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 Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places. ✗ plicit 23:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:NPLACE → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Populated places  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This should probably target Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places since WP:PLACEOUTCOMES is not a notability policy. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 21:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget per nom. Neocorelight ( Talk) 02:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget seems reasonable. OrangeDog ( τ •  ε) 09:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per nom. – dlthewave ☎ 12:07, 2 July 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 Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Sticky → Wikipedia:STiki  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible misspelling: Similarly titled Wikipedia:STICKY is a redirect to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. STiki is no longer functional since March 2020. I suggest retargeting to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people and adding a hatnote at the top of Wikipedia:STiki linking to that page. FAdesdae378 ( talk · contribs) 20:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Question - Why is WP:STICKY a redirect for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people? This one doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Fieari ( talk) 06:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  {{ prod blp}} was known as a "sticky prod" at one stage in Wikipedia's history; the redirect dates from then, and it made sense at the time. -- ais523 00:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• If a hatnote still leads to Wikipedia:STiki, that would be fine, I guess. I just remember it being tedious to find when I forgot the spelling. Benjamin ( talk) 01:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people to unify the capitalization variants of "WP:STICKY". A hatnote can be added on top of the retargeting, per Benjaminikuta. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 21:13, 8 July 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. Jay (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• List of Bangladeshi film of 2022 → List of Bangladeshi films of 2022  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Redirect left over from page move. No reason to search for the grammatically incorrect singular "list of film" instead of "list of films". ComplexRational ( talk) 15:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Seems like a reasonable typo to make. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 19:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Seems like a plausible misspelling. F Adesdae 378 21:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep as CHEAP. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos 03:06, 2 July 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 17:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Sarah Forbes (cricketer) → South Africa women's cricket team in Ireland in 2022  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Redirect was improperly re-created immediately after the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Forbes (cricketer) (2nd nomination). Consensus in that discussion was to delete, not redirect, with several editors specifically opposing a redirect. – dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:CHEAP and WP:R#KEEP. "with several editors specifically opposing a redirect" For several read two, with the same number supporting a redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Players like this which (rightly or wrongly) go through the deletion process should, surely, be listified somehow in the first place. I've always said that in theory all lists would exist anyway, for [X] players - if this includes [X] [format] players then that's all well and good, it's just more lists to compile. No problem there - first class player by team lists exist all over the place. Bobo . 00:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Think this is a perfectly acceptable redirect at the moment for a player who passes a sports specific guideline, but currently fails WP:GNG. All her international appearances (which is what would have passed her for WP:NCRIC) were in this series and so redirecting there is the thing to do. If the player plays further internationally, the redirect can be changed or deleted, or an article created in it's space if there's GNG passing sources, which will be more likely the more she plays. I'm disappointed that the redirect was ignored in the AfD. It should have perhaps been discussed better by an admin/closer before closing as there was some differences in preferred redirect. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep: For all the policy-based reasons that Lugnuts mentioned. A couple of editors opposing a redirect does not mean that we should ignore all sitewide guidelines/policies on acceptable redirects, which clearly permit this redirect. This RFD seems very WP:POINTy to me... Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Suggest we rename dlthewave to pointywave. StickyWicket ( talk) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. One editor opposed redirection at the AfD, but on grounds that, in my reading, do not apply. Another editor questioned it but I'm not sure they actually opposed it per se. I'm not sure that any of the opposition was on policy grounds - whereas WP:ATD, the grounds on which the redirect was proposed, is policy, rather than a guideline. I considered DRV on this basis, but decided it wasn't worth the inevitable hassle. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 17:17, 5 July 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 Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A. There is consensus to point this emoji redirect to somewhere else. Of the proposed retargets, Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A emerges as the best fitting. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 19:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Described here, "Face With Diagonal Mouth", ambiguous facial expression. Delete, retarget to Emoji, or to its unicode block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• I'm going to go literal with this one and say retarget to Diagonal. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 01:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep the emoji redirect. A better target might be appropriate, if one is proposed, please ping me. Oppose redirecting to Diagonal as I doubt anyone using this emoji is meaning that. Gonnym ( talk) 14:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Emoji or delete, per nom. Veverve ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A, instead of the main emoji article; a description can be added. https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20219-face-with-diagonal-mouth-emoji.pdf explains. List of emoticons would be an alternative, as it is already described there although grouped with others and not individually. 82.132.184.38 ( talk) 22:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget; there's no ideal target but Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A is better than nothing. One of the main purposes of redirects from Unicode characters is so that people can use Wikipedia to find out what a particular character they can't render is (by copying and pasting it into the search box), so this should ideally be a section or anchor redirect to a relevant list entry, but we don't have one. (Sadly, List of emoticons isn't a sensible target because this is an emoji, not an emoticon; if an article about A defines it as being a sort of B, you don't redirect to that article to define a B.) Redirecting to the Unicode block at least lets people realise "oh, this must be an emoji I can't render", but trying to use the redirect to make a statement about the meaning of the emoji would be something that requires sourcing. -- ais523 04:52, 2 July 2022 ( U T C)

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 Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A. There is consensus to retarget and Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A seems to be the best-fitting option of those provided. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 19:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Described here, "Dotted Line Face", ambiguous emoji that should be deleted, retargeted to Emoji, or pointed at its unicode block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep as perhaps the primary topic. I considered being literal with this one, but Dotted line isn't very helpful. I thought the Emojipedia entry had a cool fact: An established comic book trope, dotted lines around a character can represent someone that is invisible or hidden. There doesn't seem to be a good landing spot for hidden or hide so that leaves invisibility. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 01:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep the emoji redirect but target to a better target. This isn't an invisibility emoji and as can be seen here not all versions of this emoji is white. Gonnym ( talk) 14:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Emoji, or delete, per nom. I do not see what this emoticon is supposed to mean. Veverve ( talk) 00:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A, a description can be added there– https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20223-dotted-line-face.pdf is already in the references. 82.132.184.38 ( talk) 22:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget; there's no ideal target but Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A is better than nothing. My reasoning is basically the same as on the RfD of 🫤, and repeated for convenience:

  One of the main purposes of redirects from Unicode characters is so that people can use Wikipedia to find out what a particular character they can't render is (by copying and pasting it into the search box), so this should ideally be a section or anchor redirect to a relevant list entry, but we don't have one. Redirecting to the Unicode block at least lets people realise "oh, this must be an emoji I can't render", but trying to use the redirect to make a statement about the meaning of the emoji would be something that requires sourcing. -- ais523 04:54, 2 July 2022 ( U T C)

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 no consensus. A sustained and irreconciliable divide between whether to replace the redirect with an article about the journalist or to retarget to a different person, the politician Amin al-Hafiz. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 03:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Amin Hafeez → Geo News  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, likely independently notable (see: [1]), delete to encourage article creation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Rosguill's rationale. Being creator of the redirect, I've also requested CSD G7. Thanks AHatd ( talk) 01:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Amin al-Hafiz where Amin Hafez and Amin Hafiz also redirect. Jay (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  Well "hafeez" and "Hafiz" are two different surnames. And this case redirect under discussion is intended for this Amin Hafeez [2] [3] [4], who used to work for the Geo News. I don't see anywhere Amin al-Hafiz being called Amin Hafeez, so it'll be not very appropriate to retarget this Amin Hafeez to Amin al-Hafiz. Thanks AHatd ( talk) 13:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Jay as a plausible misspelling (I doubt most English readers will be attuned to differences in vowel length in Arabic). Of course, editors should be free to expand into an article about the other person (though please don't forget to add a hatnote). – Uanfala ( talk) 22:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:28, 1 July 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 Kähler manifold#Characterizations of complex projective varieties and compact Kähler manifolds. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Hodge manifold → Kodaira embedding theorem  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Hodge manifolds → Kodaira embedding theorem  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Hodge variety → Kodaira embedding theorem  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Hodge metric → Kodaira embedding theorem  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I suggest retarget to Kähler manifold or Hodge theory. Because I think a Kähler manifold M is called a Hodge manifold (variety) if its Kähler metric is a Hodge metric. SilverMatsu ( talk) 04:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Neither of the suggested targets mention "Hodge manifold", "Hodge variety", or "Hodge metric"; if the redirect target is changed, that article should also have the appropriate definitions inserted explicitly. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comment. I think the more clearer target is Kähler manifold#Characterizations of complex projective varieties and compact Kähler manifolds, and I'm going to insert a definition there.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 00:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget per nom where the mention has been added. Jay (talk) 10:04, 8 July 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) 03:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Addiction in Mobile → Problematic smartphone use  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Questionable redirect in general. It's a bit of a leap for me. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 03:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Iseult thanks for that. But this is to inform you that Problematic smartphone use is known as addition in mobile in Bangla.The name addition in mobile is common in Bangla. that's why when I translate the Problematic smartphone use page in Bangla I use the name addition in mobile . You can see the page here if you transilate the Bangla base page name , you may realize the fact.-- Abdullah☆ ( Talk) 08:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ MdaNoman: 'addiction in mobile' is not a phrase that makes sense in English. As for the translation, my machine translation gives 'mobile phone addiction' or 'addiction to mobile phones', etc. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 14:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't think you should be lecturing a native Bengali speaker about Bengali nuances based on your machine translations; it might come off as insensitive. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 20:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's my bad. I meant that in reference to "if you transilate the Bangla base page name , you may realize the fact", which I did, and failed to get the same results. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete as implausible. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos 03:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Iseult: Though you know that very welly, I am telling again that '"in" is an appropriate preposition after the word "addiction". And according to my knowledge "mobile", "cell phone" and " smartphone" are so much similar. And @ Mellohi!: Actually I am not telling about machine translation at all. And @ IAmChaos: would you mind saying the reason of commenting the word "implausible " ? In fact, I am thinking that the the current page name is suitable. However, I am respectful in all of yours opinion . If you all are that the name is not suitable at all kindly move the page to Cell Phone Addiction without redirection as I don't have enough right to do the work. Thanking you all. -- Abdullah☆ ( Talk) 15:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I understand that you mean this in regarding addiction in mobile phone use, but to simply have it as 'addiction in mobile' is not a correct use of the preposition 'in' in English. Maybe we're missing something in Bengali? Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:13, 2 July 2022 to (UTC)

@ Iseult: no dear, we are not messing anything in Bangla . The machine translation is not right at all. Then you can move the page to addiction in mobile phone use without redirection.-- Abdullah☆ ( Talk) 17:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ MdaNoman The reason I used the word implausible is because the title makes no grammatical sense, and is not likely something that a user would type in when searching for mobile phone addiction. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos 23:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete this recently created redirect. Confusing redirect that does not mean something that might refer to the current target, and has improper capitalization of "Mobile". Taken literally, it might be thought to refer to addiction (e.g. drug addiction) in a place called Mobile, such as Mobile, Alabama, for which we have no content. The 'correct' form of this redirect Addiction to mobile would still be a vague, poor redirect. Mdewman6 ( talk) 18:55, 4 July 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. Jay (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Kafka trap → List of fallacies#Kafka-trapping  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Topic no longer at target page — Guarapiranga  ☎ 00:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to wiktionary entry: Kafkatrap (one word). Fieari ( talk) 01:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Adding that this Redirect !vote is contingent on whether or not the entry is removed from the article. It seems that is in debate right now... I don't really want to join the debate, but if the result is that the entry is removed from the list, redirect to wiktionary. If the result is kept, keep the redirect as is. Fieari ( talk) 05:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I now see that what broke the redirect was MartinPoulter's removal of the topic from the List of fallacies. I've reverted his removal, and added further refs, so, if he still disagrees with it, hopefully we'll thrash it out on the talk page. — Guarapiranga  ☎ 05:13, 1 July 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.