User:Awesome Aasim/rfd rewrite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copied from WP:RFD with few changes

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 9 26 0 35
TfD 0 0 10 0 10
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 0 2 0 2
RfD 0 2 20 0 22
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]


Shortcut

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Shortcuts
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

Shortcuts

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list[edit]

June 3[edit]

WWE Day 1[edit]

Per a 2023 RM, we have articles at WWE Day 1 (2022) and WWE Day 1 (2024). Make dab; no primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment WWE Day 1 (2024) links to it in its lead sentence, could it be made into a broader article than a dab, or are the similarities too superficial? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Disambig without prejudice to writing an article per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Glasgow Seltic[edit]

Unlikely spelling and searching for anything similar will get the right page anyway. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. "Seltic" is the phonetic spelling and thus a plausible search term. Unambiguous plausible search terms should take readers directly to the content they are looking for unless there is a good reason not to, but no such reason has been suggested here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji Chopra[edit]

Another married actress who never took her husband's name after marriage. This redirect should not exist. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

None of those call her by that name. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry but they do. For example this one from NDTV: In the letter, signed Rani Mukerji Chopra, the 38-year-old actress writes of her hopes and fears for her baby daughter, of the anxiety and the joy that motherhood brings. Keivan.fTalk 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
One passing instance of that name in over a decade of her marriage does not mean she's known by that name. But fine, this redirect can still be understandable because she's self-signed the letter. But for the other actresses, not so much. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Alia Bhatt Kapoor[edit]

Subject is not known by the name "Alia Bhatt Kapoor". A redirect such as this should not exist for married women who haven't changed/added their husband's name after marriage. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment I have no strong feelings about this, but when it comes to redirects it doesn't matter what the person is commonly known as. This is not the article's title. As long as some sources refer to her as such the redirect can serve a valid purpose when it comes to looking for the subject. Examples include this one which refers to the Newlywed Alia Bhatt Kapoor in the text. The name also yields results on Google. In short, redirects are cheap and they don't need to be 100% accurate; that's why we have ones such as Jennifer Pitt. Keivan.fTalk 19:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The question isn't what they are "commonly" known as. We should not assume that a married women should take her husband's last name, and that extends to poorly researched sources that call her by that name simply because she's married. It's highly misogynistic, unless ya'll create the same redirects for Ranbir Kapoor Bhatt or Virat Kohli Sharma. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not for me to assume whether a woman or man has taken up her/his spouse's last name. When sources write something down we simply follow, and redirects are meant to ease the navigation process. Unfortunately, "Ranbir Kapoor Bhatt" doesn't yield any results anywhere, but "Alia Bhatt Kapoor" does and if someone decides to look that name up here after coming across it somewhere else, the redirect will take them to the actual article. Keivan.fTalk 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Sources can call an actor many things. In this source, Kareena Kapoor Khan is called KKK, as do other sources such as this and this. Does that mean KKK should redirect to her article? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course not, because obviously Ku Klux Klan is the primary topic. However, if the name they are using for the person is inherently unique, then I don't see why it can't serve a purpose as a redirect. Keivan.fTalk 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Why does it have to be unique? KKK (actress) is unique enough for a redirect. All I'm saying is that there are many ways to call a celebrity, doesn't mean they should all be redirects, especially when it comes to giving women identities that's not theirs, which is exactly what's problematic in the case of "Alia Bhatt Kapoor". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - we don't know if she changed the name in her passport and other documents, but she did announce it. Jay 💬 18:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia[edit]

Editor-coined term for a since-merged series of events. Not in usage anywhere outside of Wikipedia mirrors. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Support This is not a named event nor are the events that the former article referred to independently notable. No good reason to keep this. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note that this has prior article history and is a {{R from merge}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep to preserve history, as content from the page continues to exist at the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

'Umar ibn Sahlan as-Sawi[edit]

I am not good at Islamic naming or there about but I can find any clue with this particular redirect. It is also a near close and unlikely when searched on web browsers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • This might be the same person. An expert in Persian might help with https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ابن_سهلان_ساوجی Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • A good place to check for these kinds of things is OCLC. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete as confusing, since there's no evident connection between the redirect and its target, and we don't even know if both are the same person. CycloneYoris talk! 20:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not know any Arabic nor Arabic naming conventions, but the two names might refer to the same person. Encyclopædia Iranica lists him as EBN SAHLĀN SĀVAJĪ, Qāżī ZAYN-AL-DĪN ʿOMAR. The two names identify the same father and have similar first names (Omar and ʿUmar). Ca talk to me! 07:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Frances and Richard Lockridge[edit]

Frances Lockridge now has her own page separate from her husband Bookworm-ce (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Would alternatively support proposal by Tavix. Unlike, for example, Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II, who have extensive detail in their individual articles, independent of the Rodgers and Hammerstein collaboration, Frances Lockridge and Richard Lockridge are indeed proper candidates for a Frances and Richard Lockridge joint biography entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Having created the Frances Lockridge article, merging the pages seems like an OK alternative, although Richard's career continued for a decade or two after Frances' death. I just would prefer not to have a joint page directing to Richard specifically, or have only Richard have his own page but not give Frances her own, which would feel dismissive of Frances. —Bookworm-ce (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • As an alternative proposal, how about dabification? This probably isn't a standard outcome for WP:XY-type redirects; however, given that this is a valid search term (as opposed to a combination of 'X' and 'Y' that isn't used anywhere else), I'm leaning towards ignoring the rules to the extent necessary for this proposal. I'd be in favour of this outcome as opposed to merging, due to the fact that (in my opinion) RfD isn't the ideal forum for considering/discussing article mergers, and I'm not sure if it's strictly within its remit -- to be clear, a merger could still be discussed, but by a process such as WP:PAM rather than at RFD. I've started a draft disambiguation page below the current redirect. Pinging previous participants: @Bookworm-ce, Presidentman, Roman Spinner, and Tavix. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we would need three pages where one is sufficient. -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
One may turn out to be sufficient, but I don't personally feel comfortable opining on that matter in this discussion; as (to me) it's more of an article content question than one regarding redirects, and due to the fact that the two pages in question aren't aware that a merger is being considered at this RfD. If the consensus at (e.g.) WP:PAM is to merge the articles, this proposed dab page would no longer exist - however, prior to such a merger (if one occurs), this disambiguation page would serve as a navigational aid. My view is therefore that RfD could dabify this redirect, but without prejudice to a merger discussion (which would, in my view, be better suited to make that determination). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Articleify into an article about their collaboration under a pen name. The articles with their individual biographies can be kept if they meet GNG outside of their collaboration, otherwise a full merge could work. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
There are a bunch of proposals here that involve outcomes outside the scope of RfD, and hence we can't force anyone to do any of those. What the RfD closing admin should do is delete and allow the merge/articlefy proposals to be done if someone actually does them. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete per Pppery. Let any admins familiar with merging do this. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Steve Lacy (musician)[edit]

Ambiguous; see Steve Lacy (saxophonist) Retarget to Steve Lacy (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

ELMatronmaker/sandbox2[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move without redirect

Substantial[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Pole (Venezuela)[edit]

No mention in the article and no indication of why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Look at the article history, this is a defunct minor political party. Retarget to List of political parties in Venezuela. 162 etc. (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Could this refer to es:Polo Democrático (Venezuela), a political party that merged into Un Nuevo Tiempo and is mentioned in the latter's Spanish article? That would mean the "2000" in the legislative election mentioned in the historical revision would be a typo for "2005", but I can't find any mention of "Pole", "Polo" or "PD" in either of the election articles. Given that "Pole" is a reasonable translation of "Polo" (the shortened form of Polo Democrático), the redirect seems plausible, but would need a mention to be added in the Un Nuevo Tiempo article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

IRC +10414[edit]

Procedural listing; a previous RfD was closed with a consensus to retarget, but InTheAstronomy32 has reverted this. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep as a misspelling. I changed the redirect target because i believe that 'IRC +10414' is a misspelling of IRC -10414 and is the better redirect target so far. An article about this star likely will be never created due to notability issues. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Two-Micron Sky Survey per previous RFD. IRC +10414 refers to this star, not IRC -10414, which is this star. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete This was never an article, and it isn't mentioned at either target. No pageviews in the last month. I really don't see how this redirect is helpful. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed with Presidentman here and Kusma from the prefious RfD, but I'd like to add that the naming scheme of the star is very intentional (from Two-Micron Sky Survey: index consists of two numbers - declination rounded to multiplier of 10 degrees, with sign, and star ordinal number within declination band) and if you typo the sign you should expect to be taken to a different star or nowhere. ― Synpath 23:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Retarget per the consensus of arguments in the previous RfD, which I find more compelling than the alternatives. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, not mentioned at Two-Micron Sky Survey, and people looking for the other star and making the typo might believe that the star actually doesn't have a standalone article, while a red link can be more indicative of them having made a typo. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Kontra Code[edit]

implausible misspelling (or is it a pun?), google gave me nothing of note cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 00:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2[edit]

User:2601:9:4303:8590:4571:E326:4AB2:E047[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

More IPs that redirect to user pages[edit]

Even more IPs that redirect to user talk pages. None of these redirects seem to be useful anymore. Nickps (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Blur (gods)[edit]

bad redirect toweli (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

EMBO journal & reports[edit]

XY redirect. The subject is The EMBO Journal or EMBO Reports, not both. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  • I want to say delete, as what little content this page previously had is reflected in the current, separate articles, and the old references are broken links to the Nature website. However, I vaguely remember there being licensing reasons to keep old page histories for attribution. Retarget to European Molecular Biology Organization#Conferences and journals may be the way to go if that's right. ― Synpath 04:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
    There's nothing in that redirect's history that was ported over the other articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
    Taking another look, I see that now - striking retarget suggestion and delete. Thanks ― Synpath 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

HD resolution[edit]

The aspect ratio is not itself "HD", this is misleading and confusing. I'm not sure where this redirect should lead, maybe High-definition television? Leaving that up to people with a better understanding of the area than me. Rusalkii (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to 720p, as I'd say that would be the most precise target for "HD resolution", and HD resolution by itself most commonly refers to 720p / 1280x720, the first resolution considered "HD". I would probably also add a hatnote at the top of the article saying something like "HD resolution redirects here. For the broader topic, see High-definition video." for if readers want to know more about other resolutions that are considered 'HD' / have 'HD' in the name. Otherwise, other ideas I have are High-definition video (a broader topic than High-definition television), or convert to a disambiguation page that includes all three aforementioned topics. Note: I've also added the alternative capitalisation redirect Hd resolution to the nomination. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment though HD commonly refers to 1080i/1080p, and not 720, which is EDTV, enhanced definition, or 540p, standard definition -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
      1080p is officially referred to as 'Full HD' though. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • DAB, nowadays this is used for 1080p resolution, but historically anything from 720p, 1080i, 1080p were all considered 'HD' resolution. Maybe other formats too, but those are very minor. Alternatively, a redirect to High-definition television would also be fine. Maybe even High-definition television#Display resolutions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Retarget to High-definition television#Display resolutions as per Headbomb. It's the closest we have to an existing list of "HD resolutions", and if the reader wanted instead a discussion of "HD resolution" in general... they need merely to scroll up. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change[edit]

Lyric from the song not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Moon of the Spider(novel)[edit]

Can't be speedily deleted due to significant edit history, though I doubt the consensus would be any different here. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RDAB: this is still an implausible search term even if it doesn’t qualify for WP:X3. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete it was an article for several months in 2009/2010 but doesn't appear to contain any content not in Moon of the Spider. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep to preserve edit history and attribution, due to its content being merged into the target. This is exactly why it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Fieari (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Are there any diffs that attest to this merge? I don't see it in the target's history. All I see is a merge from Moon of the Spider. And that one has no merges at all in its edit history, so how did content from the nominated page end up in the target? Nickps (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:67.100.217.179[edit]

I see no good reason to have an IP redirect to a registered User's page. If the IP starts editing again, this will make it difficult to contact them. Nickps (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Like the RFD below this one, this 2008-era redirect was created by user:Linas themselves; although the redirect's edit history is more vague as to why, it's easy to assume that it's because this IP was what Linas posted as before they made their account, similarly to Moritheil below. However, again just like the RFD below this one, there's no guarantee that the IP address still leads to Linas themselves-- they could have easily moved to a new location, swapped ISP, or done any of the numerous other methods of getting a new IP in the intervening 1516 years since this redirect was created. edit 10:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    It's actually even more clear than that. Linas now edits under a different IP address. This can be seen on their talk page. Nickps (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    I'm Linas and I'm no longer in control of that IP. Haven't been, in over a decade. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    Well, posting as your current IP is certainly a way to illustrate it x3 Thank you for dropping by and telling us! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Not that it changes anything about the RfD, but I wanted to say that after I read more of User talk:Linas, I was very disappointed about how the situation was handled. I'm glad they were unblocked in the end though. Nickps (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lunamann. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:199.74.100.109[edit]

I see no good reason to have an IP redirect to a registered User's page. If the IP starts editing again, this will make it difficult to contact them. Nickps (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: The edit history indicates this 2009-era redirect was created by user:Moritheil themselves, due to being what they posted as before they made an account. However, there's no guarantee that the IP address still leads to Moritheil themselves-- they could have easily moved to a new location, swapped ISP, or done any of the numerous other methods of getting a new IP in the intervening 15 years since this redirect was created. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Unless Moritheil owned the IP in 2009 and still owns it today (which is possible but unlikely, particularly as whois reports it's allocated to Northwestern University) then the address could have been reallocated even if Moritheil does nothing to proactively change it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lunamann. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Glory Hallelujah[edit]

Fairly common phrase (I thought of Battle Hymn of the Republic); redirect to this relatively obscure song would likely be surprising. May merit a disambig page instead. Rusalkii (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate per nom. There appear to be several songs with this title in addition to those songs which simply include the phrase in their lyrics. Several uses of this phrase on enwiki. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Battle Hymn of the Republic (most likely the primary topic), or disambiguate if there are other well-known songs I'm missing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Older[edit]

Old business[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Awesome_Aasim/rfd_rewrite&oldid=1201929683"