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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Redirect from move that appears to still be in use on a few pages, no real rationale for deletion left standing now that the redirect's origin has been established. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Global warming infobox → Template:Global warming sidebar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unused and has implausible name for an infobox, actually currently is a sidebar TerraCyprus (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not an implausible name, the page history shows that another user previously "moved page Template:Global warming infobox to Template:Global warming sidebar: not an infobox". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pigsonthewing: Not an implausible name apart from claiming, do you have any evidence and could share that with other Wikipedians? TerraCyprus (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See above, and don't accuse me of merely "claiming", when I have already given evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:56, 29 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hanacaraka infobox → Template:Infobox Hanacaraka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unused and has implausible name for an infobox TerraCyprus (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not an implausible name, the page history shows that another user previously "moved page Template:Hanacaraka infobox to Template:Infobox Hanacaraka". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pigsonthewing: Not an implausible name - apart from claiming, do you have any evidence and could share that with other Wikipedians? TerraCyprus (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See above, and don't accuse me of merely "claiming", when I have already given evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 29 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ghana constituency infobox → Template:Infobox Ghana constituency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unused and has implausible name for an infobox TerraCyprus (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is clearly not an "implausible" name, since, as a cursory look at the page's history shows, in 2009‎ I "moved Template:Ghana constituency infobox to Template:Infobox Ghana constituency". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pigsonthewing: It is clearly not an "implausible" name - apart from claiming, do you have any evidence and could share that with other Wikipedians? TerraCyprus (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See above, and don't accuse me of merely "claiming", when I have already given evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 29 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios → List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirects to a page listing productions from Hanna-Barbera only. Projects from Cartoon Network Studios are seperately listed on that company's article. IceWalrus236 (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this originates from a page move following a content split and so is required for attribution history, but not necessarily at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There's a prominent link to Cartoon Network Studios at the target page, though readers would have to subsequently check its Filmography section to sort of assemble this list on their own. This would be a relatively straightforward WP:XY deletion for me if not for the matter of the attribution history. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Space Mafia. Not much of a consensus either way, but this is the option that has the momentum. I'm leaving Spacemafia alone. It was added late, no one had any specific opinion about that one, and the only usage of Spacemafia as one word is the Among Us usage (cf. WP:SMALLDETAILS). That being said, feel free to nominate separately if you believe it needs individual discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Space Mafia → Among Us  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Spacemafia → Among Us  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

While this is an ok description of Among Us's gameplay, as far as actual use of this term is concerned, RS don't seem to refer to Among Us this way, whereas there appear to be multiple non-notable subjects that have used this name. I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete term is not even used in the article. --Masem (t) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Above statement is completely false. "Spacemafia" is described as being the AppID in the "Early development" section. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm, the sources cited for that claim don't entirely back it up, looks like the URL for the game on the Google Play Store contains "spacemafia' [1] but that phrase isn't actually used on the webpage anywhere. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The Gamasutra article mentions it. It isn't a significant alternative name, but it's a possible one the game might be known under, and it has been officially used in at least one context (the URL). Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case I think I'm ok with keeping, since it doesn't seem like any other possible subject for this search term is notable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overly vague. While Mafia is an archetypal example of social deduction games, there are other games that could conceivably be called "Space Mafia". Since it's not a common name for Among Us, better to let the search engine bring the person to what they are looking for._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with OmegaFallon, it has been used as such both officially and unofficially to refer to the subject. Helpful redirect for readers and researchers. Right cite (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate I've drafted one under the redirect, having found another topic definitely referred to as "Space Mafia". Note that we also have a redirect Space Mafia (video game), which I'd keep as pointing to Among Us. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig per BDD. Despite what my brain keeps insisting, this isn't a line from "We Didn't Start The Fire" (that's "space monkey, Mafia"). Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I oppose creating a disambiguation page. "Space Mafia" is not mentioned in Among Us, so it violates WP:DABRELATED. The "Space Mafia" from the super sentai show is so minor and crufty I doubt it even merits a redirect. My opinion on deletion still stands._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "spacemafia" is mentioned, so I don't see why we wouldn't provide access via a more regular rendering of the phrase. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete AFAIK never used by any other sources and is only used internally. Nathanielcwm (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that Spacemafia is now also a redirect to the same target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've added Spacemafia to this discussion per Rosguill. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per OmegaFallon. CaptainGalaxy 17:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate Couple of uses as noted above, fairly standard treatment for this sort of thing. There are some other scattered references to similarly named things (like at Space Sheriff Gavan: The Movie) but regardless of their inclusion, a dab seems most useful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per BDD's draft. These are both pretty minor uses of a phrase, but both seem reasonable. ~ mazca ^talk 12:31, 29 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete all per Tavix. Ruslik_Zero 20:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Slaver Rebellion → American Civil War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Slaver's Rebellion → American Civil War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Slavers' Rebellion → American Civil War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to have any traction in RS based on a Google Scholar and internet search. Delete unless evidence of usage can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom (t · c) buidhe 09:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created these redirects after seeing the term (it's really all variations on a single term) used informally across social media, blogs, and forums (e.g. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9], though the last one is an opinion piece in a student newspaper as far as I can tell). The term is used, consistently, to refer to the American Civil War and no other topic. Lack of traction in scholarly sources is a reason not to write about it in the article Names of the American Civil War, not a reason not to create a redirect. Redirects aid navigation, and this is a plausible search term. None of the WP:RFD#DELETE reasons apply. TompaDompa (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, based on evidence of some significant casual use given above. If there were other things sometimes informally referred to as a "slaver's rebellion" that were being legitimately confused by this, then a lack of reliable-source usage would make it worth deleting it based on ambiguity, but what usage there is does seem to point to this target. ~ mazca ^talk 20:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of attestation in reliable sources. If it becomes established, it may be worth a blurb in Names of the American Civil War and then I would reconsider a redirect. For now, it seems more like an obscure synonym to be deleted per WP:R#D8. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Mazca. I'd agree that this hits the novel or very obscure synonym for an article name of WP:R#DELETE, but it is unlikely to be useful doesn't require deletion. Given the lack of confusion with other items (except, maybe, Slave rebellion) or any other meaning, though, I think it's reasonable, if poorly utilized. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Straight synonyms are, IMO, one of the only types of redirects that are useful when not mentioned at the target page. I see the most likely use case for this redirect as someone coming across a reference to the "Slaver's Rebellion" in internet discussion and trying to find out the meaning. In that case, this would probably do, though we couldn't discount the possibility of WP:SURPRISE. This also feels very much cart before horse. I'd prefer sourced inclusion of the term at Names of the American Civil War. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• NC 10 (film) → Kriti Sanon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no film named "NC 10", so it's unlikely to be a search term. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the nomination statement is facutally incorrect - there is a film called "NC 10" per [10], [11], [12] and other sources (so the nominator has yet again failed to do a WP:BEFORE check). Those sources also confirm that Kriti Sanon stars in it and plays the/a leading role. As it seems to be a Telugu-language film, there will presumably be plenty more sources in that language. I'm not sure whether that means this is a good redirect, but it is at least plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't find any evidence on Google search. If there was a real film with this name, it normally wouldn't redirect to that page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Seventyfiveyears: The links I provided demonstrate that a real film of this name exists (which I found using Google). Unless you speak Telugu I don't think you can definitively say there are no sources about the film on google in that language. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If so, then I'm guessing that we should draft an article for this page, since that is what other film pages have. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation - the actress's previous films generally seem to be article-worthy, and there does appear to be a reasonable amount of coverage developing about this one too, though much of which I can't read. Assuming this film's notable, we should be encouraging creation of an article about it, not redirecting it somewhere it isn't mentioned. ~ mazca ^talk 20:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First, there is no mention of the film at the target, so it's unhelpful for anyone wanting to learn anything about the given film. Second, there has been an argument that the film is notable, so it should be deleted per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of an article at that title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:15, 28 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Target both to The Inspector Lynley Mysteries. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Inspector Lynley → The Inspector Lynley Mysteries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Thomas Lynley → Elizabeth George#Career  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Two redirects for the same fictional character, however, the target is two different pages. They should target the same page, but I don't have an opinion which one it should be. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Target both to The Inspector Lynley Mysteries which is more likely to be what the reader wants. I've amended that article to avoid what would otherwise be a circular redirect, and moved Elizabeth George to the lead. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Googol (disambiguation), keep the other two. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Googol (disambiguation) → Google (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Googol Video → Google Search  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Googol Books → Google Books  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Do we really need those redirects of which all redirect to "Google [type]". Googol is a large number, while Google is a search engine. Also delete "Googol (disambiguation)" per G14 and partial title matches as there is nothing to disambiguate "Googol" except links containing "Google" and its primary topic in the "See also" section as there is only one Googol. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it seems plausible to me that someone may mix up the spellings of Google and googol. I don't think someone would be searching "Googol Video" or "Googol Books" looking for videos or books about the number googol (and that's not an encyclopedic function anyway), so there really isn't much room for confusion here. The disambiguation redirect is fine as well, that is the disambiguation that I would expect to cover any competing uses of "Googol". WP:G14 explictly does not apply to this redirect because its target is a disambiguation page, and I do not see how PTM is relevant. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Googol (disambiguation): "Googol" is not ambiguous and any potential confusion is dealt with by a hatnote. Keep the other two as ((R from misspelling)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Post Human → Post Human: Survival Horror  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Post Human refers to all four of the EPs under the Post Human name, not specifically Survival Horror. The other EPs will be released at some point in the near future, Survival Horror is just one of the EPs. JJP...MASTER! (0-3-5)'_{[talk about or to] JJP... master? (0-3-6-5)} 17:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Posthuman (disambiguation). There are also albums called Posthuman and a bunch of plausibly capitalized concepts/works related to that name. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Posthuman (disambiguation) per Rhododendrites. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retargeted redirect per above. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sean Stephens, please don't retarget redirects during an open discussion. The discussion will be closed after a week and then appropriate actions will be taken. Not now. I have reverted your edit. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • J947: My apologies. It seemed that consensus was reached — I realise in hindsight that two votes (three if you include myself) does not a consensus make. I agree with your reversion. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. There weren't any bolded votes, but comments made clearly establish a justification for the redirect as an alternative name. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sridhar Maharaj → Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirecting to an unmatched article. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what way would you say it's unmatched? "Sridhar Maharaj" is common shorthand for the guru in question. If I google the redirect in question, the entire first page of results are about B. R. (Bhakti Rakshak) Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaj. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See here for evidence that the redirect does match the destination (per Dāsānudāsa above). Sean Stephens (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Off-English-Wikipedia links (including ((ill)) links) aren't English Wikipedia dab entry-able, as noted by Pain Ellsworth. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Árbol (disambiguation) → Tree (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Spanish for tree, delete per WP:RLOTE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is no scope for a disambiguation page on the English Wikipedia for Árbol or even Arbol as the results are all partial title matches. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify. It's the name at least of two parishes and one rock band, for which we have very little, if any, content here, but the topics are notable, and we've got targets for the links. I've drafted a dab below the redirect. If kept, it should probably be moved to Arbol, provided we're certain that we won't have any use for the programming language article that lived at this title before getting deleted in 2016. – Uanfala (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Was going to say "dabify", but after looking into the entries, only one entry has a blue link that mentions it (as "Arbol" without the diacritic), and that's Antas de Ulla. The other blue link, Vilalba, does not mention a parish named "Árbol", and the third entry, the band, cannot be included because it has no blue link on enwiki. To be clear, there is only one entry that could be included on a dab page, and that would not be of any help to readers. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the entries have blue ((ill)) links. If you would like to add a mention for the other parish, feel free, and if you believe the band to not be notable by enwiki standards, you can remove it. – Uanfala (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2038 FIFA World Cup → FIFA World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 21#2038 FIFA World Cup: this is still WP:TOOSOON, there is still no specific information about a potential 2038 edition at FIFA World Cup, etc. However, the redirect is established as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2038 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination), so I can't G4 it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia has no information about FIFA World Cups beyond 2034. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT. Far too early. GiantSnowman 16:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt until actual information about the competition is known and can be added to the target or used to create an article. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Some Dude From North Carolina: where are you proposing to redirect it to? And while redirects are usually cheap they do still need to be useful, someone looking for content about this world cup will not find the redirect useful unless it leads them to content about this world cup. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence it'll actually happen in 2038, and therefore not mentioned at target article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 20:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• YR2018 → YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect more likely means "the year of 2018", so it's not a possible search term. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Misleading and confusing. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:26, 29 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 20:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Fictional populated places in Calisota → Category:Fictional populated places in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unneeded redirect for a specific fictional U.S. state (see Donald Duck universe). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:11, 28 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 20:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• COVID → Coronavirus disease 2019  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Among with Covid, CoViD, and CoviD. It's supposed to be targeted to Coronavirus disease, as COVID is the abbreviation of it. There's a hatnote at the article that can target readers to Coronavirus disease 2019 if they want to. GeraldWL 04:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wasn't the acronym created for COVID-19? While you're techincally correct, I'd wager that the vast majority of people typing "COVID" are looking for "COVID-19", not information on MERS or SARS or other diseases. "Coronavirus diseases" seems like the more logical search for the latter (or "coronavirus" and then navigating from the virus group to the disease article). I'd be in favor of keeping the acronym pointing to COVID-19 until there's a COVID-21 or COVID-22. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikmoz, it's not created after the pandemic, simply popularized. And I don't think the fact that majority are looking for COVID-19 would justify keeping this redirect to the COVID-19 article. In the Coronavirus disease article, the abbreviation of it (COVID-19) is bolded, meaning it's a redirect to the article per MOS:BOLD: "[Bolds are also done for] a synonym in the lead that redirects to the article." The official abbreviation of Coronavirus disease is COVID, so it should redirect there, not COVID-19. The hatnote will direct readers to COVID-19 if they want to. GeraldWL 06:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you sure? The COVID page itself was created in February 2020. My understanding is part of the reason for the new naming scheme in 2015 was due to names like SARS and MERS potentially fueling fear (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) or being stigmatizing (Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome), and that COVID came directly from needing a name that fit those new guidelines (replacing the previously used 2019-nCoV). I don't see any use of either the acronym COVID or the phrase "coronavirus infectious disease" pre-December 2019. If you can find a source from then using the term, please share it here. Absent such use pre-COVID-19 and until there's a future novel coronavirus infectious disease, COVID refers only to COVID-19. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Discussed below. GeraldWL 15:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there any references to "COVID" prior to WHO naming COVID-19? Checking PubMed, I can only find 20 papers published before this year's outbreak that reference "coronavirus disease" and about half of those are mis-dated papers that discuss COVID-19. There are 0 papers referencing COVID before this year. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Wikmoz. Most people entering COVID are looking for COVID-19. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Acebulf, again, the hatnote will do its job. The right meaning of COVID is Coronavirus disease. Does the fact that most ppl are looking for COVID-19 justify targeting it to Coronavirus disease 2019? I don't think so. GeraldWL 12:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While "COVID" in "COVID-19" refers to coronavirus, it's not actually clear to me that it was coined before COVID-19 as a quick search didn't net me any earlier results for it. Anyone using "COVID" is referring to this strain, not to coronaviruses in general. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Roscelese, See above for your last sentence. The point is, it is an abbreviation to Coronavirus disease, not Coronavirus disease 2019, so it shouldn't redirect to COVID-19. The hatnote will do the job. GeraldWL 12:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I see your post that it was "simply popularized" during the pandemic, but I don't see that that is in fact the case. Wikimoz is right that we can start directing it to coronaviruses in general when people are using it to refer to anything other than COVID-19; I don't think "it's technically, linguistically an abbreviation for any coronavirus" beats out "it refers to COVID-19 specifically and exclusively." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Roscelese, I think it really beats out. My argument is simple: it is an abbreviation of Coronavirus disease, not Coronavirus disease 2019. What's hard on reading the hatnote and clicking Coronavirus disease 2019 if that's what the reader is looking for? Plus it does not refer to COVID-19 specifically and exclusively. Sure the media refers to it often as COVID to make life less difficult, but that doesn't mean it is COVID-19. Having "COVID-19" bolded at Coronavirus disease would seem very weird if "COVID" redirects to Coronavirus disease 2019 instead. I don't really see a problem for redirecting to Coronavirus disease, as it would fit Template:R from abbreviation. GeraldWL 13:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. Neither "coronavirus disease" nor "coronavirus disease 2019" seem to be the primary topic. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Seventyfiveyears, I don't think "being a primary topic" is an aspect of consideration. COVID is Coronavirus disease; thus it should redirect there. GeraldWL 13:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Covid" also redirects to "Coronavirus disease 2019". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Seventyfiveyears, already said above. GeraldWL 15:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify per Seventyfiveyears. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until there is a future disease with the COVID moniker. Until then, the specific term COVID refers only to COVID-19, as per the WHO's new naming scheme in 2015 existing diseases would keep their names (such as SARS and MERS). The coronavirus disease page was only created in January 2020, with the title "coronavirus respiratory syndrome". It was renamed on February 12th, and essentially consisted of nothing more than duplicate information found in the Coronavirus#Infection in humans article. And, as best I can tell, none of the sources in the coronavirus disease article reference the common cold, SARS, or MERS directly as a 'COVID' (please correct me if I'm incorrect). As such, I question the need for the coronavirus disease article at all (it wasn't needed after SARS or MERS, why now?), and even if we keep the article in keeping with other articles split by the virus (Orthomyxoviridae) and disease (Influenza) to date the acronym COVID seems only to be used to refer to COVID-19. Without a WP:MEDRS source referring to SARS or MERS as a COVID, or the discovery of a second novel COVID, it's inappropriate to redirect COVID to anything but COVID-19. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bakkster Man, what matters is that now, Coronavirus disease is abbreviated COVID, so it must redirect there, not to COVID-19, because it is not the right abbreviation and merely a nickname. Whether or not the article is worthy of inclusion is another story; it is still here. As long as it's here, "COVID" must be redirected to Coronavirus disease, because that is the correct abbreviation of it: CDC says "The "CO" stands for corona, "VI" for virus and "D" for disease."

  Off-topic: Regarding "none of the sources in the coronavirus disease article reference the common cold, SARS, or MERS directly as a 'COVID'," well it is specified as a coronavirus disease. GeraldWL 15:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Gerald Waldo Luis per the WHO, this does not appear to be the case. "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus." The ECDC mirrors this wording: "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)". Note, they refer to coronavirus disease as COVID-19, full stop. So it seems inaccurate to say that COVID-19 is one of several 'coronavirus diseases', they say explicitly that "coronavirus disease" refers to COVID-19 specifically. I understand where the confusion arises, but it does not seem that the WHO's definition of the term "coronavirus disease" (which again, I can't find in any contemporaneous accounts before December 2019, and if they existed would likely change my view) was written to retroactively include SARS, MERS, or common cold due to coronavirus infection. Instead, "coronavirus disease" appears to have been defined by the WHO as shorthand for "coronavirus disease 2019", as backed up by the two WP:MEDRS sources above. So I'll reiterate, Keep the current redirect which matches the WHO definition, and allow users who want the (incorrectly named) coronavirus disease article to click the hat note. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bakkster Man, I feel like your arguments are more of an AfD to Coronavirus disease. If you feel like that article should be deleted or dabified (I'll prefer to dabify it), feel free to start a discussion on that, and this discussion can be closed. GeraldWL 17:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually just finished doing exactly that. Though I still believe this redirect should continue to point to COVID-19, with whatever disambiguation page we decide is appropriate as a possible hat note to that page. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In 2020 the overwhelming meaning of the term "COVID" (in any capitalisation) in common usage is for COVID-19. If that changes in future this can be revisited but nothing has changed since this was discussed in May. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Wikmoz, Acebulf, Roscelese, Seventyfiveyears, Soumya-8974, and Thryduulf: Feel free to participate in sucessor of this RFD: Talk:Coronavirus disease#General applicability and specificity, which may cause this RFD to soon be closed. GeraldWL 17:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least at the moment someone searching for "COVID" is overwhelmingly likely to be interested in COVID-19 rather than coronavirus diseases generally. The article Coronavirus disease didn't exist in any form until January of this year when it was created as a disambiguation page after COVID-19 appeared. Yes, I know there's a hatnote, but a hatnote is far less convenient than being taken to the right article in the first place. Hut 8.5 18:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hut 8.5, see Talk:Coronavirus disease#General applicability and specificity. GeraldWL 05:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), since 1) the term "COVID" was created for it, no matter what the acronym expands to, and 2) "COVID" is a very WP:CommonName that is exclusively used to refer to COVID-19 (and sometimes to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but that's besides the point), and 3) therefore the principle of least astonishment indicates that it should redirect to COVID-19, not a generic "coronavirus disease", per the MOS. (As a final tangentially related note, I feel COVID-19 should be the article about COVID-19 and Coronavirus disease 2019 only a redirect to it, since the former is both the common name and the WHO-sanctioned acronym, but I guess that should be discussed in a page move section.) LjL (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous discussion. Helping the readers is more important in redirects than pedantry, as much as I use the latter. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:43, 30 October 2020 (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 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Paradife loft → Paradise Lost  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Joke? The long s is not an f (ie. it is not a legit alternate title/spelling), and no one will be searching under the mistaken impression that "paradife loft" is a real title. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plausible alternate spelling. It’s actually written like this on the image that appears at target article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CycloneYoris: Again, that's not a letter F. This is like saying that "Eaaada" is a "plausible alternate spelling" for the Greek name for Greece because the lambda looks like an A. Your argument also relies on the bizarre assertion that someone has seen the first edition title page but does not know what the work is called and believes that "paradife" is a word. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Roscelese: I get that, but it still looks exactly like an f. Someone may still search for this and use this redirect, doesn’t matter if "paradife" is a real word or not. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not a plausible search, sorry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the nom points out, this isn't a correct title; however, it is a plausible misspelling. I tagged it as a ((r from misspelling)). - Eureka Lott 02:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EurekaLott: What I'm pointing out is that even people who pretend as a joke that the long s is an f aren't mistakenly thinking that there is a book called Paradife Loft. The results of the search you linked are a) jokes from people who know it's Paradise Lost and b) bad OCR. It's not just that it's not a correct alternate spelling, it's that it's also not a "plausible misspelling" any more than "Eaaada" is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible mis-spelling. Someone may see it written somewhere using the long s and if they aren't familiar with long s they may search using "f" as they look very similar. A7V2 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. As an example, Aelig redirects to Æ. If the readers cannot type the long s they will just use f, a similar character. GeraldWL 06:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: A related RfD is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 27#Paradife loft. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of precedent that substituting f for ſ is a plausible search term when people don't know what the latter character is and/or how to type it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is absolutely plausible and a very easy mistake to make - people aren't necessarily assuming they are the letter F, but they're certainly going to use the fact that they look like Fs to begin to learn what the actual context is. ~ mazca ^talk 12:26, 29 October 2020 (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.