Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 12

February 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 12, 2024.

Baker center
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Baker Center. Obvious, WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, etc. (non-admin closure)  Steel1943  (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Baker center → Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Deletion, as this redirect makes it harder to locate articles about places also named “Baker Center”. There is a disambiguation page for “Baker Center” that includes the target article as well as two others. I see little reason for this redirect to continue existing. Slamforeman (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Baker Center as the most helpful option. I've added some more entries there, and created Baker Centre as a redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Slamforeman (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Baker Center per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Baker Center per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Baker center per Lentciel, Presidentman, and Thryduulf. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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).

2005 London bombings
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 19%232005 London bombings

September 26, 1963
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 withdraw / retarget  to September 1963. (non-admin closure)  Steel1943  (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * September 26, 1963 → 1963 (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

No September 26th listed there. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Delete ': per nom. Pointless to redirect a variant of a date to an article that does not mention that date. Meters (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget Still not a great redirect, but at least September 1963 is in use. Meters (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak retarget to September 1963#September 26 as the creator. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to September 1963. I wouldn't have recommended the creation of this redirect, but now it exists we might as well point it to the content about that date we have. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to September 1963 as better target -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Any chance I could convince you to change your stance so I can withdraw this thing? Seems a target was found. Steel1943  (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the ping. Meters (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would prefer deletion, but I will defer to you for the sake of consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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).

List of Cops episodes
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Cops (TV program).  ✗  plicit  23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * List of Cops episodes → List of Cops episodes (season 21–present) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I think that many may want to search the original term in an attempt to find an episode/episodes from before season 21, therefore a disambiguation page seems like the best way. 83.168.137.1 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Cops (TV program), which seems to serve the purpose mentioned by the nominator. Steel1943  (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Steel1943. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Cops (TV program) per Steel1943 as the most suitable target. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 09:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Cops (TV program) per Steel1943 and InterstellarGamer12321. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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).

不
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 弐, delete others.


 * Delete 不
 * Delete 銅
 * Delete 嫉
 * Delete 漏
 * Retarget 弐 to Japanese numerals signed,Rosguill talk 17:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 不 → Negation (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 銅 → Copper (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 嫉 → Īrṣyā (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 漏 → Asava (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 弐 → Chinese numerals (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

WP:FORRED redirect for a kanji not discussed at the target article, with the target article having no affinity towards this kanji. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've since bundled four other kanji redirects to articles that don't necessarily have an affinity for kanji, or the kanji translation I'd expect to see related are just not present at the article. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 07:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep 弐 -- retarget to Japanese numerals. This is a simplified variant shinjitai character per 弐 for the complex character 貳. It can be tagged as a -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget 弐 to Japanese numerals per IP above. As far as I can see it is a Japanese only variant character of 貳 (which is what Chinese people write on a cheque instead of 二 because it can't be easily turned into a 三 by a forger). —Kusma (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: None are needed or actually helpful. UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would the actual Japanese numeral listed at Japanese numeral not be helpful or needed? -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Retarget 1 and 2 to Wiktionary where there might be more help for those actually searching for the definition of these Han characters. Keep 3, 4, 5 as those seem plausible foreign language titles for those willing to learn more about these topics. Awesome Aasim 07:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 5 is not Chinese. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * [citation needed] In any case, I have no objections to Wiktionary-ifying this redirect either. Awesome Aasim 17:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Instead, my suggestion is to retarget 5 to Japanese numerals per 65.92. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a longstanding consensus to delete foreign-language redirects, see WP:RLOTE. Queen of Hearts 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus to (soft) retarget 不 (1), 銅 (2), and 弐 (5), but what do we do with 嫉 (3) and 漏 (4)? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect 不 and 銅, delete 嫉 and 漏, retarget 弐 to Japanese numerals. WP:RLOTE, delete the ones without plausible targets. Queen of Hearts 19:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Retarget 弐 to Japanese numerals per above. Delete the rest per WP:FORRED unless they are mentioned somewhere on the English Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not a translation service (unless there is an article explaining the character/term) and since these redirects have not been repeatedly recreated. Steel1943  (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

HSOWA
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * HSOWA → Gameplay of Pokémon (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

stands for "hot skitty on wailord action". self-explanatory  cogsan (nag me)  (stalk me) 16:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless. User:Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete the wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of memes -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. For the person that made this redirect, you are in the wrong place for your internet meme. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Minister for Education and Youth Affiars (New South Wales)
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete  .  ✗  plicit  14:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * <span id="Minister for Education and Youth Affiars (New South Wales)">Minister for Education and Youth Affiars (New South Wales) → Minister for Education and Early Learning (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete. Unlikely typo for a defunct position. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Napoleon (upcoming film)
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . Hey man im josh (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * <span id="Napoleon (upcoming film)">Napoleon (upcoming film) → Napoleon (2023 film) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

request for deletion. the redirect is unlogical (the movie was released last year). LennBr (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. These redirects are typically kept for a while after the page move to allow all the people looking for it at this title to find it at the new one, e.g. bookmarks and links from outside Wikipedia are updated. While the views of this page are slowing down, it is still getting hits on more days than it isn't and multiple hits on about half the days indicating that it's utility hasn't ended yet. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * keep per - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉 (talk&#124;contributions) 16:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UFILM. Subject was released more than 30 days ago, and the page view noise is almost nonexistent. Steel1943  (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * An average of more than one hit per day in the 30 days prior to the nomination is not remotely "almost non-existent". Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You sometimes agree with deletion per WP:UFILM with this few page views, and sometimes you don't. 1-2 views/day average, to me, is always minimal page view noise to where WP:UFILM applies to support deleting the redirect. It's not until at least 5-10 views/day average where I would change this stance. Steel1943  (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1-2 views per month is usually noise, a sustained 1-2 views per day average pretty much never is, but the relative number of views pre and post move, and the pattern of those views also matters. I will repeat again though (because it often gets overlooked) that determining when a redirect of this nature has ceased to be useful almost always includes some subjectivity (there was one case a while back where there had been exactly zero views for about 4-5 months). There is no single figure for page views or time that applies in every case. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, we don't agree on the definition of a "low amount of page views over a period of time". That's okay. Steel1943  (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete; the movie was released in 2023 and is not "upcoming" under any stretch of the imagination, several months later. Now that time has been given, this redirect is now misleading and causes confusion. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Time has been given, but not enough time for people to stop regularly using this redirect to find the target article (there being no other upcoming film by this name means this isn't confusing). Anyone who doesn't know the film has been released will learn that from the target rather than being left confused by search results which may be several clicks/taps away and may or may not include the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly against a future RfD. There is agreement that it should be deleted, only no agreement when it should be deleted. Delete now because the cost of going through a second RfD isn't worth it. The loss of utility incurred by not having this redirect is marginal and is outweighed by the benefit of not having a second RfD. Proceeding from this, whenever there is agreement that something should be deleted, but no agreement when, and the stakes aren't high, it should just be deleted, as a matter of principle; we can even form a consensus to delete it in a month from the date of closing of this RfD and Db-xfd it then. Wanting a second full discussion is too much process.—Alalch E. 13:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I very, very strongly oppose that. Even if the time was equally valuable the cost of an RfD for editors is much less than the cost to readers of breaking links and making it unnecessarily hard to find the content they are looking for, but in reality reader time is very significantly more valuable than editor time. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per the spirit of WP:UFILM. From 10,000 views per day, the views came to 6,000 per day as the release drew closer. After the move in Dec 2022, the views dropped from ~3000 to less than 500. For a year following that, the views were 5-10-15 per day justifying the redirect. Anytime from Dec 2023 was a good time to nominate this for deletion since it was a good waiting period in order to allow pageviews to taper off. If "taper off" at UFILM is to be interpreted as 0 views, then we need to amend UFILM to explicitly mention such an interpretation, otherwise we are done "tapering off". Jay  💬 15:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As explained repeatedly "taper off" does not mean 0 views, but it does mean fewer than 1 per day on average and the pattern of views also matters. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When you say "it does mean", is it your personal opinion, or are you basing this on prior discussions or a meta page, because UFILM doesn't mention pageview counts? Jay  💬 17:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep These need to be deleted eventually, but the value of deleting them now rather than later has never been explained at any of these discussions. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UFILM, it was released more than 30 days ago. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UFILM, a straightforward piece of guidance intended to avoid protracted debate every time one of these is nominated. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

0 A.D. (video game
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  05:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * <span id="0 A.D. (video game">0 A.D. (video game → 0 A.D. (video game) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

We should not have redirects with parenthetical disambiguation where the closing bracket is missing. If this is typed into search, the reader will certainly be led to the correct page without a redirect, requiring 0-1 extra clicks. —Alalch E. 03:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, implausible. Complex / Rational  13:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RDAB. Steel1943  (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:UNNATURAL. Not sure why this was created in the first place. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Omission of the last parenthesis is a common Reddit formatting screw-up. Ca <sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">talk to me!  01:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete although its existed since 2012 its always been a redirect.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment, this redirect has received 10 pageviews this month. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ca and Utopes. It's clear that this redirect is useful, deletion will not bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that the redirect only received pageviews because of this CfD which is now a TfD: Templates for discussion/Log/2024 February 11. It's something that CfD/TfD people would click from the category, out of curiosity. It's at the top of the list. These probably aren't organic pageviews. —Alalch E. 13:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, I commented because I was confused why this title was being nominated individually (given that I likely would have bundled it later), especially when there's still a good 100+ or so similar redirects with 0 pageviews this month. I see now that it's been placed in the "redirects of dubious utility" category, to which I agree with this assessment. 0.3 views a day for a pretty eye-catching category I feel is essentially noise and not indicative of high use. The correct title shows up in "Did you mean..." if someone didn't already use autofill. Better to remove this implausible redirect which encourages unideal naming practices. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Another instance where a grammatical error like this is extremely unlikely to happen. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

January 6 hostage crisis
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 20%23January 6 hostage crisis

Unforms of the canadian forces
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  05:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Unforms of the canadian forces → Uniforms of the Canadian Armed Forces (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This nomination is not about all-lowercase. Notice the typo in the fist word, "Unforms". It lacks an "i". Not a plausible redirect. —Alalch E. 03:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The capitalisation isn't a problem, the typo in the first word is and I'm unsure about the missing "armed" too. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete I have never seen any typo of “Uniform” as “Unform” - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉 (talk&#124;contributions) 15:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 09:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

George Floyd race riots
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  💬 15:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * George Floyd race riots → George Floyd protests (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

WP:RNEUTRAL. Nobody refers to them this way. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 02:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL #3. Based on my searches, there does appear to be usage of this phrase from mainly right-wing sources. See, e.g.,, , and . - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. RNEUTRAL#3 still requires that we're considering reliable sources, not deprecated or otherwise unreliable sources like those above. If we're not considering reliability, we can create absolutely any redirect that's been mentioned on the internet (defeating the point of that guideline). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The second source is The New York Post, and the third is a reprint of an article from The Wall Street Journal (here is a link to the paywalled version). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * NY Post is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP). The third link was to "The Red Line", but I see now it's WSJ. It's an opinion piece in the WSJ, though, which isn't reliable for anything beyond the author's opinions. IMO we should not have such low standards for this sort of thing. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 00:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're misinterpreting the rule you're citing. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete As with all of these a POV fork is designed to enable someone to call them a riot, despite RS not using the term. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as the phrase is only from a handful of non-reliable, far-right sources and opinion pieces. It is also a deliberately misleading phrase. The events were not "race riots". Many of those were actually convicted of riot-related charges were White Americans. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Firstly, note that this is a redirect, so the only time it will be seen is generally if someone searches for it. Given that someone searching for the article may not fully understand what took place (hence the reason they might like to read the article), so helping someone find what they are looking for is a positive. Secondly, there is clearly usage amongst sources, some questionable (but still used by some of our readers no doubt), and some are not, for example The Australian (I can't link directly due to paywall but see the headline here "George Floyd race riots show American dreams in flames"). A7V2 (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no requirement that non-neutral terms appear in reliable sources in order to justify a redirect, they are simply required to be established terms. Indeed a term appearing only or primarily in unreliable sources can often make a good redirect as it enables people to find NPOV coverage of the event (or person, etc) and coverage in reliable sources when they use a different term. It's also worth remembering that usage here is effectively ABOUTSELF - all we're looking for is evidence of use of the term in this context, and even a deprecated source can be used to verify that that source used a given term in a given context. In this case however, the term does appear in reliable sources (e.g. The Week, The Australian, City Journal, Manhattan Institute (the latter two are biased sources that require attribution, but that's irrelevant here). Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep. Seems the net positive of someone not knowing that the target article uses the word "protests" on its title and allowing the redirect as an option to get there outweighs the WP:RNEUTRAL issues. Steel1943  (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete This wasn't a riot against Whites and Blacks, this was just simply protesting to give more respect to Black Lives as in "Black Lives Matter". StaleGuy22 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Where does the redirect title imply that this was "a riot against Whites and Blacks"? "Race riots" just means riots where race was a/the motivating factor. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (StaleGuy22 on another account). Ah, my bad. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Theroy of Evolution
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  💬 16:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Theroy of Evolution → Evolution (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Redirect from typo. While it's obviously possible that anybody could accidentally type "theroy" instead of "theory" by mistake, we don't need to create preemptive redirects from every typo we can possibly imagine somebody making -- a person could also accidentally type "tehroy", "thoery", "theryo", "theoyr", "hteryo", "rgwiet", or any number of other things, and any number of possible typos in "evolution" too, so there's no need for us to preemptively create thousands of redirects from every possible typo. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Long-standing redirect and, since even the nominator admits this is a plausible misspelling, I see no reason to delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Plausible typo" is not grounds for keeping a redirect from a misspelling — there are literally thousands of ways that the title "theory of evolution" could possibly be mistyped, so we can't feasibly create a redirect from every possible misspelling that anybody might ever type by mistake. The bar that would have to be cleared to justify a redirect-from-misspelling is evidence that a significant number of people in the real world actually think that theroy is the actual spelling of the word, not just whether it's possible to imagine that somebody might mistype it that way by accident — because again, there are thousands of different possible ways to mistype any word or title, and there's no value in trying to predict all of them in advance. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree this one is pretty silly, obvious delete Efbrazil (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: 100% harmless and WP:CHEAP. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep cheap, harmless, old. Even saved some typing for a few people in the past 90 days. Though I agree that obvious typographical error redirects should not be created. They should be deleted under R3 when they appear. &#8213; Synpath 17:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep simple transposition of two-letters that are next to each other, thus a likely form of R from typo . We are also not creating a new redirect, since this isn't a redirect creation request. This redirect has been around for over 15 years -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since any two letters in any word can be accidentally transposed by any typist at any time, keeping this on those grounds would inherently require the creation of millions of redirects from every possible transposition of all the letters in every title of every article we have at all. So the relevant question here isn't "is it possible to mistype ro instead of or?", because it's always possible to mistype any combination of letters — the question is whether "theroy-->theory" is such a uniquely special case of such uniquely special importance that it requires special treatment over and above all other possible typos that we don't handle this way, which it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No one is proposing mass-creation of redirects. But this one is already here, so we may as well keep it. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 02:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete There's too much garbage on Wikipedia and we need to clean it up.18:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Genome42 (talk)
 * Whether or not that is true in the abstract, this is not an example of garbage. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Presidentman and Synpath, this is demonstrably helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as R typo. Normally someone will make a typo redirect once they made the mistake themself. Respublik (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't have nominated this redirect, as a number of even worse typos I've seen survive these discussions. A past me would've sent something like New zealad to RfD, which I saw go by in the queue last week or so (very new). In an ideal world, that redirect would never exist, but ah well. I agree there's almost no chance "theroy" is a common typo (zero views in the month before nom), and there's hundreds of ways to butcher the spelling of any random word for any random page. At the end of the day, the spelling of "theroy" is nothing special and is not a plausible typo in comparison to the hundreds of other typos, which no one has justified. Unfortunately, my delete !vote is mainly spiritual, because it's been around for a while and on the scale of pressing typo problems, this one is low I fear. Ideally we could delete it while we're here with the RfD open, but keeping or deleting doesn't really do anything as it's a bit of a nothingburger in the grand scheme of typos. There's other problem redirects worth the time. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is actually a double mistake: one of many possible typos with nothing to suggest that it is especially common, as well as improper capitalization, as evolution is a common noun and most occurrences in the literature treat it as such in theory of evolution. (The properly capitalized title with the same typo does not exist.) Complex / Rational  14:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete because Theroy doesn't exist and never has, meaning there is no expectation that the nominated redirect is likely, even if this redirect was created (as an article) in 2008. Steel1943  (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the comments that most of the people that put "Keep" say. StaleGuy22 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep average redirect from misspelling. Pageviews surely come from the users making the typo, which is evidence of this being a non-useless redirect. The incorrect capitalization doesn't matter in this case, because the redirect works either way (even if "Theroy of evolution" is entered).—Alalch E. 01:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unlikely misspelling and not plausible enough for keeping. <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 03:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Minecrat
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  💬 16:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Minecrat → Minecraft (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Redirect from typo. I can find no evidence on the web that any significant number of people actually refer to this game as "Minecrat" on purpose -- I can find a few stray examples of people who mistyped it as Minecrat, but not nearly enough to suggest that there's any significant phenomenon of people spelling it that way to take into account. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 02:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: clearly a plausible misspelling if you have found instances of it "in the wild." Harmless and WP:CHEAP. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Simple typos and plausible misspellings are not the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Typos are a subset of misspellings. Some of them are more plausible than others. A mistyping is an acceptable and useful redirect. If the misspelling was deliberate or a "phenomenon" then by definition it wouldn't be a misspelling. Over forty people have found this useful in the last few months, so keeping it is a small net benefit to the encyclopedia. Unlikely but vaguely plausible redirects that get occasional usage do absolutely no harm whatsoever and serve a small benefit to the encyclopedia. Redirects are cheap, and there is no substantial rationale for deletion, in my view. 🌺 Cremastra  (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cremastra. Small benefit + no harm = net positive to the encyclopaedia. Deleting things that are a net benefit to the project is exactly what we should not be doing. Thryduulf (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep R typo. Respublik (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:XY with Minecart. Not a plausible typo, neither Minecraft nor Minecart are hard to spell, really not worth keeping. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I agree with that this is WP:XY - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉 (talk&#124;contributions) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambiguous misspelling. Steel1943  (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. A rare misspelling that never happens to anyone, I would say get rid of this. StaleGuy22 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. IMO this isn't an WP:XY redirect; the title doesn't contain "and" or "or". However, WP:RDEL #2 ("might cause confusion") seems to apply for the reason given by Utopes. PleaseStand (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oftentimes, WP:XY is applied in the abstract for whenever a target could equally refer to "x" or to "y", with no way to make a definitive conclusion to an individual target. A pretty easily definable example would be something like Shmapples and shmoranges, which would be an unideal redirect that plausibly refers to either of the two subjects. When it comes to typos that are barely separable from two or more correct titles, these cases have also fallen under WP:XY's "abstract" definition. A recent example that I remember involving WP:XY would be for Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 8, which was one letter off of both idiom, and indium, with no way to achieve 100% confidence that one is the "correct" typo. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete because it could also contain a typo of Minecart.—Alalch E. 23:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Complete esults of the Canadian federal election, 2004
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  05:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * <span id="Complete esults of the Canadian federal election, 2004">Complete esults of the Canadian federal election, 2004 → Results of the 2004 Canadian federal election by riding (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Unlikely typo; this was the page title for less than half a day. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as this is an unlikely typo. - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉 (talk&#124;contributions) 15:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Jo The Fire Dragon and for another reason, if a result is published, then it is already "complete". This means that the "complete" is unnecessary to me. StaleGuy22 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Misspelled, and nothing on Wikipedia is ever "complete". Steel1943  (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per above as an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 09:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).