User:Awesome Aasim/rfd rewrite

Copied from WP:RFD with few changes

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	1	44	45
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	0	4	4
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	0	82	82
AfD	0	0	0

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD

Shortcut

WP:RGUIDE

The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history)

Shortcut

WP:RHARMFUL

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting

Shortcuts

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
Shortcut
- WP:RETURNTORED
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

Shortcuts

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut

WP:RNEUTRAL

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

Shortcut

WP:RFDHOWTO

STEP I.

Tag the redirect(s).

Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

Does this look too complicated?
Try this semi-automated process instead: (note only confirmed users can use this)

Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.

Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Save the page ("Publish changes").
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.

STEP II.

List the entry on RfD.

Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

Enter this text below the date heading:

{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}

~~~~

For this template:
- Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
- Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
Please use an edit summary such as:
Nominating [[RedirectName]]
(replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:

{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}

{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}

{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}

~~~~

If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.

STEP III.

Notify users.

It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current list

August 2

Zelda Games in Development

Zelda Games in Development → The Legend of Zelda (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No such list at the target. In addition, the existence of the redirect could potentially lead readers to believe that at least one Zelda game is in development at all times, which cannot be guaranteed to be true. Steel1943 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Cock (slang)

Cock (slang) → Dick (slang) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This should be deleted. An {{r from synonym}} in this instance is misleading, as the target is a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article that doesn’t mention this title at all, and cock has a separate etymology from "dick". I do not think a retarget to penis is desirable; "cock" may well be a notable word itself. Mach61 00:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Create a Cock (slang) article. This seems to be common sense, as it is fairly universally known, and like Dick (slang), has a number of related senses that can be explored. The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English alone has five full pages on it. I have drafted a few lines on the page. BD2412 T 02:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC) BD2412 T 02:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Windproof umbrella

Windproof umbrella → Umbrella (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The word "windproof" is mentioned nowhere in the target article. That, and without context, such a topic seems difficult to define since the target is meant to protect the user from various elements, including wind ... which means the umbrella itself isn't windproof ... it just blocks wind ... and even then, without proper harnesses, it may fly away. Steel1943 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

August 1

Eli Kowaz

Eli Kowaz → Israel Policy Forum#Eli Kowaz (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. There was a lot (probably too much) content on him earlier, which was removed by User:IPFcomms with the rationale that he was no longer with the org. Unsure if content on him should be in the article, but if it isn't the redirect should be deleted. Rusalkii (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The AfD provided grist to doubt his notability even with the IPF; now that he's no longer there it makes no sense for the redirect to be to IPF. Longhornsg (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment @CFA restored the section covering Eli Kowaz, with justification "Restoring section removed by promotional editor". If the section is kept (which I think it shouldn't be, see e.g. LinkedIn confirming he is no longer at the company), the redirect should be too. Rusalkii (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Support for President Donald Trump by white Americans

Support for President Donald Trump by white Americans → Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign#Supporter demographics (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
White support for Donald Trump → Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign#Supporter demographics (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
White support of donald trump → Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign#White nationalists and white supremacists (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Couple of concerns with these redirects' wordings:

It's odd that a redirect with this phrasing targets 1 of 4 presidential campaign pages related to Donald Trump running for president. How can there be any guarantee readers searching this phrase are looking for this target?
Specific to the current target, the first redirect contains the phrase "President Donald Trump"; Donald Trump was not a President until after the 2016 campaign.

Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Racial views of Donald Trump would be a better target? Nightscream (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Not particularly. The redirects allude to groups of people who support for Donald Trump, not Donald Trump's views that could potentially be racist. Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Support for Donald Trump

Support for Donald Trump → Trumpism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The redirect does not seem to identify or describe the target. The target is more about ideologies, and not about those who support Donald Trump. There may be a plausible target out there, but I'm not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The target is Trumpism, which is indeed a reasonable description. Nightscream (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep The article is about Trump's ideology and those of his supporters. The lede makes it pretty clear that the two are inextriacbly linked, and there doesn't seem to be a better target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration with a hatnote to Trumpism. Our article on Trumpism is not about supporting Donald Trump, but the ideology that spawned from him. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Brock Harrison

Brock Harrison → Brock (Pokémon) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

i do not want to elaborate on how many layers of obscure fanon this is, so i hope the explanation can begin and end at "that's fanmade" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment there's apparently an old interview featuring Brock's VA where he mentions this information, but it seems pretty trivial regardless. Linking the archived link of the interview that I could find, but admittedly I'm not sure if this would sway anything either way. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

...huh. won't debate the canonicity of that (debatable as its canonicity is, see word of saint paul on tv tropes), but i will suggest not risking adding it to avoid enabling that side of the pokémon fandom fanfic fandom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete as very obscure synonym even if true --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment I don't intend to vote on this, but it is plausable that the surname was given to the character in some international dubbings. At least I personally have a recollection of this being the case and thus the R being a plausable search term, but it would be very difficult to verify now, due to a need to search potential distorted/localised alterations of the name. Respublik (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 assassination attempt

2024 assassination attempt → Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too general. MSMST1543 (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of assassinations or another article. There is no reason to believe that this, only 24ish hours after the news broke, will be the primary topic, and so a redirect should not have been created. I suspect there have also been quite a few attempted assassinations in 2024 that didn't occur in the USA, and so this could also be considered a US centric redirect. Failing a redirect, it should be deleted -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
As others have pointed out, there isn't really a good redirect target now, so I'm clarifying my !vote to support a disambiguation page being created at this page to list assassination (attempts) in 2024. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I am against this redirect. The world doesn't revolve around America and its internal politics. This would perpetuate America-centric systemic bias on the site. JDiala (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I suppose this could be redirected to List of people who survived assassination attempts, though there is only one other attempt in 2024 listed on that article (an attempt on a South Korean MP). Attempted assassination of Donald Trump is clearly the primary topic at this point in the year, and we're not supposed to speculate on if that will change in the future. It is also a very plausible search term. C F A 💬 02:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
We aren't supposed to speculate either way. And it's obvious that calling something the primary topic "this point in the year" violates WP:RECENTISM. We don't change, or even create, redirects just because something is what you think is the primary topic right now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure, you could argue it is recentism, but common sense is also useful here. This was an attempted assassination on a former US president, arguably the most powerful person in the world. It was the first time anything like this happened in more than 40 years. This is not a US news story, it's an international news story. Regardless, I'm not opposed to a redirect to the list. C F A 💬 02:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Common sense does not mean US-centric common sense. Your entire argument here is based on a US centric view that the only important assassination (attempt) in 2024 is the one against the former president of the US. And that's why I'm !voting to redirect to another topic or delete. Because that's not a valid argument. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
As I pointed out, there were only two assassination attempts in 2024 (so far) notable enough to be included in the list above. It's not really a US-centric approach because an assassination attempt against a former world leader (of arguably the most powerful country in the world) will inherently be more significant than the majority of other attempts, both in the country of origin and internationally. This was a story that was reported in local newspapers around the world. If a former president of South Korea and a congressman in the US were both targeted in assassination attempts, the one against the former president would be the primary topic. This doesn't have much to do with local bias. C F A 💬 02:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete or dabify. It's not even the only attempt with its own article in 2024 (Robert Fico). Yet another example of Americentrism. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew I had seen another attempted assassination of a head of state/leader of a country in 2024, but I couldn't pinpoint it. For clarity, this fact should be considered part of my argument above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is valid argument. I missed Robert Fico because he was not in the list of people who survived assassination attempts. There is no clear primary topic so I change my vote to disambiguate. C F A 💬 02:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguate per Liliana, as Trump is not the only assassination attempt in 2024. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguate: Yes, because there have been other attempts on other people, Trump isn't the center of the universe, and Wikipedia should not be so heavily focused on the US perspective etc. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete Robert Fico, Lee Jae-Myung, probably a dozen Russian businessmen, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Mohammed Deif (for the umpteenth time) all can lay claim to that title. The US isn't special in that regard. Bremps... 05:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per Bremps, or dabify at List of assassination attempts in 2024 or similar. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This RfD concerns the fate of the page at the exact name of "2024 assassination attempt". A redirect is defined by its name. An RfD isn't needed to create new pages. About your idea for a new page: A page titled "List of assassination attempts in 2024" would be a list, not a dab. —Alalch E. 11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguate: as per above comments Lordseriouspig 10:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete or disambig per above. This is too general to redirect to a single instance, the attempted assassination of Robert Fico, the prime minister of Slovakia, happened this year too (I've added it to the list article above, no idea why it wasn't there already). Google searches indicate that there have also been (events described as) assassination attempts made on Mohammed Deif and Volodymyr Zelensky at least. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
My addition was reverted because, despite the article title, it isn't a list of people but a list of people who weren't current heads of state or government (the latter having a separate list). See also my proposed merger of the two lists. I oppose retargetting this redirect to either list. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete or retarget to anchor in List of people who survived assassination attempts. I created 2020 assassination attempt to illustrate (I don't think that this redirect and other such redirects are / would be especially good, but this not a WP:POINTed creation, as it is within acceptable bounds from my perspective). Oppose dab. A dab would practically duplicate the list, and WP:NOTDUP does not apply to disambiguation pages when the same content is served in a list (not a different navigation method—the navigation method provided would be essentially the same).—Alalch E. 11:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The issue with a redirect is that there are two separate attempted assassination lists: List of people who survived assassination attempts and List of heads of state and government who survived assassination attempts. "2024 assassination attempt" does not refer to either one specifically so a redirect would be completely arbitrary. Thryduulf has proposed these two lists be merged, which I support, but unless that happens a disambiguation page would be the best option. Nothing is duplicated in this case when there are two separate all-time lists. C F A 💬 17:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete I agree its too generic since as noted there have been others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIAS; search results would handle this fine without needing to manually compile a separate search index, which also would undoubtedly suffer from systemic bias based on several comments here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to List of people who survived assassination attempts where there are two relevant cases --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a third relevant case at List of heads of state and government who survived assassination attempts, neither is primary over the other. This is why I have (a) proposed merging (please give your input!) and (b) oppose retargetting to either one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Dabify between the appropriate lists only rather than individuals/specific events. Per nom, the term is to generic to estimate what a person might be searching for, and generally an editor wanting a list of specifics should create, well, such a list with all the relevant requirements fulfilled, but the search term is plausable and spefific enough to have a DAB page to guide them towards locating that specific article. Respublik (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete - I'm not convinced that the proposed disambiguations or redirections would be consistently helpful to reader, in part due to the vagueness of "attempt". Search results seem safer than compiling an ad hoc set index of assassination attempts in 2024. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Chilodontidae-stub

Template:Chilodontidae-stub → Template:Chilodontaidae-gastropod-stub (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unused. Chilodontidae is a former spelling (now regarded as incorrect) for a gastropod family. Chilodontidae is a current, correct spelling for a fish family. See the Chilodontidae dab page. Template redirect uses the spelling for the fish family to redirect to a stub sorting template for the gastropod family Plantdrew (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean that Chilodontidae is a current, correct spelling for a fish family? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, yes. Fixed the spelling above. Plantdrew (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

German Expressionist

German Expressionist → German expressionist cinema (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
German expressionist → German expressionist cinema (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
German Expressionists → German expressionist cinema (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
German Expressionism → Expressionism#In Germany and Austria (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
German expressionism → German expressionist cinema (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

German expressionist cinema is a film movement that emerged from a German expressionist movement in the visual arts. I think the best solutions would either be retargeting to Expressionism, since it's more broadly defined to include cinema and other media, or turn German expressionism/German Expressionism into a disambiguation page. hinnk (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Skeletor (Marvel Comics)

Skeletor (Marvel Comics) → Taskmaster (character) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

honestly, not even nominating this to see it deleted or retargeted to some actual instance of skeletor in a marvel comic (i didn't find any, but i'm not that good at looking, so eh), i'm just doing it because it's funny. not a common comparison from what i've seen though cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Le Cartel

Le Cartel → Mother Russia Bleeds (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Le Cartel Studio → Mother Russia Bleeds (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These redirects should be deleted. The developer's name and a typo are being redirected to its first notable game; the article itself mentions the developer's history but the redirect is barely used outside of articles for its games as well as game list articles. I do not believe it will be used enough to deserve a redirect of its own, like most other independent developers with notable games with their own articles. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: the article itself mentions the developer's history is ample reason to keep the redirect. You could at most argue WP:XY because the studio's other game, Heave Ho, also has an article. A typo is not in sight. IceWelder [✉] 10:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Su85b

Su85b → SU-85 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention on the target page. The tank does appear to be real though, so maybe a mention could be added to the article? Only source I can find on it though is an article on a website called "Warspot" that doesn't seem to have much fact checking. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 04:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a thing, even though most of the many English-language hits relate to its appearance in World of Tanks (most commonly rendered as "SU-85b" the hyphenless version does get plenty of hits) it is not just we have a picture at File:СУ-85Б.webp which led to my discovering the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias have articles about it. There is a mention at List of armoured fighting vehicles by country#Soviet Union, but that doesn't say more than that it was based on the SU-76 prototype; SU-76#Variants has a sentence. Draft:SU-85B was deleted under G13 in 2020, but it was just a single sentence "The SU-85B was a prototype Soviet tank destroyer based on the SU-76.". If we decide not to delete this then SU-85B should be created as a redirect to the same target, but what target that would be or whether deletion per WP:REDLINK would be better I don't know. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to SU-76 where it is mentioned as a variant. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Older

Old business