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 00:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Jimmy Lightning → Peggle  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned in target Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 23:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete As of now it is not used anywhere, although it could plausibly redirect to the Peggle series article if the characters of the series were mentioned. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Europe#Contemporary definition. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Map of Europe → Cartography of Europe  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Map of europe → cartography of Europe  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

The redirect should point to an actual map, for example, Template:Europe and seas labelled map or File:Europe topography map en.png. 72.83.57.117 ( talk) 16:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirects from article space should not go to templates or files. -- Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep as is. Redirects from article space should not target Files at all (they are eligible for speedy deletion under criteria WP:R2) and redirects to templates are exceptionally rare. I don't see either of the proposed targets as an improvement - we have an article on this topic so this seems like the best place for this redirect to point. 192.76.8.70 ( talk) 16:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Europe#Contemporary definition which contains a large and obvious map of Europe, makes more sense than sending it to a stub article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  I disagree entirely. This should target an article that deals with the concept of "maps of Europe", not a section of an article on where the boundaries of Europe are that happens to include a map. The obvious solution here is to add an image to the current target. I also don't see the relevance of the target being a stub? We don't point redirects to articles on different topics because the article is longer. 192.76.8.70 ( talk) 14:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  As stated below, "Maps of Europe" and "Map of Europe" are very different things. Someone is likely to want a literal map if they search in the singular. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  Again I disagree. I think someone searching for "Map of Europe" on Wikipedia is most likely to be looking for an article on/information about the map of Europe. If they were looking for images most people would use an image search engine rather than an encyclopaedia. 192.76.8.70 ( talk) 15:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  Encyclopedias commonly have maps, I have no clue what you're talking about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Europe#Contemporary definition and put a hatnote there to Cartography of Europe. I think it's very likely someone who searches for that term wants an actual map (as opposed to someone who searches Maps of Europe plural). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to History of archery#Europe. MBisanz ^talk 19:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Shortbow → Bow and arrow  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Short bow → Bow and arrow  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This term is not mentioned in the target article. In addition, it's honestly a bit surprising that a companion subject to the subject of these redirects, Longbow, has an article whereas these titles redirect towards an article about the generic bow and arrow concept. Due to lack of mention and being a strong {{ R with possibilities}}, unless a more precise target can be found, I'd say it may be best to delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 ( talk) 06:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Indeed. The concept of the "shortbow" is a minority and contested one in the relevant academic community. According to Robert Hardy and Matthew Strickland, authors of The Great Warbow: From Hastings to the Mary Rose, it is based on mediaeval iconography (not what I'd call a reliable way of estimating the length of anything) and a retrospective thought that, if there were longbows (also a later construct, not a mediaeval term, but with more validity), there must have been shortbows as well. There is as far as I know no contemporary definition or description, nor surviving artifacts, and overall I can't see the term as useful to an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

There are longbows and regular bows in the Middle Ages of Europe. Shortbows would be shorter than regular bows used on horseback, such as the Mongol recurve; referred to as such in later works (outside of the period). -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 05:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply

This sort of original research is how we got the term "shortbow". "Longbow" is an 18th century coinage, not a mediaeval concept or word or artifact. "Shortbow" comes later and is not relatable to anything mediaeval, or indeed any concept useful to an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget both to History of archery#Europe, where the definition of the term "Shortbow" is explained in detail. CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I'm thinking History of archery#Europe may be the preferred target there. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Yep, you're right. That is, in fact, the title of the section I was referring to. I've now changed the anchor on my !vote above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion so far seems to be split between deleting and retargeting with a slight lean towards delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tartar Torte 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget both to History of archery#Europe per above -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Elizabeth MacLeod Sturges Leggett → Betty Leggett  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete, a combination of names that is not used in any sources at all. [1] [2]. Fram ( talk) 13:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment When you moved the page, you did not fix the links on the articles linking to it, so they all still brought the reader to the deleted page, which is why I turned it into a redirect. I will go through and edit all the articles linking to "Elizabeth MacLeod Sturges Leggett" and change them to link to "Betty Leggett". After I do that, then I am on board for a deletion. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 13:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I see that you have now gone through and changed the links, thank you. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 14:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, well, I literally started doing it the minute after I moved the original page, I couldn't do it any faster... Fram ( talk) 14:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Order of the Phoenix. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Order of the Phoenix (fiction) → Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

An ancient redirect left over from a page move that I think is potentially ambiguous, people searching for this could also be looking for the articles on the book, the film etc. Perhaps retargeting to the dab page at Order of the Phoenix would be reasonable? 192.76.8.70 ( talk) 13:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Support retarget. Jay (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• The Iquisitorial Squad → Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix#Dumbledore's Army and the Student Revolt  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible typo. The long gone article in the page history of Inquisitorial Squad was here for about an hour and a half in 2004 before being moved to the correct spelling. Gets basically noise levels of page views. If kept this redirect's target should match the outcome of the discussion below. 192.76.8.70 ( talk) 13:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Hausdorff space#Definitions. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• R1 space → Hausdorff space  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, though listed in Separation axiom#Main definitions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 13:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

It is mentioned in the target, in the section /info/en/?search=Hausdorff_space#Definitions. It won't show up in an in-page text search, because it's written in math-mode to handle the subscript. I'll edit that so that people will find it better. (Possibly it should be in boldface; that's more of a style question. There's another synonym in the Definitions section that, like this one, is only italicized, not bolded.) Toby Bartels ( talk) 17:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I made the edit, so people will find it better now. Toby Bartels ( talk) 23:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Separation axiom#Main definitions Hausdorff_space#Definitions. The user looking for information on preregular spaces will be better served with the overview there, which actually gives a better description of the relationship between Hausdorff spaces and preregular spaces than the current target. Also retarget Preregular space though, as the two synonyms should certainly point to the same target. Felix QW ( talk) 09:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Having looked at the entirety of the Hausdorff space page again, I clearly stand corrected. As long as preregular spaces do not have their own page, this is where they are discussed. Felix QW ( talk) 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• There are several properties of preregular spaces described on Hausdorff space, because they're close analogues of properties of Hausdorff spaces. A separate page dedicated to these spaces would also make sense, but as it is now, the vast majority of information on them is at Hausdorff space. In contrast, Separation axiom discussions the relationships between the various axioms, but links to the individual pages on the axioms (including Preregular space) for specifics. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, but changing that would mean putting an unusual emphasis on preregular spaces in Separation axiom, or greatly expanding Separation axiom to include a summary of properties of all of the other axioms (essentially moving or copying the #Properties section from half a dozen other pages to Separation axiom). Toby Bartels ( talk) 16:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Hausdorff_space#Definitions. This is what Preregular space does, and it makes it immediately obvious where these terms are to be found. Toby Bartels ( talk) 16:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• HPOOP → Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible redirect, this is the initials of the book's title but with random letters removed so that the second half spells "poop". 192.76.8.70 ( talk) 12:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete: highly implausible. Veverve ( talk) 14:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment Unlikely but not implausible. It uses the common adhoc method of dropping letters. You see this in other acronyms, where these same words are dropped (ie. "the", "and"). Though, sometimes the "o" of "of" is lowercased or dropped as well. -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 16:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unlikely -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 16:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to DA. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• The DA → Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix#Dumbledore's Army and the Student Revolt  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I don't think this redirect makes a lot of sense for a couple of reasons. Firstly Dumbledore's Army does not need a "the" prefix, "The Dumbledore's Army" is not gramatically correct. Secondly "DA" is rather ambiguous, I don't think it unambiguously refers to Dumbledore's Army. I think this should either be deleted or retargeted to the dab page at DA 192.76.8.70 ( talk) 12:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete: way too vague. Veverve ( talk) 13:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to DA. The disambiguation page includes entries that could be called the DA. - Eureka Lott 14:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment The page history here is informative. The page was created in 2006 as a stub (probably vandalism) about an incident that allegedly happened at the Dublin Airport. I redirected it to Dublin Airport. It remained as a redirect to the airport for 13 months, and then someone boldly retargeted it to Dumbledore's Army. A search at Dublin Airport finds "the DAA" being used as an abbreviation for "the Dublin Airport Authority" but no indication in the article that "the DA" is routinely used for the airport itself. A search at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix#Dumbledore's Army and the Student Revolt does not find "the DA" being used in that article at all. I agree with EurekaLott that disambiguation is most likely the best choice, and retargeting this redirect there provides an already extant DAB page with more possible options. However, neither Dublin Airport nor Dumbledore's Army are on that DAB page at present. We could also plausibly retarget it to The D.A., which is a simlar DAB page and incudes a see also pointing at DA. I think at this point, the best scenario might be to retarget it to The D.A. and add Dublin Airport and Dumbledore's Army to DA. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 14:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for pointing out The D.A. disambiguation page—I was unaware of it. I just added a reciprocal link to it at DA#See also. I'd be okay with retargeting the nominated page to either disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 14:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• REtarget to DA; merge The D.A. into DA as well -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 16:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to DA as the dab page covers several uses of the term. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Honorific nicknames in popular music. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Godfather of Lo-fi → Nujabes  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

An external search suggests J Dilla, alongwith the current target is also considered a godfather of the genre. Suggest deletion as misleading, if there is no appropriate target. Jay (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note that the creator also created around the same time titles King of Lo-fi, King of Emo Rap (see RfD), King of SoundCloud and King of SoundCloud Rap (see RfD). Jay (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

You neglect to mention that in the article itself there is a citation for this. TheXuitts ( talk) 14:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete it with fire This is one of the more sickening claims I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Kinda like redirecting " king of rock and roll" to Bryan Adams—Chuck Berry and Little Richard be damned. Neither Nujabes or J Dilla have significant coverage on the main Lo-fi article. You know who does? R. Stevie Moore, who was making records a decade before both of those producers were born. Moore also has more citations as "the godfather of lo-fi": [3] [4] ili ( talk) 18:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless supported by reliable references -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Honorific nicknames in popular music, where J Dilla and Nujabes are listed as the Godfather of Lo-fi. Similar titles redirect there as well. @ Jay, ILIL, and Lenticel: Thoughts on this alternative? ✗ plicit 12:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• I'm Okay with Alternative since the titles are cited -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 12:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• I'm good with the retarget. Jay (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. MBisanz ^talk 19:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Giovanni Bonati (gymnast) → Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

As a disambiguated redirect, it is extremely obscure and thus unlikely to be a search term or be useful BilledMammal ( talk) 07:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:CHEAP. Being "extremely obscure and thus unlikely" is WP:OR too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I originally thought this redirect would be eligible for WP:G4, but it isn't; the closing statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni Bonati (gymnast) states that a redirect can be created if someone chooses to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Refine to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team#Italy where the subject is mentioned. Otherwise, weak delete due to there being no other information about the subject present in that section other than the subject's name. (I originally wanted to say "Delete per WP:REDLINK", but then I found the AFD which essentially invalidates WP:REDLINK being a valid rationale.) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lugnuts clearly violated the spirit of the ban on him creating new stub articles by creating this redirect after the article was deleted. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:CHEAP. While unlikely, it's not as wholly implausible as it seems to search for someone with a disambiguator. For example, I'm a curling fan and let's say I wanted to find information on a curler in a tournament I'm watching who is name Robin McCall. Now, if I go to Robin McCall on Wikipedia, it takes me to a cricketer. While there is a link to a disambiguation page, I would be likely, upon seeing my result is not WP:PTOPIC search then for Robin McCall (curler). In this case that is a red link, but if that were a redirect to something relevant like Cameron Bryce or 2022 Scottish Curling Championships. My redirect target for McCall's worthiness notwithstanding, I think the process is a reasonable one of using a disambiguator in this way. Tartar Torte 12:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Mentioned in article; no policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Arthur Harley → Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Ambiguous redirect; could refer to the non-notable gymnast, or it could refer to the non-notable New Zealand politician BilledMammal ( talk) 07:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:CHEAP. The non-notable politician NEVER had an article, while this guy did. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete as ambiguous. Lugnuts's argument is patently silly. A non-notable person is a non-notable person, it does not matter whether they once had an article on them or not. I could create an article on the politician and have it speedy deleted, that does not somehow make it a tier above things that "NEVER had an article". eviolite (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Cases like this are meant to be left to the search engine. The only alternative would be a dab page with just redlinks (see MOS:DABRED), but if articles are unlikely to be written about either topic, that's not the right choice, and dab pages with just redlinks typically get deleted. Mdewman6 ( talk) 17:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Convert to disambiguation page for Arthur Harley (gymnast) and Arthur Harley (politician) which should be created. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Harley was deleted at AFD. I also don't believe the politician is sufficiently notable for an article. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate, (personally) unsure about the gymnast but I can confirm that Harley the NZ politician is almost certainly non-notable. I honestly don't care what the MoS says here (@ Mdewman6: I think that no link is fine if a red link isn't anyhow, but I'm not sure) – the dab page hardly needs to be maintained, and these search results in particular are pretty unhelpful. If one of the two people never existed, we'd have a redirect to where the other one is covered. To me, it doesn't seem right that that is different with two mentioned people existing. Dab page drafted. —  J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  Disambiguation is making something out of nothing here. The AfD closed as delete, not redirect, meaning there was no consensus for having a redirect to point to what mention of the subject exists on enwiki. And the politician never had a page to begin with. If neither are notable, neither should have red links, and neither should have disambiguation. Mdewman6 ( talk) 08:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  But generally speaking, I agree entries that are black are allowed on dab pages as long as there is a blue link in the description ( MOS:DABMENTION), as in your draft. Mdewman6 ( talk) 09:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  DABMENTION, of course. I don't take much stock in whether an AfD results in delete or whether it results in redirect. Many AfDs which close in delete could have been closed in redirect if (a), someone had brought the option up; (b), if the option to redirect wasn't ignored by later participants who are either piling on, or only checking for notability and not for other considerations; (c), if the closer had taken note of an unrefuted redirect-favouring minority; or (d), if the discussion over whether to delete or to redirect was fairly uninformed. (In the gymnasts' case, a redirect would give information about what he was famous for for those who found the name somewhere – so in that way it would be helpful.)

  That aside, I imagine that if the gymnast never existed, you would support a redirect to 1881 Suburbs of Nelson by-election as there is a fair chunk of information about that Arthur Harley that we give? So, given that the gymnast does exist in history and was of similar importance to the politician, it seems to me that – irrespective of any consensus that a redirect for the gymnast would be unjustified – a disambiguation page feels like a perfectly fine outcome to me. I wholeheartedly support a disambiguation page which disambiguates between two or more figures NN but of encyclopedic importance. —  J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  I'm not opposed to a dab page. It is likely to bring anyone searching the term to the content they seek faster than search results (except for perhaps an advanced search). I just think that we usually don't disambiguate in such circumstances, and eventually someone is likely to PROD or otherwise object to a dab page with only two entries, neither of which have an article. Mdewman6 ( talk) 20:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  I may be reading the criterion wrong, but wouldn't such a disambiguation page be subjectable to WP:G14 deletion? Zero extant Wikipedia pages would be disambiguated by it. eviolite (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  Maybe. Depends what to disambiguate means. @ Eviolite: Addendum to drafted comment: unexpectedly, such a page is apparently inapplicable for G14. See the bottom two comments here. —  J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  I see, that's an enlightening discussion; I assume you are referring to the comments that MOS:DABMENTION counts as an extant link. In that case, I am okay with disambiguation. eviolite (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 12:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Kobe Bryant(song) → Kobe Bryant#Music  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Emo(girls) → Emo#Fashion and subculture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• From Zone 6 To Duval(mixtape) → Gucci Mane  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Sloth(animal) → Sloth  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Raikou(Pokémon) → List of generation II Pokémon#Raikou  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Baal(comics) → Apocalypse (character)#Rise of Apocalypse  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Alpine Skiing(sport) → Alpine skiing  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Musa(prophet) → Moses in Islam  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Chimaera(creature) → Chimera (mythology)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Sun(astrology) → Planets in astrology#Sun  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Center(ice hockey) → Centre (ice hockey)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Luge(sport) → Luge  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Axis(genus) → Axis (genus)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Nancy Wilson(guitarist) → Nancy Wilson (rock musician)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Recursion(Mathematics) → Recurrence relation  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Mullet(haircut) → Mullet (haircut)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Shock(circulatory) → Shock (circulatory)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Jaffna(city) → Jaffna  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Basis(mathematics) → Basis (linear algebra)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete all per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. Each of these redirects' properly-spaced variants exist and either target the same target as their respective nominated redirect, or the correct variant is the nominated redirect's target. Also, none of these redirects have incoming links from the article space. (See recent related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 24#Redirects with no space before disambiguator that target spaced title and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6#More redirects with no space before disambiguator.) Steel1943 ( talk) 06:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Doubt these help anyone locate the correct articles, and no obvious reason to distinguish them from any other title with parentheses that doesn't already have an unspaced redirect. If it were a likely spelling error it'd be more useful. P Aculeius ( talk) 08:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete most per Steel1943. I've had a look at the histories of those redirects and I don't see anying to suggest the need for preservation. Many were results of moves, but with only minutes to hours spent at these titles. Some were new creations that got promptly redirect, even the most substantial ones – for Kobe_Bryant(song), Emo(girls) and Raikou(Pokémon) – don't look worthy of keeping around. I only can't what's going on with Axis(genus): the sequence of moves, deletions and recreations has obscured the history here, so someone with administrative rights is needed to figure that out. – Uanfala ( talk) 14:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete all nothing worth saving in those histories. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete ( WP:RDAB). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete(all) per precedent -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Virtual threads → Green threads  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Virtual threads are not synonymous with Green threads, because green threads were one implementation of virtual threads, which is a larger concept. Therefore this redirect prevents review of a draft of a separate article on Draft:Virtual threads. There should be two separate articles, each cross-referencing the other.

It seems that the best way to resolve this issue is by discussing deleting the redirect (and then deleting the redirect, permitting two articles). Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep I am unconvinced that these are actually separate things; the lead of the article and the draft are basically identical. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete

I wrote much of the Virtual Threads draft.

Virtual Threads and Green Threads Are not the same thing

Green Threads is some old single-threaded library unavailable for the last 20 years. I was a multi-threaded Java programmers for six years in the 2000s, I never heard of Green Threads.

Virtual Threads is a many-to-many massive preemptive scheduling onto multiple parallel operating system threads

The very important difference is that Virtual Threads uses all execution units of the hardware thereby providing about 10x performance gain at the price of multi-threaded synchronization. As far as I know, only Google and Oracle have implementations for public consumption. Google had it first, then Oracle spent five years getting it into Java. Virtual threads is suddenly important, because since 2020 consumer hardware often have a dozen execution units

The other simpler thing that is much more common is coroutine-style time-sharing of a single thread, which is still single-threaded programming and brings no performance gains. This is where many scripting languages are stuck because of the Global Interpreter Lock. This is what Green Threads is. This is used because it can be implemented in an afternoon rather than five Oracle years rewriting the language runtime. Virtual Threads is extremely difficult to retrofit, which is why Google invented a new language Go. And it took Google five years getting virtual thread preemptive scheduling into Go.

Green Threads is some 20-year-old no longer available library once used in Java by Sun Microsystems. It’a T-Ford most people have never heard of. Haraldrudell ( talk) 01:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Green threads is about a general concept, not a specific Java library from my reading. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The redirecting of Virtual threads to Green threads was a serious violation of the Common Name guideline. Green threads violates the principles of recognizability and naturalness. A person with a background in information technology will have at least a general idea what is meant by virtual threads, and no idea what is meant by green threads, unless familiar with this particular implementation. So the redirection either was in the wrong direction or should not have been done, and in fact should not have been done. If virtual threads and green threads were the same, then Virtual Threads should be the primary title. However, green threads were only a particular implementation of virtual threads, and, has been noted, not as powerful as more modern implementations. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Fiver(WatershipDown) → Watership Down#Characters  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB. For one, Fiver (Watership Down), a similar redirect, exists. In addition, WatershipDown does not exist and it should not, meaning that the disambiguator "(WatershipDown)" is malformed. Lastly, the version of this redirect with proper spacing between the title and the disambiguator, Fiver (WatershipDown), does not exist and should not per the previous sentence. Steel1943 ( talk) 05:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:RDAB. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to malformed modifier -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 05:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• 情感核 → Emo  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:FORRED. Target does not have affinity to the Chinese language. Steel1943 ( talk) 05:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.