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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Orange star → Orange Star  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Retarget to K-type main-sequence star per WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:PTOPIC: the star type is far more important and has more long-term significance. Cremastra ( talk) 21:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Disambig. There is no clear primary topic on Wikipedia, with both current and proposed targets being in use alongside Multiple working#First-generation. On Google there is a clear primary topic but it's plants not any of the preceding. Looking closer there are at least three different types referred to an Aglaonema, Ornithogalum dubium and a Hosta cultivar. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to K-type main-sequence star Stellar classification#Class K per WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:PTOPIC. For the plant names above... if the google hits Thryduulf mentioned qualify as WP:RS, then the information should be added, and Orange Star (with the title case) should be made into the disambiguation page (and a hatnote on the K-type main-sequence star should link to it). However, without the title case, I don't think the plant names would really count here, and capitalization matters. This is reliant on the google hits being reliable sources, however. Currently, closest mention is that Ornithogalum dubium says it is sometimes called a "sun star", not an orange star. Fieari ( talk) 23:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  It doesn't matter whether uses of a term are in reliable sources or not, only that they are used. In the case of most of the hits I have no idea if they are reliable or not (it's not a topic area I'm familiar with) however the Royal Horticultural Society is definitely reliable. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  If it was a matter of being a redirect directly to one of the flowers, I'd agree that a reliable source is not needed, just evidence of use... but for creating a user-facing disambiguation page, I'd think we do need a reliable source. (Please correct me if I'm wrong though, I try to be aware of wikipedia policy, but I don't know everything.) Certainly we'd need a reliable source to put it in the articles directly, and it would be flat-out weird to have a disambiguation page pointing to an article that didn't mention what the DAB says. Fieari ( talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I've left at note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. Hopefully editors there will be able to assist, although it doesn't give the opinion of being very active. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: if this redirect is retargeted, it should point to Stellar classification#Class K as {{ R from avoided double redirect}}, because K-type star redirects there. Because the title of the redirect is 'Orange star' and not 'Orange main-sequence star' or 'Orange dwarf', this could also refer to subgiant, giant or supergiant stars, so it should not specifically target K-type main-sequence star and should go to K-type star (or in this case where K-type star redirects). InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Good point! I'll adjust my !vote above. Fieari ( talk) 23:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• I watch at the horticulture and gardening project, and I came here from Thryduulf's note. My impression is that the plant names, as common names, are not as useful as search terms as the Latin binomials, so I would go with retargeting the redirect according to the astronomy nomenclature, whatever that may be. It might be fairly common to refer to the Ornithogalum that way, but I think it would be somewhat atypical for Aglaonema, and downright bizarre for Hosta. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate, with Orangestar, and with a see also section for at least Orange knobby star, Orange Rising Star Award, Orange sun star, and Orange County Blue Star. BD2412 T 20:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I have begun a disambiguation page for this purpose at Orange star (disambiguation). BD2412 T 20:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ Cremastra, Thryduulf, Fieari, InterstellarGamer12321, and Tryptofish: - thoughts? This could be moved to Orange star, or kept at the disambiguation title with a hatnote from wherever "Orange star" is targeted. BD2412 T 20:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I like that DAB page. I sort-of like the second idea, of keeping it as a DAB page and using hatnotes, but I think that depends on what the astronomy-oriented editors think about what should be the primary topic, and I'll defer to them. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • My feeling is that the star is still likely the WP:PTOPIC, but there should be a hatnote linking to the very good DAB you've made there. (A section hatnote in this case, since the star redirect points to a specific section.) Fieari ( talk) 23:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

      The evidence from my searching is that there is no primary topic. The dab should be at the base name. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate which would now entail moving BD2412's disambiguation onto this redirect. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:33, 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 Disambiguate by moving Doug Lawrence (disambiguation) to the base title. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Doug Lawrence → Mr. Lawrence  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Per the page view comparison of the current target, the nominated redirect, and Doug Lawrence (jazz) (which I have since moved to Doug Lawrence (musician), which is now included in the page view analysis), it really does not seem as though readers searching "Doug Lawrence" are intending to locate Mr. Lawrence. I'd recommend disambiguate since it is not clear that readers are looking for the jazz musician either. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate, especially as there is also a third person, Douglas Lawrence, who could/should be included on a dab page. This person is an organist, which might explain the "(jazz)" disambiguator. Rosbif73 ( talk) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  ...And Doug Lawrence (musician) moved to Doug Lawrence (jazz musician) because of this. I also updated the pageview analysis link to include the new title. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  ...And Doug Lawrence (disambiguation) created, now that there are >2 possible targets; the page can be moved to the redirect's title if the consensus is to disambiguate. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate per Doug Lawrence (disambiguation), recently created and which has only two edits by nom. Redirect Doug Lawrence (disambiguation) to Doug Lawrence. Jay 💬 06:03, 23 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 Ragnarok (disambiguation)#Music. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer or identify. The closest subject I could find for this title is Ragnarock, but given that is an article about a record label whereas this redirect has seemingly always targeted a page about music genres, I do not believe readers would be trying to find the record label when searching the redirect's title. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Ragnarok (disambiguation)#Music. Nurg ( talk) 08:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Ragnarok (disambiguation)#Music as per Nurg, seems like the most useful target BugGhost 🪲👻 11:17, 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 no consensus. Jay 💬 03:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Untitled Beetlejuice sequel → Beetlejuice Beetlejuice  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete per WP:UFILM. The target subject no longer untitled, and the article was moved to its current title in February 2024, 4 months ago, which is greater than WP:UFILM's 30-day minimum. Steel1943 ( talk) 12:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 13:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Once again the point of UFILM is not that we wait exactly 30 days, but that we wait until the redirects have ceased being useful (30 days being the bottom end of the typical range of time when that occurs). In this case it's still being used on more days that it isn't indicating that the redirect still holds value and the nomination is premature. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  <1 pageview average over the last 30 days seems like its utility has been passed now. And 4 months = 4 * 30 days, which is well over the minimum time established. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  See also my reply above regarding page views. 12 views in 30 days is closer to minimal than the 27 you are claiming above, but double figure views spread pretty evenly through the 30 days strongly indicate utility. That it's been longer than the minimum time means nothing other than it's been longer than the minimum time, as I explained in the comment you are replying to (did you read it?). There is no maximum time - if it's useful (which the evidence shows it still is) then it should be kept, regardless of how long it's been. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thank you for validating that my page view claim contains factual information. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. GSK ( talk • edits) 18:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Thryduulf. I see no valid reason for deleting and "someone finds them useful" is good enough for WP:R#KEEP. Delete it once the film is released or another is in production, when the redirect might cause confusion with the next film. Daask ( talk) 22:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Regarding revisiting this when "...another is in production...": That means this redirect should exist for an estimated average of almost 40 years!? I may no longer be able to care by then for multiple reasons. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete Implausible search term. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  The evidence shows otherwise. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:UFILM, no longer untitled post 30 days. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 21:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Thryduulf's "it's useful to someone" argument, which is a valid keep reason. Fieari ( talk) 23:24, 12 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 no consensus. After two relists, there is no clear consensus on whether this is a sufficiently-likely misspelling. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Roman Catholid Diocese of Down and Connor → Roman Catholic Diocese of Down and Connor  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling of "Catholic" not commonly found in the world, or in comparable redirects to any other of thousands of diocese with articles in Wikipedia. BD2412 T 23:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep, Catholid is a common variant of Catholic. [1] [2] [3] Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Ca: Is it really a "variant", or just a scanno/typo (e.g., [4])? Whatever it is, it's certainly not "common". For example, Newspapers.com gets about 70 million hits for "Catholic" and 11,000 for "Catholid", but almost all of those are immediately apparent as scannos. BD2412 T 01:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I see your point. The examples I cited appear to be errors. However, I think it is still a realistic misspelling since it can be also viewed as a missapplication of the suffix -id. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I realize this is a bit of stretch, so I am crossing out my earlier keep; weak delete. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- unlikely typo, and per WP:PANDORA. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 05:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep; this is a single-character typo that is literally right next to the 'correct' letter on the keyboard and thus satisfies the test of WP:RTYPO. In addition, WP:PANDORA should not be used; see User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 10:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  How can it be figuratively right next to the correct letter instead? In any case, this article title has 35 letters on it. A typical letter on a QWERTY keyboard has on average, roughly 5 adjacent other symbols (not including the space bar here). That means that there are about 2910383045673370361328125 possible one-letter-off typos for this article title alone. This one only exists because someone happened to make it when creating the article before it got moved, leaving a redirect in its wake. It's thus not a useful redirect. And RTYPO even says "This page describes some past practices; it does not prescribe mandates for the future." There's no real need to keep this; it just pollutes article space and the search bar. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  How can it be figuratively right next to the correct letter instead?

  ....What?

  2910383045673370361328125 of possible one-letter-off typos for this article title alone

  This is irrelevant as per WP:OTHERSTUFF; pointing out how many "similar redirects" can be made does not and cannot be a measure of how useful a redirect is. (This is also simply a restated WP:PANDORA argument, so User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box still applies.)

  RTYPO even says ""This page describes some past practices; it does not prescribe mandates for the future.""

  It's still what I feel to be the most relevant test we have considering the only thing wrong with this redirect is that it is a single letter off. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 20:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the IP. When you have this long of a title, a single-character typo becomes less useful, especially for something where you switch hands from the previous character (OLI are on the right hand, and then you switch to left for C/D). It's not like United Stated, where the error is at the end of nine letters all typed by the same hand, and thus more likely to make. It's also not like " Cath0lic", where the characters are both adjacent and somewhat similar in appearance. Also, because it's so much longer, probably many people visiting this article will copy/paste the title from somewhere else, unlike my contrary examples, which are short enough that almost everyone would just type them. Finally, check the dictionary for "literally"; it contrasts with "figuratively", which wouldn't make sense here, so you didn't need "literally" at all. Nyttend ( talk) 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  It's a turn of phrase, idk why y'all are getting so hung up on my use of the word 'literally' x3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 16:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  That same dictionary also lists "literally" as a synonym of "really", or "actually". The word literally helps to place emphasis on one's words. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Plausible typo as demonstrated by Ca above, which makes it a valid redirect. I likewise reject pandora arguments, as redirects are WP:CHEAP. The questions should be "Is this ambiguous? Is it harmful? Will it cause confusion? Is it implausible?" and the answer is no to all. Fieari ( talk) 23:30, 12 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 00:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Could also refer to subtopics of Chemical element or Periodic table. However, I'm thinking the best course of action is delete since I do not believe retargeting this redirect to Metal (disambiguation) is a feasible resolution since there doesn't seem to be sufficient entries there that relate to this redirect, and I'm not sure if they belong there either. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I...probably agree? I'm not entirely sure what this redirect is supposed to be alluding to. Do they mean "metal group" in the same way you'd allude to a heavy metal music band as a "metal band"? If that's the case, the disambiguation of it makes no sense. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Revising to Delete. As mentioned below, it looks like this was simply a WP:BLAR that was a quick-fix for eliminating a bogus article many years ago. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It looks like the page started as a joke article. It's too ambiguous to be redirecting anywhere. Nurg ( talk) 08:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - there are too many interpretations for Metal (group). They could be looking for a specific metallic group in the periodic table (such as Alkali metal aka Group 1 element), or under the misconception that metals are themselves a group in the periodic table. They may be looking for heavy metal bands in general, or for a specific band called "Metal" that does not have an article yet. To vague to have a redirect to anywhere specific BugGhost 🪲👻 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Ambiguous, especially due to the unique relationship this word has with 'group' in varying contexts. No good section at Metal (disambiguation) either. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 18:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: For what it's worth, the only band named just " Metal" (and not "metal" plus other words) is from Australia, they started in 2006, released an album in 2013, and... that it. It's even unclear if they're still active or not. In any case, they will likely not pass the threshold of notability. It may have also meant "Group (metal)", as in "heavy metal band" ("Grupo" is sometimes used in Spanish to talk about rock bands, but although that word translates to English as "group", that specific meaning does not). If that was the idea, it was so badly written that it is useless as a redirect. Cambalachero ( talk) 18:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

A redirect in Hindi language, I don't think anyone is going to search Baalveer in hindi on English Wikipedia. M S Hassan ( talk) 09:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per nom's rationale. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 10:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Based on observations by DreamRimmer and Ca below. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment This is the Hindi name for a Hindi television series, so there is sufficient affinity that this is not a straightforward WP:RFOREIGN case. Whether it useful though, I'm undecided. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is definitely a useful redirect. I don't see any reason to delete it. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is unambigous and directs readers to the correct location. Many people use Wikipedia in Hindi-speaking countries. They may have forgotten the correct romanization in English. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Ca Baalveer is a simple name and easy to remember in its romanized form. Given its straightforward transliteration, it's unlikely that users will forget its English spelling. Additionally, this article exists on Hindi Wikipedia, which caters to users searching in Hindi script. Therefore, maintaining a Hindi script redirect on the English Wikipedia seems redundant and unnecessary. M S Hassan ( talk) 15:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  wp:rlang says it's fine if something is notable in and/or originates from any given language are fine to keep so for example, " brasil" is a perfectly usable redirect to brazil, as that's its name in whatever language brazil uses, but Брази́лия wouldn't be as fine, since it's in a completely unrelated language (in this case, russian). so keep per that cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:14, 12 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 (G6) as unambiguously created in error. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Created by a user that seems to have a WP:COI for the redirect. It was moved from a user page to the Wikipedia page, then to the mainspace page where it now sits. reppop ^talk 06:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete: per nom. G6 would have worked here. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 10:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• They are not the first person to move a page to the Wikipedia namespace when attempting to move it to the article namespace, I would be amazed if they were the last. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:54, 12 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).