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.
This appears to refer to the "-mas" suffix in English, which specifically originates from the Christian mass (the current target). There are some words that fit into this category, though the most obvious one is "Christmas". However, while originating from the word "mass", the suffix doesn't seem to specifically refer to it anymore, and so the redirect may not strictly be related to the topic and might be misleading. If it is kept, then it should be a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry, however a deletion per WP:SSRT seems fine as well. Randi MothTalkContribs13:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ending with "-mas" doesn't necessarily mean being suffixed with "-mas". Most of the words listed in the provided link, if not every single one, end with "-ma" in their singular form, with the "-s" plural ending added. While they end with "-mas", they do not use the "-mas" suffix. People searching for "-mas" would primarily search for the suffix in particular rather than just every single word ending with "-mas", similarly to how the -s article only points towards the two English endings that consist entirely of "-s", rather than all words or suffixes that end with "-s". Randi MothTalkContribs12:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if there is no consensus at the end of the day, but that most votes are not for keeping, the redirect should not be kept as is. What is to be done (as of now, either soft redirect or deletion) is up to the closer. Veverve (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d support that, though I usually support the “common reader’s likely response” option first, which is why I voted “delete” as confusing. Dronebogus (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Vix Pervenit: On Usury and Other Dishonest Profit[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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 topic is broader than this, and has likely seen significant development in the last three centuries. Therefore, the target is misleading.
Furthermore, WP:REDYES, so that an article (like one exists for Judaism at Loans and interest in Judaism) can be created.
Thus, I propose deletion, Veverve (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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.
There is no such battle named "Battle of Peshawar" which took place in 1758. However, "Capture of Peshawar" did take place which is the existing title of the article. "Battle of Peshawar" redirecting to Capture of Peshawar (1758) may confuse our readers who may get misled to believe that such a battle took place. Therefore, this redirection should better be deleted. Dympies (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
Unnecessary. Also who knows if such a term will come to be used outside WP. And even though at times I have wished I could find WP-editing info through mainspace. But then that should be implemented consistently throughout, possibly by bot. Ponken (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suprisingly, there does not seem to be any encyclopedic mention of this anywhere, and this doesn't seem useful enough to mandate a CNR. Interestingly, this seems to have been nominated by a sock of the creator... {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 01:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The only mention I can find in mainspace is at clean URL. Retargeting there doesn't seem helpful to readers since it only mentions the term without explaining what it means. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 and return to WP space: I don't see anything that can be even slightly construed as an attack. The essay merely proposes an alternative consensus process to WP:BRD. I was going to move it back myself, but I can't. Possibly because I made a mistake and got the namespace wrong on my first attempt. Larataguera (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article in User space and returned the essay to its original location. I don't understand why it was moved without discussing it with the page creator. LizRead!Talk!23:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
Delete An attack page disguised as an essay used to insult other editors; redirect not needed and the userspace one should also be nuked. Nate•(chatter)20:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 leaning towards "keep". There is at least no consensus that there's anything particularly wrong with the draft in the history under the redirect. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is tantamount to grave-dancing. I don't really pay attention to the world of humor essays and have no idea what kinds of policies govern its content, but while it's a bit abrasive, it doesn't strike me as obviously disprutive (especially for humor, which often is rude), and it definitely doesn't rise to the level of an attack page. It's currently a redirect and not hurting anyone like that. Just leave it be. —Compassionate727(T·C)15:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
* Return to Wikipedia space: The essay had a few passages that were unnecessarily critical of established editors. I have removed those, and I don't see any reason to get rid of this essay. I was going to move it back myself, but I can't. Possibly because I made a mistake on my first attempt and got the namespace wrong. Larataguera (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 – {{R from move}}s like so should be kept per K4. There's essentially no benefit in deleting these redirects, and deletion harms editors trying to work out the chain of moves that occurred. J947 † edits22:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Notwithstanding the fact that the nominator was indef-blocked as a sock, these redirects are all costly and implausible, and have zero links from mainspace. I don't see how deleting them would harm editors following the series of moves. In fact, I would even say that deletion helps this tracking – deleted pages show all moves that involved their titles, whereas for actual pages it's only possible to see the moves which occurred after their creation (in most cases). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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 It's generally considered the 17th in the series. The Fire Emblem series has always never been numbered officially, but it's a believable search. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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. Arguments thus far show several editors in favor of keep or delete, respectively, with minimal prospect for reaching a consensus. Given that circumstance, and that the nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, I think closing this discussion now without prejudice to future renomination is appropriate. signed, Rosguilltalk16:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm usually very cautious in how a redirect meant to help editors might affect readers who see it (i.e., mainspace–somewhere else XNRs), but the term userspace draftnear-solely refers to wikis, and obviously that is near-solely Wikipedia. Searching in the wrong namespace is a very neweditor thing to do, as is creating a userspace draft. Hence, there've been pageviews. Not sure what unneededorunnecessary means in this context, but I think the plusses outweigh the minuses here. J947 † edits22:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per J947, this is not a believable article name or search term besides this purpose, so it seems harmless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).