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 to List of Miami-Dade County Public Schools. ✗plicit 03:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fienberg-Fisher Elementary School → Miami-Dade County Public Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am unsure about its missionality. Likely redirected due to lack of notability. The target doesn't mention the school. I propose a deletion. 168.221.157.39 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Miami-Dade County Public Schools as a ((R to list entry)). Jalen Folf (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per User:JalenFolf. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per JalenFolf, looks like the most suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 speedy keep. Justification provided, withdrawing nomination. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Itali-Slavs → Molise Croats  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, no hits on Google Scholar or DuckDuckGo. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That might have been a typo, whoops. Should I just move it to Italo-Slavs? ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Whoops, forgot to ping. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Circle System, Ah, I should have checked for that spelling. Given that it's a plausible typo, I'm fine with keeping the redirect as-is, but yes we should probably also create a redirect from the correct spelling. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ooh, it's am → Cool Whip  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned on the page and I can't really find anything from the internet that would justify this redirect existing. TartarTorte 17:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to do an quick WP:BEFORE I found a few songs where "Oooh it's" is in A minor. Nothing on Cool whip. Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per IAmChaos's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2022 Russian invasion → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page is unnecessarily vague. We don't have articles like 1939 German invasion or 2014 Russian invasion. We can also argue that as of 2022, Russia is still invading (rather occupying) two other countries, Georgia and Moldova. Super Ψ Dro 13:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Unambiguous, unless there are other articles about Russian invasions in 2022. Jay (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing my vote to Keep, I don't see any harm in keeping it. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:CRYSTAL, if another such event occurs later, then discuss or make changes to the redirect, right now it is unambiguous. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – unambiguous and aids navigation. The invasion of Georgia was in 2008 and the invasion of Transnistria was even longer ago, so this phrase can't plausibly refer to either of those. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Invading is the act of entering to occupy, and as of 2022 Russian military presence is already established in Moldova and Georgia. The two counterexamples would be acceptable redirects or disambiguation pages too. —Michael Z. 15:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 the Kings to Majesty, no consensus for the Queens. However, retarget the Queens to Majesty as the better of the retarget suggestions. Jay (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• HM The King → King  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• HM King → King  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• HM The Queen → Queen regnant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• HM Queen → Queen regnant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These terms are not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear why they target their current target. For reference, HM The King has also targeted Monarch and Monarchy during its history. For the two terms at search terms on third party web sites, "HM King" returns results for Henrietta King and "HM The King" returns results for a probably unnotable scotch/whiskey blend. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator rationale update: Delete all per WP:XY per my comments below. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Retarget to Majesty, which explains this manner of address and the abbreviation. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice find. However, it seems Majesty only explains the "HM" part of the redirect and not the "King" part, meaning the redirects seems to be split between the Majesty and King subjects, potentially causing a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Should HM The Queen and HM Queen be added to this discussion? They both target Queen regnant. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mx. Granger: Sounds like a plan to me, so I've added them. In regards to why I chose to add them, it's the same reason as my response to the "weak retarget" comment above: WP:XY issues between Majesty and Queen regnant. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Kings; Retarget the Queens to Queen because "Queen" is ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep HM The King and HM The Queen (while retargeting the latter to Queen), because they are in fact titles that are used when referring to various European (and in some instances non-European) monarchs and their consorts. Delete both HM King and HM Queen as they are both grammatically incorrect. Keivan.f^Talk 04:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget HM The King to Majesty. A search for this term is almost certainly looking for an explanation of the HM component. The "King" component is likely understood by all, but in any case is linked early in the proposed target. Delete HM King per Keivan.f. Likewise for the Queen redirects. SpinningSpark 22:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spinningspark: can you elaborate on what you meant by "likewise"? Do you want to go with Keivan.f for the Queen redirects? Jay (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I meant repeat everything I already said but with "Queen" substituted for "King". That is, retarget HM the Queen to Majesty and delete HM Queen. SpinningSpark 08:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try. There is no consensus on any of the 4 entries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Majesty; a reader who searches for any of these terms is presumably looking to find out what "HM" means in this context or learn about royal forms of address. If a reader wanted to read about kings or queens in general they would more likely search for "king" or "queen". The fact that some of the redirects may be grammatically incorrect is irrelevant; they're still plausible search terms. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Majesty. The HM abbreviation shows up in the lede, as do links to king and queen regnant. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. ✗plicit 12:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Monomaсh's Cap → Monomakh's Cap  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Mixed script redirect, the first "c" in it (Monomaсh's Cap) is not actually a letter c but is instead a cyrillic Es (Cyrillic). 192.76.8.78 (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP point 4. As a redirect from a page move that has existed for a long time, it should be kept to avoid breaking incoming external links. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  This redirect had nine hits in 2021 and none this year until yesterday.[1] The only external link I was able to find is at Pronouncewiki,[2] presumably automatically generated from our redirect page. —Michael Z. 15:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously nobody is ever likely to search for this in its mixed-alphabet form. Completely useless.JBW (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible (Common outcomes#Mixed-script redirects). No harm with incoming links per Michael. Jay (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Gay men flags → User:Gay men flags  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Draft talk:Gay men flags → User talk:Gay men flags  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Draft:Gay man flag → Draft:Gay men flags  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Draft:Gay men flag → Draft:Gay men flags  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects and double and triple redirects to userified page (User:Tazuco/Gay men flags). —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or redirect to User:Tazuco/Gay men flags — Tazuco 18:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All were created as a result of page moves by the same user in a span of 5 days. There is no history, but couple of incoming links in talk pages which can be easily fixed. Jay (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Jay (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thomas Robb (activist) → Thomas Robb (Ku Klux Klan)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an implausible redirect. We already have Thomas Robb (disambiguation), and this page would be WP:UNDUE, as the person is not an activist. 0xDeadbeef 07:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this was the title of the target article for three years (when it was disambiguated by GiantSnowman, so by that alone would be an extremely plausible redirect. I'm not going to comment on the merits of the move recently performed by the nom, but in the case of redirects, there is no requirement for them to be neutral (per WP:RNEUTRAL), or even correct. I don't think it's unreasonable that someone might think of the subject as being an activist. It might only be a fringe view to describe him that way, but DUE/UNDUE doesn't apply to redirects but to article content. A7V2 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify what I meant by "extremely plausible redirect" I was referring to the nom saying it was an implausible redirect, and I mean primarily that external links (and currently quite a few internal links on mostly talk pages) would be broken. A7V2 (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:A7V2 and per WP:RFD#KEEP point 4 ("redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason"). And of course Thomas Robb is an activist. "Activist" does not mean "activist for a noble cause". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see how it's useful from a search perspective. Regardless if "activist" doesn't mean "activist for a noble cause", people searching for him would not think of looking him up using that word. He's rarely, if ever, referred as such in publications and discussions about him outside Wikipedia, even if his work can be defined as activism. --BirdCities (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In terms of searching it probably isn't that likely, except perhaps in cases where someone read the article before it was moved and will search for it again. More important is WP:RFD#KEEP number 4, which states "redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason". Being an unlikely search term is hardly a good reason to delete, certainly not good enough to overcome the reason to keep, in my opinion at least. There's no real benefit to deletion, meanwhile links both external and internal will be broken by deletion. A7V2 (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. The question of whether MOS: shortcuts should strictly be a part of the Manual of Style could not be addressed. If in future discussions, there is consensus on enforcing such redirect targets, we can revisit this particular redirect. Jay (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:IBID → Wikipedia:Citing sources#IBID  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect target is not a part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When this redirect was created the target material was in the MOS. After much rearrangement and re-targeting this redirects to the target of WP:IBID. There are a only few uses on talk pages and archives. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Targeted section was previously in the MOS. Nothing whatsoever gained from deletion, some links broken by deletion. A7V2 (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 to Stirrer. Retargeted to the newly created DAB. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stirrer (cooking) → Mixer (appliance)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Vague redirect. There are several items related to "cooking" that could be used to stir, and neither the current target or any other target (to my knowledge) could specifically be called a "stirrer". Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are automatic pot stirrers which are not mixers/eggbeaters/dough kneaders -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I came to this word when processing food and drink data (for the Europeana food and drink project). It's a legitimate food related term. The best target that exists is the current one. The page Mixer (appliance) seems to describe any food mixer, its not limited to egg or dough mixing. I suggest to the previous poster to add a section about pot stirring. Furthermore, "stirring" and "mixing" are synonymous in this context. The only other page mentioning "stirrer" is Magnetic stirrer, which is clearly not appropriate for food. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I noticed the fact that Stirrer and Stirrer (cooking) both existed prior to making this nomination, as well as the fact that the target of Stirrer has no ((Redirect)) hatnote on it, which it should since Stirrer (cooking) exists. In all honesty, there's probably no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC redirect target for the phrase "Stirrer" in the first place, and the base page probably needs to become a disambiguation page, deleted, or converted to a set index (in that order). However, in regards to the use of the "(cooking)" disambiguator: My initial concern still stands since there are whisks and several spoon-related topics which could also be referred to as "stirrers" since they can be and/or are used to stir. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Turn Stirrer into a disambiguation page and delete Stirrer (cooking) as unnecessary. The term is too general to ever have a meaningful redirect target. SpinningSpark 12:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in order to close out the May 24 page. Also a disambiguation draft for the base Stirrer will help in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've thrown together a dab page at Stirrer (it may need some more vigorous checking). I believe Stirrer (cooking) should, in principle, redirect there: it's a plausible search term and "stirrer" has several uses that can be seen as related to cooking. – Uanfala (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Uanfala's dab. I'm good with either deleting or retargeting Stirrer (cooking). Jay (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the original editor that made the Stirrer->Mixer redirect. But I agree the new Stirrer DAB is better. I just added Whisk on that page. Cheers! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Latin Portuguese → Brazilian Portuguese  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, nor are cognate terms mentioned at the linked ptWiki article. Searching both the internet and Google Scholar in both English and Portuguese, all results appear to be about documents written in a mix of Portuguese and Latin, rather than Brazilian Portuguese. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Updated) Retarget to Reforms_of_Portuguese_orthography#Pre-modern_Portuguese_orthography where there is now coverage of this topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosguill (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate between Brazilian Portuguese and Uruguayan Portuguese. fgnievinski (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to American Portuguese, linked from ((Portuguese dialects)), but given that we usually mean US when we say American on enwiki, it might be better to rename that article South American Portuguese or Latin American Portuguese, especially since there are small Lusophone communities in the US that may have dialects of their own (Languages of the United States#Portuguese). --BDD (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Disambiguate I like Tavix's draft. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of these alternate suggestions acknowledge the main issue I have with the redirect, which is that I have yet to see any evidence that "Latin Portuguese" ever refers to "Latin American Portuguese" in existing literature. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But it's reasonably unambiguous. Looking over Latin (disambiguation), the ancient Latins obviously didn't speak any sort of Portuguese; Portuguese is a Latin language in the sense of Romance languages, and uses the Latin alphabet/script, but none of those are likely to lead to such a search term. It's very hard for me to imagine a reader using this and not thinking of it as "Latin American Portuguese".

Compare also to Latin Spanish, which redirects to Spanish language in the Americas. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academic literature uses "Latin Portuguese" as a term of art to refer to an orthographic standard used in Medieval Portugal prior to the development of a strictly Portuguese written language: ([3], [4], [5]). Based on these references I'd hazard that it's likely independently notable and should not be confused with modern dialects. N.b. I don't see an equivalent use of "Latin Spanish", so I don't have as much of an issue with that redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could we incorporate that into Portuguese orthography? If so, we could disambiguate. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had an easier time adding it to Reforms of Portuguese orthography#Pre-modern Portuguese orthography, as Portuguese orthography does not address the history of the standards at all. I think this should be the new target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Portuguese language. A confused picture evidently, but this seems the best choice. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because Portuguese stems from Latin? That really doesn't seem helpful. Would we ever consider Germanic English? --BDD (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, duh, because the meaning most likely to be sought is for a variety of the P language. Do try to keep up. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which variety do you mean - as spoken in Latin America, or the orthographic standard in medieval Portugal? -- BDD (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnbod: Your statement is not as obvious as you make it out to be. It is much more helpful to explain why you are taking a given position rather than having other editors guess. Your follow ups of duh and Do try to keep up are the opposite of helpful—rather we are simply trying to understand your unclear position. Indeed, your clarification is still a bit muddy. If you feel the most likely meaning is a "variety of the [Portuguese] language", wouldn't Portuguese dialects be more helpful than the standard language? -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Portuguese dialects. It's significantly more likely that someone using this search term is looking for a variety of Portuguese than anything else, but it's not clear which one. The main article about dialects has clear and prominent links to all the one we have articles about, and is also the place to learn about the differences between the dialects (which it is far from implausible that someone using this term is wanting to read). If we have any content about the academic usage then this can be linked in a hatnote as it doesn't seem to be the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is no such thing as "Latin Portuguese", there was a transition part, but that happened with every laguage. Nobody speaks Latin Portuguese or even close to it. Its either Brazilian Portuguese or Portuguese. Now, Portuguese stems from Latin, but first came Portuguese and only then Brazilian Portuguese. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• New nom proposal: retarget to Reforms_of_Portuguese_orthography#Pre-modern_Portuguese_orthography where I was able to add content about the Latin-Portuguese writing standard with citations to reliable sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination changed from delete to a newly suggested target on April 17. I would suggest one week for the current participants to re-evaluate their votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too many possible options presented by the participants thus far, the newly-proposed retargeting option is a misleading WP:PTM at best due to so many other possible options, and disambiguation would muddy the waters and potentially cause confusion. Let the search results help our readers. Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. I have drafted one below the redirect for your consideration. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist to assess the draft diasmbiguation page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate based on User:Tavix's draft. Seems like the option most likely to help readers find what they're looking for. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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