July 24

Errant

Shagos

John Nash (Mathematician)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waskeep perWP:SNOW.(non-admin closure)CycloneYoris^talk!12:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• John Nash (Mathematician)John Nash (Mathematician) →John Forbes Nash Jr. (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

PerWP:RCAPS. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk ·contribs ·email)18:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is not implausible that a user would create a link in another article to this redirect, with its incorrectly capitalized initial M. We all know that incorrect capitalizations by Wikipedia editors are a problem that is always with us.Michael Hardy (talk)19:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Mathematician" is not a proper noun. It is not a plausible redirect. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk ·contribs ·email)19:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the fact that this redirectis linked three times from mainspace, once from a talk page, and three times from user pages or talk pages speaks to the fact that this is not an "implausible, unnatural, or novel" capitalization. Proper noun or not, it is not necessarily obvious to inexperienced users that the first word of a "disambiguation phrase" shouldn't be capitalized the same way the first word of an article title typically is. -Elmer Clark (talk)20:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Someone might hold the⇧ Shift key for too long and this redirect'll still get people to their destination. I don't see any reason for deletion. Regards,SONIC67821:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plausible miscapitalization.2601:647:5800:1A1F:DC4:3CCA:A33F:14A1 (talk)18:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is very likely that someone would type this in or link to it.Partofthemachine (talk)21:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it very likely whenJohn Nash (mathematician)John Nash (mathematician) also exists? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk ·contribs ·email)16:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as harmless. --Tavix^(talk)17:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Harmless and evidently an error that occurs from time to time (seeSpecial:WhatLinksHere/John Nash (Mathematician)).Glades12 (talk)18:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close perWP:SNOW.FAdesdae37820:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Elifism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. Jay08:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned at the target, results on Google Scholar all appear to either be typos of "elitism" or references toElif Shafak, who does not appear to be associated with antinatalism. Delete unless a justification can be provided._signed,Rosguill^talk18:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it'sreally difficult to search for because every search engine in existence is absolutelyconvinced you meant "elitism" and you have to do all kinds of tricks to get it to properly search for "efilism." It appears in some Indian periodicals. E.g. "It Is Immoral To Have Children. Here’s Why" in The Hindu Business Line (July 2017), referencedhere, or in online discussions, here's aQuora discussion and here's asubreddit. I think thereis technically a difference between them? Like, antinatalism is in relation with just human life, and efilism is meant to apply more broadly toall sentient life? Thus the name ("life" backwards). But I thought I might as well just try to get it to point somewhere for now.

...wait....squints eyes

We're just talking about the eLIFism redirect, not the eFILism redirect, aren't we? Yeah, that's a typo/dyslexia on my part, the redirect should come from eFILism, sorry.Fephisto (talk)20:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go ahead and delete, this was dyslexia on my part.Fephisto (talk)20:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fire of knowledge

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. There was a suggestion that it could be disambiguated, but no targets were suggested, and others did not find them. Jay08:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fire of knowledge →Logos (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is solely linked on articles about Chinese philosophy and redirects to a Christian concept. Namewise it seems like a completely different concept from Logos and probably should be its own article if it exists in the first placeImmanuelle 💗(please tag me)18:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to TNT and start over, either retargeted somewhere more appropriate or turned into an article. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)14:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate Seems that there are a few plausible targets for this redirect.Logos is definitely not one of them though.2601:647:5800:1A1F:DC4:3CCA:A33F:14A1 (talk)18:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No apparent connection between the redirect and its target. I'm not sure what we would DAB this to either. -Elmer Clark (talk)05:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others above, and let the search engine handle this. Deletion seems the correct way to go since there's no appropriate target.CycloneYoris^talk!07:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:NETHERLANDS

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waskeep and redirectedWikipedia:Netherlands, which was previously a dab, toWikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands.(non-admin closure)CycloneYoris^talk!07:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NETHERLANDSWikipedia:NETHERLANDS →Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia:Netherlands is currently a disambiguation page, and these differ only in capitalisation.1234qwer1234qwer417:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but redirectWikipedia:Netherlands toWikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands.Wikipedia:Notice board for topics related to the Netherlands is the WikiProject's talk page andWikipedia:WikiProject Dutch municipalities is an inactive subproject. --Tavix^(talk)18:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirectWikipedia:Netherlands toWikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands perUser:Tavix's reasoning above. -Elmer Clark (talk)05:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the noticeboard was merged with the WikiProject talk page, and the municipalities project should be merged as a taskforce into the national wikiproject. If we can mere the municipalities project, the dab page would then be useless --64.229.88.43 (talk)11:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rambut

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.✗plicit23:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

No affinity for IndonesianPlantdrew (talk)16:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on mytalk page)17:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a suitable redirect toRambutan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)18:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasoning inWikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English. -Elmer Clark (talk)05:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Whip Gate - Incidents During the Biden Administration

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.✗plicit23:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Whip Gate - Incidents During the Biden Administration →September 2021 Haitian migrant photo controversy (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This read to me like aWP:NPOV violation. It sounds like this was a direct action of the Biden Administration, which is not accurate. According to the article, Biden was "deeply troubled about it." That, combined with the poor formatting, recommends me todelete it. --Tavix^(talk)15:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not a plausible search or link term. -Elmer Clark (talk)05:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike the nom I don't get any NPOV vibes from this, I read it as referring to the subset of "Whip Gate" incidents which occurred during Biden's administration. However reading the target article (which incidentally has been moved to2021 Haitian migrant whip controversy) the scandal occurred entirely in a single month during which Biden was the only president. It's not a plausible search term.Thryduulf (talk)07:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Onvaccation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.✗plicit23:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Onvaccation →Template:Vacation (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a likely typo for such a common word most people learn in their first year of English class.Nothing links here. The page hasvirtually no views since its creation and no page history except for my failed speedy nomination. I don't see a point why this should stay. ~~ lol1VNIO🎌 (talk •contribs)12:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatpeople learn in their first year of English class is generally irrelevant since this is not a prerequisite to reading the English Wikipedia. However, since this spelling appears to be completely unlikely and vastly different from the actual word (Onvaccation does not exist in mainspace either), I agree this should be deleted.1234qwer1234qwer415:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just wanted to make a point saying that it's very unlikely, but on second thought some people mistakethere,their andthey're all the time. ~~ lol1VNIO🎌 (talk •contribs)15:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely typo / different (unspaced) convention for{{On vacation}}Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}05:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right,{{Onvacation}} exists too. Why did I read the target as "vaccination"?Vaccation still seems rather unlikely to me, so consider my previous vote a weak delete.1234qwer1234qwer410:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoris^talk!13:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there's two errors here which makes it unlikely --Lenticel^(talk)02:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay15:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible.Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on mytalk page)17:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unused and implausible.{{On vaccation}},{{Vaccation}} andVaccation all don't exist. I don't see any reason this should either. It's not impossible this gets confused for vaccination either (I know I got confused like that).Skarmory(talk •contribs)00:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to containing both an error in spacingand an error in spelling, resulting in a fairly implausible combination. (That said, googling "vaccation" shows that the misspelling by itself is not actually allthat rare).AddWittyNameHere05:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that{{Onvacation}} exists and is a plausible shortcut in my opinion.1234qwer1234qwer416:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'd personally consider that one plausible as well.AddWittyNameHere22:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per plausibility concerns raised above. -Elmer Clark (talk)06:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mother of Pride

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waskeep._signed,Rosguill^talk02:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mother of PrideMother of Pride →Brenda Howard (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Mother of PrideThe Mother of Pride →Brenda Howard (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. The phrase "Mother of Pride" has been removed from the Brenda Howard article because of lack of reliable sourcing. See Brenda Howard Talk page for more info. The redirect was added by Brenda Howard's partner. I believe this should be deleted under reason 4 - self-promotion or reason 8 - novel or obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the targetDuke9000 (talk)22:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I agree that the term is not well sourced enough to be in the article itself, but a redirect needn't be well sourced, merely useful. Can we demonstrate that the term is used by some people? Yes, two blogs and a magazine article apparently do so, according to what I skimmed on the talk page. Is the target ambiguous? It doesn't seem that anyone else is attempting to claim the title, so it looks unambiguous to me. I think that's enough for a redirect, though not actual article inclusion. That said, I'm certainly open to arguments otherwise, and I don't feel strongly about keeping the redirect.Fieari (talk)05:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there's no mention in the article then it's confusing, and not helpful or useful, to redirect there.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)08:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoris^talk!03:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is currently no mention of this term in the article, but she is referred to by this name in multiple other articles. It was formerly in this article but removed in August last year, with detailed explanation on the talk page (which basically says there are no sources that don't originate with the Wikipedia article). The user who added it objected in June this year, but a third editor agreed with the first. Given the sourced mentions in multiple other articles, but claims of citogenesis, I think it would be useful to have a better-attended discussion about the term so I will flag it up to the LGBT project. Meanwhile, I've addedThe Mother of Pride (a redirect to the same target) to this discussion.Thryduulf (talk)09:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SeeWikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Mother of Pride for the discussion I've started about inclusion of the term.Thryduulf (talk)09:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep- I'd say the reasoning of Fieari is sound and I see no harm in either of these redirects being kept.Historyday01 (talk)20:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was a suggestion at the LGBT project of adding back the mention at the target, but it did not happen and the discussion has been stalled since July 18.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay15:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An interesting case. Her claim to this titlecertainly appears dubious, but as even that highly critical letter points out, it has nonetheless become a "commonly used descriptive phrase" for her. Given the lack of other claimants, that seems like enough that we can fairly confidently say that anyone searching that term would be looking for her article. -Elmer Clark (talk)06:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Little Punjab

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdisambiguate._signed,Rosguill^talk02:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Little Punjab →Indians in the New York City metropolitan area#New York City boroughs (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Little Punjab" is too ambiguous, and can refer to any Punjabi diaspora community. For instance, a quick Google News search shows that this term is also applied toSouthall, another place where many Punjabis settled. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)02:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. It is mentioned in the lead atPunjabi Market, Vancouver andRichmond Hill, Queens, with a less prominent mention atPaldi, British Columbia#Present day. Southall doesn't include it, other than in the title of a reference, but it is noted atBritish Punjabis.Thryduulf (talk)09:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with the disambiguation suggestion. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)18:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify per Thryduulf --Lenticel^(talk)22:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though consensus for disambiguating has been reached, a draft DAB hasn't been created yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoris^talk!09:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify - although I doubt any disambiguation page for this term will ever be exhaustive. --QueenofBithynia (talk)15:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Animal Parade

Suicide Six

Vietnamese in China

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdeleteVietnamesee language in China,retarget/refine the other two toOverseas Vietnamese#China. --Tavix^(talk)20:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vietnamesee language in China →Gin people#Language (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Vietnamese in ChinaVietnamese in China →Gin people (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Vietnamese people in ChinaVietnamese people in China →Overseas Vietnamese (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should point to the same target. I think thatOverseas Vietnamese, with the current hatnote toGin people, is the most appropriate target. The first could also potentially be deleted for being an unusual typo._signed,Rosguill^talk15:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given thatOverseas Vietnamese has only a single sentence on China, which is essentially just a link toGin people, I would preferGin people as the target. If not that, then as a secondary preference,Overseas Vietnamese#China.Furius (talk)22:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My sense based on Google Scholar results is that we are undercovering Vietnamese people in China onOverseas Vietnamese, as most results for the term there are for modern immigrants, not Gin people._signed,Rosguill^talk22:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoris^talk!03:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay07:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to a new DAB page with links toGin people,Vietnamese people in Hong Kong, andVietnamese people in Taiwan. -Elmer Clark (talk)06:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first and retarget the other two toOverseas Vietnamese per nom.CycloneYoris^talk!23:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first, refine the other two toOverseas Vietnamese § China, and reword that section to note that not all Vietnamese in China are Gin. I agree with Rosguill and Yoris' logic, but think a section-level redirect would be preferable. Second choice would be to retarget them to the full article.--Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe)02:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hell (forum)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.✗plicit11:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hell (forum) →List of Tor onion services#Social media and forums (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The section that this redirects to does not mention the subject. Only two content pages contains a link to this redirect; neither defines the subject.ZFT (talk)22:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Source that I found after a quick google search. Could be notable, but I can't see more than a stub existing for now.Anarchyte (talk)16:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay06:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. May be worth an article, but until one exists, redirecting to a list it does not appear on is not useful. -Elmer Clark (talk)06:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The security

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.✗plicit11:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The security →Security (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The "the" is unnecessary.TraderCharlotte (talk)03:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Common search term, as evidenced bynon-negligible pageviews. I'd think that this redirect should targetsecurity guard as a more accurate representation of what is thought of when this is mentioned.J947 †^edits06:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sounds ungrammatical. Likely it would just clutter up Cirrus Search and Visual Editor suggestions. –Novem Linguae(talk)13:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget tosecurity guard per J947. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)00:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think we actually know what a user would be looking for if they entered this as a search term (e.g. perhaps they were thinking ofThe Security Service orSecurity (finance), which is the only context where one regularly talks about "a security" or "the security"), so it's probably best just not to have the redirect. Failing that, send them toSecurity (disambiguation).Furius (talk)18:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoris^talk!06:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As having no apparent obvious target, nor one for disambiguation.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)07:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay06:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the spirit ofWP:THE.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)16:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Iron Golem

The King Banishes the Letter P

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. Jay07:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The King Banishes the Letter P →Sesame Street (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This story onSesame Street Stories used to have an article from Se_tember 2006 to July 29 the next year, but it wasn't mentioned on the target _age at the times it was created or turned into a redirect _erWP:N. Currently, it isn't mentioned anywhere on Wiki_edia, and the number of _ageviews it's been getting since July 2015 have been declining over the years. We may need to banish this one just like King _eter the _ersnickety did with the letter _ in his story, but I'm o_en to being swayed otherwise if there's a more a__ro_riate course of action to be taken. Regards,SONIC67805:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Enwiki has nothing about this.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)16:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete memorable segment from the classic era, but unlikely to be a search term or be linked to. _S, non, you missed one in "per".oknazevad (talk)18:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it. I must've missed it. Regards,SONIC67819:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rosewood (color)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasretarget toShades of red#Rosewood.(non-admin closure)Steel1943 (talk)21:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rosewood (color)Rosewood (color) →Rose (color)#Rosewood (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, and not mentioned inShades of rose. The templateTemplate:Shades of pink seems to hint this subject belongs onShades of pink, but the subject of this redirect is not there either.Steel1943 (talk)04:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This colour also appears in{{Shades of red}}, where it it s piped toShades of red#Rosewood. That seems a better target for this redirect.Colonies Chris (talk)08:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toShades of red#Rosewood per Colonies Chris. Good find, which should help remedy misdirection problems by taking people to where content exists. Regards,SONIC67815:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bazaar (color)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. Jay07:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bazaar (color) →Rose (color)#Bazaar (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, and not mentioned inShades of rose. Apparently, though it kind of looks like apurple, it's a dull shade ofred.Steel1943 (talk)04:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom --Lenticel^(talk)00:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.