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 23:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article previously existed at this page that was deleted at AfD. There are a handful of mentions in enwiki, but none seem worthy of a redirect. Delete to defer to search results. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, collides with the "blue link or notability to be added here" policy too. Ffaffff (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no longer useful --Lenticel(talk) 00:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 keep. I am withdrawing my nomination. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In heat reasonably targets the same page, but "on heat" does not seem to be a synonym or related phrase, and is likely ambiguous. Suggest deletion to avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it can be used as a synonym for "in heat". Withdrawing nomination as speedy keep. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Nonsensical search term using Greek letter μ instead of Latin letter U. Senator2029【talk】 19:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While on first sight I would agree with the nom, these sorts of redirects were previously subject to RfD and were kept. We would need a compelling argument about how things have changed since the past RfD, or why the reasoning and/or consensus from then was (and still is) incorrect. Note that there appear to be dozens of such redirects, not just these two, and we would need to treat them uniformly. Note that I combined the two nominations with the same rationale into a single discussion Mdewman6 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. Redirects are cheap, and this was a valid redirect at one time. Someone might run across『The Villages, FL μSA』in a Federal document or other source and search for the term. As an aside, the Office of Management and Budget, which designates statistical areas, officially names them using two-letter abbreviations for state names, so the above redirects are the official names used by the Federal government. - Donald Albury 22:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though μSA is micropolitan statistical area, I find it to be rare that users will use the explicit definition of μSA due to μ. I thought articles about any μSA is directed to the MSA because usually the μSA is a part of the MSA? The list of micropolitan statistical areas are a bit of a mix as well. – The Grid (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may try to find and RfD multi-county MSAs/μSAs that are redirects to one county within them, akin to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Appleton, WI MSA, but these one-county statistical areas refer to the exact same area as the county and should be kept. (With regards to the issue that The Villages has since been "upgraded" to a MSA, the redirect will still be helpful for those reading documents from, say, 2000; this PDF confirms that it did in fact use to be a μSA.) eviolite(talk) 13:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's rationale is that it's a typo for USA. It's not; it is correct as is. HotdogPi 18:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an abbreviation in official use. Clearly a plausible search term then (eg copypasting from some census document etc). A7V2 (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 23:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "Suiyuan" at the target; looking at Suiyuan, it appears to refer to a former administrative region of China that is not particularly close to Tauran. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Maybe some kind of strange mixup with the unrelated Suiyuan campaign? --Havsjö (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Yevhen Makarenkothe same, as Yevhen Konoplyanka etc[edit]
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 per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the result of a page move in 2019 by Noel baran that was self-revered two mintues later. I'm presuming this was an error? Yevhen Makarenko redirects to the same target as this redirect, Yevhen Konoplyanka is a different person (they're Ukrainian footballers who share the same/similar first name but that's the only connection I'm immediately seeing). Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This "redirection" is a pure mess. I didn't noticed it (I wanted to make redirection from "Yevhen Makarenko" and don't know how created such thing). If possibly immediatly to remove it, I'll be very grateful. --Noel baran (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible, so that makes life simple. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this term is non-neutral and is not established, thus unlikely to be useful. Balkovec (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant violation of NPOV, biased politically motivated redirect that should be deleted. The term doesnt even have widespread use to justify such a redirect in the first place RWB2020 (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While we usually keep POV redirects if they are useful (see {{R from non-neutral name}}), I'm not seeing evidence of widespread usage of this particular term. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk) 18:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 09:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RefinetoIrish nationalism#Militant separatism and Irish independence, Google Scholar search results suggest that Irish separatism is almost always used in the context of the nationalist independence movement prior to the establishment of the Republic of Ireland. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Per the description of "utricle" in the target article, as well as third party search results, it seems the subject of this redirect is a different subject than the target article's subject. For this reason, delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe Steel1943 is correct. "Utricles are essentially achenes in which the pericarp is significantly larger than the mature seed" (Simpson, 2010). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The problem here is with the self-redirect in the target article, not the redirect itself. Users searching this will be brought to place where WP currently has the most information on the topic. Alternatively, retarget to Glossary_of_botanical_terms#utricleas{{R to list entry}}, but I favor the former. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk) 18:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 09:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
RedirecttoForbidden color since this is the original meaning, and the title of the novel is secondary. Balkovec (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Veverve (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay(talk) 06:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguator "(medicine)" seems misleading since the subject is not a medicine but rather a disease. Also, the redirect's title fails WP:RDAB due to a lack of space between the title and the disambiguator; the properly spaced title, Scleroderma (medicine), does not exist, but I do not think it should either per my initial statement. Steel1943 (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Deletion makes perfect sense to me. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as malformed modifier --Lenticel(talk) 12:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 13:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The target section doesn't exist, and neither does the redirect's title's properly-spaced variant Edge (Tech Fest of Techno India). (In 2014, this redirect was an article for less than 5 minutes before being subject to a WP:BLAR.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete as useless --Lenticel(talk) 01:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay(talk) 06:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space between the title and the disambiguator. However, though the properly-spaced variant, Minister (Government), does not exist, the version with a lower case "g", Minister (government), exists and targets the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As a WP:R2. Jay(talk) 06:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the "film" subjects at the target disambiguation page were released in 2008. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#R2. Looks like this is a {{R from move}} from a draftification by the nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it was an old draft that I restored and moved to the draft namespace in the event it gets worked on to a state where it can be brought back to the article namespace. And ... I just realized that I could have moved the article to the draft namespace, then tagged this nominated redirect for {{Db-r2}} instead of retargeting it back to the disambiguation page, as stated. (I used to be more active with this process ... I think my head isn't working with a full set of marbles at the moment, but thankfully I'm acquiring them again.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 13:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was the former Chair of the Libertarian Party of Rhode Island at the time I made the redirect. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 16:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk) 05:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This presently targets the dab page at Uren, but none of the articles listed there (plaecs and peopel with the surname) reasonably take a plural. Until 2018 it targetted to Myrmecia urens, search results indicate there are other genuses with a species called "Urens" so redirecting to one of them would be WP:XY. I'm not sure whether it best to disambiguate the species (I'm not immediately seeing any other uses) or to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete species names never stand alone in any formal/encyclopedic context. There is no need to disambiguate them. Species names may occasionally stand alone in informal (usually conversational, not written) contexts between biologists when the context of the genus has already been established. That is a classic partial title match scenario, just as a much as if I agree to meet a friend from my city at "the zoo" (our shared city of residence establishing the context of the only zoo in that city). Plantdrew (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the people with the surname is obviously a list of Urens, so if you were looking for people by that surname, the plural form would be a logical search term -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 06:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk) 05:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've obviously not done a completely exhaustive search, but I have looked for the plural of several common surnames and, where there are not things or people by that name also (e.g. Smiths, Mays) when the surname is sometimes listed as a see-also, there doesn't seem to be any precedent for plural of surname to list of people with that singular surname redirects. If I wanted a specific person who I didn't know was ambiguous I'd search on the singular. If I wanted a list of people with the surname I'd search on one of "List of people with the surname Foo", "Foo (surname)" or "Foo (disambiguation)". Thryduulf (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Highly unusual and confusing way to call these two films, extremely unlikely to be used a search term. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And "Spider-Man 2 3"? – SirDot (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: nonsensical. Veverve (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - I see no good reason to keep either of these. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of examples of redirects that go by the sequel numbering even if it is not literally used in the film. Why shouldn't that apply for contiguous franchises like this where there are multiple movies that could be considered as Spider-Man 2? Unusual does not mean wrong. MrBlonde267 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This formatting would not be used to reflect any of that. This is very unconventional to attempt to state what it's trying to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't even make sense. How is Far From Home the 3rd film of the 2nd film series while the film right after No Way Home is the 2nd film of the 3rd series? Even without these issues these are pointless and bad. Also, where does Spider-Man (1978 film) fit in this scheme? Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Never heard Wikipedia being called "The Other Wiki", plus this name is not mentioned in the article. I dug a little deeper, and it appears this was an accepted AFC request based on an obscure TV Tropes page, which is not enough to justify this redirect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without an official non-WP:NEO-creating source, any wiki could be "The Other Wiki", leaving this redirect helplessly circular in its references. Steel1943 (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay(talk) 06:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See [1][2]. Funny and accurate, but not mentioned at target and unlikely to be mentioned in the near future. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was mentioned back in 2018--2019 at the draft, but the draft staled out and hasn't been recovered since. Okay to delete. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not mentioned at the target, and there's no encyclopedic potential for the term. — Bilorv (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick google search doesn't show much in the way of reliable sourcing for this term's use. Doesn't seem like we need a mention of it. Loki (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 12#Video game publication
→ Hardee County, Florida (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
