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.
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.
Should rather redirect to the disambiguation pageMagic, as "magick" is foremost an alternative spelling of "magic" and is even covered in that disambiguation page since earlier.Blockhaj (talk)19:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a strong difference between the two; "magic" most commonly refers to the stage performance, whilst "magick" pretty much always means rituals and supernatural.Nyttend (talk)23:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perNyttend andRandy Kryn; the specific magic that Crowley revived with the term is most fully described at the current target; Magic (supernatural) isn't bad per se, but it is much broader that the modern use of the term. Which brings us toMagick (Book 4), the 1929 book that revived and defined the term in modern usage, might possibly be the most "correct". In any case, magick refers to the robe, dagger, pentacle type magic, not the rabbit out of the hat variety.Skyerise (talk)06:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crowley was a nut case and for us unfamiliar with his work it is absolutely ludicrus that a simple alternate spelling of magic should be specifically associated with his work. It is an alternative spelling and our search terms should reflect that first and foremost.Blockhaj (talk)03:28, 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.
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.
"ALCS" is a very ambiguous term, and not everyone associates that with what it currently redirects to. Many people also associate that with a Christian school in Madison, Wisconsin, especially after a recent school shooting there.Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk)17:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Web search results are overwhelmingly related to the baseball competition. I don't see enough evidence to overturn longstanding consensus that the current target is the primary topic. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)22:04, 6 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.
Paris 2024 used to be a redirect, but I turned it into a dab page. I'm not sure what purpose this title ever had; it claimed to be a dab, but in reality was just a redirect to another redirect (and now a redirect to a dab). I'm tempted toWP:G6 it, but people sometimes get touchy about CSD, so bringing it here out of an abundance of caution.RoySmith(talk)17:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS, what got me here was when DPL bot taggedParis 2024 as having ("a large number" of :-)) incoming links to a disambiguation page which needed fixing.
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).
Chancellor of the the University of California, Santa Barbara
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).
List of people nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States in the last year of a presidency
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 some. Since this has already been relisted twice, I'd like to at least close the ones that are obvious. Feel free to relist the first at any time.asilvering (talk)23:46, 1 March 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.
Delete. The duplicate "of" makes this very implausible, but as a 2023 creation, it's old enough that it probably shouldn't be R3-deleted.Nyttend (talk)09:25, 6 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 If this is from a page move then there will be links linking to this redirect, but the only pages that do link here are ones related to RfD
WhatLinksHere shows only links in current revisions of articles. Imagine that your article linked to this article at this title, and after it was moved, your article was edited to remove the extra "of". Your article won't show up in WhatLinksHere for "of of". Also, see the page history; it's unquestionably the result of a pagemove.Nyttend (talk)23:25, 6 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.
Similar names, sure, but not ambiguous per Steel, and we have the hatnote for that anyway. How is it misleading? Isn't it plausible that readers look for a film that was announced (in 2014, but readers may not recall years) but not yet released? Jay 💬11:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do we know that it's "no longer upcoming"? It hasn't been released to this point, but that doesn't mean that it won't ever be released. --Tavix(talk)16:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it has been cancelled, surely there'd be a source stating that. Unless that has been confirmed, it's still technically upcoming because it has the potential to be released at any time. --Tavix(talk)14:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, if there were plans of a release, there would have been sources (at least one) in the last 10 years mentioning that. Jay 💬17:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is common sense, not a requirement. Cannot emphasize the 10-year delay enough. Any speculation of a surprise or an upcoming release is crystal balling. Jay 💬07:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the disagreement is on what a lack of sourcing represents. My position is that it's upcoming unless sources say it's been cancelled. Your position is that upcoming requires sourcing of a release date. --Tavix(talk)14:28, 4 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 abbreviation seems to mostly be used for the South Carolina Council of Teachers of Mathematics. I can't find any usage of it referring to the film.Rusalkii (talk)00:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without a mention, this is confusing, especially if it's ambiguous ("what's this 1964 film got to do with the teachers' organisation I was looking for?").Shhhnotsoloud (talk)09:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tavix. Even without a mention there is no confusion, the target is a title with first letters capitalized. Reconsider when the teachers get a page to target. Jay 💬18:38, 5 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 would lean towardskeeping it pointing toMars (mythology), though I think either target would be fine enough. From what I can tell, Cato's passage is the only mention of "Mars Silvanus", and (as we note at Mars's article) it is more likely an asyndetic reference to both gods. At least in the current state of both articles, the section atMars (mythology) seems to provide the most effective coverage. –Michael Aurel (talk)01:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current target seems to note that scholarship seems to consider it a likely interpretation mistake as opposed to a well-attested single entity. Current target also links to Silvanus prominently in the section. --Patar knight -chat/contributions02:19, 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.
Seems harmless to me. The redirect is justified as a topic covered or listed in another article, and the non-notability is all the more reason to keep it as a redirect, since it is not likely to be expanded into an article. I recommendkeep.StainedGlassCavern (talk)05:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's very common to have redirect articles like this, particularly with things like royal children who do not yet - or may never - attain notability in their own right. I also recommendkeep.OGBC1992 (talk)11:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been enough mention of her name in the press to warrant having a redirect. Is she notable enough to have an article though? Obviously not.Keivan.fTalk02:21, 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 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.
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.
Refine above (creator of 11-year old redir).Duckmather do you think next time before nomming here, you check the article? p.s. it isn't notable either, but that's irrelevant as it's a redirect.Widefox;talk23:05, 6 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.
The result of the discussion waskeep. Consensus that the DAB page is the correct target. Of those participants, it was split between a bare redirect and targeting the section. Since the section is at the top, there's no practical difference, so I am keeping the status quo. --Patar knight -chat/contributions03:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ambiguity is of course not coming from the programming language, but the two real-life snake classifications listed.Pythonidae is the family andPython (genus) is within it, but the genus' common name is "true pythons". Seems to me like either could be argued for as the better target, so best to keep. -- Fyrael (talk)02:36, 6 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.
Alt lang tagged as an R without mention. Without a mention, this does not seem to be a helpful redirect.
This name was removed from the page 8 years ago following an RfD. Tagging as an "R without mention" is not a permanent solution for such RLANGs, as they are generally for pages where such a title is used and at the very least referred to somewhere, toverify the accuracy of the name & search term.Utopes(talk /cont)23:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The redirect is apparently the Hindi spelling of the name of the subject, who stars in Hindi-language films, correct? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (Goodbye!)01:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a neutral relisting statement, Mellohi. It has been made clear that the person is an actress. The act of starring in an alt-lang film does not automatically necessitate name-translation redirects though. We don't translate the name of a person every time they speak another language. The name was removed from the page 8 years ago as apparently invalid. Echoing what AngusWOOF said at the previous discussion, "You have to keep that in there so that the redirect makes sense. Otherwise there is no value in retaining this when it is not an identifying name for her primary career.", is still true. If it's not an identifying name, then this otherwise does not have enough affinity to stay. Add the name to the infobox if it's actually what she's called, or delete it if it's not; can't have both.Utopes(talk /cont)01:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the2012 RfC about article leads (prior to the last RFD) and the2017 RfC about infoboxes (after the last RFD, which is why this got removed from the infobox), the relevant editor community have basically said quite strongly that they don't think Indic scripts are useful on English Wikipedia, and they don't want to maintain such content. A{{R without mention}} feels to me like an end-run around the spirit of those RfCs.59.149.117.119 (talk)22:55, 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.
I’m specifically referring to the Khmer Rouge. They were some of the most extreme ultranationalists in history because they banned anything that was not Cambodian and killed everyone who did not follow these rules. For example they would kill anyone who were glasses because glasses were not a Cambodian invention.Otis the Texan (talk)20:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The phrase "Khmer ultranationalism" is discussed on New Naratif[7] and the Alternative History forum[8], as well as quickly mentioned in a master's thesis[9] and on Rational Wiki[10]. I'm not saying these are reliable sources by any means but thought it was worth mentioning where the term is being used.Significa liberdade(she/her) (talk)06:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the newly presented context. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (Goodbye!)01:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're obviously related concepts; Khmer ultranationalism is a subset of Khmer nationalism. We routinely expect a redirect to be discussed in the target, but that's because of requirements like relevance (is X related to Y?), which is obvious here because of the titles alone, or because we need to prove that one title is an alternate term for, or related to, the term used for the article title (is "Kampuchea" really related to "Cambodia"?), and again, the terms are obviously related here.Nyttend (talk)09:29, 6 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).
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 15#Brave Books