Add links

September 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 27, 2022.

Police Judge

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 01:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Recently created with one incoming link; a piped link to the current target may be more appropriate instead of going through this redirect. Either add sourced mention to current target, retarget to where it is presently linked and delink there (though the cited reference does not mention the term either), or delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 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.

SBS Mobile 24

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#SBS Mobile 24

The fair share sequence

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#The fair share sequence

Fair share

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Fair share

Righteous revenge

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 01:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and target unclear. In addition, third party results primarily return results for book titles and a subject about a 1919 Korean film alternatively titled "Fight for Justice" that seems to not have an article on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 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.

Final customer

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 01:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 27 September 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.

Plates of meat

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Plates of meat

הוהי

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#הוהי

אגוטיזם

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 01:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE there is no special affinity between the Hebrew language and the concept of egotism. TartarTorte 19:32, 27 September 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.

Pc errors

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 Error message, and created the singular version Pc error as suggested below. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For one, Pc error, the singular version, doesn't exist and has never existed. For two, errors on PCs aren't exclusive to software; also, another error that may occur in a PC is a Bus error. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Error message as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Computer error (and create the singular too). Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't even parse this? If it's trying to say PC errors, why isn't it capitalized? And is "PC errors" an actual term that is used? Caleb Stanford (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between pc errors and Pc errors, and this redirect was probably created for the former. All lowercase is common; a lot of people don't bother to capitalise their searches because they don't expect a search engine to distinguish the case. Given that many people use "PC" as a synonym for "desktop computer", "PC error" is a plausible synonym for "computer error", and a quick Google search confirms that this it's widely used as such (both singular and plural). – Scyrme (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this looks like it should be about political correctness and not computers -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another colossal stretch, as with your interpretation of "steps to reproduce" as "recipe". Who refers to "political correctness errors"? No-one. (Just to be thorough, a search shows exactly 0 relevant results; the only results that turn up separate the terms with punctuation, and 1 example in which "error" is used as a verb rather than noun, which is unusual, and "political correctness" is the subject of the verb; presumably the author meant "errs".) – Scyrme (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Error message, as suggested by Thryduulf, since that's where Computer error goes and this should point to the same target, "PC" being a common synonym for "(desktop) computer". The singular should be created if this redirect is kept, as should the capitalised PC error. – Scyrme (talk) 19:28, 30 September 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.

Steps To Reproduce

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 Debugging#Debugging process. Jay 💬 19:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It seems that Steps To Reproduce was previously a stub article created in 2010 with an improperly capitalised title and no references before it blanked and redirected shortly later by an unregistered user (possibly the creator of the article). The content does not appear to have been merged. Although the "steps to reproduce [a bug]" constitutes a related subtopic, the capitalisation suggests a proper noun which isn't specified, and the properly formatted title of this subtopic, steps to reproduce, does not exist and has not previously existed. However, the phrase "steps to reproduce" is used in a relevant context at Game testing and Release notes. – Scyrme (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with all the other deletes, but this one is probably okay to keep. It's conceivable to me that this could later change to a redirect to a more appropriate target, or even become its own article again. Caleb Stanford (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "steps to reproduce" is a recipe or a procedure -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Who refers to recipes as "steps to reproduce"? That seems like a massive stretch. I could see "step to reproduce" referring a procedure... but the procedure in question would be the procedure to reproduce a bug or error. Other procedures are typically referred by other terms.
    Literally every search result I get on Google for the first 10 pages relates to debugging and software development (in some cases, specifically web or game development). – Scyrme (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The least-bad target is probably Debugging#Debugging process, which begins Normally the first step in debugging is to attempt to reproduce the problem. Deletion isn't wrong either. I'd expect to see the phrase on a bug report form: an implied question seeking an answer such as "type '-1' in the Salary field then click Submit". Certes (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Debugging § Debugging process - The phrase "steps+to+reproduce" is well attested with over 10 million results on Google, and refers to a subtopic relevant to the debugging process. I've adjusted the wording of that section to explicitly include the exact phrase. I'd also support creating steps to reproduce and redirecting it to this section. – Scyrme (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Scyrme. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 30 September 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.

Bug/Glitch

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. Jay 💬 19:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY: Software bug and Glitch are two separate subjects/articles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It does not seem like WP:R#K4 applies here as this was not a subpage of Bug. In the absence of that, and with no really significant article history to preserve, and with an WP:XY issue, it seems like deletion is the way to go. TartarTorte 19:26, 27 September 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.

Where the term "Computer bug" originated from

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. Jay 💬 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather clunky phrase that is unlikely and possibly unhelpful due to WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of the term is covered in Software bug § History, but this redirect is formatted like a Google search, which I don't think is appropriate for the title of a redirect page. Perhaps there's a better phrase that could be turned into an appropriate redirect for the topic, but I can't think of one. Regardless, this one should be deleted; it's similar to redirecting Place where the King of England lives to Windsor Castle or Where jazz originated from to United States. – Scyrme (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unwieldy/ unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 05:21, 28 September 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.

List of Mario jump & run games

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. Jay 💬 19:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only has one view with in the last 30 days. The only jump & run game I can think of is Super Mario Run. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll also include:
List of Super Mario jump and run games
List of Super Mario jump & run games
Super Mario jump and run games
Super Mario jump & run games
List of Mario jump and run games
Mario jump and run games
and Mario jump & run games Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pizzaplayer219: Then you'll need to follow the RFD instructions to tag and officially nominate all of those; otherwise, the result of this discussion will not affect them. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 done. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pizzaplayer219: Not quite. I saw you tagged the redirects, but you didn't list them in this nomination using {{Rfd2}}. I took care of that issue in this edit. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Someone really went overboard with these lol. Caleb Stanford (talk) 08:31, 28 September 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.

G-Wash

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 Delete, G5 by User:Ponyo Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely alias that I cannot find in use anywhere. In addition, the use of this term in third party search engines return results for cleaning products. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Even if you add "Washington" to the search you still don't get much referencing George Washington. Hut 8.5 18:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Google results are for cleaning products so this is not just implausible but ambiguous. I think R3 could also apply but its already tagged with G5. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - implausible - not something people say or seriously search for when searching for this subject. Likely a joke. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Speedily deleted per G5 by @Ponyo:. Admins - feel free to close discussion. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:11, 28 September 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.

Christmas bingo

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 18:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Christmas" is nowhere in the target article, meaning the subject of this redirect is not identified in the target article. However, this redirect is a {{R from merge}} as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas bingo which took place in 2007 (15 years ago). Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not a likely search term, as seen by the average of zero views it racks up. I don't believe there's anything to say on it anyways, it seems like a run of the mill holiday themed version of something. If you understand Bingo and understand Christmas, that should just about cover it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 28 September 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.

History of Bingo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#History of Bingo

Ghantsala

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 Ghantasala. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a spelling mistake, and there are no incoming links. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google results show this this is a common typo/misspelling of the musician's name, and seemingly not for any of the other uses on the Ghantasala dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ghantasala as {{R from misspelling}}. If we're going to have a misspelling redirect, then it should target the page of which it is a misspelling. If this is primarily a misspelling of the musician, then it would imply the musician is the primary topic for the correct spelling, which is a separate discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary topic for the misspelling is the musician, there is no primary topic for the correct spelling. There is no reason for the two not to lead to different places. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's possible to have a misspelling be a primary redirect, but it generally shouldn't be. Surely some users of this misspelling would be seeking one of the other entries on the dab page, but currently cannot easily get there due to a lack of a hatnote to the dab page. A normal {{Other}} hatnote shouldn't be employed per WP:NOTAMBIG; a {{Redirect}} hatnote like: "[misspelling]" redirects here. For other uses, see [correct spelling (disambiguation)] would just be awkward and confusing and I'm unaware of such a setup elsewhere. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Mdewman6. The existence of a DAB page suggests the musician is not necessarily the primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:17, 27 September 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.

2026 Formula One World Championship

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'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 Formula One#Future. signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While there is a single mention (sort of) of 2026 (saying new fuel and engine regulations will begin in 2025 or 2026), it is deep in the article, and there is of course no actual discussion of the 2026 season in the article as that is simply too far away. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I made a mistake of making the redirect only because of the new engine regulations, when the actual championship is much deeper than that. Hansen SebastianTalk 02:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine target to "Formula One#Future" - While it is far WP:TOOSOON for any sort of article, there is more than enough coverage out there (BBC, Racefans, Autosport) to suggest that this is a viable search term, and this section of the main Formula One article is currently the most helpful place to take people to. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes on consideration you're right, due to the regulation changes set for 2026. I support this suggestion. A7V2 (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as Formula One doesn't discuss this season in suffiecent detail for a redirect to be justified. If and when there is a substantive content on regulations changes vis-a-vis 2026 (specifically 2026, and at least a healthy sized paragraph, preferable a detailed section on the changes) consider this vote changed to keep.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think a vague wave of noting there may be different regulations in 2025 or 2026 is enough to sustain this redirect. Recreate when there is specific information about the Championship in question. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. It's best to delete for now and recreate later, or as soon as information about the Championship is made available per Tavix. CycloneYoris talk! 01:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine per . HumanBodyPiloter5 --- there is already much much coverage about the 2026 regulation changes -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Refine target to Formula One#Future. Hansen SebastianTalk 07:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine target per HumanBodyPiloter5. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Formula One#Future which while it says 2025 or 2026, is actually planned for 2026 by the governing body if we look at the reference given. This is better than no information until we have a standalone article, or more content at some other article. Jay 💬 13:01, 1 October 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.

Elizabeth II (Cars)

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. There doesn't appear to be a consensus to re-add content related to Elizabeth at the target, ergo the outcome is delete signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target page, plus the character in question is only referred to as "The Queen" anyway (it has been a while since I've seen the terrible movie known as Cars 2). In other words, it's technically OR. Requesting deletion. TNstingray (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: She was mentioned in the article up until her section was removed September 2 along with everything else in the "Other cars" section as part of an effort by Doniago, Blaze Wolf, and others to trim down the page in recent days-they may want to weigh in as well. Regardless of whether or not she's "notable," she's still based on the real-life Queen Elizabeth II (RIP Your Majesty)-just saying. No strong opinion about whether or not to add back the sections. Regards, SONIC678 00:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't necessarily support keeping if the information is no longer there as pointed out by Sonic678, but I don't think it's too much of WP:OR, at least for a redirect, to claim that the queen in a scene where Rule, Britannia! is played as the cars enter a room in a Buckingham Palace-esque building with red cars in beefeater hats as guards, is referencing Queen Elizabeth. If the information were to be added back, I'd be in favor of keeping. TartarTorte 12:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless she's proven to be notable via reliable sources. Thanks for the ping Sonic678. If she is proven to be notable enough to be in the list then I'm in favor of keeping. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if mentioned, delete if not. I have no opinion whether the character should be mentioned in the article, but if they are then this is a perfectly good and useful redirect. If they aren't mentioned then the redirect should be deleted as misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If ever put this into the search tab, I would expect to be led to a list of Elizabeth II's cars. Not an entry about a film character who appears for all of a couple of seconds (if memory serves). SSSB (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plus restore some information onto list page: the character is plot-significant and the character does evoke the real-life Queen Elizabeth II. Information restored should be minimized, though. (Admittedly, this might be a discussion better suited for the talk page, but given how Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Fuck her right in the pussy turned out, I'll say my piece regardless.) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Regarding the point above, the character has like two minutes of screen time and is not plot significant beyond basically one scene at the end. There is an ongoing effort to pare down the list based on WP:FANCRUFT, among others. There is really no information that can be added other than, "this character is based on a real-life person," in which case we would have to add back so many other incredibly minor characters per the same reasoning that the effort would be worthless. TNstingray (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is really no information that can be added other than, "this character is based on a real-life person," in which case we would have to add back so many other incredibly minor characters per the same reasoning that the effort would be worthless. You said yourself that she has some plot-significance; surely, this can be handled in a single bullet point, no? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the information is not encyclopedically valuable. I should clarify: she has one scene in the movie with like a couple of lines of dialogue. Most of the lists like this on Wikipedia have gotten completely out of hand. WP:FANCRUFT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:DIRECTORY, WP:LISTCRITERIA. Besides, the character is only referred to as "The Queen" anyway. Right now, the redirect is misleading on a number of levels. TNstingray (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Which scene is that, the one where she watches the hero confront the villain or the one where she rewards the hero? On a more pertinent note, LISTCRITERIA explicitly has a subsection which says that one of the common selection criteria is cases of all not notable, which seems to apply here. I'll also mention that a) the character's license plate reads "DEII 1952" (i.e. Elizabeth II, 1952 (the year when she became Queen)) and b) Prince Wheeliam calls her "grandmother", at least in one scene... I don't think it's a stretch for someone to think the character's name is Queen Elizabeth II. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:57, 27 September 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.

Mannerbunde

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 Kóryos#Männerbund. Jay 💬 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to link to Kóryos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_14#M%C3%A4nnerbund This is just an artifact of a diacritic's removal, and was not accounted for. I would also like to note that Männerbünde is in the same situation Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've added Männerbünde to this discussion as I believe that's what the nominator means with their last sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous discussion mentioned was Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Männerbund where "Männerbund" and "Mannerbund" (with no e and 1/0 diacritics) were discussed and deleted. That discussion considered and rejected retargetting to Kóryos. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've also added Männerbund to this discussion, which was recreated by Mebigrouxboy (the nominator here) earlier today. All three I think should be discussed as a set. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why I have been notified of this discussion; I only made a gnoming fix to a pre-existing redirect. The creator of the title is Dbachmann. BD2412 T 22:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to Kóryos#Männerbund, which explains this specific term (and has an inter-wiki link to the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia de:Männerbund - currently deactivated by the {{ill}} template because the redirect Männerbund was temporarily turned into an article for as long as this discussion is ongoing).
Regarding the actual meaning of the German term, a Männerbund was historically often a secret society, but not necessarily. Kóryos is an overarching concept as well. We do not have an exact article equivalent on the German de:Männerbund, that's why I think a redirect Kóryos#Männerbund would be the best solution.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:56, 27 September 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.

Prime Minister of Guatemala

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 Politics of Guatemala. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistent title, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Prime Minister of the United States. Privybst (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for obvious reasons. scope_creepTalk 16:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The President of Guatemala is the Head of State which is what people unfamiliar with a certain country's specific system of government are searching for. While there is no office called Prime Minister of Guatemala, the President is the Head of State and Head of Government for Guatemala so for someone searching for the equivalent role to Head of State, it would be more useful to take the to this with a {{R from incorrect title}} than to delete. TartarTorte 17:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Politics of Guatemala (where Government of Guatemala redirects). The lead there concisely explains that the President of Guatemala is both head of state, head of government, and of a multi-party system. and goes on to note who exercise executive and judicial power in the country. Whatever they are looking for they will find it either there or one click away. Second choice is to keep per TatarTotte. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget per Thryduulf. It's not ideal, but people who are typing in "PM of Guatemala" are obviously looking for information on the government of the country, particularly the head of state. But it's dangerous to conflate PM and president as synonyms. Therefore, taking them to the government page will explain the form of government while also providing quick access to the page on the president of the country. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or retarget to Politics of Guatemala. I lean towards delete because "Prime+Minister+of+Guatemala" yields only a handful of results (only 1 of which appears to be a genuine hit, the others being Wiki clones or Q&A bots which autofill answers to procedurally generated questions), suggesting this isn't actually a common mistake and that retargeting it is probably being too charitable in trying to make it work somehow. However, if everyone else favour retargeting, at least Politics of Guatemala avoids an inaccurate and misleading false equivalence between "prime minister" and "president".
Regarding the equivalent role to Head of State, a "prime minister" is not a head of state; that role is filled by a president or monarch in a parliamentary system. This is precisely why false equivalences are misleading. – Scyrme (talk) 19:16, 27 September 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.

Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

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 18:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The targeted section no longer exists; plus, the characters name is "Bron-Char" with one n. TNstingray (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 27 September 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.

Velaric

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Velaric

IPod idog

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 18:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE nonsense. No idea what this is intended to mean. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to IDog; its an actual product developed by SEGA. Roostery123 (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Roostery123. A quick search for "iPod iDog" seems to mostly bring up results for the SEGA iDog – DirkJandeGeer щи 14:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to IDog per others. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. The structure of the redirect title could make a reader assume that the redirect refers to a product in the iPod line of products, which the iDog is not; for this reason and due to the fact that both words in the redirect represent subjects exclusive from each other, this redirect can be considered misleading per WP:XY. If anyone uses this phrase in Wikipedia's search attempting to look up this, they can then decide which subject are trying to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel. An iDog isn't an iPod product. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Steel1945. The iDog doesn't appear to be related to the iPod. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an "official" iPod product, but it is related in that the iDog is/was intended for use with an mp3 player, especially the iPod; the smooth white design of the standard iDog was meant to complement the design of the standard iPod. One of the references at iDog even explicitly describes the product as an "iPod speaker". Many companies produce peripherals for products that they don't produce, so this not being an Apple product doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant. – Scyrme (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above, and the fact that it's been wrongly targeted for 13 years without anyone noticing. -- Tavix (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I think it's plausible that someone would search "iPod iDog" looking for the iDog, since the two products have an informal association, but I don't have a strong opinion on whether that's a good enough reason to justify this redirect. Leaning delete because the correctly capitalised version, iPod iDog, does not exist and there's no particular reason to make an exception for the miscapitalised version. – Scyrme (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending delete, but one more relist seems appropriate given the still-close !vote count
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the iDog isn't associated with the iPod, and while you could use an iDog with an iPod I don't think that's enough to justify the redirect. I can't see much usage of the term on Google either. Hut 8.5 18:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I get 347,000 results when searching for the terms together, many of which explicitly refer to it as an "iPod speaker", "iPod accessory", or "companion for [the/your] iPod". I don't know what you would call that if not "associated". It's not formally or legally associated, but that doesn't mean it's not associated in a broader sense. – Scyrme (talk) 19:34, 27 September 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.

William H. Brooks

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 18:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this redirect is useful given the incredible obscurity of the subject and the commonness of the name "William H. Brooks" - I'm finding a Confederate colonel with a minor role at the Battle of Helena, a photographer with four works held by the National Gallery of Canada, a mayor of Norfolk, Virginia, and a corporate officer for Noranda Aluminum. I think just sending readers to the search results is much more useful in this case. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I regret making too many redirects in the past and when I initially saw this notification, was going to just G7 it. However, it appears to make sense in terms of the article it leads to. I can't decide either way so will lead it up to the community here. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he is the only William Brooks we have an article on with the middle initial H. If that changes at some point in the future a hatnote can be added to the other person and/or dab page. There is a William Henry Brooke who might be worth adding a hatnote to from the footballer's article (and if so, vice versa), but that's far enough away that retargetting there would not be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (along with William H Brooks) to reveal search results. The footballer is never referred to (AFAICT) by the name "William H. Brooks" so someone searching this is most assuredly looking for a different person. The Confederate and the horse trainer are particularly prominent. -- Tavix (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless evidence can be shown that the target is commonly referred to with his middle initial. (Ping me if so). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:49, 27 September 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.

Adventure Cradles

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 18:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what this means. I’ve look it up on google and nothing comes up. Nothing with the word “Adventure Cradles” come up on Wikipedia either. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:39, 27 September 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.

Fistfight

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! 17:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page Fist Fight does not deal specifically with "fistfight". I think a soft redirect to wikt:fistfight might be a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a plausible search term for everything called "fist fight" and there is a link to Wiktionary on the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. --Lenticel (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:52, 28 September 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.

Deathsquad network

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. Jay 💬 18:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reason provided by the nominator. I'm not very familiar with guidelines surrounding the deletion of redirects, but it seems that criteria number eight of WP:R#DELETE would apply to the above rationale in that it "is not mentioned in the target". It's also worth noting that Duncan Trussell, Bert Kreischer, Joey Diaz, and Tom Segura are all part of the network as well. It also appears that the founder of the network is Brian Redban, but he stopped producing the Joe Rogan Experience in 2012. Considering there are multiple notable subjects associated with the network and the founder is no longer a part of the JRE, I would argue that WP:R#DELETE criteria number two or five also apply. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:41, 28 September 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.

Wikipedia:LTU

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Wikipedia:LTU

List of Paper Mario series characters

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#List of Paper Mario series characters

Paper Mario (Series) Characters

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. Jay 💬 17:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No specific list for all the characters in the paper Mario series. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:17, 27 September 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.

List of characters in Super Paper Mario

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 18:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such list anywhere. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:13, 27 September 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.

Pungry

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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 17:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this character in Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:10, 27 September 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.

Puni Elder

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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 17:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again no mention of this character in Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:09, 27 September 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.

Punio

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 18:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the character anywhere on Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:06, 27 September 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.

Petuni

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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 17:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the character anywhere on Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:05, 27 September 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.

Puniper

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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 17:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the species anywhere on Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:03, 27 September 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.

Ian Dingman (Disambiguation)

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 13:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target not a disambiguation page, and the respective disambiguation page does not exist. (See Ian Dingman (disambiguation).) Steel1943 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: per G14 TartarTorte 14:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless WP:G14 was recently updated, it does not apply to this redirect since the criterion is specifically only for articles/redirects where the disambiguator is spelled and capitalized "(disambiguation)" without a capital "D". Steel1943 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I did not realize that was the case. Just regular delete as (Disambiguation) not targeting a DAB. TartarTorte 15:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The incorrect capitalization is even more reason to delete it not to argue G14 doesn't apply just because it is capitalized incorrectly. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. While this redirect would be plausible if the target were a disambiguation page (and there were more Ian Dingmans here to support it), the fact that it's not just misleads readers, even without the capitalization hurting things much. This one just needs to go along with the nine others of its sort that were discussed a little over a month earlier. Regards, SONIC678 16:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The D being capital is harmless and I explicitly oppose deleting it for that reason. However there being no page that disambiguates Ian Dingmans is a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete the DAB page was deleted in 2015 and it doesn't target a DAB now, rather an article even ignoring WP:RDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time this came up there was consensus that speedy deletion does not apply to redirects that use "(Disambiguation)" with a capital D. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Misleading redirect (G14). —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've raised the issue of G14 at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Is G14 case sensitive?. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This case falls within the spirit of G14 if not the letter. There's no case for keeping an incorrectly capitalised title which would have been speedily deleted if capitalised correctly. Certes (talk) 22:26, 28 September 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.

Invest 98L

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 Invest (meteorology). ✗plicit 13:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequently reused term, it is too vague to be of use as a redirect. Drdpw (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In which case disambigs are called for. kencf0618 (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either redirect, having linked Invest-98L in Hurricane Ian. kencf0618 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Invest 91-L and Invest 99-L redirect to that article, redirecting 98L there might work, except that the way the title is constructed, 98L could also be an airport runway designation. Drdpw (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could (and very likely am) incorrect, but I believe the highest number for an airport runway could be 36. TartarTorte 22:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct - Runway#Naming begins Runways are named by a number between 01 and 36. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, runways only go up to 36: it's the heading in tens of degrees. [1] Certes (talk) 23:06, 28 September 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.

Postback (Disambiguation)

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 13:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target not a disambiguation page, and doesn't seem like the respective disambiguation page exists. (Postback (disambiguation) doesn't exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The D being capital is harmless and I explicitly oppose deleting it for that reason. However there being no page that disambiguates uses of Postback is a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under G14 even ignoring WP:RDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:50, 27 September 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.

Template:Fo

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 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I came across only two instances where this template had been used, both times in error, e.g. mistyping {{For}}. No error message was displayed to draw attention to the failed edit. It would be better to have nothing here, so that such an error would display Template:Fo. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 27 September 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.

Wool Hat

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 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely miscapitalization of the generic term "wool hat", which returns too many diverse search results to redirect to a specific article. No incoming links. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:48, 27 September 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.

Reality shift

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 18:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These should point to the same place (and I note the term is mentioned in neither target so am leaning toward deleting both) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't know if it would help, but if it does, both were attempts at articles that got redirected: Reality shift and Reality shifts. BOZ (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article content at Reality shift was a gloasary entry for the terms use in role playing games, that at Reality shifts was actually a half-decent stub about a completely different concept - however there is a previously deleted, much longer article about that at Reality shift (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality shift). After skim-reading I'm not certain I agree with those who argued for deletion, but it was closed in accordance with the consensus of the discussion and the content at the plural title is at least arguably eligible for G4 deletion because of that. The content at the singular title (about the RPG term) was nominated for speedy deletion for failing to establish notability (correct), as a neologism (incorrect) and for being a potential recreation (it wasn't), it was then redirected to Reality shifts as a duplicate of that (also incorrect). Complicating matters further there are mentions of the term in several articles that are different to both. The term "reality shift" is used for multiple different concepts all of which are vaguely related to and/or partially overlap with at least one other use, and at least some of those are definitely notable. There is definitely scope for content here, but writing an article (or maybe multiple articles would better) about a messy bunch of overlapping concepts using the same terminology that brings enough clarity that it can survive an AfD nomination is going to be hard and I strongly advise anyone attempting that to avoid mainspace until it's already well developed. TL;DR: we don't currently have any content that would be a good redirect target and/or survive speedy deletion, and there is no Wiktionary entry to soft redirect to. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to False memory#Mandela Effect which literally mentions the paranormal idea of a "reality shift" as the cause of collective false memories. If that would be too specific, it could at the very least be made into a disambiguation page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Change both redirects into a disambiguation page. I can't inspect the originally deleted article at Reality shift to assess its notability, but I nevertheless mostly agree with Thryduulf's argument above. However, as a consequence, I would opt to change both redirects into a disambiguation page rather than to delete them (because deleting a redirect implicitly raises the threshold for (re-)creation, so most once deleted entries will never be recreated even if the term "as is" is notable and would warrant an article or redirect at a later stage). At present the disambiguation page would have two entries, but as we find other aspects or even types of "reality shift" discussed in other articles (like various kinds of schizophernic or psychotic conditions resulting in the distortion, shift or loss of reality) we can easily add links to these locations as well. Over time, one or the other sub-topic may evolve into fully fleshed-out sections or even actual articles (and if someone feels motivated to write an overarching concept article on Reality shifts s/he can always switch the disambiguation page into an article). So, keeping the topic as a disambiguation page would not interfere with any kind of further content creation while having the necessary infrastructure in place already for easier information structuring as well as for navigation. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. None of the actual mentions of these terms [2][3] are in articles that would make good targets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Matthiaspaul. BD2412 T 20:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting realities is a fringe idea based on quantum pseudoscience, and that's clearly what these redirects are going for. It's associated with the idea that you can literally shift realities through positive thinking, in the manner of New Thought, based on a misunderstanding of the role of consciousness and the observer in quantum mechanics.
As noted by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, it's also associated with the belief that the Mandela effect is a paranormal phenomenon caused by people having remembering an alternate past which they experienced prior to shifting into a new reality where those events occurred differently or not at all. However, although False memory § Mandela Effect mentions "parallel realities" it does not explicitly refer to "reality shifts". While it could be incorporated, I doubt there are many if any reliable secondary sources which could provide an appropriate reference, and it might be an undue inclusion to section which is mainly focused on the sociology/psychology of shared false memories.
In-fact, unless I've missed one, every explicit use of the phrase on Wikipedia that I've found actually uses it in a sci-fi/fantasy context. However, they're all far too specific to be disambiguated between or to work as new non-fringe targets. The only use of these redirects in article space seems to be a questionably relevant "see also" link, so that doesn't help either.
tl;dr - Delete, fringe topic and there are no good targets to retarget to or disambiguate between. Best to leave them as red links.
– Scyrme (talk) 20:38, 27 September 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.

Charles Osbourne

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! 11:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to Charles Osborne, but none of the people on that page use this spelling, and I have just encountered one person who does (who is not notable enough for a wiki article, but there may be others in the future). Don't see the point of this redirect. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a plausible misspelling of any of the people listed there. If a person by this name becomes notable and gains an article in future then the redirect should be replaced with a hatnote to the same location. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible misspelling as these are both ways to spell this surname. Potentially WP:USEFUL, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP and zero to be gained from deletion. Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 2 October 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.

Narrowing (computer science)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Narrowing (computer science)

K16DO

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#K16DO

Catholic law

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Catholic law

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_27