Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 19#Knowledge Graph

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 List of lists of lists. Rusalkii (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List ofList of → List  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 2#List of, though consensus was not quite clear; no reference to that discussion in the recreation though. Right now this appears at the top of the search box when entering "List of", which I imagine is more confusing than helpful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. The redirect target at the time of the 2016 discussion was List of lists of lists. When a new redirect was created in 2020, it was to a different target, List, which was then a disambiguation page, and is now a substantive article on the concept of a list. For a reader actually linking or searching for the exact phrase, "List of", this seems to be a perfectly fine result. BD2412 T 16:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add a hatnote similar to that found at List of lists of lists which directs people to where they can find lists on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The use of the phrase "List of" on Wikipedia is incredibly meta to Wikipedia; as a search term used by readers, the redirect is not a plausible one as both an incomplete phrase and leaves the question "list of ... WHAT?" Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely disagree with the first part of your assertion - this is a plausible search term for someone looking for either encyclopaedic information about lists of things (the current target) or an index to lists of things (to be linked in my proposed hatnote). The unspecified topic of the list is exactly why this is not being proposed to target a specific individual list but an index to them. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly I do not see this being a plausible search term in this conspicuously incomplete form. 1234qwer1234qwer4 08:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the target of the previous Rfd - List of lists of lists. That was a decade back, and consensus can change, and as the nomination says: "consensus was not quite clear". I find "List of" analogous to List of things or List of entities or List index, all of which redirect to my proposed target. Jay 💬 12:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BD. charlotte ^👸♥ 00:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RanDom 404 (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of lists of lists, where one can find the top-level "list of ____". -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of lists of lists, essentially per Jay's rationale that the term does feel more analogous to someone wanting to find a directory lists of "stuff", rather than an article on what a List means. The fact that as a search time, a reader has to type more than simply "List" would indicate to me that in this scenario, they wish for something beyond the article List. I'd also not be averse to outright delete, as it's perhaps a weak search term, at best, given it's incomplete nature. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of lists of lists, per above. Supertian8 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of lists of lists per Jay and Tavix; this got over 13,000 pageviews in 2024 so I think pointing somewhere is better than deletion given the heavy use of this redirect. 04:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog Farm (talk • contribs)

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 Christ the King Mission Seminary. Divine Word Mission Seminary has more support, but since it itself is a redirect, I retargeted the original target to Christ the King Mission Seminary instead. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DWMSDWMS → Bombo Radyo Philippines  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

DWMS is not mentioned at target article, See old AFD. 112.207.123.170 _{Talk to me!} 13:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see further participation given the nominator is a blocked IP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• retarget to Divine Word Mission Seminary -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to either Divine Word Mission Seminary or DWSM. Either may work, one as the initialism if known by that name, and one as a transpose typo. Techie3 (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2025 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 23:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Release! → A Minecraft Movie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Again, no passing mention in the article itself. TzarN64 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Useless meme fodder. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, it's also highly ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just a quick note to @Thryduulf – the formatting of your comment seems to have broken a bit. Xoontor (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers, I just missed a leading apostrophe. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 21 April 2025 (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. Rusalkii (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am SteveI am Steve → A Minecraft Movie#Marketing and release  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• I... am SteveI... am Steve → A Minecraft Movie#Marketing and release  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in the main article, useless TzarN64 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to A Minecraft Movie#"Chicken jockey" TikTok trend, becuase it is mentioned there. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've merged these nominations that had an identical rationale and identical recommendation by Senior Captain Thrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Unless these phrases have actual, significant, critical coverage, these are just meme fodder. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The quotation is mentioned in the article two times: once in the section titled "Marketing and release" (Various clips and images from the trailer, such as the designs of a bleating pink sheep and a white llama, and Jack Black saying 'I... am Steve', were ridiculed by online commenters.) and once in the section titled "'Chicken jockey' TikTok trend" (Other viral lines include 'flint and steel' and 'I am Steve', though neither approached the frenzy surrounding 'chicken jockey'.). I think that the first section is the better target, and since both redirects already point there, they should remain as they are. Xoontor (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Xoontor. Important quote associated with the movie and also mentioned therein. No reason not to have this redirect and I just found it useful myself.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - mentioned at target and appears to be fairly unambiguous. Hog Farm _Talk 04:10, 27 April 2025 (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 per WP:SNOW and policy per WP:RDRAFT. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Shack RobertsDraft:Shack Roberts → Shack Roberts  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn’t hold draftspace history of article; unneeded. Roasted (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RDRAFT; this is the redirect left behind when the draft was moved to mainspace. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RDRAFT and Jwoodwa. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RDRAFT - Why pick just this one when there are 10 of thousands of these? It would be a waste of time to delete them all and Redirects are cheap. KylieTastic (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Pretty standard that these are kept around. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep per above Oreocooke (publicly shame) 05:20, 21 April 2025 (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. Nom did not explain the issue with the current redirect or provide an alternative target; no prejudice to renominating. Rusalkii (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disney cartoonsDisney cartoons → List of Walt Disney Pictures films  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Where to target? RanDom 404 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2025 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 15:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Surgut crash → Angara Airlines Flight 9007  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The crash didn't actually occur in Surgut. Even if it did, the redirect still wouldn't make sense because other WP notable plane crashes occured there, such as the 22 January 1971 Surgut Aeroflot Antonov An-12 crash or the 31 January 1971 Surgut Aeroflot Antonov An-12 crash. Mr slav999 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate We have two articles this could refer to, and no obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Paradoctor (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. It's wild to see a plane crash article requiring the full date to distinguish, a disambiguation between those two articles is needed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify due to the different crashes and lack of identified primary topic --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Disambiguation draft requested(done) Rusalkii (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Paradoctor (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2025 (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 Personal pronoun#Person and number. asilvering (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Third-person pronounsThird-person pronouns → Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Third-person pronounThird-person pronoun → Personal pronoun#Person and number  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Contradiction Vivb1 (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd target is the more obvious one. We could have a 'see also' in that section if need be. — kwami (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; the 2nd target is clearly the right one. The plural version needs to be retargeted. Mathglot (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General target is correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Can you specify - which is the general target? Jay 💬 09:06, 26 April 2025 (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 List of LGBTQ acronyms#LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM. Rusalkii (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• LGBTTQQFAGPBDSMLGBTTQQFAGPBDSM → LGBTQ#Variants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to List of LGBTQ acronyms? LIrala (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At best. Apparently a 2015 neologism, with little pickup on the internet and none in books. It is more of a gee-whiz word that other sites mention (if at all) for its length, oddity, and/or absurdity. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

several books: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] plus more. try searching this way: google:"LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM". LIrala (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of LGBTQ acronyms, but I would be fine with a deletion as it is very rarely used.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget seems fine, I think you could have just done this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Retarget The unabbreviated of this acronym appears to be "Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, trans, two-spirit, queer, [drag] queen(?), THE F-SLUR, pedophilia" and then, finally, as if this acronym wasn't long enough, sure, why not throw "BSDM" into the mix? WOW this acronym was pure hell to decode, and all of this was unnessecary anyway thanks to List of LGBTQ acronyms doing a much better unabbreviation than I could possibly try User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this foolishness which makes everyone involved look ridiculous. We need much less of this sort of nonsense/parody. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom, it's mentioned there. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh. My spirit is with Serge, but I guess it is used (sparingly, thank godess) and redirects are cheap, so yeah, I guess, *cough*, retarget. Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of LGBTQ acronyms#LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM. The article claiming it was coined in 2015 is mistaken. It was probably coined by asexual activist Wesleyan University alum David Jay some time around 2003.[6] The term existed unchanged on the Wesleyan student housing website since at least 2006.^[1], and their student paper attests "GLBTQQFAGBDSM" as early as 2004.^[2] The term is obviously tongue-in-cheek but not bad-faith. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 21:39, 26 April 2025 (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. In the absence of a specific alternative target, without prejudice to another nomination. Rusalkii (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Abhinandan SinghAbhinandan Singh → Royal Challengers Bengaluru#Squad  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a suitable target; A list of players would be better suited. Vestrian24Bio 03:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Which list are you suggesting? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep: Until their own article or List of Royal Challengers Bengaluru cricketers is created, this is an entirely appropriate target. The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2025 (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. In the absence of a specific alternative target, without prejudice to another nomination. Rusalkii (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Swastik ChikaraSwastik Chikara → Royal Challengers Bengaluru  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a suitable target; A list of players would be better suited. Vestrian24Bio 03:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Until their own article or List of Royal Challengers Bengaluru cricketers is created, this is an entirely appropriate target. The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2025 (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. Jay 💬 13:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• BellierBellier → Antoine Bellier  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguity. Conflicts with Bellier Motors (which an article does not exist). Nightvour (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave alone, unless there's a suitable target for Bellier Motors, then add a hat note to Antoine Bellier. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep There are two other articles that could plausibly be referred to by Bellier Catherine Bellier and Alphonse Bellier, but the tennis player is the primary topic among these so I've added a hatnote to the current target. Overall there isn't a clear primary topic though, so if/when other articles are written then a disambig should be written and consideration made of that becoming primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2025 (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).