User:Awesome Aasim/rfd rewrite

Copied from WP:RFD with few changes

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	103	103
TfD	1	3	4
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	1	25	26
RfD	0	24	24
AfD	0	49	49

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 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 a redirect be deleted? 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

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

Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD

Shortcut

WP:RGUIDE

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 a redirect be deleted?

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history)

Shortcut

WP:RHARMFUL

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

Shortcuts

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):

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" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
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.
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.
The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
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, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (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:.)
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.
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.)
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.
Shortcut
- WP:RETURNTORED
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
If the redirect ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page or a page performing a disambiguation-like function (such as a set index of articles). Speedy deletion criterion G14 may apply.

Reasons for not deleting

Shortcuts

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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.
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 article text 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.
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.
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. Please tag these with {{R from old history}}. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
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.
The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut

WP:RNEUTRAL

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:

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).
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).
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

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

Shortcut

WP:RFDHOWTO

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.

Does this look too complicated?
Try this semi-automated process instead: (note only confirmed users can use this)

Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.

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 it is an inline template, use |showontransclusion=tiny instead.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.

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.

This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current list

May 28

Wikipedia:MN

Wikipedia:MN → Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:MN pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Noticeboard from 2006 to 2018. It was then redirected to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and currently points there. It has received about 1200 pageviews since 2018. Editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota have requested that the shortcut point to that project as MN is the standard abbreviation for the state. A discussion at the notability guideline's talkpage did not find consensus. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 21:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep per my comments in the linked discussion - Shortcuts being ambiguous is very common and not a problem. What is a problem is retargetting well-used shortcuts as this just causes confusion when one person refers to it (not necessarily linked) expecting it to still target the original location (how often do you check the targets of shortcuts you use frequently) at the same time as others refer to it expecting it to point at the new location. Editing long-closed discussions to change the target of redirects like this is disruptive makework. The incomming links for this redirect I spot check all clearly intend the current location. Deletion would just break things for no benefit to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota as a short and logical shortcut to a project that needs one. I'm not buying an argument that it's a sensible shortcut for the current target. When referring to notability, the N comes first, not last (eg: WP:NBAND, WP:NALBUM). Employing a hatnote (especially with an explanatory note that it was the previous target) would resolve any confusion for anyone following old music-related links. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep – This has been used as a shortcut to WP:MUSICBIO etc. in discussions and presumably in edit summaries for many years now. What Thryduulf said. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguate due to being old, and this most likely has excessive edit summary linking, which cannot be changed. I do sympathize with the nominator, but it seems this is now the best solution. Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Retarget or Disambiguate – "NY" goes to the WikiProject New York (state). I do not see any reason for MN not to redirect to WikiProject Minnesota. The Minnesota User Group is trying to rekindle interest and develop new projects after going dark after COVID-19. This means rebuilding the infrastructure and making finding resources on Wikipedia for Minnesotans and those wishing to help on Minnesota topics more straightforward.

As per my original comments: The original link was created in 2006 to redirect to "WikiProject Music/Noticeboard" which is currently inactive. A redirect to "MN" made sense for "Music/Noticeboard." It makes little sense to for WP:MN to go to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" it appears someone just coopted it. As @Pingnova pointed out the section already has three shortcuts and WP:MN is not listed as one of them supporting the idea that it was just taken.

It is important to point out that the shortcut WP:MN has been used only 96 times since 2006. However the shortcuts WP:BAND, WP:MUSICBIO, & WP:SINGER each has been used thousands of times. The comment that MN is a "well-used shortcut" does not play out according to the evidence. Keeping a "MN" as short link "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" appears to be nothing more than link hoarding or pride. If it is a case of the latter then remove it from "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" and send to a Disambiguate page, so then no one will be happy. Myotus (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Retarget - I believe this should be retargeted to Wikiproject Minnesota due to its relatively few uses and we could simply change the link in places it is used because of how infrequently it is used. Especially as it isn’t even listed as a link to that section in the section itself. Lastly Minnesota is very frequently abbreviated to MN and this is the first time musicians has been abbreviated to it. Macaw* 16:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Additionally add a hat note mentioning the former redirect Macaw* 17:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguate WP:Minnesota will never be a sought out target. No U.S. State wikiproject should occupy 2-letter abbreviation shortcuts, since they are all moribund, and it would not be a very useful use of such a prominent short redirect. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I see your point but other state wikiprojects have two letter links such as WP:NY and the criteria for musicians is rarly linked to with WP:MN compared to it's other shortcuts and a hat note would solve any issues that disambiguation would solve. Macaw* 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
User:65.92.246.77 (aka: anonymous), "Minnesota will never be a sought out target." It is rather insulting to hear such bias. We will move our state to the coast so folks will seek us out.
The following US States use 2-letter abbreviation shortcuts in the English Wikipedia version.
If two letter codes are too valuable to assign to US states and need to be held in limbo just in case they might need to be assigned in a possible redirect in the English Wikipedia version for some unknown future use then we need to pull these State codes too. Myotus (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Weak disambiguate (or keep as second choice) as retargeting seems like it would disrupt a lot of links. I've drafted the dab page. Duckmather (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah but this rediret is only used 96 times and the disruption could be solved with intuition when you get sent to a irrelivent page to the topic you were just in and a hatnote. Macaw* 21:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Macaw:, yes, possibly 96 times in links in pages and articles, but there could be links in edit summaries that are not included in count. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Could be? Please do the work to support your statement. If not, then the redirect is only used 96 times. It is frustrating when the people making the arguments against retargeting do not back up their statements with evidence. Myotus (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. I prefer to err on the side of preserving shortcuts, but in this case, there doesn't seem to be a need for WP:MN to point to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. It isn't a commonly known or used shortcut, and the few instances of its most recent use (since 2018 when its original target was deprecated) can largely be corrected. This type of shortcut is intuitive and common for many regional WikiProjects. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose disambiguation. Projectspace shortcuts are generally ambiguous by nature. It is only appropriate to disambiguate them in rare or special cases, a bar which this does not seem to quite meet. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
How so? Please support opinions and statements with evidence. Myotus (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In lieu of a no-consensus close, let's try one more time. Keep as is, retarget to WikiProject Minnesota, or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Citation templates

Citation Templates → Wikipedia:Citation templates (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Citation template → Wikipedia:Citation templates (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous consensus against having redirects like these be XNRs, but should they target Citation#Styles? My preference is still deletion. Cremastra (u — c) 01:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

May 27

Dig! (website)

Dig! (website) → Warner Music Group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. Probably too specific to be added. Rusalkii (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Advanced DC Motors

Advanced DC Motors → Traction motor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambiguous term. Maybe DC motor is a better target, but this is an unlikely search term. TruenoCity (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Ol-class tanker (1916)

Ol-class tanker (1916) → Ol-class tanker (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

None of the items listed at the target disambig page relate to 1916. Unnecessary and arguably misleading. Rusalkii (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy delete as redirect creator, per Rusalkii. I erred in creating this redirect and forgot to clean up my mess afterwards. I've requested a speedy deletion under G7. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 01:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

University (Scandinavia)

University (Scandinavia) → University (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This used to target to List of universities and colleges in Sweden, which is too specific. The current target, on the other hand, is uselessly broad and doesn't even discuss Scandinavia. Rusalkii (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

John Vincent Oyler

John Vincent Oyler → John V. Oyler (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I cannot find any sources more reliable than Google Finance (which I think relies partially on Wikipedia) for the full middle name Vincent. I'd normally not nominate a redirect that was the title for a nontrivial amount of time (one month) but this is a BLP issue even as just a redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Alejandro Pradillo Rugby player

Alejandro Pradillo Rugby player → Alejandro Pradillo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnatural and unnecessary disambiguation. Was at this title for two minutes right after creation. Rusalkii (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Influencer Smurf

Influencer Smurf → Smurfs (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Meme about a smurf from the trailer of this movie, not mentioned in the target page. Possibly merits a mention (see e.g. [1] [2]), in which case the redirect should be kept, but I believe the character was replaced for the actual movie. Rusalkii (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Reese River Hot Springs

Reese River Hot Springs → Reese River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ruby Valley Hot Springs → Ruby Valley, Nevada (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No hot springs are mentioned in the target; misleading redirect for anyone looking for information on them. Rusalkii (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: I found some information on both of them when looking on google, but I'm not sure if the sources I found are reliable enough to merit inclusion of these terms in the article. E.g. this source for Reese River Hot Springs and Ruby Valley Hot Springs. I feel like the second one could be included, but I'm not 100% sure on either of them (especially the first one). I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, since you're obviously much more experienced with these types of things than I am. Thanks, --Plantman (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

First source looks like a blog-like site and not great for this. Second source is ... eh? I probably wouldn't add it personally but I wouldn't remove it if it was added. Rusalkii (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the first one warrants inclusion. I found another source for #2 though... what do you think? --Plantman (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to ping: @Rusalkii --Plantman (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks user-generated (see [3]), I'd say I prefer the first source. Rusalkii (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Shoot, you're right. I should have looked into it more; that was my fault! --Plantman (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete the first one, retarget the second one to Ruby Valley as I've added some content there about it. Special:Diff/1292630298 --Plantman (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Spinning rust

Spinning rust → Hard disk drive (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Nickname for a hard drive not mentioned in target. We have wikt:spinning rust, I'm ambivalent between retargetting there and deletion. Rusalkii (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Soft redirect to Wiktionary, as I feel like that would be more helpful to a reader looking for the definition of "Spinning rust". --Plantman (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

JustServe

JustServe → The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Humanitarian services (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Platform by the LDS Church for finding local volunteer opportunities. Not mentioned in target, and the connection is not clear without googling. Rusalkii (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

2025 Aspen mayoral election

2025 Aspen mayoral election → Aspen, Colorado (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Actively confusing - it gets quite a few hits, but the target page has no content at all on the election, and in fact only mentions the mayor to say that "an elected council of four members and the mayor supervise the city's operations". It is possible that content should be added, but as is this is misleading to readers.

Redirected after an expired PROD. Pinging User:Cat-paw-v1 who redirected it and User:Yoblyblob who PRODed it. Rusalkii (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I would have probably listed it if I had noticed. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

PC-80

PC-80 → PC-8000 series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I can't find evidence that this was referred to as the PC-80 (as opposed to 8000). Lots of hits in lot of places for lots of things, including several different computing devices, a gun, a solubilizer, camera, etc etc. Onwiki we have Heron Cars#PC 80 (note lack of dash) and an entry at List of carbines. I don't think either of these make great targets, I think I'd prefer deletion given the distinct lack of primary topic for a rather vague term, but the carbine seems better than the current target. Rusalkii (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Just like how PC-88 is short for PC-8801 and PC-98 is short for PC-9801, it makes sense for PC-80 to be short for PC-8001. JumpmanMario2K6 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It definitely makes sense, I wouldn't blink if this was in fact in common usage, but as far as I can tell it in fact is not. Rusalkii (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

SNDL

SNDL → Harvest now, decrypt later (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I believe this is meant to be an initialism for "Store now, decrypt later". Initialism isn't mentioned in the target. We have several mentions of other SNDLs onwiki at Communist Party of Finland (youth wing), Left Alliance (Finland)/Women's Democratic Action Centre /Uusi Nainen (women's wing), Nordfjordeid (airport code), and 1989 United States Navy order of battle (Standard Navy Distribution List). These are all brief enough mentions I don't think they merit a dab, though. Primary topic by google hits by far is the ticker for a company we don't have a page for, though a very quick skim through sources pulls up a couple marginal ones such that I could imagine it is in fact notable (it seems to have been a bit of a meme stock). Rusalkii (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Robo Rampage

Robo Rampage → Miniclip (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention at target; previously hosted an unsourced article whose content was not merged anywhere. The two other search results for this on the English Wikipedia, Robbie Morrison and Transformers: Rescue Bots Academy, are probably not suitable targets. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Restore without prejudice as a contested BLAR. The last version of the article was not an A7 candidate, and a quick scan of google suggests at least most of it would be verifiable. Whether it is notable or not is a discussion for AfD not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Contested how? It was BLARed back in 2016, has sat as a redirect ever since, until said redirect was nominated here just the other day. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Nominating for deletion at RfD is, by definition, contentisting the appropriateness of the redirection. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete, agreeing with the nominator and The1337gamer: Fails WP:GNG – There are no reliable secondary sources covering this game. As always, if someone is able to provide evidence of notability I am willing to reconsider. Additionally, I can find no evidence that this was a contested WP:BLAR. The next edit after the redirection was a nomination for RfD and the nominator has made no indication in support of restoration. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Restore per Thryduulf. Enix150 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Enix150: Did you find any evidence of notability? Note that the former article was unreferenced so the WP:BURDEN is on those who wish to restore to provide citation(s) to support the material. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Plantman (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy Trend 3

Samsung Galaxy Trend 3 → Samsung Galaxy Core Plus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The Trend is not mentioned at the target. This is a real phone model put out by Samsung but I can't figure out the relationship with the Core Plus from either the article or a search. Rusalkii (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

ISO 3166-2:UNK

ISO 3166-2:UNK → XK (user assigned code) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target, which is about ISO 3166-1 codes. ISO 3166-2 is for subdivisions, and no subdivisions are discussed in the target. I can't find reference to this code anywhere at all, though Google my just be failing me with the weird formatting. Rusalkii (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no UN code in 3166-1, so UNK is not a valid 3166-2 code. Delete. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Christian democrati union

Christian democrati union → Christian Democratic Union (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. I don't think that this is a plausible misspelling, as it has both incorrect capitalization and a spelling error. Also, this redirect had some history, which was carried over after I moved the redirect to Christian Democrati Union. Xoontor (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete. The title isn't capitalized and it is spelled incorrectly. Floating Orb (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom.

Legend of 14 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment @Xoontor should Christian Democrati Union be listed here as well? “Democrati” seems to be an unlikely typo to me. And as far as I can tell, the only history at that redirect, before you edited it, is basically a WP:BLAR. --Plantman (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Plantman: I'm not entirely sure if it should be listed here. The redirect seems unlikely to be needed, but it's not completely without value either. I'm neutral on whether it should exist, but we might need to keep it for attribution purposes – I think some content was merged from Christian Democrati Union to Christian Democratic Union of Germany in this edit. Xoontor (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess that’s fair then. I wouldn’t have caught it myself lol. --Plantman (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Henry the 8x8

Henry the 8x8 → SWR Sound Corporation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target article. This was redirected at AFD in 2009. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete apparently a bass speaker cabinet by the company. But as the nomination said, it isn’t mentioned in the target. I also feel like it’s not all that notable to be included in the article, especially since a “products” section is meant to be a summary of a company’s products, not a list of every single one of them. --Plantman (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The E

The E → E (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. E (disambiguation) lists no topics plausibly referred to as "the E." GilaMonster536 (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment in a couple of minute of searching I've found that the E (New York City Subway service), RER E, E (S-train) and E (AC Transit) (at least) are all sometimes referred to as "the E", particularly when giving directions (e.g. "take the E" as a short form of "take the E line" or "take the E train"). Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Thryduulf. Transportation services are often referred to with “the” before them. --Plantman (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

U+205E

U+205E → Word divider (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

U+205D is mentioned in the article, but E is not. To understand the connection between the redirect target and the redirect I had to google it separately, which rather defeats the point. Rusalkii (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete Rare typo. Azuredivay (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Ah, sorry — I've meant to add some stuff to the page that would mention this U+205E ⁞ VERTICAL FOUR DOTS (not just U+205D ⁝ TRICOLON) on the page, since we have a source that mentions it as a word divider. I've just been putting it off.

Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I've added this to the page now. Later, I'll add more based on this source, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't care either way about this redirect (I'm not sure what the reason is for having Category:Redirects from Unicode codes at all, honestly), but if that was the problem, I hope this helps! Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep now there is relevant content. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

AI in businss

AI in businss → AI in business (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete: misspelling of the target article name. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete as a highly implausible typo. --Plantman (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Nicholas Logan

Nicholas Logan → Organ Trail (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Michael Abbott Jr. → Organ Trail (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Olivia Grace Applegate → Organ Trail (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I would like to discuss deleting these three redirects. These three actors have other works that (at a glance) they are equally as known for (or even more so) as they are for Organ Trail (film). There is no information on any of these actors in the article, and they could be standalone articles, so I think this counts as WP:RFD#D10, but please correct my understanding if I am mistaken. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Blank, so that people are encouraged to contribute to the article. Otherwise I would also be okay with delete. Easternsahara (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, I'm new to RfD, so I'm not sure what blanking entails (what is being blanked?), but it sounds like something that I would also find agreeable. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are unsure what it means, how would you find it agreeable? Sorry, very strange response imho.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Specifically the "so that people are encouraged to contribute to the article", which is in general something I find agreeable. I would like to learn more about what exactly it means in this case, but if that is the result then I find it agreeable. I agree it does sound strange now that I reread it. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep - "There is no information on any of these actors in the article" - Except there is. Absent their own page, a redirect is perfectly fine as they are associated as actors in the film. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that was hyperbolic when it shouldn't have been. Yes, it does have information on those three actors, specifically the names of the characters they played, and for two of them a mention that they were included in the cast of the film. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Since it would not qualify under that criteria, are you going to withdraw the nomination at this point? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not intend to rely on that specific criterion, and I would like for other editors to weigh in with their own judgement. I also felt at the time that "virtually no information" included as little information as simply stating the name of a character an actor played, although I would again appreciate hearing from other editors about what is "virtually no information". IndigoManedWolf (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hearing from other editors is fine. But, what is your contention for why it needs deleted if it would not qualify under the initial criteria you cited? Those reviewing would need to know why you feel it needs deleted (e.g., the specific guideline it violates). --CNMall41 (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, I know I owe you a proper response as you are the one who created the redirects but I'm not able to give one right now. I will try in the morning. For now I will say that (in addition to the criterion I listed) as a reader, the redirect for Nicholas Logan felt jarring, and I would think similarly of the other two. I did not nominate Lukas Jann since, unlike the others, it looked like this is arguably the work he is most known for. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, very strange response. Is what it is but I would advise not nominating anything for deletion unless you have proper rationale. It can become disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, you did not say "virtually no information" in your nonimation, you stated "no information." Just pointing out the contradiction. If they qualify for standalone articles, then create them. We don't delete redirects just because a page has not yet been created. I am confused all around about the rationale of the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Starburst (cocktail)

Starburst (cocktail) → Vodka Red Bull (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Vodka Red Bull doesn't meantion the word "Starburst" in it at all. A quick google search doesn't show many results besides TikTok and the like. The redirect isn't linked from any other pages and is used a few times a week at maximum.

I propose deleting this redirect unless a source can be found to support it, in which case it'd be best to add the information to the Vodka Red Bull page and keep the redirect. FireDragons52 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Plantman (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete Google finds lots of recipes for cocktails named starburst containing a variety of ingredients. None on the first page contained red bull and only about half included vodka, so the the current target is definitely wrong - especially without a mention. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MODS

Wikipedia:MODS → Wikipedia:Administrators (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I feel like this is better off being retargetted to Wikipedia:Moderators, as "mods" is short for "moderators" and in any case, Wikipedia admins are not mods. --Plantman (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment could also be targeted to WP:Modifications.

Legend of 14 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I've never heard "mods" as short for "modifications", only "moderators". --Plantman (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Never heard of downloading a mod for a game? Or see What is body mod. Or see Garry's Mod. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, tbh I don't really play video games. But I also don't see how any of the listed uses of "mod" are related to Wikipedia policy. I hear the term "discord mods" or "reddit mods" a lot more, and people are more likely to look for "Wikipedia:MODS" with that latter sense of the word in mind. --Plantman (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s fine. You don’t have to agree with me, I was just trying to explain my point of view. --Plantman (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Draft talk:E-Laws

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily deleted by User:Explicit. (WP:G7)

Draft:E-Laws

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily deleted by User:Explicit. (WP:G7)

Square root of 25

Square root of 25 → 5 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Square root of 16 → 4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The purpose of redirects isn't to be a calculator. Readers shouldn't expect this redirect to exist, especially since Square root of 24 etc. do not. Other than the bare fact that 5 squared is 25, a reader directed to the article 5 finds no content having any specific relevance to 5 qua the square root of 25, only content consisting of miscellaneous unrelated facts. Indeed a reader would find more information of actual relevance at 25 (number). See also the current RFD for Square root of 4 and Square root of 9. The redirects for square root of 16 and 25 were newly created. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Nuke from orbit...and people wonder why we cite WP:PANDORA 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep Cheap and unambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:CHEAP is not a reason for keeping...it's a counterargument against complaints about burdens on server resources, which no one has made. On the other hand, these are ambiguous, because while they could redirect to the value, they could just as reasonably redirect to Square root § Square roots of positive integers. And as I said in the other RFD, why stop here? Why not have Square root of 2209 -> 47 (number)? Why not 47-((2^2)*7) -> 19 (number)? Surely that's unambiguous and cheap, right? The search utility is not a calculator. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
These are not ambiguous, as the "square root of 25" is only ever "5." The same goes for "square root of 16" and "4." Anything else is mathmatically impossible and incorrect. I would have no objection to creating similar redirects for whole integers. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
But there's no encyclopedic information about "the square root of 16" at the "4" article, while the other article I mentioned has encyclopedic content about the overall concept of square roots of positive integers, so is a more appropriate encyclopedic target. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a calculator. To pretend otherwise is a misuse of the search feature.
... the "square root of 25" is only ever "5." The same goes for "square root of 16" and "4." Anything else is mathmatically impossible and incorrect.
Not so, because nonzero numbers have two square roots. -4 is also a square root of 16, for example. In the biz, we say that 4 is the principal square root. All that being said, this is still pretty damned useless as a redirect. But anyway, between that and the ambiguity, it should be deleted. Would you support a bot run to make "Square root of $n$ " redirects for every article on integers we have. If someone did it by hand, would you support keeping them all anyway? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Why shouldn't 4 say somewhere that 4 is, in fact, the square root of 16? BD2412 T 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with redirecting Square root of 2209 to 47, though it seems kind of pointless. We get diminishing returns here, and I wouldn't personally create these past about the square roots of 9 or 16. But if you feel like making some bigger ones, knock yourself out. The other example of "47-((2^2)*7)" is utterly worthless; we don't need to turn Wikipedia's redirect engine into a full-featured calculator or make a redirect for every possible mathematical expression. –jacobolus (t) 18:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Leaning keep. I can take or leave these, but I agree with Presidentman's point. Phrases like "Square root of 25" exist in the real world, and they will only ever mean one thing, so it does no harm to have them point there. Wikipedia is well-stocked with redirects to titles from much longer formulations (e.g., th ungainly Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor and HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay both redirect to Charles III). BD2412 T 19:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep as all of accurate, unambiguous and harmless. Deletion will not bring any benefits to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep, optionally redirecting to a section where 5's property of being the square root of 25 is explicitly discussed, if there is one. Redirects are cheap and in this kind of case completely harmless. It's a huge waste of time discussing these. –jacobolus (t) 18:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete WP:POINTy creations based on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_14#Square_root_of_9. There my argument for keeping doesn't apply, so this is arbitrary math just for the sake of math. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- That is the main reason why me "keep" vote is a weak one. BD2412 T 19:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep harmless, cheap, and each of them has 35 or more pageviews in the last month, suggesting that it's somewhat useful. --Plantman (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Nintendo 128

Nintendo 128 → Nintendo GameCube (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 6 § Nintendo 128 – withdrawn
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 October 18 § Nintendo 128 → Nintendo GameCube – keep

I have never seen the console referred to as such, and the article doesn't state anything about the console being 128-bit other than "The Dolphin platform is reputed to be king of the hill in terms of graphics and video performance with 128-bit architecture." which must be describing the platform itself rather than the console. Also the redirect got only one view in the past 30 days as of writing this. 1033Forest (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess it's probably about Super_Mario_128#GameCube_demo, which is what comes up when I google "Nintendo 128".

Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Andrew wickham

Andrew wickham → Go South Coast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Andrew Wickham → Go South Coast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Should be deleted. Subject is not mentioned in the target article. WWGB (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Can someone add Andrew Wickham to this nomination? It also redirects to the same target. I have no idea how you do a multiple nomination as I've seen being done before. Fork99 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Done by someone else. --Plantman (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to Andy Wickham, who is the only notable "Andrew Wickham" we currently have. Apparently the Andrew Wickham that is the subject of these redirects is the deceased managing director of Go South Coast. If a mention is added, then we can add a hatnote at Andy Wickham. --Plantman (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Older

Old business