Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11

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 both to The Little Mermaid. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Den lille havfrue → The Little Mermaid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Den lille Havfrue → The Little Mermaid (statue)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Confusing redirects. "Den lille havfrue" (modern spelling) and "Den lille Havfrue" (old spelling, see da:Retskrivningsreformen i 1948) should not point at different targets. Both should probably be retargeted to The Little Mermaid (disambiguation). Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Little Mermaid (the book). No idea why these point to different pages (a decade later my memory fails me). But in my opinion, the direct translation in English would feel like the logical target, as it opens with the foreign language name in context. That page has further hatnote to the disamb page. --hydrox (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to The Little Mermaid as primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect both to The Little Mermaid. It's the primary topic, it will give readers context because of the lead, and they can then go on to the dab if they actually wanted the statue or whatever. --Xurizuri (talk) 09:19, 15 October 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 Munich air disaster. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Munich Air Disaster 1958 → You Are the Quarry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Suggest retargeting the redirect to Munich air disaster as that is more likely to be what people are looking for than (with no ill will to The Smiths) a Smiths b-side (and in fact the article is only to an album containing said b-side with little discussion of it). People are likely to expect that there are two Munich air disaster pages as there was another unfortunate incident in 1960, hence potentially searching for the title with the date on the end. Harris (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom and add a hatnote to the b-side. Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Munich air disaster as the primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SMALLDETAILS. This is the specific name for the song; a hatnote and a note in the track listing direct readers to eponymous incident. I could see those searching for the incident with 1958 Munich air disaster or Munich air disaster (1958) but this specific form seems less likely, and anyone knowing the year probably already knows the 1958 incident is commonly referred to simply as the Munich air disaster. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I searched for "Munich Air Disaster" in the search box, and was offered as the top suggestion Munich Air Disaster 1958, which I presumed (not knowing the date, but knowing it was sometime in that era) was the correct link, and was confused why I was then taken to a Smiths album, hence the nomination. Harris (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that many users may reach the album article but be seeking the disaster article. I'll keep my vote above, but certainly would be alright with retargeting as long as there is a hatnote to the album. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 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. ✗plicit 10:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sarah Lawrence College: Campus → Sarah Lawrence College  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Strange and unplausible title. SWinxy (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kinda makes me think of a movie or video game or something, plus we already have the correctly formatted Sarah Lawrence College campus. Seed of コスモ (alternate account of Sonic678) 21:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the above. —AFreshStart (talk) 22:06, 11 October 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 20:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mission to Kala (Q3316862) → Mission to Kala  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 21#Wikidata redirects. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G6. Judging from the page history, this appears to have been created in error as an article, with its content copied to the target page by its creator and sole contributor. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:28, 11 October 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 Emergency population warning. ✗plicit 10:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Volcano warning → Volcano warning schemes of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Volcano warning schemes → Volcano warning schemes of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to be a classic WP:INUSA issue - the United States is not the world, but moving a page to ...in the United States doesn't fix the problem. I'm not sure what the best global target is or whether disambiguation would be better. Prediction of volcanic activity is global but is it better than disambiguation? Volcanic Alert Level is a New Zealand scheme, Emergency Warning System is a Japanese system that includes volcanic eruptions, Volcanic Ash Advisory Center is also related, Emergency population warning is generic and includes volcanos. I'm not certain that I've found all the articles either. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes to all of what you say must be correct, but this particular article Volcano warning schemes of the United States ONLY contains information about the United States and so its current name is appropriate. Perhaps solved through better categories or a disambiguation page. I don't know. Hmains (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name of the target does match the content, the problem is that it is narrower than the redirects. Categories are not relevant here, a disambiguation page is one option. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Emergency population warning which includes warnings of volcanoes, and can be further expanded. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Emergency population warning per Shhhnotsoloud. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:38, 19 October 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. ✗plicit 10:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Matt McGlothlin → Kansas City Chiefs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article; there's some old article content but it's an unsourced BLP from 2007 and I don't think we should restore a BLP with no sources. Subject is mentioned in a few places but doesn't seem to be discussed deeply anywhere. Hog Farm _Talk 14:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing can be learned from the target article about the subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:45, 15 October 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 speedy delete. User:Locoman2021 appears to have been trolling us with their loco (crazy) page moving. See also Draft:Bhachau News and Draft:Bhachau New. wbm1058 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confusing redirect. Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this one was due to a hijacking [1] [2]. A Bhachau News would need to be properly created with its own history. Dl2000 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it could maybe be speedily deleted per WP:G3. I had previously tagged Bhachau News and User:Bhachau News for speedy deletion and then I spotted this one. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 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 13:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reaver (StarCraft) → Races of StarCraft#Protoss factions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target section no longer exists, and there is no mention of "Reaver" in the article or any other closely-related article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now since neither Reaver or Scarab are listed in Races of Starcraft#Protoss and it's not a frequently mentioned unit like marine / hydralisk / zealot AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:38, 13 October 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 13:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very unlikely misspelling, even after a few Biers. Certes (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFD#D5 "makes no sense". As move summary says, not a German word. Recently created article (21 September), moved yesterday, no significant edit history. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What is the "common" English spelling? I've seen both "-shaft" and "-schaft" in English-language sources, including those used in the article. Wikidata has Category:Brudershafts, for example. Sometimes it's written without the umlaut, but Bruderschaft is a different article, which I've just now hatnoted. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say -shaft is a misspelling, especially if accompanied by an umlaut indicating some attempt at matching the original German. We probably have the best title now. More to the point, I'm pretty sure that the common English spelling isn't "Burcdeshnaft". Certes (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unlikely combination of errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:46, 15 October 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, default to delete. The discussion has a consensus not to keep but no alternative target has majority approval. Deletion to reveal search results, while not the most popular outcome, appears to be the most acceptable option considering all the comments made about this title's vagueness. Deryck C. 17:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fire danger → Firefighter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems like an odd target choice. There are dangers associated with firefighting, but also many types of fires in general. Wildfire danger is tracked according to established levels of risk. Not sure what the best target would be. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wildfire per nom. Another option is National Fire Danger Rating System per [3] but that might be too localized to United States. This is different from Fire class / Fire protection which has to do with rating types of fires in dwellings. Can also hatnote to Fire in general AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Fire safety. This would be consistent with Fire hazard, which redirects to that topic. The article's introduction specifically addresses fire hazards. I would also add the redirect category {{R from related topic}}. Coastside (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. This is a vague expression with no unambiguous meaning. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Winston (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to National Fire Danger Rating System (with a possible redirect hatnote to McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index)? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's certainly better than deleting it. The redirect has been around since 2003. Per WP:RFD#KEEP and WP:RFD#HARMFUL it should be preserved. Coastside (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Also, I found an article by the National Park Service titled "Understanding Fire Danger" that describes the National Fire Danger Rating System as a way to assess Fire Danger. Coastside (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps "Fire Danger Rating" would be a valid redirect to National Fire Danger Rating System, but I don't think "Fire danger" alone is valid since the term is too generic. Which WP:RFD#KEEP reason are you using? Despite being old, the redirect has exactly 3 links from mainspace (one from the article National Fire Danger Rating System itself), and only the link in Coconino National Forest is probably meant to link to National Fire Danger Rating System since it mentions the ratings "very high" and "extreme". The others refer to the general concept of fire danger. NFDRS is also only used in the United States. Winston (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding reasons to keep, everything in WP:RFD#HARMFUL, including edit history, breaking links from elsewhere (even outside wikipedia), delete only if harmful or recent; from WP:RFD#KEEP, aid in searches, such as if someone didn't know the name of the NFDRS. Good point about NFDRS being US only, but it wouldn't be harmful, just limited. If there were international versions of such programs, then someone might later think to redirect to "List of international fire danger rating systems" if they saw it was a link to the US-only system. Point is there is a strong bias to keep vs delete in the guidance. Coastside (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Fire. Someone searching for this is most likely looking for information about the dangers of fire in general, not the dangers associated with one kind of fire (such as wildfires), a system for determining how dangerous a fire is, how people stay safe in fires, or people who put out fires. The best starting point for finding information on the dangers associated with fire in general, and in fact many other fire-related topics, is the article about fire. Evil Sith Lord (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Fire per above (fires in general). MB 18:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wildfire for now and add a {{redirect}} hatnote to Fire safety. While vague and non-specific, I think this term is usually used in the context of wildfire danger rather than other types of fires. The current target clearly leaves something to be desired, fire is far too broad, fire safety does not discuss wildfires at all, and the various rating system articles (linked from wildfire in the See also) are too specific. Ideally, someone would turn this into a set index article, which I may give a go at some point, but for now let's find the most appropriate redirect target. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Fire per Evil Sith Lord. While the term is commonly used for wildfires it is not exclusively used for that and can refer to the danger from any sort of fire. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (As nominator) Retarget to Wildfire and add a disambiguation link to Fire safety, with no prejudice toward creating a set-index or broad-concept article later. I think the term is most often used for weather conditions favorable for wildfires, while fire hazard is more often used for a specific situation that increases the risk of a fire. NFDRS and similar systems are too specific IMO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to fire safety per User:Coastside, although I'd categorise it as {{R from antonym}}. Other suggestions are too specific. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. This not an established phrase so does not need a redirect; search results should do. As discussed above there is no clear target, with relevant content split across Fire, Fire safety and Wildfire, among others. User:GKFX^talk 18:39, 13 October 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. ✗plicit 10:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Str crop → Template:Str crop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Str index → Template:Str index  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Str left → Template:Str left  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Str right → Template:Str right  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Str rightc → Template:Str rightc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Str sub old → Template:Str sub old  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Cross-namespace redirect to a non reader-facing template does not seem useful. Hog Farm _Talk 05:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These cross-namespace redirects are not necessary; the templates they point to are largely unclear in their meaning (e.g. what should "crop" do, exactly?) and obsolete to Module:String anyway. I've nominated what I think is the rest of them too. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 3#Str_rightmost User:GKFX^talk 06:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. None has any main- or Template-namespace links. As for being "obsolete to Module:String", we usually wrap modules in templates, but there is no Template:String. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s a matter of personal taste whether or not to use a wrapper template inside other templates, but {{str sub new}} is the relevant wrapper template around Module:String for most of these if desired. User:GKFX^talk 19:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are good reasons wrapper functions exist. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We've veered off-topic, but the question of when wrapper templates are useful has been discussed elsewhere (1, 2) and the answer was that they are mostly useful in articles, talk pages and other prose, and less useful within other templates. Taking substrings should generally not be happening directly in articles which puts these templates into the latter, less useful category. However, these templates aren't at TfD so this doesn't really matter. User:GKFX^talk 18:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Urhixidur (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I'm personally unconvinced that the target templates should be considered obsolete, since they use Module:String and it's common practice for modules to have template wrappers. But, regardless, there is no good reason to have cross-namespace redirects for them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:17, 11 October 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 speedy delete as author request. ✗plicit 01:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "dick helicoptering" → 3-Way (The Golden Rule)#Reception  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:AFFINITY; no more affinity to be in quotes than any other title. Though the former is reason enough alone, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 4#Helicopter dick. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:57, 11 October 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Green fungus → Aspergillosis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, GScholar results suggest that "green fungus" more commonly refers to visibly-green fungal growths, including but not limited to Aspergillus. As the term isn't discussed in depth anywhere on Wikipedia, deletion seems like the way to go for now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objections to deletion of this redirect. There was some COVID19-related news in the Indian press where the term was used a couple of weeks ago, around mid-June, but I don't see anything to suggest that it ever became a sufficiently notable topic to warrant a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you referring to Black Fungus? Jay ^(Talk) 05:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I didn't see the link you mentioned in the redirect's edit summary. Jay (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The term is used generically to describe what appears to be a green-colored fungus-like thing growing on something. Lichen and green molds are sometimes incorrectly referred to as "green fungus". It's not a topic per se. I did find another technical exmple, Ellobiopsidae, referred to as "green fungus", but even there I think it's more of a descriptive term than an alternative common name.Coastside (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and mention in target per [4] and [5] and others - the top hits when I search for this term. MB 04:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit ironic that the first article you mention has this to say about the naming: "While the scientific name for this fungal infection is Aspergillosis, Green Fungus is merely a name that has been attributed to it. This biological fungus has been in existence for very long and we often see patients presenting symptoms for the same. It is imperative that we start referring to these fungal infections with their correct scientific name to avoid chaos."Coastside (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if this is a term recently invented by the media or doctors talking to media. If it has a reliable medical basis, then we need a mention at the target. Jay (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The term's long-term use doesn't seem exclusively associated with aspergillus and thus could possibly refer to any green fungus, so delete unless used and defined with RS at the current target. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:18, 24 October 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 keep. A sourced mention of this book was added to the target article during the course of the discussion. Deryck C. 17:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Big Black: Stand at Attica → Attica Prison riot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the title of a book about the prison riot, but is not mentioned at the target. Delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mentioned at Eisner Award for Best Reality-Based Work but that's not a suitable target. If it becomes notable, the article will replace the redlink. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's something that can be added to the Books section of the article. I'm not adding it because I was involved with running Best Graphic Novels for Adults list (and because I'm bad at formatting references, so the New York Times review reference probably needs to be expanded.) Thematthewmurray (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A non-fiction graphic novel entitled Big Black: Stand at Attica was released in 2020 and was co-written by Frank "Big Black" Smith, who had been an inmate during the riot.^[1] The graphic novel was included on the American Library Association's Graphic Novels and Comics Round Table's 2020 list of Top Ten Best Graphic Novels for Adults.^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thematthewmurray (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 September 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 Wrecking Crew (video game)#Gameplay. Deryck C. 17:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Foreman Spike → Characters in the Mario franchise#Foreman Spike  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The character that the redirect goes to on the article Characters in the Mario franchise is no longer on the article, proving the redirect pointless. Delete the redirect or have it go to the correct place if the character now goes by a different name on the article. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wrecking Crew (video game)#Gameplay {{R from fictional character}}Coastside (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the character was just recently confirmed for the upcoming Super Mario film. So I imagine the best option would just be to create an entry for the character on the list. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The page is already a mess as is. There's really no list criteria however I'm not sure if Foreman Spike would fit there anyways, being featured in only one game (and now being in the new film that's in production). ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sergecross73: pinging ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If there was inclusion criteria, and it failed it, I could see how that would be an issue. But I'm not following how a lack of inclusion criteria is somehow a roadblock. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sergecross73: I started a discussion on the talk page about adding one because a lot of the character's on there were basically only in one game. If we were to add it and that discussion suddenly gain traction then there would be an issue. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need for deletion here if the discussion currently on the charter page results in a consensus to mention the character the redirect should stay where it is and if there’s a consensus not to mention him there we should instead retarget to to Wrecking Crew (video game)#Gameplay since the character is mentioned there and it relevant to the section in question.--65.92.245.188 (talk) 03:43, 25 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election → 2020 Labour Party leadership election (UK)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Next Labour Party deputy leadership election → 2020 Labour Party deputy leadership election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to Leader_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK)#Selection and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) respectively. Most recent, but misleading to call either the "next". Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to a lack of information on when the next leadership election would be. Leader of the Labour Party (UK)#Selection gives the how, not the when. Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) does not mention future election(s). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:23, 3 October 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.