Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 24

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 retarge to separate targets. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Elmlea → Whipped cream#Imitation whipped cream  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Artificial cream → Whipped cream#Imitation whipped cream  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Elmlea is a brand of a range of products imitating cream, not whipped cream specifically. Such redirects may be justified if the brand is known primarily for one product, but that doesn't seem to be the case here (indeed, the websites of the big 4 UK supermarkets don't even list this Elmlea product now).

On closer inspection, I see that this originally redirected to Artificial cream, but then there was a chain of page moves/redirects. I can't see that this is an appropriate redirect either - whether cream is artificial and whether it is whipped are fundamentally independent of each other. — Smjg (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick web search seems to show that Elmlea specializes in plant-based imitation cream, so Plant cream looks like a better redirect. The one complication is that, though many Elmlea products are plant-based, some also include dairy ingredients such as buttermilk. It looks like we need an article on imitation cream or imitation dairy products. Even better, someone could start an article on Elmlea, with appropriate links.... --Macrakis (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Elmlea is made from buttermilk and vegetable fat. The plant-based imitation cream seems to be a more recent innovation. I'm not sure we need an Imitation cream article - a section on Cream would probably suffice if someone has the knowledge to write it. But to write an actual article about Elmlea would be even better. I was surprised there isn't one already, given that Elmlea seems to be a well-known brand. — Smjg (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, artificial cream doesn't need to be whipped, and a red link inviting article creation for Elmlea seems preferable to a non-accurate redirect. —Kusma (t·c) 23:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud below, good targets. —Kusma (t·c) 09:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Elmlea to Upfield (company), the parent company of the brand, where the brand is now mentioned in the article. Retarget Artificial cream to Plant cream, which now has a link to Whipped cream#Imitation whipped cream. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like the best plan for Elmlea. Not sure about Artificial cream. It seems plant cream is just one kind of artificial cream. While we have Milk substitute, Cheese analogue and Meat analogue, we don't seem to have an equivalent article (or even section thereof) for cream at the moment. — Smjg (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tire tool → tire iron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Extremely ambiguous redirect that could be referring to anything from the large balancing machines used to fit wheel weights to the small repair kits found in basically every car in existence. A google search for this term turns up a huge number of different tools, I'm not seeing that tyre iron is the main use of this name. I couldn't find a "list of automotive tools" à la List of timber framing tools, so I'm unsure where this should target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tire iron has a hatnote on top to lug wrench, so those are the two most likely candidates for tire tool. Also okay with removing it altogether as I don't see widespread usage of this phrase. "tire-changing tool" would be better also there is tire changer and that could use a hatnote to tire iron / lug wrench. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Thank you to IP 86 for drafting up a dab page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Delist → Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Nominations for delisting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target doesn't make much sense, as other processes include delisting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. Turn it into a DAB page for all the various review/delisting processes (good article, featured article...). Only 7 incoming links so it shouldn't break anything, and I agree that there's no reason this should target the featured pictures process specifically. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per our anonymous friend. Have to say, it's odd that FP apparently called dibs on this. I wasn't aware they had a delist process. Vaticidalprophet 22:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be helpful to closers if editors interested in this discussion could draft a disambiguation page below the RfD notice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I've drafted a DAB under the redirect, I think I got all the delisting processes, but I might have missed some. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Fallout (video game series). Nominally no consensus between deletion and retargeting, defaulting to redirect as no one has expressed any suupport for keeping the status quo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Super mutant → Fallout 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Super Mutant → Fallout 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Super mutants → Fallout 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The concept of a Super Mutant is not unique to Fallout 4. Dominicmgm (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No opinion about this at the moment, but I'm adding Super Mutant to this discussion, for which I'm thinking similar action should be done. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 16:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added the plural form of this redirect too. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Fallout (video game series) 53zodiac (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to "Fallout (video game series)". Super mutants are a type of enemy found in all Fallout games. 053pvr (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unconvinced that the term is specific enough to only be used in Fallout. Unless an article is created specifically about them, it should probably be left up to the search function._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Fallout (video game series) for now. It's associated enough with the game series I'd call it reasonable; if it seems in the future that the new target is inappropriate it can be discussed then. Vaticidalprophet 22:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Disambig/Move to projectspace. Consensus seems to be on the side that this should not exist, as least in the mainspace and likely not in this form. Will be moving to the projectspace and creating a disambig page. Feel free to edit/add items and discuss on its talk page. Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Test Wikipedia → Wikimedia Foundation#Software projects and other backstage projects  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Test Wikipedia resulted in a retarget; however, the topic is not mentioned at the target anymore nor anywhere else in mainspace. Since there is also no standalone page about this in other namespaces, I suggest deletion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to disambiguation page that gives the reader a one-line description of and links to [ https://test.wikipedia.org/ ], [ https://test2.wikipedia.org/ ], [ https://test.wikimedia.org/ https://test.wikidata.org/ ], and any other test Wikipedias that might be created in the future. I use those pages on occasion when investigating various bugs that might have been fixed in the development versions (free clue: you can usually do your tests in the sandbox and see them in preview, then back out without saving). --Guy Macon (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I suggest adding the Wikimedia Incubator to that list, since it's used to test new projects and languages, and a "see also" link to the sandbox, which is used for testing things on site? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems reasonable. Certainly some people use Incubator for tests. It is at [ https://incubator.wikimedia.org/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guy Macon: https://test.wikimedia.org/ does not exist. There are https://test.wikidata.org/ and https://test-commons.wikimedia.org/ though, but they would never be called "Test Wikipedia" and as such do not fit the proposed disambiguation page. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for catching the error, That will teach me to cut and paste rather than typing from memory... I don't see a problem with including a Wikidata or a Commons.wikimedia in the disambig page. Just preface them with "related pages". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig per the above, and include a link to the sandbox where people looking to test how Wikipedia editing works can experiment. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding a link to the sandbox is a brilliant idea. I guess that's why they pay you the big bucks.   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per above and also link to the sandbox per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm really not crazy about the idea of a mainspace disambiguation page consisting of only external links, and there's no question it would be noncompliant with MOS:DAB (especially MOS:DABEXT). This gets many fewer views than I would've expected, and if I understand correctly, none of the sites suggested (besides the sandbox) are suitable for testing by general users. If there's really a use for this for developers, we could at least use the project namespace. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BDD, I am similarly uncomfortable with a mainspace disambiguation page quite that non-standard, and I'm really not convinced it would help. ~ mazca ^talk 21:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BDD. With "Test Wikipedia" used nowhere in mainspace, such a disambiguation page would also fail WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. There's nothing wrong with the resultant dab page – the entries proposed above are not external links, but links to sister projects, and these are routinely integrated into our navigational framework (for example, they get displayed in the search results, we often create soft redirects to Wiktionary or elsewhere, we accept interlanguage links in dab entries, etc.). The only real question, in my opinion, is whether the dab page should remain in mainspace or be moved to WP:Test Wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per above. Perhaps if it's not mentioned in mainspace, projectspace would have to do, but I'm not strongly opinionated on this. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate between the sandbox and the two test wikipedias, and move to the Wikipedia: namespace. I frankly don't see anything useful in having a reader-facing dab page for those things, as there's no real content per se about any of those topics at the proposed links. However, I can see this being useful from a new editor's perspective, in pointing them in where is the proper place to test things. This shouldn't remain in mainspace, though, as it doesn't seem to be likely to be useful for readers. Hog Farm _Talk 21:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Art of Stealth → Stealth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - Doesn't make sense as a redirect to a disambiguation page due to its overly specific name. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've found a book and a game with the same name but none is in the disambiguation list. I don't see how this redirect can be helpful.Less Unless (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Erwin Müller (Saarland) → Erwin Wilhelm Müller  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Erwin Mueller (Saarland) → Erwin Wilhelm Müller  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as misleading redirect. The only notable Erwin Müller that's connected to Saarland is a politician (1906-1968, see e.g. de:Erwin Müller (Politiker, 1906) and fr:Erwin Müller), completely unrelated to German physicist from Berlin Erwin Wilhelm Müller (1911–1977). Place Clichy (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are a lot of people named Erwin Müller, but as long as we have an article on only one of them, redirecting people looking for the others is misleading. —Kusma (t·c) 16:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree both with nominator and Kusma.Less Unless (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Palestinian separatism → State of Palestine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nominating for deletion, there is no such movement. The phrase gets very few google hits and those that it does have are related to the idea of Palestinian separatism from the wider Arab community. Viennese Waltz 10:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You can call the Palestinian national movement many things, but separatism is not one of them. Place Clichy (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. The article was pointedly created immediately after I informed the editor that there is no such thing as "Palestinian separatism". Salt it or others trying to push a fantasy world where all of Palestine belongs to Israel may try to recreate it. Of 19 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange how most Palestinians were suddenly pro-land taking when the land being taken was 100% the UN-given partition in one quick ethnic cleansing of Holocaust victims in '48. Of course actual 48 war was disastrous but majority probably expected Reconqista. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example of a POV-pushing, pro-Nakba editor that makes the salting of problematic redirect titles a necessity. Of 19 (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't put words in my mouth, I never would've made this redirect. Maybe you believe those desperate people with nothing to gain and everything to lose would've bullied/invaded the Palestinian partition first anyway but no one'll ever know cause of that illogical land grab. It's not fair when someone tries to take your partition, invades first, kills more percent of your people than you do of theirs then as soon as they're at the line again suddenly starts caring about the then newish "border crossing is war crime idea" and doesn't even say "sorry about the whole ethnic cleansing thing, don't invade and we'll compensate for the unfairness of entire war being on your land. Also this will be your last wipeout attempt, we won't try again every decade or so till the 70s". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as unlikely synonym. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a phrase used in that context, and other potential meanings might be as likely if not more so. CMD (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's quite unlikely that anyone would search this on Wikipedia. Also Of 19 raises the point of salting, which I support. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. No clear consensus on what to do with this, and given that this has been open for three weeks already, I don't think another relist is going to lead to a consensus. Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Meteorology/Books → Meteorology#Further reading  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to have started out as an attempt at making a subpage, years after subpages were discontinued in article space. Someone tried to G6 it shortly after creation but couldn't get the template to work, so it was redirected to the main article instead. Not a plausible way of searching for the target section in my opinion 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This seems to have started out as an earnest attempt to make the Meteorology article's reference formatting difficult and obtuse. It does have history, but it's short enough to just be copied to the talk page. In any case, the page title is not useful to the encyclopedia. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AfD. This was article content that was proposed for merging but was redirected before that was actually discussed. Yes it's short, but there is no basis to delete it at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whatever was attempted does not work since subpages are disabled in article space; that also makes it implausible as a search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search terms are irrelevant to article content and we don't delete articles just because they are at the wrong title, but if you prefer then it can be moved to Meteorology books when restored and discussed there. There is still no justification for RfD to delete this article content. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: The list of books that was on this page seems to have been copied into the main article in this diff from 2008 to make the further reading section. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well that means we need to keep this redirect's history in some form for attribution reasons. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I'm aware references don't normally need attribution as they lack sufficient creative input to attract copy protection, per WP:NOATT. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • NOATT references bare references, which these were not. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 03:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pretty harmless and apparently needed for attribution reasons now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep given the debate over its appropriateness above. Does no harm. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This redirect page was purposely created for a test, and it is not useful anymore. There are no helpful pages that link to the redirect, which also only had nearly less than 100 pageviews since 2018. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not a likely search term, and per precedent. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, MfD often (though not in this case) redirects drafts to the mainspace article of the same name to discourage people from re-creating it. Such a deletion undermines that protocol. Also, if anything don't delete because there is a draft in the history and it isn't RfD's job to decide the merits of that draft. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 17:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947· Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no reason to have a draft, nor a draft redirect, for a year already passed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - useless and confusing. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This sort of redirection is often a quick and dirty solution to avoid listing drafts on topics already covered in the mainspace at miscellany for deletion. If all such redirects were brought here, this would be merely passing the maintenance buck from one venue to another. A speedy criterion would not be appropriate due to nuances and potential merger possibilities in regard to some content oftimes present in such drafts, thus the current practice is convenient and the best that has been thought up. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially an abandoned draft by a short-time editor. —Kusma (t·c) 16:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947. Vaticidalprophet 22:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SRE is a guideline for a reason. The redirect helps the novice draft creator as well as potential future newcomers find the page where they should be contributing. These redirects can be done quickly and efficiently with a minimal draw on the communities time, and there's the nice added benefit of limiting bite for newcomers as they get to keep their history. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to White Horse of Kent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• White horse flag → Flag of Wiltshire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is misleading, because although the target contains a section about the "White Horse Flag", that flag was an unadopted proposal. The reader is perhaps more likely to be looking for Flag of Kent. I think the redirect should be retargeted there with an explanatory hatnote. There are other flags with horses (see List of national flags by design) but the horse on those flags is relatively minor: there may be other targets about non-national flags. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Flag of Kent or a more specific White Horse of Kent. There is another white horse in Coat of arms of North Rhine-Westphalia, but the one of Kent seems like a primary topic here.Less Unless (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to White Horse of Kent per Less Unless, since the white horse on that flag is quite prominent. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to White Horse of Kent, which seems to weakly be the primary topic. A BEFORE also brings up some stuff for the flag of the city of Whitehorse in Canada, as well as some for the flag of Rohan (Middle-earth) and a few minor historical entities, but the Kentish one seems to be weakly the primary topic. Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Thanks to Shhhnotsoloud for creating the draft. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Long Time → Foreplay/Long Time  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. There are several titles with this name as well, and it is not clear this song is the primary topic, especially considering it does not match the title exactly as some others do. See Long Time (Blondie song), Long Time (Cake song), and "Long Time (Intro)", a song on the album Die Lit. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. I have started a draft. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per above. I've also added entries for "Longtime", so if the draft dab is kept in this form, then Longtime and Longtime (song) will need to be retargeted there. – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Creating a disambiguation page is a good idea, but I'm wondering if it should be at Long Time (disambiguation), with the Boston song remaining as the primary topic. Its chart performance and pageviews suggest that it's the primary topic, but I'm not certain. - Eureka Lott 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EurekaLott: Yes, I think an WP:RM after this is closed might be appropriate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 03:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Titanic steel → Steel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A 2006 era "R with possibilities" that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the target article - I'm unclear what this is supposed to be referring to. I found three possible targets for this: Titanic#Construction, launch and fitting-out describes the steel used in the titanic and theories related to it being brittle, while Darkhill Ironworks describes the Titanic Ironworks, named because it was involved in early experiments with titanium. Should this target one of these? Alternatively this could be refering to grades of steel containing titanium, in which case Alloy steel might be a better target?86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unclear and ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As ambiguous. If it really has possibilities, it's better off being redlinked per WP:REDLINK, a redirect is unnecessary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Disambiguate Cityfight and retarget the rest there. Thanks to BDD for creating the draft. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cityfight → Warhammer 40,000#Cities of Death  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• City Fight → Cityfight: Modern Combat in the Urban Environment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• City-Fight → Cityfight: Modern Combat in the Urban Environment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• City fight → Urban warfare  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a bit of a mess of redirects in my opinion, with slight variations in capitalisation and punctuation sending readers to three very different articles. The warhammer 40K redirect is a partial title match for a codex (rule book) that was released as part of the Cities of Death expansion pack, the other two are self explanatory. My gut feeling with this is to retarget all of these to Cityfight: Modern Combat in the Urban Environment and hatnote to the article on Urban warfare, but I could also see the argument for disambiguation. There's also the related City fighting redirect, Which I won't nominate here to avoid a trainwreck. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I concir that the redirect to WH40K is least good, support nom's proposal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate I've drafted one at Cityfight. The others could be retargeted there. The board game indeed probably has the best claim to the name, but a hatnote would be awkward. --BDD (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per BDD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per BDD. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per BDD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 03:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Untitled sixth Ariana Grande studio album → Positions (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Now is titled (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-plausible search term. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doggy ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, although I could be pushed to weak keep. This isn't going to be a plausible way of searching for this album in the long term (since it isn't an untitled album anymore), but this was a plausible search term with a lot of page views before the name was released. at the moment it's getting ~ 20 page views a month, which I think is marginally useful, and I wouldn't object to keeping it for say 6 more months. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was procedural close. Article has been established at Monopotassium arsenate. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Potassium arsenate → Sodium arsenate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects to a different chemical compound; seems like this should be a red link until such an article is created? Or if someone could make a stub? -- Beland (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I will make the stub. It makes sense (to chemists) that minor K+ salts would redirect to Na+ salts just to help readers. I am sure that such redirects is somehow improper, but so what?--Smokefoot (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2021 (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.