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. Salviogiuliano 23:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Useless, unhelpful redirect. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: could refer to any sacraments, the parentheses are unhelpful and unnecessary. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (). Which sacraments does it refer to? And what's a disambiguator without anything to disambiguate a term from (or specifying what it refers to)? Regards, SONIC678 () 23:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete () per nom. The page history indicates that this redirect was created automatically to fix Sacraments (, a page which has itself been deleted due to having been made in error by a bad page move. The title looks vaguely like a functionorsubroutine evaluation, but it would be extremely implausible (and likely unnatural) to name a function "Sacraments". Duckmather (talk) 00:11, 7 March 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 delete. Salviogiuliano 23:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous redirect, could also refer to taxa like Palaeoloxodon antiquus among others. I think it should just be deleted without creating a disambiguation page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While there's technically a valid reason to DAB, it seems unlikely that anyone would actually search this. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate – it's a plausible search term, because names of species are often abbreviated this way. A Google Books search for "P. antiquus" in quotation marks finds lots of examples. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 14:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unlikely search term, as abbreviated scientific names are always preceded in a document by an unabbreviated name. If there is a dab page, is it going to be restricted to species that have articles on Wikipedia? If somebody does happen to search for "P. antiquus" they may very well be looking for a species that doesn't yet have an article on Wikipedia. C. elegans (disambiguation) is Wikipedia's longest dab page, and an effort was made to create stubs for every species with that abbreviation, but I don't think it has ended up being very helpful to readers, although it does illustrate the folly of having dab pages for species abbreviations. Plantdrew (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is very bad practice to refer to a species in this manner, unless either the full binomial name has already been used in the text, or the text is describing a genus and is listing its member species. Also, as noted already, the term P. antiquus is not unique; there are many genera beginning with the letter P, and there is no prohibition on, say, the name Panthera antiquus being used for a newly-described species of extinct large carnivore. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 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 Speedy delete (WP:G7). Page author requested deletion and page was deleted by Deb accordingly. (non-admin closure)TartarTorte 15:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any evidence that the target subject ever went by "middle name" "last name" in any works, making this redirect a potential WP:BLP issue. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe he was never known as this per MOS or NOM. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are the redirect's creator, so that means this is WP:G7 now... Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 7 March 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 retarget and disambiguate, respectively. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This source seems to imply that Tangxi station is an alternate name for Guangzhou Baiyun station, although I am not sure of either the reliability of the source or how widespread the usage of that name is. Furthermore, it and Tangxi railway station get next to no traffic. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I WP:BOLDly merged the nominations for Tangxi station and Tangxi railway station, since their fates are tied: they should either be deleted together, retargetted together, or one should end up pointing to the other if there's a consensus for disambiguation. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying its status, @59.149.117.119:. In that case, I would support your suggestion (Disambiguate). Edward-Woodrow (talk) 01:57, 7 March 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.
Not mentioned in the target. Onel5969TT me 17:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a romanization of 나 좀 봐줘 the Korean title. Qatchlist (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the title is『나 좀 봐줘 (One More Chance)』and this would be a romanization of it. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 08:18, 8 March 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 delete. Salviogiuliano 23:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator per prior rationale Atavoidturk (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RFD#D8 and the original speedy deletion rationale. Simple keystroke errors are not plausible typos, and we needn't keep redirects for every possible instance of someone's fingers getting away from them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a useful redirect as it's an unlikely search term. We don't need every possible typo in which two characters are shifted. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 6 March 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.
No mention at the target. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This appears to be a fairly common alternative name, but often without the 'the': [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The page gets sporadic traffic, but people do use it (Page views). I would thus suggest keeping it, but also creating a twin redirect at Hammer of Heretics. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:12, 6 March 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 "The" makes this redirect quite unhelpful. Veverve (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: How does the "the" make it unhelpful? This seems like a perfectly plausible search term, and the page receives steady traffic. ([6]) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:31, 9 March 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 speedy delete. CSD G7 LizRead!Talk! 19:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not needed, I regret making the redirect a lot. Tom Cruise is his stage name. Suggest deleting. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the future, you can tag the page with {{Db-author}} to nominate your own redirects for deletion. See WP:G7 for more info. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:05, 6 March 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).
List of terms for white people in non-Western cultures[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 delete. After two relists, delete has a clear majority, no other proposal has support beyond its initial suggestion, and I don't see a policy-based reason to discount the arguments for deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently originally a separate list before becoming a redirect. Not sure who would be searching this or whether the target list would satisfy them (of the minority of terms that refer to white people, most originate in Western countries). An anonymous username, not my real name 00:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody can find a more appropriate target then delete it without prejudice to later recreation as something more useful. Not all terms for white people in non-Western cultures are slurs and most of the slurs on the target page aren't even terms for white people in non-Western cultures so the redirect is completely unhelpful to anybody looking for that. Maybe it should be turned back into an actual article? There is potentially a legitimate subject here. DanielRigal (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all terms for white-people in non-Western cultures is a slur. Delete to encourage article creation(if it is notable). Carpimaps (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A search for "white" at the target helps the reader in what he is looking for. Hence, keep unless there is a better target. Anyone should be able to create a draft out of the "white" entries from the target for a potential standalone list, and/or request a draftification of the list deleted in 2012 at WP:Articles for deletion/List of terms for white people in non-Western cultures. Jay 💬 08:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not a close enough match. The target is not a subset or a superset of the subject identified by the redirect, and there's not even that much overlap. It is also WP:ASTONISHing to redirect readers to a list of slurs when they didn't search for anything related to slurs. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 15:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retargettowikt:Thesaurus:white person, which lists several different terms for white people from outside the West, although they're all in English so it might be geographically unbalanced. (I was expecting to find translations of "white people" or something similar on Wiktionary, but alas, there are not enough of them.) Duckmather (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seeking consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:48, 6 March 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 delete. After two relists, while there's still some uncertainty being expressed, there is no real opposition to deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was previously an article about a theological opinion related to Death of God theology. However, there is no mention of this concept at the target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the target for the redirects was God is dead, and the nom changed the target to the current one 4 minutes before the nomination. Jay 💬 10:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because as the article stated, before being turned into a redirect, that the concept is a variant of the Death of God theology. Veverve (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to the observation noted above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 07:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult one. According to the former article, it is actually quite distinct from theothanatology, due to supposing that God has merely withdrawn and the possibility of his return; in this respect, it reminds me most of Jainism. That said, the original article appears to have been entirely OR, and a Google search only returns book titles, so I have my doubts this is actually a distinct strand of theology. Maybe it would be best to restore and AfD? On the other hand, I would not object to simply deleting the redirects as originally proposed. —Compassionate727(T·C) 14:14, 9 March 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.
AnWP:XY situation with the disambiguator. A cercaria is a larval stage of a trematode; Cercaria (genus) is a particular genus of trematodes. Plantdrew (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that content was merged to the target in 2017. Jay 💬 13:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoCercaria as an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. If the trematode life stage is the primary topic for "Cercaria" (which it appears to be), then it's also the primary trematode-related topic for the term. – Uanfala (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 07:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:47, 6 March 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 delete. Legoktm (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unneeded and only had a few transclusions, which I replaced. Obviously, it's intended as an initialism for Find a Grave; however, the resulting word is unfortunate and best avoided. At least the redirect Template:FAG is a little more obvious that it's an abbreviation. MClay1 (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what benefit comes from deleting this exactly? Only someone using this would ever see it, and given the existence of Template:FAG I don't see any benefit which comes from deleting the lowercase version. Shortcuts even for templates are not just for use in wikitext but also directly in the url, or in edit summaries, for example. Further, old versions of articles may be broken by deleting this (and in all of these instances deleting the redirect wouldn't stop people from seeing it, which appears to be the only reason for the nomination here). A7V2 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only seen by the person using it – it can be seen by anyone in the wikitext and it would be highly confusing to unfamiliar users. Deprecated templates and unused template redirects are deleted all the time; it breaking something in an article history isn't really a concern, especially not in this case with such a minor template. What benefit comes from keeping it? MClay1 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a reason to delete, but this just seems like either WP:IDONTLIKEIT or a solution in search of a problem. As I already asked, what benefit comes from deleting this? Deleting this redirect will not change what is visible in the wikitext, and as you said in your edit summary, you already removed it from wherever it was. "Unneeded" isn't really a reason to delete. Is Template:Rfd "needed" when Template:RFD and Template:RfD also exist? So given that deleting this will break links, at least in old versions of some articles, there ought to be a reason to delete it (and furthermore, if someone is to view such an old version for whatever reason, instead of seeing the citation created by this template they will instead see a redlink to this redirect). A7V2 (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my reasons for why it should be deleted – the benefit to deleting it is avoiding those issues. Deleting it will cause it to no longer be visible in wikitext because people will have to stop using it. If it's not deleted, there's no reason to believe no one will ever use it again. It's only not being used currently because I replaced all the instances. MClay1 (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Contradictory to what the above commentor said, everyone can see the usage of this link which at best is ambiguous to what exactly it's meant for. Links should be clear and should not require editors to go through hoops to understand what is meant by them. This isn't a good shortcut (though to be fair, most ones here are awful and lazy). Gonnym (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting way to describe the situation ("Contradictory to what the above commentor said...") given there was no mention by me or the nominator above of any potential ambiguity, or lack thereof. I should perhaps clarify what I meant by the danger of breaking links: if this is deleted, then in old versions of articles which used this shortcut there will be an error and a redlink to this. If kept, then all that will be seen is the wikitext (since the template will still work), and given the existence of the redirect it wouldn't take someone long to figure out what it is for. I don't foresee anyone adding it to any new articles. It would perhaps be helpful if there was some kind of Template:R from depreciated shortcut that could be added to such redirects. I don't agree that this is ambiguous. Firstly, it has (to my knowledge) only been used for one purpose, and ambiguity within internal redirects such as these is to me determined by intended actual usage, not theoretical usage. Secondly, I can't see anyone using it any more. Thirdly, I don't see anything else this could refer to, and you haven't given anything as would normally be expected of someone arguing a redirect is ambiguous. A7V2 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And fourthly, anything this could be ambiguous with would surely also be a grounds to delete Template:FAG, but this has not been advocated here. A7V2 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
anything this could be ambiguous with would surely also be a grounds to delete Template:FAG I would be fine with this as well. I support your nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:46, 6 March 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.
I have bundled in another 7 nearly identical redirects, all of which currently target Alzheimer's disease. Some previously targeted Eggcorn, some did not. A7V2 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a relatively common eggcorn and I'm not sure that another target, such as eggcorn, would suit people better as this is probably what they want when searching for this term. TartarTorte 14:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep all or retarget to Eggcorn? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 14:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep targeted to Alzheimer's disease. I think the most likely scenario is someone searching for that because they either don't know the correct name or they don't know the intended meaning of the eggcorn. Arriving instead at Eggcorn would be confusing. MClay1 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 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 delete. Salviogiuliano 23:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect was the result of a page move, but either redirection should have been suppressed, or the resulting redirect should have been tagged G6. This redirect is incorrect as a search term and has negative value. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, holding up acceptance of a draft at AfC — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete holding uo a draft acceptance, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 6 March 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, retarget toPathan (disambiguation). There is no consensus as to whether to move the film to Pathaan or create another disambiguation page, however there is clearly a consensus against keeping the current target. In these circumstances, an outcome of "no consensus, retarget" or "no consensus, disambiguate" is recommended rather than the default to keep. Since having separate disambiguation pages on different spellings is discouraged, a retarget to Pathan (disambiguation) seems the best option. (non-admin closure)Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently targets Pashtuns, but there is a new Indian movie called Pathaan (film) that might also be a reasonable target. A user attempted a copy-paste move to this page, so I'm bringing the redirect up here for discussion. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 02:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate so that it mentions Pashtuns, the film and anything else that people could be searching for. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Pashtuns is the more important topic, but Pathaan seems to be a relatively uncommon spelling; Google search and news are dominated by the film, which could be just because it's recent, but in Google book search some of the results refer to the ethnic group but many are unrelated. Peter James (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per above --Lenticel(talk) 01:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move the film to Pathaan and hatnote Pashtuns. The film has the uncommon spelling per Peter James. Jay 💬 07:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move and hatnote. Disambiguation seems unneccesary when the spelling is uncommon. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pathaan is a simple spelling variant of Pathan (the a is there to better approximate the long a of the term in e.g. Hindi/Urdu paṭhān), and so should ideally have the same target as the redirect Pathan. If the film is indeed a prominent use, then Pathaan can be retargeted to Pathan (disambiguation). – Uanfala (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that of the 43 entries at the dab, the only Pathaan is the film entry. Jay 💬 13:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 02:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and put a hatnote to the film. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist as comments are very divided and I don't want to close this as no consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 06:06, 6 March 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 Zarathustra present in Nietzche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra is not a philosopher. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although some hermits were philosophers they are not synonymous --Lenticel(talk) 12:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fictional Zarathustra does philosophise, albeit in his inimitable way, so I don't think most readers would find such a qualification as wrong (philosophy doesn't have to be understood strictly as a bookish scholarly pursuit). The redirect seems perfectly plausible and unambiguous, so I believe it should be kept. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 00:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uanfala. Plausible that someone might think that the title "character" of a philosophy book might be a fictional philosopher. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Uanfala, keep – I really don't see what's wrong with describing him as a philosopher at all. J947 † edits 08:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Nietzche's book he is simply a hermit or poet, not a philosopher. Veverve (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is my view that if his role as a character is to discourse on philosophy, then he is definitely a philosopher. This is in much the same way that Zoroaster himself is regarded as a philosopher, in my opinion. J947 † edits 20:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me, being a wise personorcoach, or to provide some life advice, does not mean you are a philosopher. Veverve (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right so I'm struggling here. In a work of philosophical fiction written by a philosopher about a character based upon a famous philosopher embroiled in philosophical thoughts, is it inconceivable that this character could well be referred to as a philosopher? J947 † edits 09:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 06:04, 6 March 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.
Retarget per the above. The history of religion in Russia is more complex than "paganism and then Christianization". For starters, the Russian Orthodox Church itself has changed a lot since its founding. Glades12 (talk) 07:16, 6 March 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 retargettoTemplate:Pin section. Pinging TartarTorte who volunteered to help clean up incoming links if this was the discussion's outcome. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible typo of {{ping}} (I assume), {{Pin section}} is a much better target. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 01:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoTemplate:Pin section. More sensible as a shortcut to a widely used template than as a typo. Glades12 (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoTemplate:Pin section, which is the first thing I thought of when I learned that Template:Pin existed. It did not occur to me that people were using it as a misspelling for Ping. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep or turn into an auto substitute only wrapper. with 63 transclusions, this is definitely a plausible typo. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't have a strong opinion on this, but 63 transclusions is not very many to replace if retargetted and could be replaced using WP:AWB without a ton of effort. I have replaced similar templates when the decision is to retarget before (e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 24#Template:Reference necessary), so if the decision is to retarget, feel free to ping me to do the replacements. TartarTorte 15:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we would have to replace the redirect with {{Reply to}} which would send another notification to users who have received the original notification from this redirect. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that it would. WP:MENTION says modifying an earlier comment does not work. so I think that if you were to replace {{pin}} with {{reply to}} it shouldn't ping people. Having said that, I could be wrong. TartarTorte 17:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some testing with my alternate account, can confirm that replacing the templates does not cause a duplicate ping. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 19:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notifications feature is one of the most misunderstood, and the first of the five WP:MENTION criteria is the one that trips people up more often than any other, even though it's been documented for more than six years. Many times I've seen people attempting to send a notification merely by adding {{reply to|Redrose64}} to the start of something they already posted. If I hadn't already been watching the page concerned, I would never have known about the attempt to communicate with me. That said, I'm unsure about the truth of not alter any text outside your own comment, I need to test it; the other four criteria are definitely correct. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retargetto{{Pin section}}. I was attempting to see if this 'cut would work for section pins, but apparently not... Silikonz💬 18:35, 16 March 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).
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 14#Sacraments of the Living
