Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 17

2549:. This was on my mind 2 days ago, which was when I was last "online". In fact, we edit conflicted (or at least I did) when we both tried to close September 6th at the same time 😅. I was also relisting things on the 17th, but purposely left the items where consensus was seemingly formed, in order to let those have a proper close in the moment, such as (what I believed to be) this one. Now, I totally get the "satisfaction" of closing a page, I was right there with you, as a more navigable RfD is appreciated by all visitors. Why was this one not closed as retarget? Tavix just added content and a source, and everyone else is suggesting that (as well as you). Relisted discussions 4157:

CSD, I am less inclined to read it carefully or pay it much attention. I disagree with your interpretation of policy with regards to unreferenced articles being blanked rather than taken to AfD or PRODed (of which there are still many lurking around not being blanked, I suppose someone could blank them all if they liked but to me that would seem disruptive) but note that in this case the BLARer did not express any concerns around verifiablilty, and much of the content can be trivially cited to the game's manual (eg

5032:. These are major events that have had significant cultural effects and the dates of which are unlikely to be forgotten in the public eye and which are the clear primary topics for those days. Most people worldwide today don't know that March 31, 2023 had a tornado outbreak, especially a year after the fact, and the same goes for May 20, 2013. They don't have the primary topic advantage my previous examples had, and either way, are receiving little traffic. 12598: 11906: 9168: 5688: 5669: 4431: 4253: 65: 4967:. Tornadoes do not officially receive names so they can be tricky to search. An easy way to distinguish from other tornado outbreaks (especially when multiple outbreaks occur in the same area and/or around the same time) is by using the date. A little bit of poking around shows the tornadoes would be the primary topic for these dates. I would also be in favor of creating redirects for the other two dates mentioned in the nomination. -- 3666:

content would meet a speedy deletion criterion if restored. Neither apply here. Indeed what has happened here is equivalent to PROD being contested twice previously and then contested by multiple people here at RfD. No reason is required to contest a prod, yet here we have multiple and people are still arguing that AfD isn't required because they personally would vote delete there.

10874:

as existing wikilinks in need of repair. Dropping from 10,000 to 10 across the course of a month, is plenty of evidence of decline in use, a classic projection that has occurred similarly to any declining search term in existence. As such, its a fine spot, indicating we've done everything right in regards to cleanup, and are ready to switch over to the exclusively accurate title.

360: 7937:, which has a footnote stating that Za'ura is an alternative romanisation. It's not immediately clear to me whether one topic is primary (in which case there should be a hatnote to the other) or whether a disambig should be primary. I've not immediately found any other possible targets but my searching hasn't been as extensive as I'd like (I'm running low on time). 12336:

most prominent thing that has notable Brazilian and Portuguese varieties, and the target article does discuss how they differ. What we need to establish is whether there are other things that have notable Brazilian and Portuguese varieties, and if so whether the language is the primary topic. Actually doing that research we find that literally 100% of results for

3717:(or being equivalent to it? what does that even mean?), despite the fact that reverting edits that were considered unambiguously unconstructive even over 10 years ago is not considered very controversial, dealing with a redirect (unless this would count as an article the first time), the only argument against merging being "i worked hard on this", and it 3640:, the other had no reason given, and it was pure fancruft written in an almost entirely in-universe style. it had no place here then, and it has no place here now. thryduulf was the first person to present any form of actual argument about it, and even then, their arguments relied on rules that don't exist and/or contradict the ones that do 10955:

for 10 days. We don't wait for things to go to zero, and then wait for them to raise back up from zero. If it was zero, it was zero, and holding that for what probably would've been ~14 days/2 weeks total without an RfD, is plenty of time at zero to indicate stopped usage (had it been 30+ days after release). HOWEVER, because the movie

5575: 3103:, i don't believe that's how any of this works. if a redirect refers to something that isn't mentioned in the target, and it's found that there's no reliable coverage of it, i think it falls within reason 2 to delete as stated in rdel, as it would leave readers to wonder where the list of strogg or info on quackifier are. if 5406: 4525: 10284: 5776: 12259: 4076:

nominations it is often more a matter of who notices them that affects the results rather than a clear and concrete policy, so I would be open to a wider discussion about this, but as it stands we have a clear ambiguity (after all we have very longstanding editors and administrators such as yourself and

12335:

Contrary to the above, this is not XY nor is it, in practice, vague - it's clearly looking for an article about the similarities and/or differences between Brazilian and Portuguese varieties, the only issue is that it does not specify what the varieties are of. The Portuguese language is probably the

10945:

to give it time to go down, letting the redirect exist well into October. Nobody in Switzerland thinks it's upcoming in October. And absolutely not October of the subsequent year. If there's a staggered release mentioned in the article, then wait until it can no longer be considered "upcoming" by any

9100:

Seems the "Library/Liberry" connections may based on the fact this redirect was created almost two decades ago. It's like Knowledge trained the Internet to provide possibly erroneous results, especially since third party search engines tend to refer to Knowledge for at least 1 of its top 5 hits for a

8497:

names. If a reader comes across the phrase "Monsoon Revolution" in the future, they should be able to find the article on Knowledge that explains the particular meaning that source was using, assuming we have one. A disambiguation page would help them figure out which one, if any, apply from context.

6992:

franchise". That may be even more basic, but that does not have to be a drawback. And the definition in #Setting is an in-universe one - and I would be the last person to say that this is not valid and valuable to the reader - while the one in #Gameplay is real-world related. So both have their worth

5736: 4156:

was enough for me to feel that this shouldn't be deleted here. I will admit I did not read all of the above discussions as carefully as I perhaps should have, but when much of it is pointless badgering when it is very clear what Thryduulf means with regards to whether the former article satisfied any

2599:

issues lately caused by the amount of nominations on the page, making it so some active nominations cannot be seen at all. And, to your point about these old discussions getting relisted when consensus may be clear: I've had a couple of instances where I will relist a discussion for technical reasons

10954:

I had more written in my previous response (re: the 10k to 10, & the "inconsequentiality" factor), but I deleted some of the context (about 50% of the text) because I thought "well we're both !voting keep". My main reason for responding was the pageviews thing; this one dropped to zero and stuck

10873:

The length of "ample time" is enough to allow the pageviews to trend down. If enough days have passed where the pageviews indicate that the hits are generally going towards zero. If, for some reason, the pageviews AREN'T going down, that indicates a problem that should be fixed before deletion, such

7098:

mentioned exactly once in the article, in the lead, in passing, inside parentheses (can't guarantee citation 3 doesn't mention it because it's paywalled), really doesn't make it clear if a pixel is supposed to be a part of a photosite or vice-versa, though it seems to be the latter, which might make

4210:

The manual of course can't be used to establish notability but could be used to satisfy verifiability (but what I was getting at was that this question about verifiability is just an excuse to get around the proper processes). Given what has been discussed above it does seem unlikely that this would

2901:

One person redirected it both times, without discussion. The only discussion (if you can call exactly two comments a discussion) that has been had (as far as I've found) came to no consensus. That's not close to consensus to delete - especially as the suggested action was merging not deletion. Lists

2264:

this, but a retarget is better than a keep. Retargeting brings this title closer to its potential context (moreso than a general pass towards the person that presumably said the phrase), but without any mention of the "well" bit, there's no indication in the article that people would search for this

11051: 10851:

where are you seeing that? The stats link shows it got 28 hits in the three days before this nomination. How long do you think is "ample time"? Personally, I think it's when people have actually stopped using the redirect (because I don't know how a redirect that's unambiguously helping people find

10813:

This redirect is getting next to no hits, with zero in the last 10 days. The film was released 2 weeks ago, which I wouldn't consider a "few days ago". In a perfect world, ~2 weeks is plenty of time to allow views to taper off imo, but we've generously extended it to 30 to give ample leeway to lost

10784:

In this case we have evidence that readers are using this redirect to find something, evidence that it plausibly could be the current target, and absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it is anything else. We therefore best serve readers by keeping this redirect pointing to its current location and

10594:

No redirect that is unambiguously taking people to the content they are looking for can, by definition, be costly. This redirect is unambiguously taking people to the content they are looking for. Regardless of why it exists, or whether you think it should exist, it does exist and deleting it would

7824:

would probably not have changed one of the redirects this year, so we would not be having this discussion. I suggested "hypostatic union" above as a closer match than "prosopon", being another translation of the redirected phrases, specifically about the union of two natures in one person. However,

6300:

Patronymics are not surnames, and I don't think the use-cases here are even remotely similar. I'm not sure if there are any naming conventions that would refer to a person by their patronymic only, so the only redirects from patronymics I could imagine would lead to articles about the corresponding

5131:

Now that said, if there was something else really notable that occurred on those two dates, then it would be a different story and I’d probably be in favor of deleting or retargeting. But barring that, they’re useful to me, and probably to some of the others on WP:Weather, so I think they should be

3255:

That's one way of interpreting what I was trying to get at! In addition, regarding questioning administrators who participate in discussions: When administrators participate in discussions, they do so in their capacity as editors; their comments hold no stronger weight than any regular editor. They

10926:

in circa mid-August of that year having just been to see it at the cinema (probably in its 2nd or 3rd week); the theatrical release in the US was over having been released on 4 July but it was not due for release until September in Switzerland. For an American searching it as "upcoming" would have

10921:

be the source of traffic, but more likely its links from external webpages or searches based on offline or unlinked mentions. Finally, remember that release dates and theatrical runs are not always the same everywhere - e.g. a film may have been released last month in the US but still be upcoming

8048:

Pronunciation is irrelevant. Both articles could be titled "Za'ura" so disambiguation of some sort is required. The question is whether that should be a hatnote from the primary topic or a primary disambiguation page. To answer that question we need to know whether one or the other is the primary

3080:

The only justifications for deleting article content at a venue other than AfD are if it meets a speedy deletion criterion or if it has previously been discussed with a consensus that it shouldn't be an article. Deleting at RfD is equivalent to reversing the redirect and then speedy deleting the

2636:

closures and relists on the 17th, in an effort to ensure the pages could be removed from display. But if a discussion had clear consensus to delete or retarget, I still probably wouldn't relist that, and I'd instead try and clear out a later date (such as September 9 or 10 at this point). I just

10916:

in that. We care what actually happens, and what people are actually doing not what we think they might do in the future if current trends continue, nor what we think they should do. This is why we wait until page views actually have stopped, we don't delete when we think they should have done.

4712:

per nom. There is a baseball team by this name but they aren't mentioned anywhere on en.wp and seem to have no connection with the Chicago Bears (an American Football team) that I can find (2 minutes of research proved inconclusive regarding notability). The Windy City Gators also exist but are

3665:

In what way do arguments that article content should be discussed at AfD before deletion contradict any rules? There are exactly two scenarios where it is acceptable to delete article content at RfD: Where previous discussion about the content has resulted in a consensus to delete and where the

11270:

as my less preferred option. "Loss", specifically in quotes, does seem to have a primary target of this comic, and while the disambiguation page can get you there, it's far down the list and easily missable, particularly and especially if someone is searching this because they don't know what

1814:(this is an Internet archive version as the current URL doesn't work), but even so, google still brings up links to other pages that use that term. So I suspect that there are still some people out there who are aware of the term Formicapunk but not the term Cassette Fururism. But even so, I'd 2949:

to be done in afd, as opposed to here. buuuut chances are i haven't looked hard enough, so eh. the point still stands that doing this would only result in something being discussed and found worthy of deletion twice in a row, and go against previously established consensus that those kinds of

10814:

readers. That said, the capitalization differences here are plausible as they are with most any title, so that's not a reason to delete this one. The film came out at the start of September, which it's now mid-September, so this does come as a bit of a rush. Feel free to renominate alongside

9338:

into it and redirect the latter to the former, all without prejudice to AfD. I'm seeing a lot of hits that post-date the 2017 BLAR that make this at least worth discussing - especially as there are at least two baseball teams (about which we don't even have a mention) with the name that need

5128:– I have to disagree with GeorgeMemulous and some of the others on this one. I was about to create and tag the 2013 redirect (with an R from date template) when I discovered it was under discussion. I think it and other tornado date redirects can be of use at least for us here at WP:Weather. 4384:

that I don't know the reliability of) so it wouldn't surprise me if enough could be found in reliable ones (probably local newspapers from ~1998-2014) to add a sentence or two about her. However, unless and until there is content about her than we have now (a single mention in the infobox at

3145:

be reverted to the article (and optionally taken to AfD) if there is no appropriate target for the redirect (including the current target) and no consensus for new content (e.g. a dab page) at the title. That not every such redirect is spotted is not a reason to harm the encyclopaedia (which

2604:

issues that have been happening lately are more pertinent to take care of then leaving an old discussion on an old log page to show it needs more urgency to be closed since ... these issues have been causing some older daily subpage transclusions to show up as links instead of transclusions.

9582: 4075:

except to say that if someone was to blank an unsourced article, it would be perfectly acceptable to restore that article and suggest that it be taken to AfD or PRODed, and I don't think that that is any different for a redirect. A final point I'll make is that often with these kinds of RfD

6289: 2795: 9302: 7471: 7429: 3621:

You're welcome to disagree, but I don't agree that BLARing should be allowed to be used as a backdoor to deletion of articles. This case is even more problematic as there is evidence that some users disagreed with the BLARing (reverting it twice) but no deletion discussion took place.

1871:. Seems to be an invention of TVTropes editors, and Knowledge is not TVTropes. 80s-punk is undoubtedly a thing, but it's cited to Wikis and unreliable sources in an attempt to make the section appear merited. Until someone can come up with an actual source, it shouldn't be there. 8801: 9931: 6584: 3870:

i disagree with the first point. from a thorough read, you made no effort to make your arguments related to speedy deletion seem like anything besides randomly bringing it up as if you thought that rfd was solely for speedy deletion (or worse, that afd was the only venue for

10733:

article and redirect on Knowledge, and it's no more a reason why they are harmful than it is a reason this is harmful - especially when there is no evidence such OR/MADEUP/HOAX films exist for this title but there is for others. Have you run out of straws to clutch at yet?

8647: 8229: 1533:, I like the status quo. Anyone searching for "children's games" with any capitalization is almost surely looking for the general topic, which the current target provides. On the off-chance they're looking for the painting, the hatnote provides it. The gendered articles in 866:

And I don't see how this redirect is any different from any of these, to specifically consider a CfD only here. Neither do I see the point of it being vague (especially for the construction CfD'd here) when the nom's rationale itself is "too long and incredibly specific".

10567:

deletion potential. Also, this redirect was created due to fixing the capitalization in December 2023, which was well before the target subject was released. Best get rid of this troublesome redirect now, especially considering we currently have the correctly capitalized

9889: 1751: 1250: 1208: 1166: 12015: 9542: 4981:

The problem here is a simple date is too ambiguous. It could be any event that happened on a specific day. I don't see how it's plausible to redirect days of a year to a tornado outbreak. The fact that these aren't getting traffic shows they arent needed to begin with.

2201: 11707: 9262: 7597: 7555: 7513: 7387: 6707: 4347: 3164:

i really must be missing something, because i haven't found the policy that states that undiscussed blars should be reverted and taken to afd, even despite pre-existing consensus that they'd get deleted for not being notable at all. do you happen to know where it is?

1292: 4784: 4681: 11170: 10700:

looking for is unencyclopedic and shouldn't belong on Knowledge anyways), the reader may not understand or know the difference between the subjects, and then assume the target subject is the subject they are looking for. That right there is ... a textbook case of

4868: 10481:

people will still be able to find the target, but given that people will have to navigate search results (that may or may not include the target) and that these might be several clicks/taps away (depending on multiple factors) it is objectively incorrect to say

4826: 10692:-like website. In such a case, a reader who does not know the difference between such topics and an actual encyclopedic topic arrives at the current target when searching "upcoming film" as a disambiguator, though the target article is about a subject they are 6976:

Let me bracket that with, I think that's a minor point and I would have no problem with either solution. And I see your point, the brief definition you are referring to being "the Naga are mutated former Night Elves" I assume. But I still prefer not to link to

3709:

seemingly came up with a new guideline that states that blars' content absolutely needs to be taken to afd, seemingly ignoring the flimsy or nonexistent reasoning for the reversions here, and the aforementioned arguments against the content having already been

7137:

is the correct target for the redirect - however the term is not mentioned there. Where it is mentioned is articles about specific sensors or sensor technologies, which are all too specific a target. A specific image hosting site ("PhotoSite") is mentioned at

6008: 1709: 3472:

why do you keep using "this isn't a criterion for speedy deletion" here of all places? rfd isn't exclusively for speedy deletions, and you're the only person in this discussion who brought up speedy deletion in any context besides telling you that this venue

7142:

but that doesn't appear to be notable (and seems to have been discontinued circa 2006). I'm not completely sure what the best course of action is here, but the status quo definitely isn't it. Perhaps soft redirecting to Wiktionary if the term isn't added at

11464: 7087: 10445:

use or whether we will go out of our way to cause harm by making them jump through arbitrary hoops for absolutely no benefit to ourselves. I know which is the only option there is any justification for choosing, but perhaps some people enjoy being nasty?

113: 8968: 7922: 12345:) are contrasting the local variety of Portuguese with the varieties named in the title. This would not make a good article title, but this is not an article title it's a redirect, and it's clearly taking searches to the content they are looking for. 10881:

thinks this movie is upcoming in the general public. 30 days, coincidentally, is about the length of most theatrical runs, so if the movie isn't even playing in theatres anymore, there's no longer an argument of release-date ignorance, as the run is

440: 4121:

RfD from having a reputation that we are unable to handle this. This discussion is actually good evidence of RfD being able to handle it when you strip away the meta-arguments: five(!) editors have reviewed the content and determined that it fails

10015:

do you think it's used as a synonym for the pokédex? because results mostly gave me lists of pokémon by whatever trait (type, pokédex number, etc.), blogs, guides, and... a book seemingly made in gen 2 with a cover written entirely in comic sans.

3256:

also cannot abuse their tools in retaliation since they would lose their administrative privileges. (I know there's a policy or essay page out there stating this, but I cannot find it at the moment.) In other words, feel free to challenge

400:

is likely the most popular Indian film ever, and everything from its marketing taglines to dialogues to even the names of minor characters are familiar with everyday people (the FA is pretty indepth about this). It includes this as well.

348: 8816:

due to it being non-notable promotion. The blog that was the subject of the article isn't mentioned anywhere at the redirect target, so there isn't any need for a redirect, which might become a magnet for further attempts at promotion.

10950:

means. I was just speaking for a general magic example where a global release was at big number, and shrank to small number, 10 or so, about the size of a lunchroom table worth of people and otherwise inconsequential views from my own

2557:

I suppose the TLDR is: "discussions at the bottom are more likely to be closed than recently relisted ones", from my pov, and this one seems ready for a close (which might not happen for a while now, but maybe as a result of my post).

354: 2681:

close (possible scrutiny) or relisting when consensus may be clear (possible scrunity). Me doing anything was going to be subject to scrutiny! But as someone who cannot stand when things do not technically work when they should, I

10852:

the content they are looking for can be declared anything other than useful), occasionally that happens almost instantly, occasionally it's over a year, most often it's somewhere in the 2-10 week range, but each one is different.

4113:-like analysis to me. What's different about this redirect? Do you see something that you think may be notable? If not, what's the point of taking it to AfD—so we can wait a week and have it deleted then? What I'm trying to do is 10044:

I don't think it's a synonym, in the sense that people don't call it that as an alternative name, it is however a plausible search term for people who don't know or don't remember what the in-game directory of pokemon is called.

2637:

think, in this case, where you nominated this under the pretense of "I would've BOLDly retargeted", consensus agrees, and it's being relisted, this is really an example of one that could get closed instead of PEIS relisted, imo.

3901:

so to make things short, i believe every single one of your arguments here either heavily misunderstands how rfd works, or seems to be inventing some policy that has coincidentally never been followed yet, even by admins like

2877:. The article was redirected in 2007 and then again in 2009. If the subject is not mentioned anywhere, then this thing should be deleted, considering the existence of an article about the subject of this redirect is a clear 1074: 5557: 2989:

That would allow anybody to delete an article by unilaterally redirecting it to a random target and then nominating it here, which is why disputed BLARs are reverted and sent to AfD for discussion. This is a disputed BLAR.

3994:

been performed for this former article, or others like it at RfD? Also, there is no requirement that notability be established for someone to oppose a BLAR. That's why there is the suggestion that it be discussed at AfD.

5015:

An event being the most important of any particular day doesn't mean it's the only thing that happened that day. There are very few dates that I would consider worthy enough to be redirected, such as 4 July 1776 for the

11718:

Delete or disambig - quick google search found at least three other museums referred to this way, the Ann Arbor one doesn't seem to be clearly the primary topic. I don't believe we have articles for most of the others.

885:: This absolutely does not count as blatant/overly promotional because of the context and relevance. You're welcome to vote how you like, but as Gotitbro mentions, these types of tag lines being created is not unusual. 12340:

and every hit on the first 5 pages of results when the quotes are omitted refers to difference between European and South American varieties of Portuguese. Even results that at first glance seem unrelated (Toponymy of

9070:

per Tavix and Cremastra. Google finds a couple of non-notable companies and lots of hits related to the pronunciation of "Library" but no examples of a misspelling of "Liberty". On en.wp it's listed (with a source) at

10488:

Redirects that are incorrect but lead to an article that is correct are not in and of themselves harmful or confusing, otherwise we would have no redirects from misspellings, mishearings (cf your argument to keep at

11271:

someone online is talking about when they put loss in quotes like this, which I would imagine is a major use case. If someone was not looking for this comic, I imagine they would remove the quotes and search again.

5388: 4507: 4177:

but i'll also disagree with using the manual as a source (trivially or not, as it likely wouldn't warrant a list on its own) before finding something secondary, since one could also make the exact same argument for

6912:

already has relevant information on the naga - which might be overlooked by an interested reader if we point them further down - and so do sections further down. So here I would prefer to just link to the article.

5546: 2924:

violations related to video games. Since then, Knowledge has evolved to not include or encourage the creation of articles that are against such policies. Restoring this article for any reason would be regression.

10317:

only released a few days ago and therefore very unsurprisingly it's still getting a lot of hits. Even the hardliners shouldn't have to do their usual mental gymnastics to avoid seeing the usefulness of this one.

4066:

we can go around in circles for as long as you'd like to. As I said before you are free to agree or disagree that this is the appropriate venue to discuss the deletion of article content. Why would I perform a

2553:

be closed at any time, but they rarely are (before 7 days). Even this one might float back to the bottom. Imo, as consensus was clear, it could've stayed where it was to be closed as retarget by any uninvolved

3989:

RfD and AfD attract different users looking at different things. Users who normally participate in deletion discussions but not at RfD would not necessarily know that this discussion is taking place. Has any

3036:

For pages that are redirects, if someone thinks it should be deleted it gets discussed at RfD. If you want this to be discussed at AfD, you should make a compelling argument that the content may be notable.

12457:

was going to ask why food was your first thought, but it would be hypocritical. that aside, the target also does that, and i feel that someone looking that up wouldn't expect to land on food of all things

5377: 4496: 11096:, which doesn't exist and is red at the current target. It is discussed at the target, but I agree that in general we should avoid redirects for compounds to articles about specific, different compounds. 2600:

such as this, and then someone who can close the discussion to the perceived consensus closes the discussion about an hour or two later. Depends on who sees it, really. But ... to me, the severity of the

324: 5758: 342: 6317:

One usecase will be redirects from patronymics that are misinterpreted as surnames, which is something that is, for example, done by many people from Britain and the US with respect to Icelandic names.

3693:

handwaved to the existence of a "process" that, in restoring content contrary to how wikipedia works, would contradict long-standing precedent of deleting those blar'd lists (see the discussion for the

1432:. I think the painting here should be the primary topic here as it has this specific name, while "List of children's games" is more general and has a few different aliases that mean the same thing (eg. 12039:

Please link to the consensus decision that redirects from species names that could be articles is strongly discouraged. It does not appear to be linked from the template. A categorical claim like this

4553: 11741: 6768:

Honestly that article itself should probably be sent to AfD. It's a pile of poorly-sourced trivia with no real focus, and if it were cleaned up properly it would probably no longer mention the naga.

2720:

Hope the technical issues are temporary. I was closing out older page discussions one at a time, but now I'm searching for the words "involved" and "peis" to see which were those that were moved up.

645: 1373: 12241: 11093: 4438: 4126:, which has been more attended than your average AfD. Finally, as for whether it would be acceptable to restore an unreferenced article, the policy answer is no—not unless you're adding citations. 3879:. as tavix noted, every single policy anyone here could find either actively supports blars being taken to rfd as if they were redirects, or just suggests finding a venue for it (with afd provided 388: 10493:) typos, misnomers, former names and other titles that are equally obsolete or incorrect, but we have thousands of them because we recognise that deleting them would be harmful to our readers. 6782: 5718: 331: 10460:

If this redirect did not exist, anyone who would have used this redirect would still be able to find the article just as easily. On the other hand, keeping an obsolete and misleading redirect

3971:, there is one ongoing right now! I agree that disputed BLAR's should be restored should a case for notability be made, but so far no one has made a non-jurisdictional case for restoration. -- 1127: 11033: 3907: 1802:. And besides, it looks like the target text has been restored, complete with references. The nowardays widely accepted term for this period of retro-futurism is most commonly referred to as 5291:

for that redirect. As a fun P.S., the Trump indictment mentioned by CNN as the top story on March 31, 2023, is not even mentioned on Knowledge's portal of current events for March 31, 2023.

5563: 3220:

all things considered, i think notburo would only serve as more of a reason to ignore any potential policy about restoring undiscussed blars to delete them anyway, and just... delete them.

6851:

which seems to be the most detailed appearance on Knowledge I have seen, including a bit of commentary from a secondary sources. (And seems to be the first appearance in the game series.)

12230: 8659: 9175: 4109:, you were able to analyze the article content, do some research on the topic, and come to the conclusion that it can be safely deleted, citing that it's unreferenced. That looks like a 3808:

I don't understand why you (Cogsan) keep thinking I'm calling RFD a speedy deletion venue? I'm very explicitly not doing that. What I am saying is that: If BLARed content were restored,

5569: 3915: 749: 12605: 4106: 3911: 3728:

every policy i could find states that this should be a pretty clear-cut case of "delete and call it a day". if you know what the policies that state otherwise are, please let me know.

3695: 2857: 563: 10785:

allow them to find what they are looking for without navigating (up to several hoops before arriving at) search results that may or may not (prominently) feature the target article.

4260: 2695: 1108:. Participants had varying ideas, however none of them converged on a common outcome for any of the listed entries. There was partial support for the nomination's proposal of moving 11913: 6271: 5695: 5394: 4513: 3903: 5279: 794: 5281: 2463:

I found a source establishing the "Well" part of the catchphrase as well as a source that the Steve Martin bit inspired the Link catchphrase. I created a "Legacy" section to the

9958: 9946: 9284: 5676: 5400: 4546: 4519: 516:

Regardless, it needs to be deleted due to the spacing error before the hyphen (as per Jay below), and I would support keeping if someone moves it to the correctly spaced title.

3022:

There is no recency requirement for any of this. We don't speedy delete article content just because it's old, if someone thinks it should be deleted it gets discussed at AfD.

12418:

XY is not a reason to delete when the target has content about both X and Y (which this does). I explained everything else in my detailed comment above which you should read.

10866:

The stats link shows that it received 28 hits between September 5th, 6th, and 7th, which aligns with the film's worldwide release on September 5th. The redirect then received

10272: 568: 72: 10782:

Most readers are on Knowledge with the mission to find what they are looking for, usually in the quickest manner possible, so they can get back on with the rest of their day.

3004:...and every time someone unilaterally redirects something to a random target and subsequently nominates it here, they get reverted. That's not the case here, this page has 8247:. Also Monsoon Revolution is the name of a book "Monsoon Revolution: Republicans, Sultans, and Empires in Oman, 1965-1976". Redirect this to the subject creates confusion. 7608:

The specific terms don't seem to be explicitly mentioned in any article, so it is a bit unclear where these should point. The first redirect was created in 2007, targeting

4379: 4174:

i'll say that yes, i also disagree with this having been blar'd. i think it should have been taken to afd back then so that this discussion wouldn't have been happening now

10278: 8783: 8049:

topic for people searching "Za'ura" and from my searches there doesn't appear to be, although Google refusing to distinguish between "Za'ura" and "za ura" is not helpful.

6129:, but deer are not currently mentioned there or at any related article I can find. The best solution would be include a mention there regarding their application to deer. 3107:

blar'd redirect had to be reverted to an undercooked, effectively unsourced article and taken to afd to be discussed for the same reason as if it were still a redirect, a

7627: 5606: 10308: 5764: 2234:

redirects there. Seems like a case of "disambiguate" or "retarget" and I'm not sure which, even with the fact that this redirect is a partial match for the Link phrase.

6420:

in multiple cultures e.g. Icelandic names, they use patronymics instead of surnames. Thus, every "R from surname" for Icelandic name is actually a "R from patronymic".

4713:

definitely not notable, seem unrelated to the baseball team, and are also not mentioned anywhere here (they are related to the Bears but only as a fans group I think).

9335: 9273: 6566: 5538: 5001:

are ambiguous—that's not a problem. Can you make the case for either of these dates that another event could plausibly be significant enough to rival the tornadoes? --

686:

is/was never a cultural zeitgeist/milestone for American cinema or popular culture, unlike Sholay for Indian cinema. You only need search a bit and see what you have:

573: 5797: 5437: 2220:

as the album from the current target which this phrase is most associated, but then I remembered ... people looking up this phrase could reasonably be trying to find

8629: 8211: 7841: 7669: 5770: 5250:

has the top thing being the Trump indictment (obviously not going to be known/associated with that date as a redirect), and the 2nd thing is the tornado outbreak..."

2425:

Delete per Utopes because of the "Well". As an ATD, it may retarget to the "excuse me" dab where BarrelProof added entries for both Steve Martin and Legend of Zelda.

714: 8983:

as a location of this name existed in that show, however it's also not mentioned there. Now the target of anon hijacking into an article about a non-notable fruit.

8459:

What are you opposing? Deletion per the original nomination, or the disambiguation suggestion per the nom's later choice? Do you want the redirect to be kept as is?

5493: 4020:

mean nothing to you? What more would you want from an AfD discussion? RfDs are advertised in the article alert section of the relevant WikiProject(s), in this case

12247: 7858: 6988:

has a very brief definition: The sentence "Two new Factions, the Naga and Draenei, have also been added ." contains the information "the Naga are a Faction in the

5369: 5287:

over the tornado outbreak. Unless someone can provide clear counter evidence as to why the outbreak is not the main topic associated with that date, I will remain

5017: 4488: 1733: 39: 34: 8074: 5275: 5205: 5187: 5163: 3898:(like pokémon), that those kinds of redirects just get deleted here regardless of blar status, and that no one seems interested in changing consensus in this area 3725:

and yes, if the "process" somehow dictates that this should be taken to afd, my vote there would still be to delete as an unambiguous violation of wp:notgameguide

8772: 8058: 8043: 5228: 4931: 4029: 819: 6934:

I still prefer the refined target because it defines a 'naga' as opposed to describing their introduction into the specific game at hand. Keep in mind that the

6311: 5316: 5302: 4953: 2000:

One more go. As Eureka mentioned, the target section was again removed after the last relist. Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.

12253: 12222: 11083: 9244: 6689: 6451: 6436: 5724: 4329: 3141:

Those are reasons to delete a redirect, yes, but they aren't reasons to delete articles. Every undiscussed BLAR that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria

524: 503: 11348:

Though you could use the search box that way, by enclosing search terms in quotes; It would normally bring you straight to the non-quote-enclosed pagename --

11181:

thank chernobog those aren't apostrophes. on a less important note, is this unnatural enough to warrant deletion, and if it's not, should it be retargeted to

10658:

In this case, as far as I've been able to determine, there is no other film with this title that is actually upcoming - indeed I've not found any evidence of

8361: 6404: 6389: 6342: 6327: 5840: 5828: 5815: 12290: 12141: 11039: 11009: 8813: 8416: 8274: 6555: 5269: 4766: 4663: 1810:

has also been used (but it is not as widely used as Cassette Futurism). Formicapunk was used in the webcomic Bouletcorp by John Boulet. The original link is

8335: 5324: 4443: 12149: 11551:

this capitalized version there as a miscapitalization. I was hoping to find a general discussion of hard cast metals, but there isn't anything specific at

11152: 8618: 8475:

I’m going to say the latter. We don’t seem to have enough evidence for the term’s usage to refer to either the Non-cooperation movement or the Dhofar War.

7799: 6494: 5912: 5730: 5246:

on the tornado outbreak (2nd result on Google) is titled "The Tornado Outbreak of March 31, 2023". First result is the outbreak's Knowledge article. CNN's

4850: 4071:

when I am interested in discussing the former article but the redirect? I'm not going to respond to a strawman argument such as you've made with regard to

1068: 10106:

We are a directory of many things, just not things that are overly non-notable directory-ish, as in the examples given in NOTD. So I am undecided between

8445: 8388: 8187: 6347:

They would still be redirects from patronymics, I interpreted your nomination to be arguing for the deletion of the redirect for having no valid usecases?

6225: 5219:

but either way they're the primary topic for those days. I might take this to the village pump to get some policy to be set in stone with date redirects.

1889:

Just noting that I agree with this assessment. The redirects should be deleted and the reintroduction of the material should be reverted due to a lack of

481: 11873: 11357: 11045: 10589: 10327: 4808: 4573: 4080:

who disagree on this) and so all I can do is give my opinion, and whether that places me with consensus or against it for this case is up to the closer.

1722: 1405: 894: 839: 658:

per that. if it doesn't, then delete all as vague instead, since results for both of those sentences mostly gave me top whatever many "greatest x" lists

12111: 11823: 9135: 8845: 8693: 7751: 7732: 7705: 6204: 5871: 5252:

A severe weather outbreak could impact nearly 70 million people today from the Mississippi Valley to the Ohio and Tennessee Valleys, meteorologists say.

5141: 5120: 5085: 4976: 3403: 2358: 924: 459: 12270:

is this vague? as far as i understand, it could be referring to any type of "variety" of anything that could be considered "brazilian" or "portuguese"

12066: 12050: 11233: 11105: 9728: 9088: 9062: 9012: 8557: 8302: 5059: 5041: 5010: 4992: 1691: 1490: 1051: 1030: 12427: 12382: 12083: 11770: 11597: 11531: 11308: 11254: 10843: 10794: 10771: 10743: 10724: 10671: 10653: 10604: 10248: 9642: 9116: 8835: 7184: 2940: 2911: 2535: 1855: 1601: 410: 253: 194: 169: 12306: 12132: 11753: 10344: 9671: 9570: 9331: 9233: 7983: 7721:

There has been limited participation, so I guess you may boldly retarget after considering Fayenatic's opinion. And I can close this as No consensus.

7644: 4318: 2839:. The only discussion I've found is from 2006 where one editor suggested a merge and a second editor disagreed. That's very obviously not consensus. 2826: 1897: 1449: 12327: 10963:

exists, I agree with you these titles should be treated equally, as there's nothing implicitly wrong with the current capitalization of this title.

9414: 8254: 4901:

As for the April 4, 1974 redirect I just appended to this RfD; I nominated it here because I accidentally created the redirect with the wrong date.

4722: 4398: 1978: 1788: 968: 678: 431: 12508: 12413: 12354: 11343: 10984: 10936: 10907: 10861: 10222: 10054: 10039: 10007: 9348: 9035: 8675: 8507: 8151: 7156: 7069: 7043: 6277: 6122: 4760: 4652: 3943: 3835: 3751: 3675: 3556: 3497: 3449: 3279: 3243: 3215: 3185: 3159: 3136: 3090: 3075: 2970: 2896: 2848: 2783: 2713: 2665: 2620: 2579: 2336: 2294: 2087: 1965: 316: 239: 12530: 11856: 11580: 11128: 10524: 10502: 10473: 10455: 10432: 10406: 10376: 10358: 10131: 10089: 9393: 9379: 8764: 8001: 6860: 6138: 6109: 4910: 3865: 3467: 3046: 3031: 3017: 2999: 2480: 2419: 2269:(the song on the album; the song, which does not appear on the Excuse Me disambiguation page). It does not seem necessary to target this title to 1546: 876: 9782: 9576: 7002: 6964: 6922: 6896: 4896: 1880: 590: 95: 12565: 11795: 11280: 9768: 9707: 8484: 8470: 8110: 7270: 6793: 6645: 6179: 5636: 5467: 3432: 2731: 2437: 2394: 1521: 995: 535:

Also note the redirects created by the same creator on the same day. But the nominated one does have a problem with no space before the hyphen.

12488: 12452: 9365: 9290: 7904: 7459: 7417: 6777: 6763: 6283: 6023:. i haven't found any info on where the name for the cannons came from, but it seems used, albeit not enough to warrant a redirect. any ideas? 3803: 2984: 2869: 2789: 2639:(Edit conflict note: Ah, I didn't personally see the nomination subpage transclusions show up as links, even during the time when the page was 2035: 631: 611: 9602: 8312:: There are only three hits for the name that pertain to the NCM in Bangladesh. The name is used for other events as well as mentioned above. 6615: 4220: 4205: 4152:

I looked at the history and saw that the BLAR had previously been disputed. That in line with my usual standard of whether the article passes

3660: 3589: 2249: 1930: 1827: 12033: 10515:

misspellings, etc. are useful enough to overcome the inherent risk, but redirects with disambiguation errors are not natural search terms. --

10464:

harmful for those who think the redirect implies that it may still be upcoming. Deletion resolves any potential lingering confusion there. --

10266: 10167: 9480: 9450: 8623: 7293: 7220: 6833: 6078: 4169: 4147: 4089: 4057: 4004: 3980: 3631: 3616: 3374: 3343: 2014: 1680: 281: 11730: 9985: 8065:

I created Za'ura, Syria. Dont really have an opinion. There is very little info about the village. Maybe the redirect should go to Zoora. --

11205: 9296: 7465: 7423: 6547: 4369: 3351: 1818:, but I'm not so sure if Bouletcorp's Formicapunk cartoon is notable enough even though the term Formicapunk has taken a life of it's own. 12177: 9322: 8610: 7206:

No mention added yet to Image sensor. Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of the redirect creator, target and Image sensor.

7133:

puts it) "An individual light-sensitive element in a digital image sensor." and pixel is an alternative term for this. This suggests that

6731: 5271: 5111:

respectively. Any event that happened on that day notable enough to be covered in a mainspace Knowledge article should be listed there. --

4703: 2453: 12026:

Per the Rcat template: "Note that the practice of creating redirects from species names that could be articles is strongly discouraged."

9850: 8789: 8375:

where it is said that that is what Bangladeshis calling the date of Sheikh Hasina's removal. I think we're seeing a scenario akin to the

6978: 6874: 5283:. In short, I do not think any other event is going to be known or associated well enough with that event for a redirect ("deletion") to 694: 11978: 2162: 1059:. There are enough correctly-formatted redirects for the target article to be found, without the need for this one with an error in it. 11668: 9225: 7808:

Looking at this again, I am not sure why I wrote "where necessary", because they all need changing to the same target. I think that if

7348: 6741: 4310: 263: 9994:

per the consensus of the previous RfD that this is a good description of and plausible synonym for the target. I don't understand how

9919: 8994: 6043: 5700: 4644: 3706:(as without notability or a single source, this list's presence would be unwarranted), but never detailed what the process actually is 3607:. RfD is absolutely the correct venue for this discussion. Do you have any evidence that the former article content may be notable? -- 2902:

of elements from notable works are frequently notable and don't violate NOTGUIDE. Whether this list is notable is a question for AfD.

1775: 8795: 6572: 3055:

deletion because i thought it applied to one or more of the criteria, i would have tagged it as such, as opposed to taking it to rfd

739: 11499: 11015: 8283: 7964: 7123: 5273: 10960: 10815: 10364: 10255: 8635: 8217: 5969: 1672: 1311:

to allow readers to determine which page they were intending to find if they searched these terms (the current target is listed at

724: 148: 10349:

I was wrong, you are doing mental gymnastics to justify harming the encyclopaedia by deleting an unambiguous, well-used redirect.

9925: 9624: 2260:

As the inclusion of the word "well" is never mentioned in any context preceding the title "Excuse Me" in the album, I'd prefer to

218:. So that at least explains it, and I don't see it sreferring to anything else. There is a mention (with a different spelling) at 11425: 9877: 9126:- common pronunciation, this seems the most likely target. Anon hijacking should be addressed regardless of the ultimate target. 7748: 7641: 6578: 6448: 6401: 6339: 6308: 5794: 4543: 1739: 1238: 1196: 1154: 7829:

is a good starting point to land, with clear links to the other articles, and I now think that this would be the best target. –

6441:

Then they aren't "R from surname"s and shouldn't be tagged as such (which is the current result of applying this redirect tag).

12003: 9742: 9530: 8929: 8641: 8223: 5806:

I've merged the version with the diacritic in with this nomination as was likely intended. It was nominated with no rationale.

4382: 2189: 21: 11835:

in the absence of other titles; this is still an alternative name for the subject, the only of which currently covered on WP.

10662:

other film with this title. So, yes, when we bother to look at the evidence rather than theory or ideology it is unambiguous.

3826:

That there isn't content at the target of the redirect is not really relevant because nobody is arguing to keep the redirect.

266:

and retarget to the program. We don't know if it's a term at all, as the episode summaries are all unsourced. deviantart says

12365: 12094: 11806: 11695: 11509: 11291: 10142: 10110:

based on that thinking of a Pokedex as a directory is very plausible (agree with the previous RfD) and add a section hatnote

10069: 9883: 9682: 9651: 9425: 9250: 8522: 8427: 8399: 8121: 8085: 7764: 7680: 7585: 7543: 7501: 7375: 7231: 7195: 7167: 7019: 6808: 6695: 6464: 6149: 6089: 6053: 5882: 5851: 5747: 4335: 3512: 3318: 2643:

full. However though, I DID see the "Knowledge community" template not get transcluded, which is where my urgency came from.)

2491: 2369: 2221: 2046: 1989: 1941: 1838: 1745: 1557: 1501: 1383: 1280: 1244: 1202: 1160: 1006: 553: 543: 538: 292: 219: 5255: 3411:, game-guide content cannot be restored, violating what Knowledge is not. Unmentioned on Knowledge (correctly so, I'd add). 2467:

article, which I hope would satisfy both concerns. If someone is looking for the Link catchphrase, they will now find it at

12009: 9738: 9536: 8293:(which is what the book is apparently about), perhaps this should be made into a disambiguation page between those two? -- 4772: 4669: 3477:

necessarily for or about speedy deletion, and neither is this discussion (seeing as it's gone on for over a month and all)

2195: 1918: 1811: 1727: 1685: 734: 10927:

been very unlikely, for a Brit a bit behind the times but not implausible, but it would be accurate for a Swiss searcher.

6982: 6909: 6253: 2759: 1784:. These terms referred to a section that was removed in April and had been tagged as unreferenced for nearly two years. - 439:

While I would tend to agree with the nom, it's too new to tell. If it's useful, it will be used. Time will tell and the

11701: 11158: 9256: 9072: 8018:, as there does not seem to be a need to disambiguate (are there other locations in the world with that same name?). Use 7591: 7549: 7507: 7381: 6701: 5284: 5104: 4856: 4424: 4341: 1286: 642:

does this count as blatantly and overly promotional? this is the only example i could find of a tagline being a redirect

5265: 5263: 11589: 11349: 11246: 9356:, I did some digging and I'm not seeing any reliable sourcing on this. I'm happy to reconsider if sourcing is found. -- 9023: 8831: 6993:

and I do not think we should point the reader to the one further down with the risk of overlooking the one further up.

5216: 4814: 4778: 4675: 4211:

be kept if taken to AfD so I'll withdraw my !vote but this was certainly handled poorly in the first place as you say.

3699: 3531: 2510: 2349:

as originally considered. That seems like a pretty good approach, as it explains the evolution into a catchphrase. —⁠ ⁠

2062: 1576: 17: 4024:. One could alert the project with a talk page message if you are looking for something in particular? You could also 11164: 10752:

subject, an erroneous disambiguator causes more harm than good to readers not knowing or caring how Knowledge works (

5996: 5108: 4862: 3856:

clause that follows. RfD is a dispute resolution venue, thus there is no issue with adjudicating BLAR issues here. --

1697: 784: 558: 548: 210: 10941:

If there's a Switzerland release for September that gets mentioned in the article, I'd say wait about 30 days after

8282:. The above source had been removed from the article. I also found the one I had originally heard this term used in 4132:

any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and

3823:

that the correct venue for discussion is AfD. There have been at least four independent objections to the BLAR here.

10917:

Continued views are not "problems" and don't need fixing. Incorrect links from current revisions of en.wp articles

9564: 5707: 4820: 921: 859: 382: 10634: 10570: 214: 11452: 11218:

but the article suggests that the term with quotes is common so seems sensible enough to keep on its own merits.

11022: 10922:

elsewhere. For example one of my earlier internet memories is chatting with an American and a Swiss person about

9754: 8286: 8240: 8205: 8070: 7075: 6847: 6595:

that sure is a lot of characters to type before getting to a very potentially implausible minor spelling mistake

6560: 6365:

A patronymic page (when it is used as a patronymic by multiple notable people, but not as any other sort of name)

6002: 5025: 3690:

seemingly mistook rfd for a speedy deletion venue four times in this discussion (still no idea what that's about)

2777: 1703: 1479: 9075:

as a misspelling of "Library" and not of "Liberty", and is a partial title match for the penultimate episode of

8719: 1913:. In the case these redirects aren't appropriate for their current article, maybe a better destination would be 490:: My understanding is this was a tagline used, but I don't see the greatest star cast ever being ambiguous with 10187: 10183:

is irrelevant regarding the redirects' current target: The redirects are alternative names (though potentially

8039: 101: 7970:

If the alternate romanisation is correct, then I would advocate for reversing the retargeting and restore the

3111:

of rfd nominations would have been done out of process for ages now, with no admins happening to pick up on it

11458: 8956: 8285:(just after the 4 minute mark in the audio) and added a note about the alternative name back to the intro of 7910: 7453: 7411: 7081: 6683: 5215:

I see that there is no clear policy when it comes to dates and redirects; redirection to Current Events is a

2975:

By definition, any redirect (which this is) can be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf's understanding is incorrect. --

789: 699: 12342: 6502: 3812:

that content would meet a speedy deletion criterion (e.g. it was a copyright violation or patent nonsense),

12558: 12481: 12283: 11849: 11492: 11198: 10977: 10923: 10900: 10836: 10032: 9978: 9473: 8550: 8144: 7974:

link; that subject is well-sourced and likely more notable than a nonexistent historical village in Syria.

7792: 7622:) along with the creation of the other redirects. Only the first one was rather recently changed to target 7263: 7116: 6638: 6608: 6487: 6172: 6036: 5905: 5629: 5599: 5551: 5460: 5430: 5382: 4198: 3936: 3744: 3653: 3490: 3425: 3367: 3236: 3178: 3129: 3068: 2963: 2819: 2658: 2572: 2329: 2287: 988: 948: 779: 671: 491: 470: 427: 187: 141: 107: 8565: 8193: 6362:

A a combination given name and surname page (when some people use it as a given name and others a surname)

202: 11328: 10886:

over. As it so happens, the movie IS still in theatres, as it released 2 weeks ago. So I'm keep !voting.

9612: 9553: 8962: 7916: 7745: 7638: 7147:? If we do soft redirect we should remove the link to Knowledge from that page to avoid a circular link. 6956: 6888: 6819:

The suggested target's AfD has been relisted. Notified of this discussion at the suggested target's talk.

6755: 6445: 6398: 6359:

A given name page (where a single name is used as both a given name and a patronymic by different people)

6336: 6305: 5791: 5247: 5029: 4692:

Not mentioned in target article, and searching it up yields nothing reated to the Chicago Bears. Delete.

4540: 3687:

as a reason to restore despite that section being completely unrelated to deletion or merging discussions

1475: 1416: 1355: 1331: 1316: 1109: 12513:

It was the only article I could find that discusses both Brazilian and Portuguese varieties of a topic.

9790: 7820:

after merging that article, AvicBot would then have updated all these redirects likewise, in which case

6198: 6125:

used to keep deer away from eating agricultural crops such as Christmas trees, and should be refined to

5267: 5261: 5259: 3397: 55:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 17, 2024.

11791: 11321: 8066: 7942: 7833: 7661: 7139: 6374: 6260: 3794:

This is a potentially problematic redirect, so this is, by definition, where it should be discussed. --

3776: 3637: 2766: 2225: 1534: 1471: 1463: 1351: 1326: 1312: 1308: 729: 719: 11918: 11744:

or some similar title (the terms are interchangeable) until we have content about the type of museum.

11134: 10111: 9907: 9865: 9506: 3786:, so a criterion for speedy deletion is not necessary for deletion. I can also specify the purpose of 3081:

article - which would obviously be out of process. Doing it in single step is just as out of process.

2113: 12582: 12198: 12168: 11939: 11890: 11683: 11644: 11614: 11386: 11063: 11027: 10418: 10239: 9811: 9734: 9497: 9201: 9152: 8890: 8860: 8740: 8710: 8586: 8035: 7877: 7853: 7320: 6662: 6523: 6244: 5941: 5653: 5514: 5484: 5345: 4739: 4620: 4590: 4464: 4415: 4286: 3100: 2750: 2134: 2104: 1648: 1618: 1429: 1268: 1226: 1184: 1142: 1095: 890: 799: 774: 499: 12514: 12059:

which it clearly is not, and that reason was misleading and deserving of a challenge. Cheers, · · ·

11623: 9913: 9180: 8371:: It doesn't seem like this is the name that sticks. I did notice that an article was made entitled 8243:

is not known as "Monsoon Revolution". There is no source verify that. In that way, this redirect is

7299: 6671: 4265: 620:

because of the mistake. There are several other redirects that may be used in the place of this one.

12145: 10260: 9161: 9079:("The Futurama Mystery Liberry") which google tells me is an intentional misspelling of "Library". 6356:

A surname page (where a single name is used as both a surname and a patronymic by different people)

5277: 5224: 5037: 4892: 3766: 2255:

Was thinking about nominating this one too, also while having "well excuse me princess" on my mind.

824: 709: 10385:

use, they are actually using this one more. Our goal is to enable people to find the content they

8264: 7441: 7399: 5076:; I need to inform all of you that I just appended a third redirect onto this request. Thank you. 4748: 4599: 3792:

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed.

11869: 11227: 11005: 8183: 7129:

My first thought was an image hosting website, but googling shows that actually it refers to (as

6265: 6019:

results are torn between the propane cannons used to give birds a dang ol spook, and actual deer

5299: 4386: 2230: 1064: 744: 12443:, which details how varieties of Brazilian cuisine compare and contrast to Portugese cuisine. -- 11782:. If we don't have any coverage of any of the other museums, there is no reason to delete this. 10484:

anyone who would have used this redirect would still be able to find the article just as easily.

9901: 4016:

Do the five editors who have reviewed the article content and agreed that it was a violation of

12591: 12493:

I was kind of thinking the same thing there ... how does "varieties" equate to "food/cuisine"?

11593: 11353: 11250: 10302: 10204: 10180: 10099: 9995: 9962: 9871: 8827: 8669: 8270: 7742: 7716: 7635: 6442: 6395: 6333: 6302: 5788: 4998: 4537: 4378:. From what I can gather she sang the national anthem for the team for 16 years ending in 2014. 4123: 4017: 3891: 3703: 3387: 2316:

wait, no, wrong quote, i mean "that's only barely uncommon enough to probably warrant the dab"

1232: 1190: 1148: 829: 809: 6193: 3819:

When content is BLARed, and there are objections to that BLAR, then it is explicitly noted at

3392: 12578: 12577:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

12303: 12194: 12193:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

12164: 12163:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

12063: 12047: 11997: 11935: 11934:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

11886: 11885:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

11640: 11639:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

11610: 11609:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

11568: 11382: 11381:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

11267: 11079: 10235: 10234:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

9807: 9806:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

9524: 9493: 9492:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

9460:

per tavix, and if not over that, than as vague. no prejudice against recreation or dabifying

9197: 9196:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

9148: 9147:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

8886: 8885:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

8856: 8855:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

8736: 8735:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

8706: 8705:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

8582: 8581:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

8376: 8331: 7873: 7872:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

7830: 7738: 7658: 7316: 7315:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

6658: 6657:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

6519: 6518:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

6240: 6239:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

5937: 5936:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

5649: 5648:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

5510: 5509:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

5480: 5479:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

5341: 5340:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4735: 4734:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4616: 4615:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4586: 4585:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4460: 4459:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4411: 4410:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4282: 4281:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2746: 2745:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2354: 2183: 2130: 2129:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2100: 2099:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1644: 1643:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1614: 1613:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1091: 1090:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

849: 834: 754: 9436:

Restore and merge, or AfD or Delete straightaway? Notified of this discussion at the target.

5920: 5787:

Not mentioned at target. Only seems to occur in a passing mention on the English Knowledge.

1917:

and the redirect-category could be changed to "R with possibilities". Also, the text in the

1627: 1346: 1336: 1220: 1178: 1136: 12323: 12235: 12079: 11766: 11689: 10415:

use, they shouldn't use either one. This film is no longer upcoming—they are now obsolete.

9859: 9778: 9724: 9410: 9131: 8989: 7847: 7809: 7579: 7537: 7495: 7369: 6432: 6426: 5308: 5254:" Here is a couple of other RS sources that use the date in association with the outbreak: 5197: 5179: 5155: 5133: 5077: 5050:

thing that happened that day, but I do have a solution to the pushback that I'm getting: --

4902: 4557: 4501: 4246: 3895: 3887: 1274: 918: 886: 759: 689: 495: 455: 376: 125: 7826: 7817: 7614: 7334: 5150:

redirect that I appended onto this discussion; as the nominator of that redirect, I favor

4439:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 24#Shoilan Government Primary School

2171: 975:

the vote isn't technically duplicate, it's over a different reason. see the missing space

371:

Seems both too long and incredibly specific to the point where I can't see it being used.

8: 12504: 12423: 12409: 12350: 12128: 11899: 11749: 11677: 11339: 10932: 10857: 10790: 10767: 10739: 10720: 10667: 10649: 10600: 10585: 10498: 10451: 10402: 10354: 10323: 10218: 10050: 10003: 9638: 9598: 9375: 9344: 9112: 9084: 9058: 9008: 8480: 8441: 8384: 8054: 7960: 7567: 7525: 7483: 7357: 7152: 7039: 6385: 6323: 6213: 6126: 5955: 5836: 5811: 5681: 5220: 5175: 5073: 5069: 5033: 4983: 4944: 4922: 4888: 4844: 4718: 4394: 4158: 3831: 3770: 3671: 3552: 3445: 3275: 3211: 3155: 3086: 3027: 2995: 2936: 2921: 2907: 2892: 2844: 2709: 2616: 2531: 2245: 2083: 1961: 1597: 1369: 1262: 1047: 1026: 769: 312: 249: 235: 11365: 7051: 5257: 2410:. Without 'princess', I believe the primary topic to be the Steve Martin catchphrase. -- 1812:

http://web.archive.org/web/20230623104540/https://bouletcorp.com/2011/07/07/formicapunk/

330: 12465: 12318:. Seems like it could refer to either Brazilian or European varieties of Portuguese. -- 12217: 12030: 11865: 11726: 11576: 11220: 11114: 11101: 11001: 10702: 10611: 10547: 10127: 10084: 9666: 9095: 8759: 8689: 8358: 8251: 8200: 8179: 8019: 7979: 7886: 6998: 6918: 6856: 6221: 6134: 6104: 5752: 5712: 5294: 5178:, we actually do have a redirect to both of those dates you listed in your nomination. 5021: 4887:

which are more important than either and they've received next to no traffic recently.

4802: 3523: 2917: 2878: 2678: 2502: 1568: 1455: 1446: 1341: 1320: 1060: 872: 764: 607: 406: 10199: 10119: 8034:

pronounciations, but not the same. Hence, there is no need for a disambiguation page.

4358:

not mentioned at target. Seems to be a non-notable employee of the team once. Delete.

2380:

Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target and disambiguation talk pages.

77: 12440: 12376: 12105: 11817: 11525: 11302: 11215: 10913: 10870:

between September 8th through September 17th, at the moment I was originally writing.

10777: 10753: 10749: 10297: 9616: 9076: 8980: 8818: 8777: 8664: 8410: 8266: 7631: 7178: 6939: 5978: 4698: 4381:

There are a lot of mentions of her in this role in unreliable sources (and ones like

4364: 4025: 3197: 1876: 1849: 1424: 1420: 1399: 1113: 814: 518: 487: 475: 227: 216: 163: 10632:

territory here ... holding off on that until the discussion for the other redirect,

10628:"upcoming"/"not yet released"? That's not what the target is anymore. (Getting into 10397:

and should not require people to know our arbitrary titling conventions beforehand.

8869: 8493:

name for either of those events, but we've found sources for both those meanings as

1914: 1454:

I think it's okay to handle the upper-case and lower-case versions differently, per

12552: 12476: 12300: 12278: 12060: 12044: 11986: 11843: 11487: 11434: 11276: 11193: 11075: 10971: 10894: 10830: 10689: 10681: 10560: 10027: 9973: 9558: 9518: 9513: 9468: 9317: 8544: 8503: 8313: 8298: 8138: 7950: 7813: 7786: 7654: 7609: 7257: 7111: 6908:

Usually I am in favor of such a refinement, but in this case the preceding section

6788: 6772: 6726: 6632: 6603: 6481: 6332:

For those, I would suggest they point at the relevant given name articles as well.

6166: 6031: 5990: 5899: 5623: 5594: 5454: 5425: 4193: 4127: 4110: 4072: 4068: 4041: 4037: 3991: 3931: 3739: 3648: 3535: 3485: 3419: 3362: 3231: 3173: 3124: 3063: 2958: 2814: 2652: 2566: 2514: 2468: 2464: 2407: 2350: 2345: 2324: 2281: 2217: 2148: 2066: 1770: 1580: 1433: 983: 943: 804: 666: 423: 182: 136: 10153:

Keep or retarget? Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.

1800: 1797: 12319: 12075: 11762: 11560: 11476: 10629: 10618:

This redirect is unambiguously taking people to the content they are looking for.

10564: 10556: 9774: 9720: 9406: 9127: 8984: 8938: 7997: 6678: 6421: 5662: 5242:, majority of the results are the tornado outbreak (i.e. the redirect location). 4179: 1975: 1894: 1785: 1487: 913: 444: 372: 48: 10441:

use, we only get to choose whether they are allowed to keep using the ones they

7846:

I'm sorry, I have no idea anymore what this is about.... Too long ago. Regards,

4040:? If so, what did you find? Yes, because you are advocating for restoration the 12494: 12419: 12399: 12346: 12124: 12043:

be linked to the guidance supporting it. Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · ·

11954: 11787: 11745: 11446: 11401: 11335: 10928: 10853: 10786: 10757: 10735: 10710: 10706: 10685: 10663: 10639: 10596: 10575: 10494: 10447: 10398: 10350: 10319: 10208: 10104:

In that sense, Knowledge functions as an index or directory of its own content.

10046: 9999: 9826: 9628: 9620: 9594: 9371: 9340: 9176:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 24#Resident Evil RE:Verse

9102: 9080: 9048: 9004: 8905: 8476: 8454: 8437: 8380: 8163: 8050: 8011: 7956: 7898: 7148: 7029: 6381: 6319: 5832: 5807: 5243: 4880: 4755: 4714: 4569: 4390: 4323: 4216: 4165: 4153: 4085: 4077: 4000: 3841: 3827: 3820: 3783: 3714: 3684: 3667: 3627: 3585: 3577: 3542: 3527: 3441: 3265: 3201: 3151: 3096: 3082: 3023: 2991: 2926: 2903: 2882: 2858:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 13#List of Strogg in Quake 4

2840: 2836: 2699: 2627: 2606: 2601: 2596: 2544: 2521: 2506: 2235: 2213: 2073: 2058: 1974:

Please note that the section has again been removed from the target article. -

1951: 1926: 1823: 1587: 1572: 1359: 1304: 1043: 1016: 704: 302: 245: 231: 161:

Please don't forget to notify the creator of the redirect. I've done that now.

10946:

stretch of logic, and then delete. I don't think that the USA is the world by

7279: 7130: 5192:

Although I am going to append another date redirect to your nomination that I

3886:

and for the however manieth time, this whole discussion also actively ignores

12606:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 24#Quadrachromic pencil

12212: 12027: 11973: 11720: 11664: 11572: 11564: 11552: 11420: 11141: 11124: 11097: 10163: 10123: 10079: 9845: 9764: 9746: 9703: 9661: 9446: 8924: 8842: 8754: 8685: 8466: 8106: 7975: 7946: 7728: 7701: 7289: 7216: 6994: 6929: 6914: 6852: 6829: 6217: 6130: 6099: 6074: 5867: 4884: 4839: 4657: 4107:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 18#2005-Cracker Barrell

3918:, but you mostly seem to deal with g6 and g7 speedy deletion, so give or take 3876: 3787: 3757: 3455: 3437: 3339: 2727: 2691: 2592: 2449: 2433: 2390: 2010: 1868: 1668: 1517: 1441: 1123: 868: 844: 627: 603: 586: 402: 277: 58: 3875:-speedy deletion) until this exact comment, which i still disagree with per 12395: 12315: 11146: 10677: 10335:

due to the multiple capitalization errors, including 'Of' and 'Upcoming. --

8950: 8244: 8173: 7243: 7144: 7134: 6719: 5196:

favor deleting, one I just created and realized that I got the date wrong.

4797: 4693: 4554:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Dupchanchia Model Government Primary School

4359: 4261:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 24#Wrestle with jimmy

4021: 2177: 1890: 1872: 1661:. The redirects may be recreated if reliably sourced content materializes. 12187:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

11928:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

11914:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 24#Kingdom Hearts DS

11633:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

11375:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

10748:

Point is in some cases, such redirects with disambiguators that hint to a

10511:

include the target, the title is an exact match for the first five words.

9947:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 9 § Pokémon directory

9800:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

9190:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

8879:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

8729:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

8575:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

7309:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

6512:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

5930:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

5696:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 24#Blonde Haired Kid

5503:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

5334:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4609:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4453:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4275:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2123:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1637:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1084:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

597:

But the nominated one does have a problem with no space before the hyphen.

12546: 12470: 12272: 11837: 11481: 11440: 11272: 11187: 10965: 10888: 10824: 10021: 9967: 9462: 9314: 8538: 8499: 8294: 8132: 7821: 7780: 7619: 7573: 7531: 7489: 7447: 7405: 7251: 7105: 6785: 6769: 6723: 6626: 6597: 6475: 6160: 6025: 6020: 5984: 5893: 5617: 5588: 5448: 5419: 4187: 3925: 3763:

relevant here: the first sentence states (my emphasis added) that CSD is

3733: 3702:(in this case, the main one is #2, as the list is still not present) and 3642: 3479: 3413: 3356: 3250: 3225: 3192: 3167: 3118: 3057: 2952: 2945:

on top of what steel said, i haven't found anything specifying that this

2808: 2672: 2646: 2586: 2560: 2318: 2275: 1763: 977: 937: 882: 660: 419: 176: 156: 130: 11991: 11556: 6064:

Notified of this discussion at the talk of the creator and target pages.

12522: 12444: 10849:

This redirect is getting next to no hits, with zero in the last 10 days

10516: 10465: 10424: 10368: 10336: 10295:

The film has released, and this doesn't link to any mainspace article.

9611:: This redirect points to its current target due to its former target, 9385: 9357: 9027: 8290: 7993: 6971: 6948: 6903: 6880: 6747: 5112: 5065: 5051: 5002: 4968: 4183: 4139: 4063: 4049: 3986: 3972: 3857: 3795: 3608: 3459: 3038: 3009: 2976: 2861: 2472: 2411: 2027: 1538: 1437: 1358:

in the "See also" section seems to both be odd and have no precedence.

854: 12398:. And what the heck is a "variety" in reference to the current topic? 9693:

Bundled Muhajir Province (Movement) in this. Notified the target page.

9405:

per nom. Let's not clutter AfD. There is zero chance this survives. --

6350:

I can think of five possible targets for a redirect from a patronymic

5677:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 24#Enigmatic Man

3780:, at their discretion, and immediately delete Knowledge pages or media 1537:

seem to focus primarily on toys, but I've added it to the see also. --

11783: 11544: 8263:

I found at least one source that is calling it "Monsoon Revolution".

7634:

article which was the target decided on in that RfD) seem pertinent.

7058: 4565: 4212: 4161: 4096: 4081: 4011: 3996: 3958: 3623: 3581: 3573: 2690:, so I chose the option that wouldn't have potentially brought me to 2301: 2270: 2266: 1922: 1819: 89: 9026:). If hijacking continues, then the redirect should be protected. -- 5545: 73:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27#Bulbagarden

11959: 11659: 11406: 11119: 10559:

at present, the capitalized "Of" and "Upcoming" make this redirect

10158: 9831: 9759: 9698: 9441: 9216: 8910: 8601: 8461: 8101: 7723: 7696: 7628:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 11#Unipersonalist

7623: 7363: 7339: 7284: 7211: 6824: 6538: 6069: 5960: 5862: 5829:

Français langue étrangère#Diplomas, certifications and examinations

5529: 5360: 4635: 4479: 4301: 4105:

determination that must be made about the content. For example, at

3530:

issues due to old log day still being present as a transclusion on

3334: 2771: 2722: 2509:

issues due to old log day still being present as a transclusion on

2444: 2428: 2385: 2153: 2061:

issues due to old log day still being present as a transclusion on

2005: 1663: 1575:

issues due to old log day still being present as a transclusion on

1512: 1118: 959: 683: 649: 622: 581: 332:

The greatest star cast ever assembled– the greatest story ever told

325:

The greatest star cast ever assembled– the greatest story ever told

272: 84: 12055:

I will also note that the reason for speedy deletion was given as

11571:, and perhaps someone with more knowledge can improve from there. 9370:

I strongly oppose deletion of the article content without an AfD.

8345:: In that case disambiguation is the better idea considering what 7989: 5824: 1116:, and that may be taken up in an appropriate forum on page moves. 750:

Sister, sister, oh so fair, why is there blood all over your hair?

564:

The Greatest Star Cast Ever Assembled The Greatest Story Ever Told

9044: 8944: 8372: 8167: 8023: 8015: 7893: 11000:

because it contains 2 errors and the error-free version exists.

6783:

WP:Articles for deletion/List of piscine and amphibian humanoids

6216:

per my earlier comment above, given the addition at the target.

5823:. This seems to be the full name of the "B2" level mentioned at 5376: 4495: 4028:

the discussion. To demonstrate, I have added this discussion at

1796:. Cassette futurism returns many results on Google, for example 10102:

applies to titles of articles, let alone redirects. As it says

9278: 9238: 7337:. Being bold, since this discussion began back on August 10th. 3568:

RfD is not the appropriate venue to discuss the deletion of an

795:

When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth

397: 336: 7933:

The current target was created today. Until then it targetted

4989: 4950: 4928: 569:

Greatest Star Cast Ever Assembled The Greatest Story Ever Told

12368: