Gears of War characters that's currently a redirect), but now this redirect has very little to offer readers. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to Gear#Types, which lists the types of gears some of which are also called cogs. The only other entries at Cog (disambiguation) that could plausibly have lists are Cog (boat) (we don't have such a list) and Council of Government (if we had a list it would be at List of Councils of Government but I've not found that we do). Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless in every way, unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 05:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We may however create a List of CoGs and target List of Councils of Government Duckmather created. There is no Cog#Types section Duckmather is referring to. Jay 💬 09:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Duckmather is actually referring to Gear#Types ("gear" and "cog" being synonyms in this usage). Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to Gear#Types although it is not a list, and hatnote List of Councils of Government from there. Jay 💬 16:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak disambiguate between Cog#Types and List of councils of government (which I actually made because of Thryduulf's comment, in fact), and potentially other lists of things that are called "cogs" as well. Duckmather (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with disambiguation now there are at least two things to disambiguate between. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I see no value in having this redirect, particular where there is no list of cogs in target. - Dyork (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is why I initially suggested retargetting to a page that has such a list, and Duckmather is suggesting disambiguating between a list of COGs and the page with a list of cogs. Thryduulf (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate between Gear#Types and List of councils of government per Thryduulf and Duckmather 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 17:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gear#Types, which lists the types of gears in prose, noting that per the article a gear may also be known informally as a cog. I do find it extremely unlikely for someone to use this term to search for List of councils of government. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gear#Types as per Thryduulf and Tavix, which should impart a lot less WP:SURPRISE than List of councils of government (or, for that matter, Gears of War#Setting. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2024 (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 withdrawn/retarget to Territories claimed by the Philippines. No point leaving this here when my nomination rationale was faulty and no-one has supported deletion or anything else. An obvious suitable target does exist. A7V2 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

• Philippines Disputed Territories → Territorial dispute  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no discussion of the Philippines at the current target, nor was there when this redirect was created back in 2005 [5]. The Philippines seems to be involved in several territorial disputes, both past and present, and many are listed on List of territorial disputes, and some have their own articles such as Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. There is also the article List of internal boundary disputes in the Philippines. I had expected to find an article called something like Territorial disputes of the Philippines, but no such article exists. I'm unsure what should be done with this redirect, but given lack of a clear best choice I'm leaning towards delete. Certainly the current target is not suitable. A7V2 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Territories claimed by the Philippines which appears to be the list article A7V2 is looking for (listing only disputed claims). Another option would be Category:Territorial disputes of the Philippines but the prose article is probably better. I definitely agree that the current target is wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Thryduulf. I will withdraw this, and I might as well create Territorial disputes of the Philippines as a redirect to your suggested target as well. A7V2 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R from project → Template:R from subsidiary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Potentially ambiguous rcat redirect, considering that ((R to project)) redirects to ((R to project namespace)). I'm also not sure that one thing being a project of another thing necessarily implies that the former is a subsidiary of the latter - for example, a person could be said to have a project, but such a project wouldn't be considered a subsidiary of that person. For these reasons, I propose deletion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as a technicality. I would lean toward keeping any rcat that has something to do with the real world, even if there could be some kind of internal "WP lingo" meaning with which someone might confuse it, since this is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in internal self-documentation and self-organization for its own sake. That said, this template shortcut does not represent an actual rcat, but is a template redirect to another, and the match is poor, since projects are not subsidiaries but a different class of thing. If someone wanted to create an actual redirect category for projects (redirects from non-notable projects to the organizations or parties of which they are projects), then that would be another matter, and I would support keeping that. If the "confusable with an 'R from project namespace'" objection were raised again, my answer would be the same: reality, and WP's need to categorize it properly, trumps interal WP omphaloskepsis and shortcut-mongering. If anything, maybe the "R to project" shortcut (to the properly named ((R to project namespace))) should not exist, since the shortcut version implies redirects from non-notable persons or other somethings to the notable real-world projects with which they are associated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:44, 21 February 2024 (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 1792 United States presidential election. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1792 presidential election → List of elections, 1701–1800  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Presidential election of 1792 → List of elections, 1701–1800  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm looking at the target, and there appears to be exactly one Presidential election in 1792: the 1792 United States presidential election. As such, I don't think this is an ambiguous search term, so I'm bringing it here seeking a retarget. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: Bundled Presidential election of 1792 into this nomination (courtesy ping Red-tailed hawk). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 00:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If there had been other presidential elections in 1792 for which there were articles then at the least these should be refined to the section on 1792, but as that is not the case, retarget to 1792 United States presidential election per nom. A7V2 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. Not only do we not have articles about other presidential elections in that year, I can't find any evidence there were others we could have articles about. Eventually, using the search term "1792" "presidential election" -"United States" -Washington -"college" -"US" -"U.S." I got a few hits related to something other than US presidential elections on page 2, these related to a battle in 1792 that The Independent speculated may have some meaning for the 2006 French presidential election, the 2019 Nigerian presidential election (in which one candidate received 1,792 votes), the president of a company called "1792 Wealth Advisors", Marie Antoinette (who was imprisoned in 1792), a list of Early Day Motions in the UK House of Commons that includes motion #1792 and a motion related to the 2009 Iranian presidential election and an alternate history wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2024 (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).