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 performed as a move without replacement to Adolphus channel to preserve attribution in the page's history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Manar Group → Adolphus Channel  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The Manar Group article (which described it as a group of islands in the Torres Strait and named the individual islands) was deleted in 2011 as having no sources, but was left as a redirect to the channel where the individual islands are loosely located. However, 10+ years later, I have looked quite diligently for any mentions of this island group in both current and historical sources including historical maps and I still can't find any evidence of this name for this set of islands. Because it has been used in a navbox, it is now in many Wikipedia articles. It has made its way into Wikidata. Surely it is time to delete this non-place. I'm more than happy to retain it, even reinstate it as an article, if someone can find any evidence that this name ever existed. Kerry ( talk) 07:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: N.b. content was merged from Manar Group to Adolphus Channel and still exists at that article, so as it stands we do need the page for attribution. That having been noted, the sources currently at the target don't appear to support the claim that they are called Manar Group, in line with OP's nominating statement here. If content relating to Manar Group can be uncontroversially removed from the target page, the decision to delete here would be much more straightforward.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete unless evidence is found that the Manar Group exists as a name or there are other attribution issues. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk) 07:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• The merged content is suitable for the article, it's just the name that is not. Possibly move the redirect to a title that could be a useful redirect, such as Adolphus channel. Peter James ( talk) 21:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) ^Clyde! _Franklin! 17:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Sneaker (computer security) → Security hacker  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

"Sneaker" isn't mentioned on the target page and there's no source saying that it's a synonym of the target. I also couldn't find any indication of this with internet searches. Dan Bloch ( talk) 22:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. You didn't search back far enough (the link is to Eric S. Raymond's The New Hacker's Dictionary, 2002 edition, but the term is much older). See also Sneakers (1992 film). The term was apparently not present in a 1993 version of the Jargon File (the predecessor to the New Hacker's Dictionary), but present in a 1994 version, so it is possible that the movie spawned the term. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep The exact term doesn't need to be mentioned at the target page for a redirect to be warranted. As mentioned by Jonesey95, the term is included in the Jargon File, one of the most well-known resources in hacker culture. Partofthemachine ( talk) 00:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Bandya Station. (non-admin closure) ^Clyde! _Franklin! 17:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Bandya → Yeti  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not related to the Yeti. Google and other searches yield nothing. Delete. TNstingray ( talk) 17:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Bandya Station where it is used as a shorthand for this locality. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 18:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Bandya Station per Presidentman -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 02:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) ^Clyde! _Franklin! 17:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Dinanthropoides nivalis → Yeti  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not a real term in relation to the Yeti, appears to have originated from someone on DeviantArt. Delete per likely OR. TNstingray ( talk) 17:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep It was apparently proposed as a scientific name for the Yeti back in the 1950s: [1]. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 18:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah, it is a published, possible search term. FunkMonk ( talk) 19:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Presidentman. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk) 07:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Presidentman. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 10:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) ^Clyde! _Franklin! 17:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Dinanthropoides → Yeti  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not a real term in relation to the Yeti, appears to have originated from someone on DeviantArt. Delete per likely OR. TNstingray ( talk) 17:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep based on same rationale as above redirect. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 18:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk) 07:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep as proposed scientific name per Presidentman. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 10:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 16:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Holden Commodore SS → Holden Commodore  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The only use of this redirect was in article 2017 Ford EcoBoost 400, in the piped link [[Holden Commodore SS|Chevrolet SS]]. However, Chevrolet SS is itself a redirect to Holden Commodore (VF)#Chevrolet SS, which is a better target, so I've removed the piping, making this redirect redundant. The target article Holden Commodore doesn't even mention the Holden Commodore SS. Colonies Chris ( talk) 16:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate: Multiple generations of the Holden Commodore had a Holden Commodore SS version. It seems that Holden Commodore (VL), Holden Commodore (VN), Holden Commodore (VP), Holden Commodore (VR), Holden Commodore (VS), Holden Commodore (VY), Holden Commodore (VZ), Holden Commodore (VE), and Holden Commodore (VF). It might not be worth including the VL as it is a homologation special, but I think DABing works. Tartar Torte 16:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate:

proposal

'''Holden Commodore SS''' refers to a model of car that is a member of one of the following generational ranges of Holden Commodore models: * [[Holden Commodore (VH)]], the third iteration of the first generation (1982–1984) * [[Holden Commodore (VK)]], the fourth iteration of the first generation (1984–1986) * [[Holden Commodore (VL)]], the fifth iteration of the first generation (1986–1988) * [[Holden Commodore (VN)]], the first iteration of the second generation (1988–1991) * [[Holden Commodore (VP)]], the second iteration of the second generation (1991–1993) * [[Holden Commodore (VR)]], the third iteration of the second generation (1993–1995) * [[Holden Commodore (VS)]], the fourth iteration of the second generation (1995–1997) * [[Holden Commodore (VT)]], the first iteration of the third generation (1997–2000) * [[Holden Commodore (VX)]], the second iteration of the third generation (2000–2002) * [[Holden Commodore (VY)]], the third iteration of the third generation (2002–2004) * [[Holden Commodore (VZ)]], the fourth iteration of the third generation (2004–2006) * [[Holden Commodore (VE)]], the first iteration of the fourth generation (2006–2013) * [[Holden Commodore (VF)]], the second iteration of the fourth generation (2013–2017)

like that? Most have sections titled "Commodore SS" or similar. — Alalch E. 18:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

or

proposal

'''Holden Commodore SS''' is one of the following models of car: * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VH)]], the third iteration of the first generation of this car (1982–1984) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VK)]], the fourth iteration of the first generation of this car (1984–1986) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VL)]], the fifth iteration of the first generation of this car (1986–1988) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VN)]], the first iteration of the second generation of this car (1988–1991) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VP)]], the second iteration of the second generation of this car (1991–1993) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VR)]], the third iteration of the second generation of this car (1993–1995) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VS)]], the fourth iteration of the second generation of this car (1995–1997) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VT)]], the first iteration of the third generation of this car (1997–2000) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VX)]], the second iteration of the third generation of this car (2000–2002) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VY)]], the third iteration of the third generation of this car (2002–2004) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VZ)]], the fourth iteration of the third generation of this car (2004–2006) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VE)]], the first iteration of the fourth generation of this car (2006–2013) * Commodore SS model of [[Holden Commodore (VF)]], the second iteration of the fourth generation of this car (2013–2017)

maybe more valid DABing. — Alalch E. 19:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The second one is great. To be honest, if you want to add that to the page below the #REDIRECT line as a draft DAB. It works nicely. Tartar Torte 22:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support disambiguating per the above. I think what would be better is something more like a set index though I think the above suggestion is fine as a starting point and gets the job done for now. I think this might viable as an article, though it would of course need to be sourced (previously was an unsourced article [2]). A7V2 ( talk) 23:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• The Holden Commodore article mentions it as a trim level. There are set index articles for Chevrolet Corvette Z06 and Volkswagen Golf R32 but no others; should we have similar pages for every trim level? Peter James ( talk) 22:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

It also refers to it as a "high-performance variant" and "model". — Alalch E. 13:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Time Variance Authority (Marvel Cinematic Universe) → Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Time Variance Authority  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Retarget to Time Variance Authority, which is an article specifically about this fictional entity. It makes no sense to direct readers to a general article with one paragraph about the Time Variance Authority rather than to the article dedicated to the entity, which includes more information on the Marvel Cinematic Universe anyway Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep. The redirect properly points to the specific entity in the MCU, which also features a "See also" link to the comic book inspiration. I makes perfect sense for a MCU link to point to an MCU section. Otherwise we would have to set a dangerous precedent saying any derivative redirect of a subject should only link to the original. TNstingray ( talk) 17:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Do not retarget As I explained to the nominator, there is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS established by the MCU taskforce to have these redirects link to MCU-specific lists, rather than to their comics articles. This is documented and explained at WP:MCULINKS, and all of our redirects at Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe redirects do this. If the nominator or another editor feels that Time Variance Authority § Marvel Cinematic Universe is more well-written than Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe § Time Variance Authority, they are welcome to help improve/rewrite the section on Teams. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Time Variance Authority per nom. As the above support !vote states, WP:MCULINKS is just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (and the wording seems to imply that the taskforce owns these redirects, but I assume that "our" means "Wikipedia editors'"). The topic in Time Variance Authority is about the fictional entity in its entirety and discusses it in the context of the MCU so is a better target than a brief section of an overview article. A7V2 ( talk) 23:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ A7V2: As far as I know, no community-wide consensus contradicts or overrides the local consensus of the MCU taskforce, so I don't see a good reason why we should grant this redirect an exception from MCULINKS. When I said our redirects, I meant "redirects which fall within the scope of the MCU taskforce and are monitored by members of said taskforce". InfiniteNexus ( talk) 08:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  The general Wikipedia consensus is to help readers find the articles that they want. A local consensus to do something contrary to that is not a good reason to inhibit people's ability to search properly. If a local taskforce is inhibiting Wikipedia, it should be ignored per WP:IAR. This redirect discussion is trying to help readers rather than allow a guideline written by a few fandom editors inhibit people's ability to find content on Wikipedia properly. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 20:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  I don't see how keeping the redirect as it is inhibits anyone's ability to search properly. Anyone searching would find relevant information either way. If the searcher does want the general article on the Time Variance Authority across all media, rather than an MCU-specific list, they would still find the that article because it's linked prominently at the current target. – Scyrme ( talk) 22:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  What Scyrme said. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Community wide consensus is to follow WP:RPURPOSE, and further to follow the result of a RFD discussion. I and the nom have argued that Time Variance Authority is a better target. You have referred to an essay/local consensus. "We" are not granting an exception from MCULINKS. I am simply giving my opinion, with reasoning, on what is a better target. I don't agree that this sets a "dangerous precedent", since the article discusses the subject in both the comic book and MCU contexts. If the result of this discussion is that the target changes, perhaps it is MCULINKS that needs to be altered. Further, I'm not even fully convinced that the proposed target is in any way a violation of MCULINKS since MCULINKS is about linking to things through redirects rather than directly: "retain their links to MCU-appropriate redirects, should their targets change as new sections or relevant articles are created" - there is nothing there about what these redirects should target. A7V2 ( talk) 22:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  See my response below. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• I don't have a strong opinion either way. It seems to me that either target is adequate. It's been argued that Time Variance Authority is more informative, but this isn't a strong argument when material could easily be moved/copied to reverse the situation.
  If it is retargetted, it should be to the specific section Time Variance Authority § Marvel Cinematic Universe. The exact guidance at WP:MCULINKS is link to its MCU version instead of its comics version; arguably the relevant section at Time Variance Authority is the entry for the "MCU version", since no separate article exists (contrast with Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) vs Captain America, where the "MCU version" is obvious). The Taskforce's guidance doesn't say anything about ignoring sections of an article covering both the comics and other media in favour an MCU-only list article entry. It does explicitly mention sections, but doesn't say that they should be on MCU-only articles/lists. The guidance seems more concerned about stressing that redirects shouldn't be bypassed than segregating MCU and non-MCU articles. If maximising segregation is intended, that's not clear to me. – Scyrme ( talk) 22:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  This redirect, along with the other ones at Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe character redirects to lists and Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe element redirects to lists, were created for the sole purpose of taking readers to the MCU list articles. If this redirect is retargeted, then there's no point in keeping the MCU list article. While it isn't clearly documented at MCULINKS, there were also past discussions where editors opposed to pointing MCU-specific redirects to the In other media sections of their comic counterparts, unless their entry on the MCU list article is substantially less comprehensive than the comics article. We can add this to MCULINKS if needed. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Not sure why retargetting would mean there would be no point in keeping the list article. There would be other redirects and direct links which point to the list, and the list could be helpful as an overview rather than as a main destination. Or is the point that the list is supposed to be the main destination? Is there some broader plan to centralise MCU-related content in list articles until those topics become sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles?

  Regardless, if your Taskforce agrees that list articles should be prioritised as targets over "in other media" sections, I think it would be worth adding that to WP:MCULINKS and elaborating on "link to its MCU version instead of its comics version, if possible" to provide some guidance on the proper target (ie. the "MCU version") in cases where no separate article exists to help clarify the rationale behind preferred redirect targets. – Scyrme ( talk) 18:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Or is the point that the list is supposed to be the main destination? Is there some broader plan to centralise MCU-related content in list articles until those topics become sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles? – Yes. I'll try to dig up past discussions so we can add it to MCULINKS. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  I've added in some guidance to WP:MCULINKS, based on past consensus (explicit or implicit). InfiniteNexus ( talk) 19:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment I've expanded Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe § Time Variance Authority with content adapted from the TVA article. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  I believe this addresses Joseph2302's initial concern, which was that the Teams article did not have as much info. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per rationales above. A reader who goes to the trouble of including "Marvel Cinematic Universe" in the search or the link is looking for this content in the context of its appearance in the MCU. BD2412 T 20:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per InfiniteNexus and BD2412, and to uphold the goals of the MCU taskforce. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 21:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The current target was already consistent with the purpose of redirects, in this case taking readers to a relevant section, and reasons to retarget to a section in another article are weaker now due to recent changes. The MCU Taskforce evidently has the aim of making broad list articles the main destination for MCU subtopics that don't yet have or don't warrant their own articles, and I can see how doing so could be helpful readers and editors. (eg. It could help keep things consistent - thereby aiding navigation, and ensure articles stay focused on-topic, without bloating due to stretching their scope.) I don't see much point in interfering without a strong reason. – Scyrme ( talk) 23:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Woodbury Royals Band Boosters → Woodbury High School (Minnesota)#Music department  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible search term, not mentioned anywhere in article or, indeed, anywhere in mainspace. Was originally an article of its own that was speedy deleted, recreated, PRODed, and redirected in 2013, so it isn't eligible for R3. —  SamX [ talk •  contribs 07:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment they are a registered 501c3, [ https://www.givemn.org/organization/Woodbury-Royals-Band-Boosters][ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/262066741] and this is the closest affiliated entity with an article. But because there is no mention, I'll go delete because the current article would be of no use to someone looking for info on them, so the redirect is pointless. BhamBoi ( talk) 00:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).