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 23:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. This vague description can refer to a lot of places. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most usages I can find online do refer to the Sims. I would say this qualifies as generic, however. Could arguably be retargeted to Planned community, but without any sources for that, I !vote Delete. 193.37.240.128 (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 23:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
No such list inside the article. The history is not important due to it having no reliable sources. This topic is not notable enough to restore the article and it would probably be listcruft anyways. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 22:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A list doesn't exist and really shouldn't exist as that gets into minor video game trivia, which isn't something that Wikipedia is for. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RefinetoThe Sims 2#Neighborhoods as that more or less gives such a list. Whether this content is suitable for the article is outside the scope of this discussion. A7V2 (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget: As I forgot that there is an actual section about the neighborhoods in The Sims 2. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 23:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Keep.Redirect to Personality and image of Elizabeth II. Left-wing political and anti-monarchist sources have (like it or not) used that name to refer to her for decades. It may have been derogatory, but it is real, and a perfectly reasonable redirect. Have a sourceortwo. Wikipedia is not pro-monarchy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC) PS: See my comment below re "Personality and image..." article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Ghmyrtle and my own research it seems to pretty unambiguously refer to Queen Elizabeth from a number of different sources that I saw it mentioned in, and it is a name used by enough sources it seems to be used enough to keep as a redirect. TartarTorte 20:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think. Yes, it might be used in a jokey way but I was trying to picture why it would be used as a search term. Would a dedicated anti-monarchist wanting to read up on Elizabeth II dogmatically insist on searching for Betty Windsor only?? Usually there's two reasons why a redirect term is searched for: someone knows the article subject primarily by the redirect term - highly improbable in this case; or someone has heard of the redirect term, doesn't know that it refers to the article subject and wants to know who it is a reference to. In the latter case, would they be any the wiser because of the redirect? There's no reference to it or explanation in Elizabeth II leading to, presumably, continuing puzzlement when they came to the article. Where's Brenda (Private Eye) as a redirect? If my thinking is faulty, happy to change. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expressing my sentiments better than I could. I could care less about whether such a redirect is derogatory, just whether it is encyclopedically useful to keep this as a redirect, and as you say this nickname is not mentioned on the page.
I'm sure that we have had to deal with issues over the length and (when she was living) the content of her article, so that not all references to her in the media will have been included in the article. The article content will change in the future, with the benefit of hindsight, so that terms like "Betty Windsor" and indeed "Brenda" may well be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Maybe it should be redirected to the same place as Tea with Betty.DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a republican & even I can see that this 'redirect' isn't acceptable. Same with Charles Mountbatten, Charles Windsor or any other such royal re-directs. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm American, so my ability to fully understand the cultural relevance of Private Eye seems to be constantly not fully there despite how much I learn about it, but from what I do understand/have learned about Private Eye, it is very popular but also full of in-jokes that are a completely foreign concept to those who do not read Private Eye; However unlike the name Brenda from Private Eye, the name Betty Windsor seems to be used by a variety of sources from opinions pieces in The Guardian and The Mirror. It is also used in a variety of Scottish and Australian sources. While it is not mentioned at the target, it seems like WP:R#D8 does not apply as it seems to be neither novel nor very obscure, with it being mentioned at a number of sources. TartarTorte 01:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The term "Betty Windsor" is not a Private Eye term - it's a widespread term (not "novel" or "very obscure") purporting to be her "real name". Private Eye used "Brenda". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed my comment for clarity because it scanned very poorly. TartarTorte 12:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Referred to as such sometimes. Per Ghmyrtle. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 08:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems common enough in usage to keep. Obvious connection so direct mention isn't needed, we don't, as far as I know, require every nickname to be mentioned in the target, just those that are a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name per WP:R#DELETE. Skynxnex (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to some article where it would be appropriate (per WP:WEIGHT and whatnot) to add a sourced mention and explanation of this nickname, perhaps Personality and image of Elizabeth II#Media perception where the Private Eye nicknames are already mentioned. As the above discussion reveals, there's all sorts of social context around this name, precisely none of which is explained in the target article or anywhere else. A person who does not know this context is left none the wiser by being redirected to the current target, particularly the top of the current target: they won't even get an explanation of the surname Windsor until more than two thousand words in. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the context is added to the article mentioned then I really like this. It does seem to explain "Betty Windsor" to anyone who doesn't know the term in a way where they can easily get to the Elizabeth II article, but also would provide context for why the name is relevant. TartarTorte 03:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this is a good solution, provided explanation is given at this article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I was not aware of that article. I've struck my "Keep" comment earlier. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a serious redirect. Similarly, "Elizabeth DNR" or "Old Lady Liz" would be similarly not a serious redirect. CandyStalnak (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCKClydeState your case (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 21:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources for the common use of those terms? "Betty Windsor" is a term in widespread use in certain circles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated that page for deletion, too (sorry to be a spoilsport). QueenofBithynia (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Split between keep and retarget. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ClydeState your case (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 21:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no one has ever officially called her by that name. I can forsee no circumstance in which an artocle would need to link to to 'Betty Windsor' and not 'Elizabeth II' EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I would also send this over to 'personality and image of Elizabeth II'. Yes, it's odd and maybe stupid. However, public leaders often have nicknames that're of this vein. The well-established redirect 'Tricky Dick' doesn't exactly roll off the tongue either, yet it still goes to the page for Richard Nixon all the same. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. Legoktm (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the best target for this redirect? Bessarabia is a historical region, and from what I can gather most (but not all) of what was "Central Bessarabia" is now Moldova, but the modern country also includes parts of other areas of the historical region that were not Central (and Transnistria was never part of Bessarabia). Neither the Bessarabia nor Moldova articles use the phrase "Central Bessarabia", but both use "Bessarabia" on its own extensively. The only geogrpahical article I've found that does use the exact term is Ținutul Prut, but that only mentions it in passing "It comprised parts of central Moldavia (and central Bessarabia)..." and doesn't mention the modern country of Moldova at all. In {{Eastern Bloc}} "Central Bessarabia" is piped to Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic but the closest that article comes to the term is "Beginning with the early 1950s, the government gradually abandoned the language standard based on the central Bessarabian speech...". Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Central Bessarabia is just Moldova without Transnistria. "A new Soviet republic, the Moldavian SSR was formed in 1940 of central Bessarabia and the previous autonomous region of Moldavia in the Soviet Union." [this refers to the Moldavian ASSR, Transnistria's predecessor] [1]. As Northern Bessarabia and Southern Bessarabia exist, I thought Central Bessarabia, which is also a real concept, should also have a redirect. Note for example that in Romanian, Moldova or Moldovans are sometimes just referred to as Bessarabia or Bessarabians (basarabeni), ignoring the Transnistrian part. SuperΨDro 07:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the vagueness caused by the historical complexity involved, it seems best to just let people search. I think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion to aid search results is not a good idea as the term appears in many articles as part of the {{Eastern Bloc}} template, and the other search result per nom is of the language. It may be retargeted to the article that describes or gives the most information about central Bessarabia. I don't see such an article. The current target is an equal, but not better target than Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic which per Super Dro was the political / geographical successor of central Bessarabia. Either retarget to the SSR, or delete until we have good contextual content in some article. Jay 💬 05:23, 1 November 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 disambiguate. Even if this didn't have the numerical majority, this is actually the only acceptble outcome here, policy-wise, as the page when deleted was not a redirect, but rather a disambiguation page along the lines of what's proposed here. I will restore Narky Blert's DAB, and will also restore the PRODded article Channa Mohallah, Mian Sahib, and redirect it to Mian Sahib#Cityscape, as it is now mentioned there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Thryduulf. I think this is better than moving Channa Mohallah, Jacobabad back to this title, since I seriously doubt that passes WP:GEOLAND (can't find evidence of being a legally-recognised settlement as opposed to just a neighbourhood, and even the Sindhi-language coverage does little more than verify that the place exists, e.g. [2]). It seems to be an accepted practice to disambiguate or set-indexify ambiguous non-notable placenames, e.g. the whole Category:Lists of places sharing the same name. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disambiguation can be achieved with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. However retargeting to Univision as a better target per the suggestions. Jay 💬 15:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While "UNIHD" was how this network (as Universal HD) was at one time referred to in at least some television listings, other listings use that label in association with the HD feedofUnivision. There is possible ambiguity, and I'm not sure the current target is the most appropriate one at this point. WCQuidditch☎✎ 01:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Univision: As Univision currently uses the abbreviation and has always been a more watched channel, it seems we can retarget there and just have a {{redirect|UNIHD|the network formerly known as Universal HD|Olympic Channel (American TV channel)}} hatnote at Univision. (The text could be reworked, I'm never great at writing those). TartarTorte 18:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For discussion on a primary topic. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not noteworthy-enough of an abbreviation to be listed at either suggested target. --Tavix(talk) 19:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One last relist attempt, seeing as each relist has drawn out a different suggestion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 Polskor to Polska (dance), keep Polija and retarget the rest to Names of Poland. Jay 💬 07:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are redirects from, respectively, the Indonesian, Latvian and French words for "Poland" and the Swedish word for "Polish women". Languages of Poland suggests no strong affinity between these languages and Poland. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:POFR, one reason for redirects is so that "Alternative names redirect to the most appropriate article title". "Polandia", "Polija", and "Pologne" are alternative names for Poland. McPhail (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:FORRED. As the nominator states, these redirects' languages do not have affinity to their target. Steel1943 (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. As these are not English language alternative names, and the said languages don't have strong affinity to Poland. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 08:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POFR does not specify that alternative names must be in the same language. McPhail (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the redirects do have to be appropriate and useful. WP:FORRED is the guideline that deals with foreign language redirects specifically and explains which ones are useful to readers, which ones aren't and why. In this case Polska, being the polish term for Poland, has a clear connection with the target and is one that English readers may encounter and want to use to look up information about the subject in English. In contrast there is almost no affinity between Indonesian and Polish - someone searching "Polandia" is most likely wanting to read information about Poland in Indonesian and they will not find that here so we should not mislead people into thinking they can. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For a differing argument for two of the entries. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all butPolskor: The first are alternate spellings for Poland in other languages, but Polish woman is not the same word as Poland. RPI2026F1 (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pologne and Polija; delete rest: per Mellohi. Anything that reasonable has an affinity from a foreign language to English (of which Pologne and Polija have) then there's reason to keep those. Others are not helpful and are WP:RLOTE especially Polskor which doesn't translate to Poland. TartarTorte 12:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RetargetPolandia and PolognetoNames of Poland where readers can find information about those names. Undecided on Polija (which surprisingly isn't mentioned at the names article) nor Polskor (which in English seems to be used solely in reference to Polska (dance)). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 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 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 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 23:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find sources online about what this is --Lenticel(talk) 00:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 23:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be an in fandom notable member but is otherwise not notable enough to be mentioned in the wiki --Lenticel(talk) 00:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 23:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
All of the expansion packs articles are split up into different articles depending on the game and there is no general list for all of the expansion packs in the article thus making the reader confused on where to go. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 23:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the members of a re-occurring family in the Sims franchise but is otherwise a non-notable NPC. --Lenticel(talk) 09:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 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. Legoktm (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep targeted to Super Mario World (with the caveat that the targets need to change to "#Re-releases"). The second Advance game is a remake of World, so I think that's the most logical thing someone would be looking for. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at current target while Mario Bros 2 was released as Mario Advance I believe that someone typing Super Mario Brothers 2 Advance is more likely looking for the GBA release of Mario World which was released as Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Which section? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde!Franklin! 16:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 23:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what this is. Whatever this is, it is not mentioned in the article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being the designer of a simulation a.k.a a 'sim designer' is an extremely general concept. Not sure where it could go. Would rather that we just delete this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "sim" itself is a vague concept and "designer" just makes it even more vague. --Lenticel(talk) 09:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity page from the creator, who simply bypassed the CSD by BLARing it! Jay 💬 15:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Restore article (and presumably send to AfD). Was an article, originally titled SimPrograms (see below discussion) for 9 years, and has references [3]. A7V2 (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice to Afd per A7V2. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and discuss at AfD. Jay 💬 14:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 23:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article content in history would likely be deleted at Afd. Alternatively, restore and let the PROD tag that was placed minutes before it was BLARed run its course. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mdewman6. Looking at the pre-BLAR content, AfD is not worth it. Jay 💬 13:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. Closing 1½ hours early due to the redirects being from moves and a misguided rationale. (non-admin closure)Clyde!Franklin! 10:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RFD#K4 (since these are from page moves) and since these seem like completely reasonable search terms. The nom's rationale has no relevance to redirects, so this perhaps should be speedily kept per WP:SK3. A7V2 (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A7V2. @Santiago Claudio: Redirects need not always confirm to the article title conventions, as long as they are good search terms or may have incoming (internal or external) links, which is especially a case when pages are moved from one title to another. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 08:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Given that these are misspellings of the same term they should probably have the same target, I'm unsure where the best target is though. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or retarget Sorceror's Stone? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde!Franklin! 11:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both per Shhh. I think the second redirect is a plausible misspelling of the first. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both per Mdewman. Not a common word we use, the misspelling is acceptable. We also have Sorceror (character class) from 2005, pointing to the proper spelling. Jay 💬 11:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Replace this with an article on the orchestra Symphoria - I have an early draft at User:Newystats/Symphoria, and add a hatnote for the plant.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newystats (talk • contribs) 08:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted about this at Wikiproject Plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newystats (talk • contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I interpreted article from redirect to refer to the case when it was on the same topic. This isn't. If it's OK, I'll just do it. Newystats (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Artist not primarily known for their Monstercat work. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unless nom can prove other notable record labels this artist contributed to, this is the only notable record label with known contributions by this artist. Jalen Folf(talk) 09:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
A "cross paty" and a "cross matese" are not at all the same thing. Until an article gets written for a "cross paty," we are better off having nothing at all in this namespace rather than a misdirected redirect that does not cover the subject. A loose necktie (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Implausable redirect with a page name you would expect to find in the Template namespace. Serves no purpose. Aidan9382(talk) 06:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Aidan9382's reason above. I created the page originally in 2009, but it was not a redirect then: it was a document explaining the notability of the Alexandrov Ensemble Choir page. The original contents of the page should have been on the article talk page anyway, so that document creation and subsequent change to redirect were errors on my part. Please delete. Storye book (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Can't see how the Austrian party is the primary topic over the German one. (Clarification: I do not believe there is a primary topic.) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see your point. Could be that this should be a dab page instead. —Nightstallion 22:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Die Grünen: It seems that GRÜNE currently redirects to The Greens – The Green Alternative because they have GRÜNE as a ballot abbreviation in their infobox, but Alliance 90/The Greens does not; however, both seem to have GRÜNE as their ballot abbreviations. This DAB page also list the two other parties that use GRÜNE. TartarTorte 22:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, as I agree there is no clear primary topic. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No new !votes since 1st relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde!Franklin! 02:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would like to just comment as already !voted, but my retarget suggestion is a DAB page that essentially already exists for all parties that use GRÜNE as an abbreviation. TartarTorte 14:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer this too. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
These two redirects are about to become one and the same due to the Unicode 11 case map migration but currently point to different places. Hence, a discussion is needed to decide which target is preferable. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd set both to point to XI. Urhixidur (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The dab page at XI links to 11 (number) so that' is clearly the better target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — for context for those unaware, each of those above are a singular Unicode character, specifically a character designed with Roman numerals in mind. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget bothtoNumerals in Unicode#Roman numerals, which is the single target that offers the most information about both the upper and lower-case forms, in particular both why they exist and what they mean. Nothing else at XI (disambiguation) is written using these characters, and 11 (number) is suboptimal given that has barely any information either about Roman numerals (just one line in the infobox) or about Unicode. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is confused, Tim Starling went ahread and deleted the conflicting lowercase version. This discussion can remain open to decide where to target the uppercase version. * Pppery *it has begun... 00:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, confusing. So now the uppercase version is listed twice above instead? What was the basis for the speedy deletion of the other one, when the discussion currently unanimously favors retargeting (though split on the target)? Mdewman6 (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdewman6: Early deletion due to meta:Unicode 11 case map migration. Lowercase version had to be deleted due to upcoming technical limitations. Discussion can continue, and result applied to uppercase version. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 21:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 03:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 03:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I got hits for Vithi but not for Vithis --Lenticel(talk) 04:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 03:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 03:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#The Sims 2 Characters
