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:WikiProject United States regions/Archive1. Withdrawn per Eureka. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:USR → Wikipedia:WikiProject United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Only 784 pageviews since 2015, no recent links I can see, seems implausible, and interferes with WP:US/R. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States regions/Archive1, which is where it was intended to point, based on the shortcut link at the top of the page. It's been listed there since 2005, but the shortcut apparently got disconnected following a page move. - Eureka Lott 23:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense. I'm withdrawing the nomination. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:41, 10 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Système solaire → Solar System  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This means "solar system" in French, but the solar system is not especially French. Hence, I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's a redirect not a direct title. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So? WP:RLANG couldn't be clearer. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We do have potential title matches like Demetrios_Eginitis#Sur_la_Stabilité_du_Système_Solaire. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom/WP:RLANG. Oppose retarget to a book that happens to have that word within the title, seems like it will just create confusion. Rusalkii (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily delete per nom. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Brusquedandelion which speedy deletion criterion do you think this meets? Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 14 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparently, according to Wiktionary, "ulitsa" means "street" in Aromanian (see wikt:ulitsã); hence I suggest deletion per WP:FORRED. Duckmather (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Note that there are several partial title matches in the wiki for stations and streets with this name. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speedily, as per OP. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not appear to meet any speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 14 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ビルボード → Billboard (magazine)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RFOREIGN. Certes (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; no reason to have this redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:43, 11 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• デイリー・テレグラフ → The Daily Telegraph  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RFOREIGN. Certes (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; no reason to have this redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:43, 11 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• シカゴ大学 → University of Chicago  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RFOREIGN. Certes (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't these be deleted under R3 anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know. R3 is for typos and misnomers. Does writing the right words in the wrong language count as a misnomer? Certes (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Template:Db-r3 makes reference to which is not in another language pertinent to the topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it does. I wonder if we should mention that at WP:R3, which currently only states that certain other-language titles should be kept. Certes (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should it makes reference to "as are some redirects in other languages". I would delete that text and put "This applies to redirects in languages other than English that are not pertinent to the topic". Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; no reason to have this redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:43, 11 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Internet Movie Databse → IMDb  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typo. Low page view statistics indicate so. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RCHEAP NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:CHEAP and WP:RTYPO. One missing letter is still in the realm of plausibility. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is surprisingly well used with over 100 hits last year (which contra the nominator is actually a lot of views for a misspelling redirect). It's been around for over 20 years without causing any issues so it's unlikely to cause any in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  131 hits from 3/8/2023 - 3/8/2024 for a redirect to a page that got 1,602,703 page views in the same time, not counting redirects... a practical rounding error. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The relative number of hits is irrelevant. What matters is that this redirect helped over 100 people in that time period find the article they were looking for, without hindering anybody who wasn't. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per WP:CHEAP. Commonly used misspelling. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't understand the logic of the people above, do we make a new redirect for every possible single-letter deletion for every Wikipedia page? To say nothing of single letter substitutions or insertions, which are not inherently more or less plausible than a deletion. WP:CHEAP makes sense for one-off operations with no chance of setting a precedent, OR O(1) precedents, but this is creating an O(N) precedent (where N is the number of letters of any given title). WP:CHEAP turns into WP:COSTLY at that point. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't create redirects for every typo or spelling error, just ones that are plausible. The evidence shows that this one is well used and thus demonstrably plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 14 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This genus is no longer monotypic, and the genus article does not mention the species. Nosferattus (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:REDLINK. The genus article, interestingly enough, DOES mention the species... but only by circularly linking to this redirect. Given the massive wall of redlinks that this link is nestled into, I don't see a problem making this, too, a redlink. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per REDLINK. Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 15 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 Novel#Early novels. Participants have concluded that the original target is more suitable than the one proposed by LEvalyn. Refining to the same section that was chosen before the relist. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Candidates for the first novel → Novel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear what this redirect is meant to refer in reference to its target article. Also, the singular form, Candidate for the first novel, does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's very clear if you can be bothered to look at the history! It was set up in 2006, going to what is now Novel#Early_novels (where it should now go to) & a fairly plausible search term for those interested in which ancient novel was the earliest. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I disagree with your assessment per the reason on my nomination statement. Please WP:AGF before making a WP:BEFORE accusation. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, more focused on conflict resolution at this point per my relist. Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist due to discussion on my talk page. I had originally closed this to "withdraw" and retarget to Novel#Early novels, but there has since been a series of back-and-forth edits on this redirect, specifically the redirect being retargeted to List of claimed first novels in English, an edit that was subsequently reverted. So, opening this back up for discussion. At this point, I have no opinion in the outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn and Johnbod: Pinging participants on my talk page to let them know I have reopened this discussion. (This is probably 1 of 2 or 3 places there will be such notices.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of claimed first novels in English as per discussion on Steel's talk page. As LEvalyn pointed out, that's EXACTLY where anyone landing on this redirect would want to go. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Novel#Early_novels. The title of the redirect doesn't mention English, so there's no reason to assume the reader only wants English novels. In fact, I heard of Don Quixote as the "first novel", although they usually say "first modern novel". Kk.urban (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a VERY good point. I'll note that several of the candidates listed on List of claimed first novels in English DO in fact predate the 1605 printing of the first part of Don Quixote, but you're correct in that the redirect does not specify English, where List of claimed first novels in English does (Don Quixote, as a Spanish novel, does not show up on said list). Changing my vote to Retarget to Novel#Early_novels. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, still Retarget to Novel#Early_novels. Category:Ancient Greek novels is not small, plus there are the Roman, Japanese and Chinese ones. All these are well before the English candidates, & more indisputably novels. I put a link to List of claimed first novels in English at the target. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, and also I'm realizing that Encyclopedia Britannica describes The Tale of Genji as the first novel. Kk.urban (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Early novels per everyone above. Assuming the searcher means "in English" seems to be clear anglocentrism. Rusalkii (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I concede the retarget. I thought the list of claimed first English novels did a more useful job of orienting the reader to the problem of identifying a "first novel" at all. (I suspect it is a quirk of my scholarly background that I see the novel as a narrow subgenre of prose fiction; the vast majority of pre-17thC "novels" are obviously romances, not novels, especially the five Greek ones; Genji is a notable exception. But the encyclopedia should serve a generalist public, who probably does want to find out about romances when they look for novels...) If List of first novels by language was in better shape it might be the best option overall. I won't oppose retargeting to Novel#Early_novels given the clear consensus here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:19, 10 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 delete. Jay 💬 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chudjak → Wojak#Chudjak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete apparently a Wojack variant. There's a KYM article about it but since it is referenced by 4chan sources, it might not pass our WP:RS guidelines. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable term that has no mentions at target. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:23, 14 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 delete. ✗plicit 10:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ITV Studios Home Entertainment (television split of ITV Studios studio.) → ITV Studios#Distribution  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a plausible redirect. No useful page history. AusLondonder (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a second attempt at ITV Studios Home Entertainment, a plausible redirect. See previous attempt there by same editor: [1]. Wikishovel (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:RDAB-type issue where the error in disambiguation creates an implausible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete delete as per Interstellar. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:01, 11 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 keep. ✗plicit 10:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2024 Women's Premier League (cricket) Squads → 2024 Women's Premier League (cricket)#Participating teams  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Middle parenthetical "(cricket)" seems like a an artifact constructed from appending "Squads" to the page name; unlikely search term, not used anywhere else on the internet. Rusalkii (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't understand what's implausible about this as a search term from someone who is familiar with the generalities but not specifics of Wikipedia's titling policies (which is probably most regular readers who are not editors). Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the article is at 2024 Women's Premier League (cricket), which makes this entirely plausible (even though an actual article on this should use small s in squads). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The redirect target has been changed. Now, it redirects to 2024 Women's Premier League (cricket) squads. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 06:21, 14 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 delete. ✗plicit 10:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NATO is pregnant → Enlargement of NATO  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. Potentially an oblique reference to this if mentioned in a section anywhere, but as far as I can tell it isn't. Does not seem navigationally useful at present, and potentially confusing. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:8812:623B:4590:20E2 (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete rather bizarre redirect, no clear reason why this analogy is used. I can't find any usage on the internet either. Kk.urban (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and also what? Not mentioned at target or anywhere else on the internet except this comment. Rusalkii (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:CHEAP. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, pretty sure I saw this used as a bad translation in a couple of foreign language sources (which literally translated back to English used pregnant to describe this). Will try and dredge them up. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Abort as per Kk.urban and Rusalkii. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'm assuming it's like those pregnant elsa foot dress-up flash games that used to flood the internet

support asking the creator what the joke is (i don't think cheap would help here when no one knows what it's about), and then deleting as fast as humanly possible anyway cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 22:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Kk.urban. – Hilst [talk] 14:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I doubt this is useful. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlikely nonsense without context. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and send to WP:DAFT): Sounds quite nonsensical, and does not seem likely to be attested. Xeroctic (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment some sources: [2] (which describes NATO's effort in the war as pregnant), [3] as well as old source [4]. Trying to re-find the foreign language articles that translated to describe NATO expansion like pregnancy. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:10, 12 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 keep. In regards to the rcat, "R from non-neutral" supporters suggest this tag is used because one word in the title is non-neutral. "R from former name" supporters suggest this tag as the entire title is the exact former name. At this point in time, this will be tagged as "R from former name" due to it having highest precision for this case. Transgenderism has received the non-neutral tag, which appears to be sufficient. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• International Journal of Transgenderism → International Journal of Transgender Health  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Linked to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9#Transgenderism - the journal renamed to International Journal of Transgender Health in 2020 as ‘Transgenderism’ is considered a slur nowadays so all incoming links should be updated to the new name and this redirect deleted after. Raladic (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This nomination is not sensible. This was the official name of the journal, when the journal was notable, and it's unambiguous. Kk.urban (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That argument makes no sense, the journal hasn’t suddenly become un-notable because it renamed itself. It literally still is the foremost journal on Transgender research published by WPATH and did the rename to serve the population it focuses on without slurring it. All volumes and issues from the prior name were republished under the new name and Wikipedia should follow suit and update the links, not keep the old name around. Raladic (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was notable both before and after it was renamed, therefore the redirect should be kept. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it's not currently notable. Kk.urban (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "All volumes and issues from the prior name were republished under the new name" no there were not. All that link shows is a listing off all issues of IJTH, which include those published under previous names. Vol. 20 is still listed as IJT, for instance. Vol 21, which explains the rationale for the name change explicitly cites old issues as IJT. I have reverted all your edits retconning the name of the journal in citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. It's an obvious search term for anyone searching for the journal and unaware of the rename, or finding a reference in an older work. Ideally the rename would be contextualized in the article, making it clear that this is no longer an acceptable term. Rusalkii (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Weird nomination. --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Redirects from unambiguous (significant) former names of notable topics are good redirects, and there is no indication of why this is different. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mark redirect as ((R from non-neutral name)), add a mention to the page about the name change. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag as ((R from non-neutral name)). Maybe update the incoming links to avoid the redirect but we still want to keep the redirect so that anybody stumbling over an old reference to it under its old name can look it up and find the correct article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not tag with ((R from non-neutral name)) name. It's ((R from former name)). This is no different than Journal of Negro History renaming itself Journal of African American History in 2001. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed on the tag. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because it's a former name, doesn't also make it a non-neutral name. The journal itself said so when they announced the reasons for the renaming.

  That's what we have Rcat shells for, so that redirects can be tagged with multiple appropriate tags to warn editors and readers about their use. Raladic (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone who is referring to a 2019 issue of the journal as International Journal of Transgenderism is not doing a non-neutral reference, for the same reason that someone that says 'Goodson founded the Journal of Negro History in 1916' isn't writing non-neutrally. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't make the old name any less non-neutral.

  Also, the sentence you wrote as your example is not actually in the article that you referenced. The article says The Journal of African American History (formally the Journal of Negro History) was one of the first scholarly journals to cover African-American history. It was founded in January 1916 by Carter G. Woodson, an African-American historian and journalist.. Raladic (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The names are neutral because they were the name of the thing at the time. As for my example being in the article, why would it need to be? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Something that was at the time is not relevant when we write Wikipedia now - language evolves and what may once have been deemed okay at the time, may not be today. This applies to very many slurs that may have been used in the past, but are not used today for reason of them being not neutral in todays language. Raladic (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is when we write about what was. In 2015, the name of the journal was International Journal of Transgenderism. Any references to journal issues from 2015 should refer to that name. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't it be most helpful to tag both this AND that, with both tags? It's not like there's a hard limit on how many tags can be on a redirect lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's misleading to say that someone using the former title is writing non-neutrally. They're either writing accurately, or not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's misleading. They changed the name for a reason. Yes, before the journal changed its name, it was a neutral name. However, they have now changed their name. Thus, continuing to use the journal's previous name well after they changed it, IS non-neutral. Thus, we need to go back and change any prior usage (edit at 10:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC): perhaps with a reference to the original name as per Raladic's example), and we also need to tag the redirect as both prior name AND non-neutral.

Also, as a trans girl myself, might I note how hilarious it is that we're discussing the neutrality of deadnaming a journal about transgender health? It has a certain 'yeah we're not making this up' quality to it 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you cite something, you cite it with the name it had at the moment of publication. You do not retcon the names of publications or businesses. If Bob worked at the National Bureau of Standards in 1982, we don't say "Bob worked for the National Institute of Standards and Technology" just because it's currently 2024. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The National Bureau of Standards" also doesn't literally contain a slur against the very people the group purports to support. That right there automatically means that there needs to be a finer line tread. I will concede that we can't just erase the old name outright, but we also shouldn't flat-out ignore the name change, and we shouldn't just ignore the reason the name change was made.
As I noted in the edit to my previous comment, Raladic's example, as used to reference the Journal of African American History ( ...The Journal of African American History (formerly the Journal of Negro History) was...) worked in this sort of situation-- it notes the previous name, and immediately clues the reader in that it's NOT the current name, in one easy, fell swoop. (Also functional for this role would be swapping the two-- ...The Journal of Negro History (currently the Journal of African American History)...)
Obviously, that won't work in every situation (say, it won't work in reference citing, where I will also concede that we probably need to use the original name), but it's FAR better than just ...The Journal of Negro History...-- or, more relevant, ...The International Journal of Transgenderism... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wrong. Don't believe me? Look at IJTH which cites past issues as IJT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Former name of the journal, historically notable. The claim that transgenderism is an insult is not relevant here. - Manifestation (talk) 19:15, 11 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 Transgender#Terminology. Effectively a refinement of the current target. This redirect is also tagged as R from non-neutral term as consensus has suggested. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The term ‘Transgenderism’ is a slur (refer to GLAAD) and should not generally be used across Wikipedia. I just came across the fact that it was used on ICD-11 and cleaned it up from there, but this redirect should be deleted and any references should be replaced by terms such as “transgender people” or “being transgender” as the existence of being transgender is not an ideology. Raladic (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL (non-neutral redirects are allowed), not everyone thinks it's a slur, and GLAAD is also a non-neutral source (per their self-description as an "advocacy organization"). Kk.urban (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Plenty of neutral sources document that the term is now considered offensive, derogatory, or disapproving, including most notably, the journal International Journal of Transgender Health; see the related discussion above (why do you think they renamed themselves)? Add to that Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Languages (per the definition that Google provides, which is provided by Oxford). Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Refine to Transgender#Terminology, where this word is defined and denoted as no longer being considered acceptable. I agree that references on Wikipedia should be changed, but this term will likely still be present in older sources. Tag as ((R from non-neutral term)). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I missed it there. I agree that that is the best way to retarget it. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I just went through the current incoming links and updated all but two to point directly to transgender based on the context they were used. The two that I left are using it in the slurred context, so if we retarget the redirect per your suggestion then they will be in context. Raladic (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anybody using the term in 2024 is almost certainly using it as a slur but there are examples of people using it in good faith in the fairly recent past. For example the International Journal of Transgender Health used to be called the International Journal of Transgenderism up until 2020. I agree that the term must never be used in Wikivoice and that most, if not all, of the incoming links from article space should be replaced. I see that at least one of the incoming links is a direct quotation so maybe that should be either unlinked or piped. That said, I'm not sure that deletion is the best solution here. I'd rather retarget it at something which can explain that the term is a slur before sending them on to the article that they most likely want, namely transgender. We want people who have heard the term, and who might come to us wondering what it means, to be able to find out the truth from us rather than come up blank and move on to less reputable sources which might mislead them. We don't seem to have a good target for that at the moment. The term is not covered in Anti-LGBT rhetoric or LGBT slang. The similarly obnoxious term Transgender ideology redirects to Anti-LGBT rhetoric and I think it would make sense to cover both terms, briefly, there. Having said all that, I don't think that deletion would be an awful outcome. It would probably be better than what we have now. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Presidentman has the right solution, above, so I am adjusting my !vote to retarget to Transgender#Terminology. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine per Presidentman and tag as ((R from non-neutral term)). Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine + Tag per Presidentman. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First of all, I am genuinely surprised that some people believe transgenderism to be an insult. Isms don't just refer to ideologies, but to phenomena in general (journalism, realism, recidivism), including scientific phenomena (magnetism, Darwinism, atavism). Basically, you can make an ism out of anything. I consider transgenderism to be an umbrella word and a spectrum term for all things related to being a transgender person. However, this is all not even relevant here. There is no reason why slurs cannot be redirects, or have articles. This entire nomination is senseless – see WP:NOBLECAUSE. - Manifestation (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, you or I can't control how a word is percieved or used-- descriptivism, not prescriptivism. There is a marked trend of using the term "transgenderism" as a method of othering transgender people-- and if you don't believe me, I'll pull up the very source that Transgender#Terminology uses when discussing the term, which is right over here. In any case, even without said source, when a notable journal on transgender health feels the need to change its name in order to stop using a word (see the related discussion on International Journal of Transgender Health, above), I do think there's been a sea change as to the usage of the word.
  As for the WP:NOBLECAUSE argument... I fully agree with you, as do the guidelines on redirects (see WP:RNEUTRAL). Hence my above vote to merely refine the redirect and tag it as non-neutral (...because it is non-neutral, see: descriptivism argument I just gave). 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The word is completely neutral, and this issue bothers me so much that I've made a thread about it at Talk:Transgender. - Manifestation (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTAFORUM and frankly no one cares. It is a slur if people use it as a slur; that is how descriptivism works. It is a strictly empirical question. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:UNCIVIL Julkhamil (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine per Presidentman. Per WP:RNEUTRAL the mere fact that a term is considered offensive doesn't mean it's unsuitable for a redirect. This one is a plausible search term and is discussed in the target article. Hut 8.5 19:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine + Tag as ((R from non-neutral term)) as per Presidentman and others. The people who are saying it is neutral or unbiased are, simply, wrong, in 2024, but non-neutral redirects can and do exist and thus appears to be the best way to handle the situation. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:56, 14 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 The Pit and the Pendulum. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Pit and the Pendulums → Super Mario 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in article, could potentially be Retargeted to The Pit and the Pendulum. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is one of many needless alternate names, needless disambiguations, implausible search terms, and other wrong things, which are spammed by this user and are actually just WP:FANCRUFT. This is an extremely implausible search term, not happening. No, it wouldn't be redirected anywhere else, for exactly the reason the nominator just stated. — Smuckola(talk) 05:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to The Pit and the Pendulum (the Edgar Allen Poe short story) and tag as ((R from incorrect name)). Yes, the redirect targeting to Super Mario 64 would be fancruft (The Pit and the Pendulum being the second mission of the world Tick Tock Clock), but retargeting instead to the Edgar Allen Poe story means it is no longer fancruft. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to "The Pit and the Pendulum", it's surprising this wasn't already redirected there. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:26, 9 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. The edit summaries and immediate self-reversion indicate this was created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Media coverage of the Arab–Palestinian conflict → Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

R3, but from a page move, so it has to go here. I don't see much of a use case for it. Geardona (talk to me?) 02:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If there is an "Arab–Palestinian conflict", that's a completely different thing. Kk.urban (talk) 03:07, 9 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 delete. Jay 💬 06:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Haj Ali (mayor) → Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, and not apparently anywhere else either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this seems to be pertaining to Ali al-Shalal Abbas according to JSTOR and this site. Anyways, we don't have any info about him. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:29, 10 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 keep. Regardless of where the page ends up, consensus suggests that both are plausible search terms for the subject. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Equestrian events at the 2024 Summer Olympics → Template:Equestrian at the 2024 Summer Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect. Unexplained move to include events in title. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the same has happened with ((Equestrian events at the 2020 Summer Olympics)). 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ...Whyyyy does the actual title/template NOT have the word 'events' in it? As it stands, the template reads rather stiltedly? My brain keeps wanting to either make the word 'Equestrian' plural, or add the word 'The' in front of it, even though neither are correct. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. There is an ongoing dispute over the title of the corresponding article (and some others, see Talk:Equestrian at the Summer Olympics#Requested move 30 December 2023, User talk:Sportsfan 1234#Why?, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Move of Equestrian to "Equestrian Events"). I don't think it makes sense to bother deleting this redirect at this point, when it is uncertain what the article title will be. And if someone else wants to add "events" to the title of the template again, a new WP:RM#CM that includes the template should happen first. (WP:SK#3 may even apply in this case; the stated reason for the first move was "to coincide with article name", which appeared to be valid at the time. And, in general, no one would in good faith request deletion of a redirect they believed to be necessary.) PleaseStand (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plausible search term. Regardless of the wider discussion/arguments about whether events should be in the titles, it's a plausible search term for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:04, 11 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).