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 Restore and mark historical . Restored the 3 May 2021 revision per Wow. Subsequent edits were also made by Wow. Jay ?? 12:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus → Talk:COVID-19  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

Not a useful redirect Wow ( talk ) 23:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep - Useful page history. ? Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Keep per Rhododendrites. Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
  • Restore and mark historical per Tavix and Steel below is a much better idea. Thryduulf ( talk ) 09:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Comment : Until very recently the page looked like this , but I redirected it to preserve history (not sure if WP:MFD is better, but the ones sent there were never used IIRC), and then Wow sent it here. I redirected it because (1) it has not been transcluded at Talk:COVID-19 for quite some time (not sure when it was removed), and (2) all three points are clearly outdated. Point 1 mandates using text that is not used anymore, including the long-disproven claim that COVID-19 is not airborne. Point 2 is about not using the "current" template; this is obviously pointless now. Point 3 refers to a gif that appears nowhere in the present version of the article; it was clearly superseded at some point. All 3 points are from March and April 2020, hence over four years old. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

To be clear, I'm good with restoring and marking as historical . I just didn't know what else to do in this unusual situation. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• If a redirect is unwanted, how about just slapping a {{ historical }} template on the page and call it a day? -- T avix ^{( talk )} 21:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
  • Yeah, restore and mark historical was my vote, but then the edit got lost with a real life interruption. Steel1943 ( talk ) 23:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Restore and mark as Historical as per Tavix and Steel. Seems like a better method of preserving history while still making it clear that the points presented are outdated and unused. ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ( talk ) 09:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Restore and mark historical per above. I prefer that the 04:00, 3 May 2021 revision of Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus be restored since that is what the page looked like when it was removed from Talk:COVID-19 on 06:19, 21 April 2020 as part of an automatic archive. -- Wow ( talk ) 01:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Restore and mark historical , the current redirect is not very useful in general, and maybe the original page is not useful now but let's revert it per Wow above and leave it around for reference. TappyTurtle [ talk | contribs ] 16:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 . ? plicit 23:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Kazakh Guide Association → Scouting and Guiding in Kazakhstan  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

Bear with me. This was originally an article by the now-blocked editor User:Kintetsubuffalo, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakh Guide Association . After deletion it became a redirect to Scouting and Guiding in Kazakhstan , pretty much a disambiguation page with only one blue link, to Organization of the Scout Movement of Kazakhstan . That Scouting and Guiding in Kazakhstan would be a redirect to the Organization article is fair--but the rest of that content is just not of encyclopedic value, and the "Guide Association" material has only this as sourcing, a primary Girl Scout document which doesn't even mention the association. So I have turned Scouting and Guiding into a redirect (in three steps, explaining why), but this is not a valid search term/redirect. The very existence of the term is already questionable: Google offers nothing but things derived from Wikipedia. Drmies ( talk ) 22:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Delete this as per WP:REDLINK and WP:2R . Scouting and Guiding in Kazakhstan being pruned down to a redirect is valid; Kazakh Guide Association then becoming a redirect to Organization of the Scout Movement of Kazakhstan isn't, given they're presumably two different organizations. ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ( talk ) 22:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Matriotism to Wiktionary and delete the British variant . Jay ?? 05:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• British matriotism → Patriotism  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  
• Matriotism → Cindy Sheehan  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

"Matriotism" not mentioned in target, let alone the British flavour. Matriotism itself redirects to Cindy Sheehan , where it is also not mentioned. This article claims she "founded a movement" called matriotism, but redirecting to her (American) article would not be appropriate for this redirect in any case.

Possibly Matriotism should be retargeted to Frances Payne Adler , the coiner of the term, and then British matriotism retargeted there as well? But that's a bit of a stretch. Overall, in favor of deletion of this redirect (and retargeting Matriotism ). Rusalkii ( talk ) 20:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

@ Rusalkii : I have taken the liberty of adding Matriotism to this nomination. ?? Godsy ^{?( TALK} _{CONT )} 21:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Comment - Adler's claim is dubious at best. See this 1894 publication. Perhaps wikt:matriotism (uncapitalized) is the way to go (for 'matriotism'), as it also lists 1894 as the origin. Matriot does not exist. ?? Godsy ^{?( TALK} _{CONT )} 21:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Delete British matriotism as we have no good target. Crosswiki Matriotism to wiktionary, which was a very interesting read actually; the diverse cited meanings and dates for those citations kinda tell a story in and of themselves! Fieari ( talk ) 23:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• @ Fieari : I prefer wikt:matriotism to wikt:Matriotism ; I missed the former on my first look (good catch!). ?? Godsy ^{?( TALK} _{CONT )} 23:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

  Agreed, the lower case one is better. Fieari ( talk ) 01:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Delete British matriotism and Retarget Matriotism crosswiki to Wiktionary as per Fieari, it gives more meaningful info on the word itself and its variable uses and there is little evidence for the word being directly related to any "movement" of Cindy Sheehan . TappyTurtle [ talk | contribs ] 16:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• As nom, support crosswiki retarget of Matriotism to wiktionary, good find. Rusalkii ( talk ) 21:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 . ? plicit 23:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Fourth mode of transport → Mode of transport  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

No mention of modes of transport being numbered on the target page. the phrase "fourth mode of transport" doesn't appear to have a common specific referent, though there do seem to be four common modes of transport generally talked about. google gives lots of quizzes about "what are the four modes of transport", but they don't seem to have any particular canonical order. "Fourth mode of transport" has only 3 hits, all of which talk about adding a fourth mode to some existing network. Rusalkii ( talk ) 20:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete as vague. I'm getting GSearch hits ranging from the hyperloop and mobility as a service to walking as the fourth mode of transport. -- Lenticel ^{( talk )} 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Weak keep "4th mode" is a generic term to refer to a non-traditional form of transport that is supposedly to take the world by storm, and become the next regular transport mode. As such the target covers various modes of transport, so people should be able to look for some unusual or non-traditional form of transport from those listed at the target. -- 64.229.90.32 ( talk ) 22:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Delete as unmentioned. If the IP is correct, and "fourth mode of transport" is a term for "the next great currently-nontraditional form of transport that WILL take the world by storm, I promise , don't look at all the failures before us", then this being redirected to Modes of transport is a bad idea-- someone searching for "fourth mode of transport" would be ill-served by being given an article about modes of transport in general, with zero information on the term in question. WP:REDLINKing would be better help-- inviting someone to write an article about, say, the history of the term, what forms of transport have attempted to use the term as their claim to fame, et cetera. ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ( talk ) 13:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 . ? plicit 23:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Intruder alert → Trespasser  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

Well, giving this some thought, I do not think this is correct. The phrase is not mentioned in the target article, and most likely readers searching this term are intending to either find some topic related to Alarm or a quote from some media ... which the latter can be difficult to pinpoint since there is apparently a lot of media that reference an "intruder alert" either in context or a quote. Steel1943 ( talk ) 19:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

insert berzerk joke here per the discussion three entries below this one. also delete as too widespread for a primary topic but too unremarkable on its own for a disambig cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Delete as per nom. Worth noting that Intruder is a DAB page, and probably wouldn't be a good target for this redirect. ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ( talk ) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Delete , like for Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! it's a vague term which could be used basically anywhere with varying context. TappyTurtle [ talk | contribs ] 15:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 . ? plicit 23:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• 2024 Dublin Bay North by-election → Dublin Bay North (Dail constituency)  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

Under WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL . As Spleodrach said, this by-election may never happen. Until it does, we don't need a page for this, or for the other vacancies which may be confirmed by this evening. Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 19:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete per Spleodrach and Iveagh Gardens. Not announced, may never happen, and if it does, it is perfectly possible that it could actually be held in 2025. Bastun ^??a?βa????! 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 . ? plicit 23:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! → Berzerk (video game)  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

"intruder alert" currently redirects to trespasser . don't think this line is or can feasibly be primarily associated with berzerk quite like... all the other lines. google's results are confusing, but mostly seem to point to assorted movie lines and an achievement in a lego batman game. a little torn on voting for retargeting or deletion, but will lean towards retargeting cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete . A quote used in several media sources that would be improper to redirect to Trespasser since it's probably most famous as a quote. (Hmm ... I wonder if this quote is on Wikiquote ... haven't checked yet, not sure if I will.) Steel1943 ( talk ) 19:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

  ...Okay, so I searched Wikiquote , and this phrase appears in several places. Yeah, best to delete as vague. Steel1943 ( talk ) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

  how confusing would it be if all those instances coincidentally happened to be references to berzerk? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

  I was thinking the same thing ... but then I would assume that the phrase was a notable topic, which means WP:REDYES would apply. I mean, our princess is in another castle! Steel1943 ( talk ) 19:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete Way too vague for anything, search function would be most helpful here. ?x????? ( ? ) 02:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Delete , an overall vague quip used in many places. TappyTurtle [ talk | contribs ] 15:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 . ? plicit 23:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Technical music → Progressive music  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

Not mentioned in the target article. The target article mentions used of technology, but the use of the word "technical" is not exclusive to technology. In addition, if the word "technical" is meant to refer to technology, then arguably the most technological-heavy music genre is Electronic music . Probably best to delete this vague redirect. Steel1943 ( talk ) 18:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

delete as vague, as this could refer to techno , electronic music , literally any song more complex in structure or production than a nursery rhyme, and jazz cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Delete - cogsan sums it up well BugGhost ???? 16:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete as vague per above -- Lenticel ^{( talk )} 00:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 . ^Complex / _Rational 18:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Bienver metal → Heavy metal music  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  
• Bienver Metal → Heavy metal music  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what these redirects are meant to refer. Third party search engines do not seem to know what this means either ... given the top results I receive when looking up this phrase relate to Justin Bieber . Steel1943 ( talk ) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Delete per OP ? Czello ^{( music )} 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Delete per nonsensical topic. Thanks, Neuropol ^Talk 18:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete per nom. Telling google I really do mean "Bienver metal" when I put it in quotes finds only this redirect and derivatives. Thryduulf ( talk ) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Delete - I can confirm the above. I also checked out what "Bienver" on its own went to, and it seems this is a common name in some part of the world. My bet is that someone with this name, or a fan of someone with this name, wanted wikipedia to say that their name was synonymous with heavy metal. Fieari ( talk ) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Delete per above editors' findings -- Lenticel ^{( talk )} 08:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Delete , nonsensical (as per above nobody knows what this name is nor who uses it and neither do I). TappyTurtle [ talk | contribs ] 15:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 to Under the influence . There is consensus that there is no primary topic and that the disamb page helps navigation. (non-admin closure) Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Under the influence of alcohol → Alcohol intoxication  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

Unlikely search query Mondtaler ( talk ) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep Redirects are cheap, and this is unambiguous. Also, it doesn't seem like an unlikely search term IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 17:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Retarget to Under the influence . It got 15 views last year, not sure whether that is low or high but at least it is not zero. The name seems based on shortening driving under the influence of alcohol , so under the influence is a better target. Mathnerd314159 ( talk ) 17:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Retarget to Under the influence (a dab page) per Mathnerd314159. Someone using this is equally likely to be looking for Alcohol intoxication or Driving under the influence , both of which are listed there. Thryduulf ( talk ) 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Retarget to DAB page as per Mathnerd and Thryduulf, while also tagging as Incomplete Disambiguation. I will admit, I was about to recommend that the redirect be kept as per Presidentman before I saw Thryduulf note that Under the influence was a DAB page. That said, even if you take "...of alcohol" as a disambiguator, that still leaves Alcohol intoxication and Driving under the influence as potential hits, both of which are near the top of the DAB page. ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ( talk ) 20:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Comment - I normally like DABs as redirect targets, but this one has so many entries for unrelated albums and intoxication by means other than alcohol that I feel being targeted here might cause WP:SURPRISE . The trouble is that this really does have two potential targets: Alcohol intoxication or Driving under the influence , both of which are located at that DAB amidst everything else... but again, I'm worried that the weight of the "everything else" could cause confusion. Does anyone else think a mini-DAB with just those two links would be okay, or am I impugning the intelligence of potential wikipedia users by thinking they'd get confused here? Fieari ( talk ) 23:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

  I mean, the thing is, both of the potential targets here are at the very top of the Under the influence DAB, separated by exactly one non-alcohol result ( Altered state of consciousness , and even that DOES have information pertaining to alcohol-- after all, ethanol itself IS a drug). Add on the fact that I'm fairly certain most of the music/media links are using "Under the Influence" as a shorthand for "Under the Influence of Alcohol", and I'd say that it shouldn't cause too much confusion or surprise. ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ( talk ) 10:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

  I agree with your reasoning in opposing simply retargeting, but I still feel this term is unambiguous enough to warrant keeping as BugGhost elaborates on below. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 22:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep - if a user searches "Under the influence of alcohol" , its extremely likely they want Alcohol intoxication . There's no implication they're searching for anything related to driving (you can do anything "under the influence of alcohol") and the inclusion of "of alcohol" in the term means they weren't searching for drug-based intoxication, or any of the various topics that are simply called "Under the influence" listed on the Under the influence disambig page. BugGhost ???? 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

  The reason someone might be looking for Driving under the influence is that "under the influence" is specifically the term used within a D UI, whereas it's not common to speak about intoxication in those terms outside the context of the law about "no drunk driving". But you're right that someone searching the term might be interested in general alcohol intoxication as well since they expressly dropped the "driving" part of the search... which is why we've been suggesting disambiguation. Both possibilities are there for what the searcher wants. Fieari ( talk ) 23:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

  I understand your suggestion, but this might just be a cultural thing - to me "under the influence" isn't a phrase that is linked to driving. I am aware that in North America drunk-driving is called DUI, but that isn't (as far as I am aware) a global term. There's no reason to assume they they expressly dropped the "driving" part of the search , for the same reason you can't assume anyone who went to Sandwich really was searching for Ham sandwich and but dropped the word "ham". There are a lot of usage of "under the influence of alcohol" that have no relation with driving - eg. this Nature article: [1] , this Forbes article [2] , this article by The Conversation: [3] - all of these directly relate to Alcohol intoxication . "Under the influence of alcohol" is a direct synonym with "Alcohol intoxication" - a redirect to any other article (or disambiguation page), in my eyes, would be incorrect. BugGhost ???? 14:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Retarget to the dab per Mathnerd314159. The reader is looking for context of "Under the influence" and can reasonably sort out three or four entries at the top of the dab and decide what he wants. Jay ?? 02:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 . _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Szokes → Prison Break  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  
• Szoekes → Prison Break  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  
• Szokes → Prison Break  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

For some reason, the Hungarian name of a TV show was redirected there in 2007, without explanation. It's obviously unused, nor are other language names for the same TV show redirected, and there is practically no reader traffic. Diacriticless variants were created next year by bots as well. Joy ( talk ) 17:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 . ? plicit 14:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Conjunctival pallor → Anemia  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

while this is a key symptom of anemia, this redirect does not lead to the actual topic, rather a cause of the symptom Thanks, Neuropol ^Talk 13:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Weak delete Is there another disease that causes conjunctival pallor? ? Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c? ) 14:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

It's only really observed in anemia, but this is because it is mostly looked for when diagnosing anemia. Thanks, Neuropol ^Talk 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Anaemia isn't a disease, it's a symptom of many diseases. I am not aware of any condition that causes it aside from anaemia but I still see it as a bad redirect. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 22:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 to Anagram#Establishment of priority and keep those that already target there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Aaaaaaacccccdeeeeeghiiiiiiillllmmnnnnnnnnnooooppqrrstttttuuuuu → Anagram#Establishment of priority  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]
• Smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras → Anagram#Establishment of priority  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]
• Ceiiinosssttuv → Hooke's law  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

Scientists of the early modern period often encoded key discoveries as anagrams to establish priority before publication. These should all target Anagram#Establishment of priority , or they should all target the relevant topics they encode: Rings of Saturn#History for the first two, and Hooke's law for the latter. ? Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c? ) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep 1 and 2, neutral 3** ? This is fascinating. I think this article describes the anagram itself the best. It's not a particularly useful redirect, but you can imagine someone hiding this specific anagram as an easter egg in some work, in which case this redirect would serve very well. The third one is only explained in a note, which makes me more happy to delete. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

I'm a bit confused. You created Aaaaaaacccccdeeeeeghiiiiiiillllmmnnnnnnnnnooooppqrrstttttuuuuu only to immediately RfD it? Tercer ( talk ) 18:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

I'm guessing nom's thought process was, "Well, I made this redirect, but I'm not sure if it should point where Smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras points or if it should point analogously to where Ceiiinosssttuv points (which would be Rings of Saturn#History ), so I'll just bundle my new redirect in with these two confused redirects as an RfD". ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ( talk ) 19:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Yeah the target seemed to be the biggest question. I think we should simply make the target wherever the nature of the anagram is best explained. Further needed wikilinks are there. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• All should point to the Anagram article . Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 18:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Retarget/keep all three to Anagram#Establishment of priority , where the purpose of these anagrams-- how they're constructed, what they mean, and why they were made- are discussed at length. ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ( talk ) 19:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Retarget/Keep all three to Anagram#Establishment of priority , which also links to the articles about the actual discovery as well, so all needs are covered. The primary topic is definitely the anagram itself, however, which is why they should target the anagram article section where it is discussed in detail. Fieari ( talk ) 23:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 per criterion G5 . Ivanvector ( ^Talk / _Edits ) 12:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Hurt (Witt Lowry song) → Hurt  ( talk  · links  · history  · stats )      [?Closure:? keep / retarget / delete ?]  

No article for Witt Lowry and thus not even listed on the Hurt disambiguation page. Star cheers peaks news lost wars ^{Talk to me} 04:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete per nom, we have no information about this song and nowhere that appears suitable to mention it. Witt Lowry does get quite a few mentions but all in passing (principally where he has collaborated with other people) and none of them are relevant to this song. Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 ).