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.
Move the disambiguation page here; multiple things are called "The Y" and there's no evidence that people searching for the YMCA are getting there through a "The Y" redirect.The Y has 80 monthly pageviews (over half of which are from the last two days) andThe Y's has 200 monthly pageviews,The Y (film) has 250 monthly pageviews as well. Even if the YMCA has more pageviews than both of them, I don't think anyone is struggling on navigating there by typing "y" "m" "c" "a", instead of an ambiguous "The Y" that has multiple options on the disambig page.Utopes(talk /cont)02:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Simply listed as participants, without any further details about the teams provided. Delete to encourage article creation and because anybody searching for this title won't find the information they're looking for based on the current target. Note that there was also two other similar redirects deleted at RfD in the last 15 days.Hey man im josh (talk)20:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The Atlanta Thrashers team no longer operates. There is no expectation that the team will be revived in the near future. Currently, no mainspace pages link or include this redirect/template. It can be safely deleted.Alaney2k (talk)19:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Yeah, it's a joke I've seen on Twitter and such - "1 2 2 50 (translated from Roman numerals)". It's on a level with "a door, a desk, a hallway, a bed": clever, but not worth making into a redirect.DS (talk)04:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The target of this redirect makes no mention of any Sunnyside Park, which appears to be a baseball stadium based on the categories added to the redirect. I feel thatSunnyside Amusement Park is a more logical target, which also includes a sub-section for Sunnyside Stadium, which is a baseball/softball park. This could also be made into a disambiguation page, since other plausible tagets areNew_Paris, Indiana#Sunnyside_Park,Sunnyside Park, Alberta, and theSunnyside North Beach also. Only some of the items are listed at theSunnyside disambiguation page. Other suggestions also welcome.Flibirigit (talk)15:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since the nom is asking for suggestions… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!08:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah whoops oh jeez oh no i tripped all over my keyboard and fell on it and hit my head and broke my cheekbones and accidentally sent the edit made by my rapidly descending face, and it just so happened to look exactly like a draft for a dab, what are the odds?
as is, i found some other sunnyside parks, but left them out. those would be
sunnyside park in thelist of neighborhoods in san francisco, as its only mention has a big ol' cn template plastered on it (and no context for what it is either)
sunnyside park insunnyside, houston. has sauce behind it, but it's likely relatively minor
the entirety ofsunnyside, toronto. which apparently has a beach and park area. thus, i don't assume any of the parks in it would be known as the "sunnyside park".hey that's the place that had the amusement park before it went boom
Disambiguate using the drafted DAB page. Also, FWIW, the Illinois park appears wholly unrelated to the current target. I can't find any evidence that this park contains a baseball field or is used by the university athletics program. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)20:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion wasno consensus. Of the two current targets, there was better support for the nomination's preference of Rock music as the common target. Although there was also support for Arena rock, retargeting both to Rock music as a temporary compromise, since the discussion concluded with a scope for turning the topic into a set index article. Jay 💬20:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think a redirect toarena rock makes the most sense. The opening source of that article statesCrystal 2014, p. 220, "arena rock: 'also known as pomp rock, melodic rock, anthem rock, stadium rock, or AOR" --FMSky (talk)14:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no perfect answer, because there is not a strong definition of melodic rock out in the literature. The citedDavid Crystal source (written by a non-musician) conflates a bunch of music styles as if Crystal was just typing rather than researching. Especially grating is Crystal including AOR in the definition. AOR was originally mainstream rock heard on FM stations in the late 1970s as DJs aired additional non-single album tracks. That's why I would applyWP:CONTEXTMATTERS for the Crystal cite, and lower its weight tremendously. Crystal is wrong in this because AOR was not more nor less melodic than other rock. (See Marc Davison'sAll Area Access from 1997.) AOR's stylistic colleague,Middle of the road (music) (MOR), was very much more melodic, but not strictly rock-oriented. At leastarena rock is meant to be sung by the audience, making it more melodic by definition. I went with the general "rock" target because of Allan Moore and Remy Martin writing inRock: The Primary Text on page 17. "Rock supports a vast range of labels: progressive rock... ballad rock, melodic rock, synthesiser rock..." The authors list 33 types of rock, then conclude, "the list is as long as the publicist's thesaurus." Looking at it from the other direction doesn't help: if you try to see what "melodic rock" has been equated with, sometimes the answer isn't even rock. DrummerWill Rigby once said that both punk rock and "My Sharona"–style new wave drove record labels away from anything remotely melodic or Beatles-esque in the late 1970s. He said that"melodic rock" was called "power pop" at the time, to escape the stigma associated with melodic rock. But Rigby is an outlier. SociologistAndy Bennett writes inBritish Progressive Pop 1970-1980 that the "melodic" portion of melodic rock indicates that the pop element of vocal harmonies was included with the rock elements. Bennett's is only a passing mention; he does not investigate the topic. For the redirect, if I had to pick a second and third choice afterrock music they would bearena rock orpop rock.Binksternet (talk)21:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: - What would you think about starting aset index article for melodic rock? There's noclear or universal definition, but clearly per your sources somehave tried defining it, so each definition could get a brief cited description and a link to the article containing the closest content we have to that definition.Fieari (talk)02:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
2026 College Football Playoff National Championship
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.
Delete, two or more typos becomes implausible. We don't need this. None ofDihidrogen monixide,dihydrogenmonixide, anddihidrogenmonoxide exist, rendering this combination as a lottery ticket of errors. The target page is popular, so I'm not surprised by people poking into and clicking on the incoming links. But I'm not sure where you're seeing that stat, because in my check there were only 2 pageviews here in the last 90 days here.Utopes(talk /cont)02:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Old redirect with diminishing but still somewhat consistent usage. Chance of old links existing off-site are high, given the higher usage of this redirect in the past. There's no points for tidyness, which is why we have theWP:CHEAP page. Target is unambiguous, it's harmless, deletion would be harmful even if we don't have and shouldn't create other similar typos. Consistency is genuinely not a requirement for redirects. There is no pandora's box to be opened.Fieari (talk)07:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment: there are a couple instances of this "word" scattered around the internet (one onthe free dictionary and one on rhymezone), but they don't seem to predate wikipedia, so i'm considering this afluffle case, where a mistake someone made here spreads to other places. even then, those instances seem to be accompanied by the correctly spelled word, so i doubt that means anything in the long runconsarn(speak evil)(see evil)17:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plausible my eye (stupid edit filters wouldn't let me use the body part I wanted to). Zero google hits save for autogenerated stuff. This is not something that would reasonably help someone find what they're looking for, and there's no reason to keep this.35.139.154.158 (talk)21:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two misspellings ("hidrogen" and "monixide") are already a sufficiently implausible combination, and the lack of a space make the combination even less plausible. This isn't a plausible error likeUnites States orLionel Messy; it's just wrong.Nyttend (talk)20:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Plausible misspellings are fine to keep, no need to populate redirect space with mistakes from random permutations. Jay 💬15:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Lean keep - This is almost certainly a non-parenthetical unnecessary disambiguator. "Run and gun" is the genre of games that the Contra series belongs to, and may have even kicked off said genre. I lean towards keeping this as an unambiguous target, but I can see arguments for deletion as malformed. Still,WP:CHEAP probably applies, so lean keep it is.Fieari (talk)01:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Upon research in this title further, seems this phrase refers to a game bundle called "Contra Run & Gun Bundle" (Steam link). Seems this bundle was also released on major consoles. Either way, seems like we may have aWP:RETURNTORED situation since this topic is not mentioned at the target, and seems to represent a valid subject, so it does not seem to be describing the genre in general. Adding a mention to the target article describing the subject of the redirect could relieve this problem, given the topic of this redirect probably failsWP:GNG.Steel1943 (talk)15:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the realization that the term may not be describing the genre. ThoughContra is ambiguous, the video game/series are in the "Run and gun" genre, so I don't feel strongly about a "Run and gun" pseudo disambiguator. Jay 💬18:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I believe that redirecting Galaxy AI to Samsung Galaxy S24 is not appropriate, as the Galaxy AI feature is also included in other Samsung products besides the Samsung Galaxy S24.Lucky out (talk)06:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toOne_UI#One_UI_6 for now, as there is content there and below there about this topic. If someone wants to create a new article here that meetsWP:GNG (I could easily believe there's enough sources out there to do this) there's no need to delete this redirect first. Standard policy is that you can just overwrite the redirect entirely with the new article.Fieari (talk)07:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not really that the redirect is outdated; it is more that it was never valid to begin with. It aligns with Samsung’s marketing, which always pushes the latest flagship model, but that is not what Wikipedia is for.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Thanks Jay. Years ago, I thought there was more oversight to the middle names. Turns out this is an issue on numerous pages. Doing backtracking as I come across.Red Director (talk)18:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundling together with "Samuel Benjamin Watkins IV". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!06:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I foundthis from an article at Sports Illustrated. But it's fantasy related and may not be enough substance to justify it. It's a passing mention of the name, and since we can't find a second source to verify it, I'm not sure how much weight it should carry.Hey man im josh (talk)15:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we are struggling to find passing mentions of his middle initial/name, then this is highly unlikely to be a search term. It is highly unlikely that someone would search for such an exact term when he is so well-known by his common name. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @18:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(My comment assumes that we're able to source this name.) It's a fully appropriate redirect — it's his real name, after all. Disambiguation and sourcing issues aside, every biography article should be have a bluelink (either redirect or article title) for the person's full name. We haveCategory:Redirects from long names, with nearly eighty thousand entries, for full names of subjects (most of which aren't humans) whose common names are shorter. Remember that people can copy/paste names from elsewhere; if you find a reference to "Samuel Benjamin Watkins IV" and search for him on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be wrongly informed that we don't have an article about him.Nyttend (talk)20:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. Unlike the novel which has only one-word mentions with regards to the story, the current target has a lot more information about how the town was brought to life in the film. A reader at the film article will get to know the novel article from the lead. I would see this as a derivative, not an XY. Jay 💬15:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep - the redirect is being used on over 750 pages, it would be very disruptive to alter the meaning of the link by changing its target, and would likely break future links because people would be unaware the target changed. Proposing changing WP:XYZ shortcuts needs really strong reasoning as it has the potential to cause a lot of confusion. Feel free to add a hatnote though, you don't need RFD for that.BugGhost🦗👻08:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bugghost. Some of his arguments would be a good reason to revert or to disambiguate if this had a long history as a redirect to Page blanking, but since it was created as a redirect to Partial blocks and has never had another target (except for four minutes going toPeanut butter, thanks to a vandal), there aren't any old links that correctly used this as a shortcut for Page blanking when they were created.Nyttend (talk)19:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I was about to retarget this without discussion, but I see there's been dispute in the past, so I'll do the proper thing and bring it to RfD. The creator of this redirect retargeted it twice, before another user retargeted it for a third time. Its second target,Purgatory#Islam, seems the most logical, as purgatory is primarily understood to be a Christian concept, and similar ideas in other faiths are analogous at best. —Anonymous03:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Based on the sources found at the proposed retarget, this phrase seems ambiguous at best, with bothJahannam andBarzakh being plausible targets. As the nominator notes, ultimately "Purgatory" is a Christian concept grafted onto these Islamic ones. TheEncyclopedia of Islam entry on Barzakh, for example, explicitly calls analogies between that concept and Purgatory "inaccurate." I think that for a redirect, however, the mere usage of the analogy is sufficient. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)17:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget, more per Presidentman. From a cursory reading of the current target, I don't see how it's analogous, but if it's often called analogous, it's a better target than the proposal. However, if something else is also a plausible target, we have to choose between creating a disambiguation page and sending this to an overview page, and the latter is far better.Nyttend (talk)19:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This page has no valuable history.WP:MOVEREDIRECT indicates that redirects should not generally be moved, as it obfuscates and muddies up the history. There wasnot a redirect at that red link which existed since 2007, which would be the creation date's implication. Such a link would have existed only since 2025, so the history should reflect that. Creating pages is inconsequentially easy; deleting is too. But moving adds confusion for little purpose.Utopes(talk /cont)10:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Ummm... do I really need to explain this one? There's another slightly less egregious one that I'll list separately because it could more plausibly be useful. —Anonymous02:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, existed for a brief period at the wrong title, moved to reflect the content. This redirect makes no reference to "Mexico" in its title, so there's no point in converting this into an implausible misspelling when we can delete this misleading redirect instead.Utopes(talk /cont)07:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment: I removed the respective talk page redirects from this nomination: They will be deleted per{{Db-talk}} and/or{{Db-subpage}} if these redirects are deleted, and have no relevance to this discussion otherwise.Steel1943 (talk)04:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominating this title for discussion here to determine a stronger consensus on whether or not this is the correct location. In my eyes, a risk of global catastrophe can be considered an "existential threat", and this is a likely search term, so as one option this is acceptable. However, theremay be other titles that this can refer to, such as other "existences" beyond just human existence. Therefore, disambiguating may be an option. If there is a lack of other possibilities I believe this redirect suffices thanks to the hatnotes which clear the air, but perhaps there is a more preferable outcome that can clear any ambiguity?Utopes(talk /cont)00:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I searched "existential threat" to see what the term is primarily used to describe, and, quite unexpectedly, I found enough reliable sources that appear to be discussing the phrase itself to make me wonder if there is an actual article that could exist under this title. —Anonymous03:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but I fully support anonymous's efforts above to write a new article at this location. Until such time, I don't particularly see a better target than the current target, and I certainly don't think the current target provokesWP:ASTONISHment of any sort.Fieari (talk)07:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An existential threat is something that threatens the existence of something; it's applicable to anything, and not just on a global scale. If someone can write an article, great, but unless that happens, this page should be deleted because it implies that "existential threat" is only something on a global scale.Nyttend (talk)21:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Russia is an existential threat to Ukraine; Israel keeps talking about existential threats thatt are locally established and not global. The U.S. is an existential threat to Greenland. --65.92.246.77 (talk)21:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delere What Nyttend said; this redirect is actively misleading. As I said at the deletion review that prompted this, five seconds searching shows that "potential global catastrophe" is not the primary meaning of the term "existential threat"—obviously everyone's results will be different depending on location and search history, but[1][2][3][4][5] are my current first five hits on the term on Google, none of which are using it in the "global catastrophe" sense. ‑ Iridescent05:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 19#S.L.C