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 Template:Utah NHL team roster. Tavix point about the roster being inherited by the Utah NHL team is an important one and the argument for continuity is solid. It makes sense, and it's an easy mistake for outsiders to make. As such, it also could prove to be a useful redirect for a while at least. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Arizona Coyotes roster → Arizona Coyotes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The team is inactive and may never come back. I redirected it to a new team that took the players, but Sbaio (talk · contribs) instead made a cross-namespace redirect, which is generally discouraged. Until/unless there is an actual team roster, there is no need to have this and should the team be reactivated, it could be undeleted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I value the ability to view previous versions of roster templates and see how the rosters change, and I suspect I'm not the only one. It would be a shame to lose all that history. Is there another potential target for this? - Eureka Lott 00:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If there’s no better target, and keeping the history is desired, the template contents could be replaced with ((deprecated template)) — that way, it’d be clear that the template isn’t meant to be used, and the history would also be preserved. Should the team be reactivated, the template could always be un-deprecated. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Aside from deprecation it could potentially be moved without a redirect to a WikiProject subpage or userspace if the history is seen as valuable. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BCC1:74D:C5C8:CF76 (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Once again – this is not a relocation. Arizona and Utah are completely different and unrelated organizations so redirecting from Arizona to Utah is factually incorrect. Also notified WP:NHL about this discussion. – sbaio 03:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one wrote that it was a relocation. Please do not introduce off-topic noise. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Echoing what Sbaio said regarding redirecting to Utah. I wouldn’t be opposed to the deprecated template route. The Kip 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Template:Utah NHL team roster. While these are technically different franchises, Utah inherited the roster of the Coyotes. The final Coyotes roster (minus expiring contracts) became the initial Utah roster, so there is continuity when following the edit history. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 3 May 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete (@A smart kitten: Please do the JWB run) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close note: Since A smart kitten seems to be on break now I did this using User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R sub → Template:R to subpage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Extremely ambiguous. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Template:R from sub. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the title is ambiguous between (at least) ((R from subpage)), ((R to subpage)), ((R from subtopic)), ((R to subtopic)), ((R from subsidiary)), ((R from subdivision)), ((R from subreddit)), and the rcat-redirect ((R to subsection)). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Forgot to say - if consensus is to delete, I'm happy to do a JWB run to replace this template's transclusions. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is consensus to delete. Can you do the needful? Jay 💬 17:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck per subsequent vote. Jay 💬 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect of this discussion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 19:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bypass and delete - Too confusing, and you can't usefully dabify a template. I would also suggest that, while we're doing an automated task anyway, it would be helpful to look out for redirects that transclude ((r sub)) but do not actually target subpages. Such pages may need the template replaced with a different one. I spot-checked a few transclusions at random, but didn't find any that needed to be fixed. --NYKevin 20:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • you can't usefully dabify a template What about ((Template disambiguation))? Nickps (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify I see no reason why ambiguity alone is a good enough reason to delete. As I said above, there are ways to dabify templates. Nickps (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking personally, I’m not massively opposed to a template disambiguation, but I don’t see that one would be of much value here - this is a template shortcut, and could refer to a non-trivial number of rcats and rcat-redirects that contain the word sub. I can see the value of template-dabs for (e.g.) full titles like ((R from subtitle)), as that title could plausibly be an rcat in itself (and was its own rcat-redirect, prior to a recent RfD). However, I’m not personally convinced of the value of disambiguation pages for template shortcuts such as this - I’m inclined to think that the search functionality might be more useful for finding the redirect templates that start with R from/to sub. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 18:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Template shortcuts are disambiguation pages sometimes, examples include ((SPA)) and ((ADB)). Redirects of the form "R *" without from or to are also more common than you'd think. Examples include ((R ant)) and ((R sect)) which happen to be shortcuts as well so I'd argue that "R sub" is a plausible search term. To be fair what I'm arguing for is a WP:PTM that wouldn't pass in mainspace, but this isn't mainspace and we don't have to follow WP:D to the letter. Nickps (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per A smart kitten. Also, it's nice to cut down on confusion when editing pages. Encountering ((R to subpage)) under the redirect is much clearer than encountering ((R sub)). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix. ((R sub)) makes no sense. ((R to sub)) or ((R from sub)) would have been better. Jay 💬 08:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay: They did exist, but were deleted in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14 § Template:R from sub due to their ambiguity. I found it odd that ((r sub)) remained, despite being even more ambiguous than those two. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As too ambiguous. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Walter Rhodes (murderer) → Jesse Tafero  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Since Walter Rhodes was not convicted of murder, the title of this page is misleading and an injustice. As there are multiple people by this name at Walter Rhodes, I am not sure if this page should simply be deleted or disambiguated differently. Gjs238 (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the relevant section is incompletely sourced, but currently reads: "Rhodes entered into a plea agreement for a reduced sentence of second degree murder in exchange for his testimony against Tafero and Jacobs.[4] At their trial, he testified that Jacobs fired first from the back seat, then Tafero took the gun from her and shot the two officers.[5] Rhodes later recanted his testimony on three occasions, in 1977, 1979 and 1982, stating that he shot the policemen, but ultimately reverted to his original testimony.[8]...Tafero and Jacobs were convicted of capital murder and were sentenced to death while Rhodes was sentenced to three life terms.

So it appears that he was convicted of murder, though he switched his plea a few times. Am I reading the references incorrectly? Wikishovel (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Rhodes was sentenced to three life terms." If that reference is correct, than it would seem that the redirect should remain in place and is accurate. Gjs238 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added another RS for the three life terms: [1]. Wikishovel (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This seems like a bad modifier altogether. In the past, the article Michael Peterson (criminal) had several issues until we got it moved to a more neutral Michael Peterson trial. As this is a redirect, I don't know what a more neutral modifier would be. – The Grid (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Category:American murderers there are four redirects and one article disambiguated by "(murderer)", and three by "(criminal)", so there's precedent for both. Wikishovel (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there's a parallel discussion at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Walter Rhodes (murderer). Wikishovel (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am not a fan of plea bargaining, or the death penalty, but my feelings are irrelevant. Reliable sources indicate doubt as to Tafero and Jacobs's culpability, but the article as it stands does not provide any RS supporting the argument that Rhodes was innocent. If anything, the RS (like the Guardian article) suggest the opposite - that Rhodes is the guilty party. Unless the BLPN discussion turns up RS to support the opposite conclusion, I don't think there's much room for interpretation here. The RS say he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, and they don't say he was exonerated, so given the evidence currently in front of us, he's a murderer. Helpfully, this also means we don't have to bother discussing just how far WP:RNEUTRAL can be stretched in a case like this. --NYKevin 22:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to add that this should be without prejudice against renomination iff new sources emerge suggesting that Rhodes is actually innocent. That is a much more complicated conversation and would easily merit a renomination. --NYKevin 05:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It would seem that if/when Walter Rhodes is exonerated the discussion could be reopened. Gjs238 (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per User:NYKevin and User:Gjs238, without prejudice against a rename upon his formal exoneration. This doesn't mean when a private investigation concludes that he's innocent and should be exonerated, but when he's officially declared innocent in a court of law of the murder charge to which he previously pleaded guilty. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - Excellent clarifications. Gjs238 (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:← → Help:Automatic edit summaries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous with Wikipedia:Indentation § Outdenting due to ((outdent2)). Dabifying this may also help stop people from using od2 in articles (see the infobox in [2]). Nickps (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Wikipedia:→. Nickps (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a very low traffic redirect and I think the hatnote to the outdenting section is fine. I don't see a DAB page stopping people from improperly using od2 in mainspace. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dabify or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because I just don't think many people are likely to search for this from the outdent template (the arrow's meaning is reasonably intuitive from context, whereas AES's usage is completely arbitrary). Edit the template to categorize non-talk and non-projectspace pages into Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace or a suitable subcategory thereof (which may need to be created?). (The template is not protected; anyone could do this right now if they were so inclined, but it may be wise to see what others think of this solution before implementing it.) --NYKevin 05:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I support the change, regardless of this RfD's outcome. The same edit should be done to ((od)) since that one is also misused sometimes (4 transclusions in mainspace as of me writing this). Nickps (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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'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 Gulf War (disambiguation). ✗plicit 00:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• First Gulf War → Gulf War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This term is potentially ambiguous; both the Iran–Iraq War and the Gulf War are sometimes known by the term "First Gulf War". Elli (talk | contribs) 17:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gulf War (disambiguation) where the various Gulf Wars are listed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gulf War (disambiguation) per Tavix. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix. This is a commonly used term for both wars, so disambiguation is the best choice. Glades12 (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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'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 Animal (disambiguation)#Films. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Animals (2023 film) → Animal (2023 Indian film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should be retargeted to Animal (disambiguation)#Films, like Animal (film) currently, or be deleted. Per the above DAB there are two 2023 films called "Animal", so targeting one specifically is inappropriate. Additionally, neither (including the Indian film) seems to actually be called "Animals". Toadspike (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Animal (disambiguation)#Films - this seems plausible enough a typo that a redirect to the dab doesn't seem too out there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing, while plural and singular are often interchangeable "Animals" doesn't appear in either of the 2023 films named "Animal". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Animal (disambiguation)#Films. It's a reasonable error, but redirect to the disambig page per WP:XY. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no 2023 film entitled "Animals". Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed target talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Animal (disambiguation)#Films per above. It's a reasonable error - if there was just the one film called Animal released in 2023, this would just be an ((R from typo)) to that article; so I don't see why it can't be a cheap ((R from typo)) and ((Avoided double redirect)) of Animal (2023 film). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 17:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any evidence either film is called with the plural? Yes plural and singular is often interchangeable but it doesn't seem to be here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  [3] uses the plural form in the headline, as does [4]. However, I'd still be !voting to retarget it even if I couldn't find any such examples online myself - I don't see how keeping the redirect around would be problematic, and the fact that someone created this redirect is evidence that they found it useful. In addition, being to a closely related word form is specifically listed in WP:R as a reason to keep a redirect. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 20:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as suggested by several people. Let's be kind to our readers. Ordinary humans make small mental alterations to titles all the time, without even thinking about it. The DAB page itself already lists "Animals" together with "Animal" because of this phenomenon. --NYKevin 21:01, 30 April 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wahstoronòn:ke → Boston  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Idk the language, but there is 0 way that has ties to English, in accordance with WP:RFFL/RLOTE. Not mentioned in target, also no way someone would ever search this JuniperChill (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After an extensive search, this appears to be a name for Boston in an unidentified Native American language. It does not appear to be that of the Massachusett, who inhabited the region and called it Shawmut. As such, I do not think it qualifies under RFFL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:46, 29 April 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

seemingly implausible misspelling. i did find use for it, but only on the context of shitposts cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The N and the M are right next to each other on my keyboard. Delete - did not notice the substitution of a B for a D. That's less plausible. --NYKevin 07:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, implausible typo with two errors. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:52, 2 May 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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'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 Pearland Independent School District. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pearland NGC → Pearland High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "NGC" at the target page; this title has always been a redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: Retarget: NGC means "Ninth Grade Center". The article and previous revisions don't mention it, though Pearland Independent School District does. Perhaps the redirect should be retargeted to "Pearland Independent School District"? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, although the mention at the page suggested is trivial/uncited and should probably be deleted, as there really isn't anything that we have to say about the ninth grade center. If mentioned at the high school page that's where I'd expect this title to redirect to, but it's not hence we're here. The School District might count for a mention but it's like, ehhhh. A red link might encourage someone to talk about the ninth grade center somewhere. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public school district articles are typically expected to list all current and former schools, of which NGC would be one of them. Directives at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools say to redirect such non-notable U.S. public schools to school district articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth Grade Center was already mentioned, I just added NGC in brackets. Jay 💬 17:27, 7 May 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Man's red fire → Fire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Man's red flower → fire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Back from the dead and is still as useless as ever. Now anybody wanna be my guest and (not) redirect Source of all living matter to Hallucigenia. Okmrman (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but anyways, it's a Deletion for me. Too trivial and WP:FANCRUFT. An even better example than the one I said before: in Harry Potter, they call a gun a Muggle's wand. Would that be a valid redirect? Okmrman (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: see recent related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18#Man’s red fire / flower. - Eureka Lott 06:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prior consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• With regards to the previous discussion, I just wanted to note that two of the delete !voters stated that the curly quotes present in the previously-nominated redirects (but not in these) was a reason for deletion, and that one delete !voter stated that the correct-apostrophe version can be kept. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 16:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as fancruft for something completely unrelated to the target, and also do they ever call it "red fire"? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Either keep these redirects or retarget them to I Wan'na Be Like You (The Monkey Song) - These terms refer to fire in the movie The Jungle Book. Rather than deleting the redirects, why not consider retargeting them to the song where those terms are referred to? Interstellarity (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, thanks for catching these as well. I concur with the description from the prior discussion that these are nonsense in their current form. Nobody would use this term to find information on "fire", as they'd just type "fire" instead. This specific phrase is associated exclusively with one song, and not mentioned in either article (at either fire's or the song's). There is no need to have a mention as well, as its a trivial line from the song and not an established alternate name, nor is it a noteworthy phrase. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:46, 2 May 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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'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 7 mm caliber. No prejudice against retargeting to a disambiguation page, should one be created. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 7.92 → 8 mm caliber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 7.92mm → 8 mm caliber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 7.92 mm → 8 mm caliber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

searching it up on google doesn't result in 8 mm but it does show another bullet type Okmrman (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify, there are quite a fair number of ammunition types and/or firearms that we have articles on, that could be targeted to. Of note are the following:
7.92x57mm Mauser
7.92×33mm Kurz
7.92×94mm Patronen
7.92×107mm DS
7.92×36mm EPK
7.92 mm Rifle Anti-Tank Mascerzek
7.92mm Bergmann MG15Na 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah i also found out related redirect 7.92 mm. Might as well put this out there as well for you to decide on it. Okmrman (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Rather than create a disambiguation page of what are probably WP:Partial title matches, improve the current target article – the appropriate section of which is already tagged ((Missing information)) – and/or the linked List of rifle cartridges. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dabify or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably gonna go with Dabify per Luna and redirect 7.92 mm to that disambig Okmrman (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Retarget per Travix Okmrman (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote back to Dabify Okmrman (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 7 mm caliber, which is for the 7.00 to 7.99 millimetres (0.2756 to 0.3146 in) caliber range. Anything at 7.92 mm should be listed there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Might as well bundle 7.92 mm and 7.92mm along with this Okmrman (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: What is your opinion about the 7mm target? Jay 💬 16:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the creator of the three redirects, I would note there are ambiguities due to nominal vs actual diameter. All the articles above: 7.92×57mm Mauser (commonly referred to as 8 mm), Bergmann MG 15nA machine gun (which uses 7.92×57mm Mauser), 7.92×33mm Kurz, 7.92×107mm DS, 7.92 mm Rifle Anti-Tank Mascerzek (which uses 7.92×107mm DS), 7.92×36mm EPK, and 7.92×94mm Patronen, have an actual bullet diameter greater than 8 mm. These could be included in both 7 mm caliber and 8 mm caliber. I can't seem to find any convention on this, as the 7 mm caliber has no actual diameters above 7.95, while 8 mm caliber has five cartridges with diameters of 7.9 mm. 9³ (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — should 7.92 be rounded up or down (or neither)? Bundling in 7.92mm and 7.92 mm. Notifying proposed target 7 mm caliber.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify per above. Partial title match or no, there are still numerous valid targets shown here. The original target can be listed among them and the task will be accomplished just fine. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 7 mm caliber per Tavix - that's close enough to a dab page, we don't need a redundant one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 7 mm caliber. Pppery makes a convincing point that any disambiguation page at these titles would be entirely redundant to the existing list. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:39, 22 May 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Revert * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hillcrest, California → Hillcrest, Kern County, California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Hillcrest, San Diego. The San Diego neighborhood is in a large city and has three times the population of the unincorporated suburb in Kern County, so it seems more likely people would be looking for that. This has only been a redirect to its current target since January. RL0919 (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to disambiguation page, which was the status quo from 2009 until early this year. No clear primary topic. - Eureka Lott 06:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are only two pages for locations in California that use the name "Hillcrest", so a dab page was never appropriate. There are more in the US overall, so potentially the redirect could be targeted to Hillcrest#United States. --RL0919 (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A two-item disambiguation page can be acceptable when there's no primary topic. See WP:NOPRIMARY. That said, redirecting the page to Hillcrest#United States would also be fine with me. - Eureka Lott 06:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hillcrest#United States and tag as ((r from incomplete disambiguation)). A two-page dab would be fine, but why bother when a larger dab already exists accomplishing the same task? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert per Eureka Lott. The proposed retarget contains at least three "Hillcrest, Californias" and doesn't even include the current target. I think a disambiguation page would be fine in this case, since it seems there are at least four possible topics. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added current target to the proposed target, so now there are four. Jay 💬 17:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert per comments above. Okmrman (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Forced out of US Air Force for asking about sane president → Single Integrated Operational Plan#forced out  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created by a user indeffed for creation of problematic redirects. Wikipedia is not a search engine, and I fail to see how a reasonable user would possibly think of this phrasing to find the intended content. Hog Farm _Talk 01:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This appears to refer to Harold Hering, so not the correct redirect, but it's not worth keeping since this is not a likely search term here. Leave it to Google if someone wants to look for the person. Hzh (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of interaction → Point of sale  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A "point of interaction component" is not discussed at the target article. Existed as an uncited couple-sentence stub for 14 years before being redirected into the page it was involved with, but is not actually a topic we cover on Wikipedia at this time. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion review).