Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For the reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.

XFD backlog

V	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	0	0	65	0	65
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	7	0	7
FfD	0	0	10	0	10
RfD	0	0	58	0	58
AfD	0	0	2	0	2

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

• If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
• If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
• If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
• Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should a redirect be deleted? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

• Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD

• The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
• Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
• If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
• Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
• RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
• Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
• In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should a redirect be deleted?

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

• a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
• if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Please tag these with {{R from old history}}. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

STEP I.	Tag the redirect(s).   Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page. Please do not mark the edit as minor (m). Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]. Save the page ("Publish changes"). If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page. If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP II.	List the entry on RfD.  Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries. Enter this text below the date heading: {{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~ For this template: Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=. Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=). Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating). To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects: {{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}} {{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}} {{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~ If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.	Notify users.   It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template {{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~ may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

• Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list

March 6

Median of the trapezoid theorem

• Median of the trapezoid theorem → Trapezoid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An article might not have notability for having its own article, and possibly to be deleted instead. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Connected two point set

• Connected two point set → Particular point topology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The trivial topology on a two-point set (or any other set) is also connected, and this does not seem like a likely search term anyway. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; can't see much (haha) connection between the redirect and the target. --Trovatore (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Disney Cartoon Studios

• Disney Cartoon Studios → Walt Disney Pictures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Walt Disney Pictures is the division focusing on live-action films. Walt Disney Animation Studios is its animation sector. RanDom 404 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as either a {{R from former name}} (per the article) and/or a {{R from subtopic}} (per the nominator's description). Either way, a variation of the redirect is currently mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  @RanDom 404: seeing as consensus has been established to keep, do you think {{R from former name}} or {{R from subtopic}} is more appropriate? it's lio! | talk | work 14:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Steel1943 and since a variation appears at the target. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• The Walt Disney Animation Studios referenced in the nomination also has mention of the "variation" Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio (DBCS) which targets the animation studio article (since 2010). So I would rather support the nomination's retarget suggestion. Jay 💬 16:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist🩸 (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Lasalle College, Bogota

• Lasalle College, Bogota → LaSalle College  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of a "Bogota" branch at the target article. The only content that made it to the main page was immediately reverted in 2013. People who are looking for the Bogota branch of LaSalle College will not be able to read about it at the target page without a mention. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, preserves edit history. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• The redirect is not helpful per nom. Delete it at AfD. Jay 💬 15:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Not seeing anything to do with "Bogota" at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I really don't see any reason to bother AfD with this. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  @J947 and Jay: any responses? it's lio! | talk | work 13:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  The pre-BLAR content was just one edit that was sourced to a primary source. I don't know if it can be cleaned up and re-sourced, or merged in to another article. Clicking on the old link takes to a new website for Bogota. Jay 💬 15:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Jd v

• Jd v → JD Vance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely capitalization of an already unlikely name - we don't have JD V. A search pulls up "JD v. something", as in versus, and an assortment of pages that seem to just have "JD Vance" on them, I can't find the bare JD V used to refer to him anywhere. Rusalkii (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep (creator): no other article could be referred to by Jd v, it is unambiguous and helps a reader out. With this in mind, I am not opposed to creating JD V. Note: I added {{R from lowercase}} to Jd v. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 03:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: an obscure formatting that would likely only be used by the creating user —ADavidB 07:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Mistakenly adding a space within a JDV search seems a likely way this redirect would be accessed. There are seven other entries in that disambiguation page. —ADavidB 16:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per ADavidB. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 17:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to JDV seems the best choice. —ADavidB 14:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to JDV as a {{R from alternate capitalization}}. No evidence that Vance is the primary topic for this initialism. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback)
• Delete per ADavidB. Enix150 (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per ADavidB. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 17:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, per reason provided by @Adavidb. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• REtarget to JDV -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss if retargeting or deletion would be preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

March 5

Swasticar

• Swasticar → Tesla, Inc.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's a wordplay on Swastika and car, because the Elon Musk Nazi salute business happened, and since the performer of the alleged Hitler heil, Elon Musk, runs the car manufacturer Tesla, Inc, this wordplay has become marginally popular on the internet by virtue of the subjects having common association. Having said that about the internet joke, there is no info at target regarding Teslas being called "Swasticars", and I have not even seen any general content there about post-Musk-gesture backlash against the company. Maybe delete this? BarntToust 23:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

delete no real notability for this moniker yet User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep I'm honestly surprised no one's added anything about the term yet to that article yet. Redirects aren't themselves required to be notable, that people may be expected to search on them suffices. This one makes sense, though, yes, the target article needs to mention it. I think it can be written to fit into the "lawsuits and controversies" or "criticism" section. Largoplazo (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I had added a whole bit about the backlash for Musk's support for parties such as reform and AfD and his supposed salute resulting in the swasticar moniker in the tesla sales section since that was where they were talking about the dip in sales being due to Musk's far right dalliances but it was reverted for being political and I didn't have the will in me to fight it. Others may feel free to pick up that particular gauntlet Shadebug (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

see WP:NEWSWEEK for cautionary principles on using that source. It would be fitting to write content in indeed.

Anyone wanting to add content about the Swasticar and general ''Musk-Fuhrer-comparison'' content: try Irish Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Evening Standard, The Guardian. BarntToust 01:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the mention and added these additional cites to the article. Enix150 (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

delete, you guys are bored? ThurnerRupert (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Largoplazo and Shadebug. Enix150 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - Well sourced mention is now in the article, thanks to the effort above. If necessary, refine it to the section where it is mentioned, but I think expecting the user to ctrl+f may be enough in this case. Fieari (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Scheme-theoretic fiber

• Scheme-theoretic fiber → Fiber product of schemes#Interpretations and special cases  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fiber (algebraic geometry) → Fiber (mathematics)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Am I wrong if I understand the latter to refer to a general mathematical/algebraic topic and the former to refer to a very specific concept falling under that topic? If so, it make sense for the latter to be mapped to an article about the general topic and the latter to be mapped to a passage that's specifically about that.

That said, the target for the former doesn't have the word "theoretic" in it so a person taken there by the redirect isn't going to know which part of the "Interpretations and special cases" section is relevant. That can be fixed by a suitable edit to the section. Largoplazo (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, the latter could in theory refer to the use in classical algebraic geometry (in which case it would just be the definition from set theory), but currently its target article only explicitly associates with algebraic geometry the one-line definition for schemes, which is at least somewhat more detailed in the actual Fiber product of schemes article (i.e. the target of the former redirect). 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

• Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh → Marziyeh Amirizadeh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Maryam Rostampour → Marziyeh Amirizadeh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

After two inconclusive AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh (2nd nomination)) based on a quasi-WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE situation for one of two women in the article, there was no consensus on what to do but a general sense among participants that Marziyeh Amirizadeh has a stronger claim to notability than Rostampour (who requested not deletion outright but rather not to have a bio paired with Amirizadeh), so I WP:BOLDly moved the page to Marziyeh Amirizadeh to preserve the page history. Due to the subject's request and the unusual nature of a double-named BLP, I would nominate this redirect for deletion, as well as Maryam Rostampour, for deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The Red Machine

• The Red Machine → Red Machine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should be a redirect to Soviet Union men's national ice hockey team; was previously targeted there until it was changed to Red Machine dab page. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 20:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Unless there's evidence to suggest that the hockey team is a primary topic, this term is ambiguous and should target the DAB page. FWIW, when I searched this term, I got more hits for the Cincinnati Reds than anything else but not enough to suggest primacy IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Tramopoline

• Tramopoline → Bart's Inner Child  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a deliberate misspelling of the world 'trampoline', but the actual quotation 'tramampoline' is not mentioned in this article. This, or a new redirect from 'tramampoline' could instead be targetted to trampoline as a misspelling redirect. Xeroctic (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

2025–26 Lao League 1

• 2025–26 Lao League 1 → Lao League 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nothing at the target about the relevant season. Delete as misleading and WP:RETURNTORED. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Figel Narage

• Figel Narage → Nigel Farage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typo / search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom, implausible typo, possible in-joke. Carguychris (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Islamic imperialism

• Islamic imperialism → Islamic State  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Targets a subtopic - other previous options were List of Muslim states and dynasties and Caliphate. Tule-hog (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Spread of Islam would seem a more pertinent target. 2601:642:4F84:1590:B4BC:9F58:E79E:AF6 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Retarget somewhere else per WP:RECENTISM. 67.209.130.82 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Retarget perhaps to Umayyad Caliphate as they, unlike their predecessors and successors, pursued policies that could be unambiguously characterized as imperialistic. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Efraim Karsh#Islamic Imperialism? Unsure of whether the phrase would be more likely to be used by people looking for the Ummayads, the Ottomans, IS, and so on, I did a quick Google search, and most of the results were about this book. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: per WP:RNEUTRAL, we should only retarget Islamic imperialism to Spread of Islam if this usage is "established" and "used in multiple mainstream reliable sources," as this would be a {{R from non-neutral title}}. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It should just be made into a disambiguation page since the retarget votes also seem unsure as to what the best target would be and are just citing their personal opinions. Yue🌙 02:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Criticism of Islam. (Or maybe, per StainedGlassCavern's suggestion, to Efraim Karsh#Islamic Imperialism.) This is a politically loaded term usually used for polemic purposes, most notably (to my knowledge) by Efraim Karsh, as noted above. Criticism of Islam is an overview of these types of issues, including the history of conquest and similar issues, so this seems like the most neutral and useful target. R Prazeres (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Vonk (Netherlands)

• Vonk (Netherlands) → Revolutionary Communist International  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Multiple organisations have had the name "De Vonk". One of them was at some point I guess mentioned on the target page, but not any more. The more prominent uses of the name however have nothing to do with the target page. This combination is very confusing. Dajasj (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Binchohtan

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

I never heard "長 (ちょう)" Onyomi reading to be romanized as "Choh", It Hepburn romanization is "Chō", other romanization uses "Cyou", "Chou", or "Cho". "Oh" is only use when there is two O (Oo) like Shohei Ohtani Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

GPT-5

• GPT-5 → ChatGPT  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This SEEMS too soon at a glance, but considering the fact that reliable news sources have mentioned a GPT-5 coming out, this actually makes a surprising amount of sense.

So, then, why am I nominating this redirect? Simple. Because it's not mentioned in the article. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, it should redirect to generative pre-trained transformer, which is the underlying technology, not to ClopenAI's goofy product naming gimmick. jp×g🗯️ 08:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Generative pre-trained transformer ALSO doesn't mention GPT-5 User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to generative pre-trained transformer. "Not mentioned at target" is not a WP:RDELETE criterion, and even if it was, generative pre-trained transformer mentions the GPT-n series in the lede. This is the most relevant content to the GPT-n series, including GPT-5, which is a plausible search term, aids accidental linking, and reduces risk of a duplicate article per WP:RKEEP. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Branislav Regec

• Branislav Regec → Slovakia at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Luge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful redirect. Name is only mentioned once at the target, and no further information is provided on the subject. This was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branislav Regec, where I explicitly opposed redirecting for the same reason. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Xiyonji

• Xiyonji → Journey to the West  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very novel synonym to target article. I get Xiyouji for being the pinyin pronunciation, but Xiyonji is just implausible to be a redirect for the average reader. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Unlikely typo/misspelling. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Stages of grief

• Stages of grief → Five stages of grief  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Stages of loss → Five stages of grief  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Stages of dying → Five stages of grief  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The five stages of grief are not widely accepted in all communities. Maybe retarget to Grief. Interstellarity (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget Stages of dying to Stages of human death, where Stages of death redirects (and which people might be looking for). Dying isn't the same thing as grief, and grief can arise from many other things in addition to death. Tentative keep the other two at the current target, though—this model may not be universally accepted, but its target is the closest title match we have here (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the case). Regards, SONIC678 01:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with Sonic678. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with Sonic678 as well, except that I'd say Keep the other two, not tentatively-- while the 5 stages of grief may not be universally accepted, as stated, it is familiar to a wide range of people who may not even be aware that it might be controversial or not fully accepted; it was definitely taught to me in middle school as flat out fact, without quivocation, and I don't think I'm alone here. Besides, no other model I'm aware of uses "stages" of grief or loss, so this should still be the correct topic. Fieari (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

March 4

Achiever

• Achiever → Enneagram of Personality  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Like achieving, also a super common word. Maybe retarget to achievement? Duckmather (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget - 'Enneagram of Personality' is already linked at 'achievement'. Good catch. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  It's only linked at Achievement through a link to Achiever... so retargeting this would actually remove that link. It could be manually re-added, of course. Maybe: "Achiever" (not a link) ", a personality archetype in the psuedoscientific Enneagram of Personality model."? Fieari (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Achieving

• Achieving → Rich as in Spirit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Achieving" is a very common word, so this is a big surprise. Maybe retarget to achievement (a dab page)? Duckmather (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Obvious retarget to achievement per nom; a common word with a plain-language meaning should not target a musical album containing a non-Wikinotable song by that title. Carguychris (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to achievement as {{R from gerund}}. Fieari (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

National Memorial Museum

• National Memorial Museum → National Memorial (Thailand)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was left pointing to the wrong target (Bangkok National Museum) for 16+ years. I just fixed it to what is most likely the intended target, but I'm finding only a handful of sources that refer to the place it redundantly as "National Memorial Museum". Most search hits are instead partial matches for other places that include the phrase as part of their names, e.g. Oklahoma City National Memorial Museum, Katrina National Memorial Museum, and National Memorial Museum of Forced Mobilization under Japanese Occupation. There's also a National Memorial Museum in Karachi, but it doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia article. Maybe this should just be deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Set-indexify per WP:SETINDEX. The term was created as a proper name, so an argument can be made that it refers to any of the following, including those suggested by Paul_012:
• National Memorial Museum of Forced Mobilization under Japanese Occupation
• National Guard Memorial Museum
• National Pulse Memorial and Museum (https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/coldefy-associes-and-rdai-to-design-the-national-pulse-memorial-and-museum_o)
• National September 11 Memorial & Museum
• National Showa Memorial Museum
• National Veterans Memorial and Museum
• National World War I Museum and Memorial
• Oklahoma City National Memorial Museum
• See also might include some or all of the following, including the current target:

• National memorial (set index)
• Memorial museum
• Lists of monuments and memorials
• Lists of war monuments and memorials
• List of national memorials of the United States
• List of national museums
• List of military museums
• War memorial § List of war memorials
• List of Holocaust memorials and museums
• List of Holodomor memorials and museums
• List of presidential libraries
• List of slavery-related memorials and museums
• African American Civil War Memorial Museum
• Federal Hall National Memorial (a museum)
• Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
• Independence Memorial Museum
• Indian War Memorial Museum
• Lofoten War Memorial Museum
• National Churchill Museum
• National Gandhi Museum
• National Memorial (Thailand) (a museum)
• National Museum of the History of Ukraine in the Second World War
• The National WWII Museum
• Pearl Harbor National Memorial
• Royal Australian Armoured Corps Memorial and Army Tank Museum
• Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall and Museum
• Wright Brothers National Memorial (a museum)
• Yu Da Wei Xian Sheng Memorial Museum

• National memorial museum can be created as a redirect. Havradim leaf a message 08:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Support this. Thank you for the effort put in to compile relevant articles. it's lio! | talk | work 08:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or set-indexify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Set-indexify as there's several reasonable candidates for what someone means with National Memorial Museum. Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Set-indexify per nom and previous comments. Carguychris (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Jacob Hornberger

• Jacob Hornberger → 2002 United States Senate election in Virginia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should be deleted or retargeted, as the person who is the subject of the redirects is more likely known for his 2020 Libertarian presidential primary win. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Candidates. Convention is to target the most recent run because previous elections are usually listed there should that be what the searcher wants. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Land of flowers

• Land of flowers → Florida  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

extremely vague, maybe delete or dabify? Duckmather (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Kinda vague; it could also refer to the Netherlands. ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 20:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• DABify Pascua Florida includes the statement Florida is now known as the "land of flowers" because of the connection to Ponce de Leon and Pascua Florida., cited to (Hatch, Jane M. (1978). The American book of days. The H. W. Wilson Company. ISBN 0-8242-0593-6. OCLC 953162536.). I do not have access to that book, but it looks like a reliable source for this redirect. The first page of Google hits for "land of flowers" includes mentions of books by Elisabetta Dami, the Netherlands, Zamboanga City, Florida, and some fantasy fandom sites. - Donald Albury 21:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Scottish America

• Scottish America → Nova Scotia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unclear what this means; could potentially refer to Scottish Americans or Scottish colonization of the Americas? Duckmather (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Scottish Americans. "Scottish" most frequently refers to Scottish people, and "America" most frequently refers to the United States. @Duckmather, "Nova Scotia" means "New Scotland" in Latin, but I seriously doubt that most English speakers outside Canada (or within Canada!) know this, and although many people of Scottish descent live in NS, I don't think the connection to its namesake is very meaningful today, as with most "New _____" place names. Mexican America doesn't redirect to New Mexico; German Canada doesn't redirect to New Brunswick; Danish Oceania doesn't redirect to New Zealand. Carguychris (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [see revision below]
• Retarget to Scottish colonization of the Americas. On further consideration, this makes more sense. Carguychris (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment it should mean colonization, like other such articles, British America, French America, Spanish America, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

*British America discusses the colonization effort by Great Britain broadly rather than addressing Scotland in particular. The British colonization effort wasn't distinctly Scottish in character (or English, Welsh, or Irish, for that matter). If you're arguing that a distinct "Scottish America" article about Scottish colonization should be created, WP:WTAF applies—a logical target exists today, so we should choose it in the interim. Carguychris (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [revision below]

In that case, Scottish colonization of the Americas makes the most sense. Carguychris (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to History of Nova Scotia#Scottish colony (1629–1632) I agree with the anon on the definition here. I suggest retargeting to where the Scottish colonization is more thoroughly discussed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

BUT Nova Scotia was only one of several Scottish colonies in America, and I can't find a source directly indicating that Nova Scotia was ever formally titled "Scottish America". Carguychris (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Didn't see the BCA initially when I searched. I support retargeting there instead. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

City of DC

• City of DC → Washington, D.C.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This also looks ambiguous (there's also Bogotá, Distrito Capital and Dubai City), so I suggest retargeting to DC (a dab page) Duckmather (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, Washington, D.C. is easily the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Is there evidence of other places being referred to as "City of DC"? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Compared to below, where there's at least some argument that someone might occasionally mean something other than the U.S. capital when they say "Washington (city)", in this case I see no evidence that this ever means anything other than that. Even with personalized results off, Googling "city of DC" -washington still just gets me results about the U.S. capital, with the exception of the phrase "The Gotham City of DC's Absolute Universe", which cannot be shortened to "City of DC". Even adding several more U.S.-related terms to ignore, the results are still all about the city on the Potomac River. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as wholly pointless. Hardly any views over the last year. Someone looking for DC isn't going to search for this, and it makes it sound like it's more some sort of official city government arm or something. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  While it is indeed an illogical name (as it would expand to "City of District of Columbia"), the Google search results I linked do show it's a fairly common misnomer -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Washington City

• Washington City → Washington, D.C.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Washington (city) → Washington, D.C.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Washington city → Washington, D.C.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

there are several cities named "Washington", so i suggest retargeting to Washington#Places Duckmather (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Washington, D.C. is the primary topic among cities named Washington. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Washington (city). None of the other Washingtons are remotely as well-known as D.C. On WikiNav, no other cities called Washington make the top 10 for outgoings. It looks like the most populous city called Washington, other than D.C., is Washington, Utah, pop. 28k. I really doubt people are typing in "Washington (city)" looking for that, and if they are, that's what the hatnote's for. I think that's enough to make this a valid WP:PDABREDIRECT. Weak retarget the other two. D.C. isn't frequently called these, and while you could picture some ambiguity in how to parse a phrase like "Washington city officials", in practice sources usually use "District of Columbia" in that context. That said, I do think D.C. is probably still the primary topic for these, just not as clearly primary, hence the weakness of this sentiment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Strong keep - no reason to adhere to the rules so strictly Red Slash 18:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• keep - This is by far the most known city of Washington. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - "Washington City" was a common term in the 19th century for the US capital, back when D.C. had multiple municipalities. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Washington (City) as a pretty standard disambiguator for the clear primary topic, but retarget the other two per nom as ambiguous among various places that refer to themselves as "Washington City", notably absent in that list being DC, which no one ever refers to it by. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

"NJ"

• "NJ" → New Jersey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

see above for similar issues with "NH" and "RI" Duckmather (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Looks WP:UNNATURAL, is unnatural. Delete per precedence. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 22:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Novum Eboracum

• Novum Eboracum → New York (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Nova Eboracum → New York (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not sure whether this refers to New York (state) or New York City, maybe retarget to New York (a dab)? Duckmather (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Idea: Whatever the decision ends up being, it should include the genitive Novi Eboraci as well. ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 20:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's relevant as it is on the new york city seal Seal of New York City.

It could be useful for people trying to find it. I redirected it accordingly. Mechachleopteryx (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mechachleopteryx Please do not change redirect targets while they're at RFD. I have reverted your change. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 17:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

N hampshire

• N hampshire → New Hampshire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

could also refer to North Hampshire (UK Parliament constituency) and is also a partial title match for numerous non-notable roads according to google, so maybe delete or disambiguate? Duckmather (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, very ambiguous. Carguychris (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"NH"

• "NH" → New Hampshire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

similarly to "RI", I'm also torn between whether or not this should be retargeted to NH (a disambiguation page) or deleted Duckmather (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

= Neutral; I'd say redirect to the disambiguation page. It's kind of strange though; it could just be deleted anyway. ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 19:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Looks WP:UNNATURAL, is unnatural. Delete per precedence. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 22:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"RI"

• "RI" → Rhode Island  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Looks unnatural; I'm torn between retargeting to RI (a dab page) or deleting Duckmather (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Is unnatural. Delete per precedence. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 22:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Nexua

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

Not sure what this means (google search brings up a ton of random stuff, including eyeglasses, a kind of software, and a word in Nahuatl), so maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I say delete it. Doesn't appear to be meaningful. –jacobolus (t) 19:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete is that supposed to be a typo of Nexus? Page history doesn't offer much insight, and there isn't a connection to circle regardless (implausible redirect). Only mentions of the redirect were 2018 April Fools, and it receives an average of 1 view per week.

— 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 07:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Annular form

• Annular form → Circle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure what this refers to; google search results suggests it might have a medical (???) meaning Duckmather (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

An annulus is a ring in Latin (cf. Annulus (mathematics)). This shouldn't redirect to circle, and should probably just be deleted. The one inbound link comes from Laurel wreath and that wikilink should probably just be removed. –jacobolus (t) 19:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipediya

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

Created by Eubot as an avoided double redirect (though not tagged as such) to Wîkîpediya (since deleted). I'm not sure whether this is more likely to be a misspelling or a reference to a foreign-language Wikipedia though Duckmather (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of Wikipedias, which has 11 entries using this name or names that differ only by diacritics. The first word of the article is "Wikipedia", so if someone just wanted that, it's an easy click to get there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Johann Hertel

• Johann Hertel → Johann Wilhelm Hertel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is also Johann Christian Hertel. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate, with a "see also" for Indologist Johannes Hertel. BD2412 T 00:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

British genocide

• British genocide → Great Famine (Ireland)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term "British genocide" can refer to different events in Kenya, Tasmania, New Zealand, etc. Its use in relation to the Irish famine is rare compared to its primary use for the Kenyan and Tasmanian atrocities, and the single use in the article (in a footnote) is a quote from an historian who is skeptical of the label. This redirect inappropriately points to a minor POV use of the term and is systemically bias against Black and indigenous ethnic groups. DrKay (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Dab. This term is ambiguous per @DrKay; This redirect is inaccurate as the Irish Potato Famine was not a genocide.. Mast303 (talk) Mast303 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete as misleading. British genocide would be genocide of Britons. The events discussed above would be Irish genocide, Mau Mau genocide, Tasmanian genocide and Māori genocide. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC).

• DABify - The heading of the DAB can clarify any misleading nature of this term-- but we need this term because reliable sources use it, as nom has demonstrated. And reliable sources use it for different things, so we need to disambiguate the meaning that they use it for. Or is that technically a set index? Fieari (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Disambiguation draft requested Fieari (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Fieari: First draft at Draft:British genocide (disambiguation). DrKay (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the draft disambiguation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• DrKay's draft looks good to me, but it's not written as a DAB, rather as a SIA. Pushing it back in the DAB direction would mean removing the footnotes, and the footnotes are a useful inclusion for a controversial topic, so I've tweaked it a bit to make it more clearly a SIA instead. With that done, I support mainspacing it at British genocide. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Accept the SIA - Looks good to me. Fieari (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Index of statistical mechanics articles

• Index of statistical mechanics articles → Statistical mechanics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target does not contain an index of statistical mechanics articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I tried to delete the article but that failed. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep -- the template "statistical mechanics", which is on the statistical mechanics article, contains what is essentially an index of statistical mechanics articles, which is why it was merged. Redirects cost nothing and this one is useful. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

That's a rationale I haven't seen before. A template transcluded to various articles isn't really a good reason to keep a misleading redirect title to one specific article which isn't an index. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And why aren't we targeting the template itself then? (I guess I don't actually know if it's possible to XNR to a navigational template, but this does not seem like an ideal workaround.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It is possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete create an index instead -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• As Christian75 rightly observed at the redirect page's history: afd closed as merge, but was redirected by an admin. The admin Guerillero who was the AfD closer, had added the merge tag to List of statistical mechanics articles which was the title of the page while at the AfD, until Mrfoogles had muddled up the AfD with a pagemove while it was in progress. While Wbm1058 reverted this wrong merge tagging, and rightly tagged the new title of the redirect page, Guerillero removed it without explanation, making this a BLAR. Revert Guerillero's edit, unless there is an explanation. Jay 💬 18:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  It is a BLAR because of the AfD discussion -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  How? The AfD closed as "merge‎ to Statistical mechanics". Jay 💬 19:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Statistical mechanics#Index of statistical mechanics topics. The consensus of the AfD was "merge‎ to Statistical mechanics", not "blank and redirect". We wouldn't be wasting our time here had the closing admin simply taken the time to implement their close. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with wbm1058, except that I don't think that carrying out the merge is the closing admin's personal duty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Noting that I mistakenly relisted this nomination myself, when I should not have. You commented on the relisted version, which I have now removed. I transferred your comments over from there and I wanted to ping and mention this for full transparency. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not, but adding the {{merge}} tag would be a minimum, which the admin did, but at the wrong page. The larger issue here is the admin removed the tag that was added at the right page. Jay 💬 09:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Very divided. Keep, retarget, or restore the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Statistical mechanics#Index of statistical mechanics topics. The merge appears to have been properly done by wbm1058, with all content copied over to said section. Redirect definitely shouldn't be deleted to preserve page history. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 07:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices

• List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices → Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Jewish justices  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Jewish Supreme Court Justices → List of Jewish American jurists#Supreme Court of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure which target of these two redirect should be the proper target for both. Both redirects should be targeting the same target, but I'm not sure which. Maybe a merge is needed somewhere? Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Point both to Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Jewish justices, as the more informative target. The list article is just a list, whereas the demographics article provides a list but also provides a substantial historical account of how the circumstance came to be. I don't see a need for a merger of anything. Two article can cover part of the same ground from different angles. BD2412 T 17:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

LGBTQ+ production of family

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 19 § LGBT reproduction – Keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBTQ+ Production of Family – Merge
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 8 § LGBTQ+ Production of Family – Restore article

• LGBTQ+ production of family → Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBTQ people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• LGBTQ production of family → Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBTQ people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• LGBTQ+ Production of Family → Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBTQ people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Added 23:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This is just very odd phrasing. I might understand having one redirect, but having multiple iterations of this phrasing feels off to me. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete not a natural search phrase, admittedly neither is the article title but I still don't see this redirect being of any use. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment As the creator of these redirects, I have nothing against them being deleted. But I will say, if they do get deleted, LGBTQ+ Production of Family should probably get deleted as well, since I created these redirects based off the existence of this redirect, since I felt that someone searching it like this would search it with the terms I used for the redirects. If anyone disagrees with this, please let me know. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, JeffSpaceman! I've added this one to the RFD. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• LGBTQ+ Production of Family has a long history and more importantly has been merged, so I don't think it may be deleted for attribution purposes (could perhaps be deleted after a history merge though, as as a title/search term it is not worth keeping). Fram (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 11:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Doo (pseudonym)

• Doo (pseudonym) → John Doe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention in the example of "Doo" being used as a pseudonym. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Mention inexplicably removed by IP restored. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Mention is of John Doo, and we have the redirect John Doo. Is Doo by itself used as a pseudonym? Jay 💬 11:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'll go with Cyclone - delete. Jay 💬 10:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• On the other hand John Doe is listed at Doe. Weak keep I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per *shrug*. Unambiguous, obvious to the reader once John Soon was restored to the article. Not particularly useful but WP:CHEAP.Rusalkii (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Confusing redirect. Not entirely clear that "Doo" is used as a pseudonym. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, as the pseudonym only seems to be used as the full name. And even still, with the disambiguator, this is a wholly unlikely search term; you'd have to already know what it is, and at that point, there's really no extra detail at the target that provides any value. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Apache shirt

• Apache shirt → Telnyashka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to refer to shirts commonly worn by the Parisian criminal Apaches (subculture) rather than the Native American tribe. A quick search suggests the most common use by far is a shirt worn by or referencing the Native American Apaches. Rusalkii (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. There doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia article about the shirts made by Apaches. You could make a dabpage with Traditional Native American clothing or Buckskins, but that seems like a stretch to me. 162 etc. (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. Apache shirt could refer to either the buckskin war shirts traditionally worn by the Apache tribe, or the striped shirt worn by criminal gangs in Paris 16:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac (talk • contribs)
• Delete Not mentioned at all at Telnyashka. Not discussed with enough substance at Apaches (subculture) to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Pppery. Jay 💬 19:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. The dab has already been written, and it seems useful enough. I'd want to see some evidence that the term is not used to describe the gang shirts before deleting this. The disambiguation is, imo, a bit too big for a tidy hatnote. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Jewish Israeli Aramaic

• Jewish Israeli Aramaic → Jewish Palestinian Aramaic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target and this appears to be a completely invented usage - the phrase appears nowhere else on the internet. Rusalkii (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Perhaps redirect to Judeo-Aramaic languages#Modern dialects? 2601:642:4F84:1590:B4BC:9F58:E79E:AF6 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  This seems likely to misleadingly imply that there is a dialect called Jewish Israeli Aramaic. Aprzn (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect creator changed the target to the IP's suggestion, and I have reverted it. Notified that target of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions from streaming music

• Greenhouse gas emissions from streaming music → Streaming media#Greenhouse gas emissions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

NOTE: This has been RFD'd before, but that one was closed as keep as at the time the section was still there. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_6#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_streaming_music ).

The reason I'm re-nominating this redirect is because the section no longer exists, and as such we no longer have any information on the greenhouse emissions from music streaming. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Cotton ribbon

• Cotton ribbon → Ink ribbon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

what is this doing here anyway? was about to retarget to ribbon since cotton isn't mentioned in the current target but is mentioned there, but it's only mentioned in passing in the lead, so is it even worth it? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Old-fashioned typewriter ribbons were made of inked cotton. This magazine describes the manufacturing process. This book describes how it worked (and says that the IBM Selectric, which is what I learned to type on, used a plastic substitute). You can use those sources to expand Ink ribbon if you'd like to.

The redirect could become a disambiguation page, since ribbons made of cotton are (well, mostly "were") used in apparel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sonic movie

• Sonic movie → Sonic the Hedgehog (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are, in fact, multiple Sonic movies. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 20:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: the creator @Plutonical suggests retargeting to Sonic the Hedgehog (film series) 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 20:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. At the time the redirect was created, there wasn't a series yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to film series per Plutonical. Carguychris (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Sonic the Hedgehog (film series). The upcoming redirect target is more sense giving that there's currently three Sonic feature films (becoming four in 2027). 103.111.102.118 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Sonic the Hedgehog: The Movie (OVA) exists and was a 1996 direct-to-video animated film. "Film series" thus is bad since it isn't listed there. Also, there are short films; so redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog features instead -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to either List of Sonic the Hedgehog features#Films or Sonic the Hedgehog (film series). The 2020 film is NOT the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to term "Sonic movie", so retarget them into one of those existing articles seems fine. 2404:8000:1037:587:342E:5C0:8E20:2F33 (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to List of Sonic the Hedgehog features. There are other Sonic movies besides just the ones in Sonic the Hedgehog (film series). ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 20:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Orabueze

• Orabueze → Biafra Referendum#Restoration declaration  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In addition to this section mentioning Ngozi Orabueze, we also have Florence Orabueze. Not sure if it is better to retarget to Florence, delete, or disambiguate, but this target is clearly inappropriate. Thoughts? Rusalkii (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Listify as a {{surname}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

F�r

• F�r → Specials (Unicode block)#Replacement character  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Arbitrary mojibake example, no more deserving of a redirect than any other. � by itself is useful, but that's as far as this needs to go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep (i'm User:Someone-123-321 by the way, but due to reasons the reply system I'm using doesn't work on Chrome :[). �, as you implied, is a plausible rendering of �, and the article mentions a "f�r" as an example so... 65.181.23.139 (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Being mentioned as an arbitrary example in the article does not make it a less arbitrary example for purposes of the redirect's plausibility. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Exa Dark Sideræl

• Exa Dark Sideræl → Grimes#Relationship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Exa Dark Sideræl Musk → Grimes#Personal life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not notable person that fails WP:BLPNAME and WP:NONAME. Same discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Xavier Musk. Absolutiva (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Max max 4

• Max max 4 → Mad Max: Fury Road  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The film is neither called "Mad Max 4" nor "Max Max" RanDom 404 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, implausible typo. Carguychris (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as implausible. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 17:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

March 3

Talk:Besame Mucho (film)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

pin game

• Pin game → Pinball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Pin-game → Pinball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Pingame → Pinball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

weird case. "pin game" (with a space or dash) seems to be a collective term for the kind of games you'd find on YEAH! YOU WANT "THOSE GAMES," RIGHT? SO HERE YOU GO! NOW, LET'S SEE YOU CLEAR THEM! (with like 2.5 results related to pinball i guess), while "pingame" seems to refer to an unnotable band. though pingame journal is an article that exists, so maybe an argument could be made for it? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep - per the article, By the 1930s, manufacturers were producing coin-operated versions of bagatelles, now known as "marble games" or "pin games". - redirect seems reasonable BugGhost 🦗👻 00:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep as Bugghost says. If some other potential target comes up, that we need to address versus claptrap like non-notable bands, then we can disambiguate by one means or another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

time to yap lol

results from a slightly more in-depth search gave me the act of pinning games (whatever that could mean for both terms), "pin-pulling/pushing" games (like the ones in YEAH! YOU WANT "THOSE GAMES," RIGHT? SO HERE YOU GO! NOW, LET'S SEE YOU CLEAR THEM!, and those sexually questionable mobile game ads which i'm surprised don't have a lot of coverage here beyond gardenscapes), bowling, push-pin (that's a thing!?), and ring-and-pin. as is, this is a little confusing because the thing that seems to be the primary topic doesn't have an article, and the most reliable sources i got for pinball or related games were the source used in the article... and the article

that gibberish aside, if that's the case and i haven't misread the article (which is admittedly pretty likely), it refers to bagatelles as "pin games", not pinball, so wouldn't it be better to retarget and mention the nomenclature there for now? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 13:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target Bagatelle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go in the hopes of getting some Bagatelle-related comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Are the set of games akin to bowling, such as 9-pin, 10-pin, duck pin, and so forth, known as pin games as well? I could easily see them being referred to as such, but I don't know if they are. If so, that would easily be enough to warrant a DAB being drafted. As it is, I'd weakly support a DAB anyway due to the existence of the minor indie band and the fact that pin-game is not currently a common name for pinball (even though it definitely used to be), meaning that it wouldn't necessarily obtain WP:PTOPIC status. Fieari (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

TPOT

• TPOT → Pennsylvania Opera Theater  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An anonymous IP erroneously changed the acronym of the Pennsylvania Opera Theater (POT) to TPOT in this edit. This minor but incorrect change went unnoticed and the redirect was created in error. 4meter4 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment One of the sources in the article says the abbreviation is "TPOT" but it appears to include the word "the", and I haven't reviewed the other sources yet as to if they say the same thing. I did a search and the only other mentions are Radio TPOT (doesn't have an article), and minor mentions including one in jacksfilms (that one here doesn't have an article either for reasons.) Nijika・🥁・📐 17:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral. OhioMan10 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - seems like a source cited on the article used "TPOT". It was published in 1991, so there's no citogenesis concern. ObserveOwl (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, seems like unlikely search result. Most people searching for "TPOT", especially now, are expecting to see something about the season of web series Battle for Dream Island (which is not on Wikipedia, see WP:BFDI), not the Pennsylvania Opera Theater. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 17:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not a reason to delete. We're not responsible for non-notable meanings of a term. Otherwise, we'd have to delete most {{r from initialism}}s. Paradoctor (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that follows - "we delete all initialisms where the overwhelming primary topic doesn't have an article, such that redirecting to our best article for it would surprise most readers" strikes me as a totally reasonable policy and I suspect doesn't actually get most of the current redirects. (Of the first five random initialism redirects I checked, four had the target as the clearly primary topic and one didn't seem to have a primary topic). Rusalkii (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Primary topics are notable, by definition, and they have an article, by definition: the topic to which the term should lead. I was talking about non-notable meanings. BFDI is not notable. That's why BFDI exists, but redirects to a German federal agency most likely not searched for by users entering "BFDI" into the search box. Or do you feel like nominating that one for deletion, too? Paradoctor (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not feel like nominating that one for deletion because I'm pretty sure I just saw that discussion and I am not in the habit of re-litigating lost battles. My primary point was that in fact the case where the non-Wikipedia-notable meaning of the term is the primary topic (not as a term of art, but just as "what do most people seem to be looking for") are not anywhere near common enough that, if this was adopted as a principle at RfD, we'd need to delete most of them. Rusalkii (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Jason H. Moore § Research. If you want to include the theatre meaning, a hatnote can be added there. Paradoctor (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Jason H. Moore. tree-based pipeline optimization tool (TPOT) is sort of unpopular (most people searching TPOT will see Battle for Dream Island, but that's not on Wikipedia), but tree-based pipeline optimization tool (TPOT) appears to be the most notable TPOT. 49.145.100.19 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Jason H. Moore (i'm User:Someone-123-321 by the way, but due to reasons the reply system I'm using doesn't work on Chrome :[). Ignoring the obvious target (which we don't have nor should we) this seems like the best target for now. 65.181.23.139 (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Manhattan Museum of Art

• Manhattan Museum of Art → Museum of Modern Art  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are multiple art museums in Manhattan, and the MoMA is not the largest. It's unhelpful to have this redirect to just one of the many art museums in Manhattan, especially if it's not the largest or most famous one. We also have the Met and the Guggenheim in Manhattan. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete, as there are no museums in Manhattan with this exact name. With the existence of a large number of art museums in Manhattan, this redirect is unlikely to be helpful and woild instead be misleading. Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete, MoMA is far from the only art museum in Manhattan, and I can't find evidence of any art museum in Manhattan (including MoMA) using this as an official name or nickname. This term is too vague and unhelpful. ApexParagon (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

And if that nickname did exist it would more likely go to Metropolitan Museum of Art, but the Met is also far from the only art museum in Manhattan Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete. If anything, the first that comes to my mind is the Met, but as said above, that name doesn't refer to a single museum. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Girl farts

• Girl farts → Flatulence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Girl fart → Flatulence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Women farting → Flatulence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a helpful search term, nor is there anything relevant to gender at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to queefing's target (i'm User:Someone-123-321 by the way, but due to reasons the reply system I'm using doesn't work on Chrome :[). When someone searches up "girl farts", they're almost certainly looking for the kind of farts that only women have - hence, queefing 65.181.23.139 (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't beilieve I'm even having this discussion, but that's not exactly the expected result from my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

the kind of farts that only women have - hence, queefing

This is not true as women are also able to fart anally[1] and the term "fart" is mostly used to refer to anal not vaginal farts. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"women have asses too" being used as a genuine argument in rfd is probably up there with the funniest things that have happened in this entire wiki consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 21:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

just to be clear, i didn't mean "women can only queef", i meant "women can fart but they can also queef, something which men can't do" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

then you probably meant "only women can queef" which, while reductive towards the continued existence of trans people, is a little harder to misinterpret consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• delete per nom, as there's pretty much no good target for those. nerf this consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 21:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - While queefing might be a potential target, I think this more commonly refers to a social phenomenon often commented on (mostly by commedians), that you never hear girls fart, but they obviously do. Japan also has the situation where women, specifically, are known to strongly object to anyone hearing them use the toilet in public bathrooms, causing them to flush the toilet repeatedly while on it... and so the addition of a button to make a flushing sound without actually flushing saved them a significant amount of water. I'm sure there's more commentary on similar social phenomena in other cultures... which makes me think that this is potentially article worthy, and thus WP:RETURNTORED would apply. If kept or retargeted, which I don't strongly object to, {{R with potential}} should be tagged. Fieari (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Cyrillization of Persian

• Cyrillization of Persian → Tajik alphabet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Tajik is not the same as Persian, and the title suggests that the target may be either about introduction of Cyrillic writing in Persian in general (As far as I know, no such thing happened.) or about transcription of Persian into Cyrillic (which is not the topic of the target). Janhrach (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:STATEMEDIA

• Wikipedia:STATEMEDIA → Wikipedia:Independent sources#State media  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:SHORTCUT to content that was promptly removed and has been unanimously rejected by everyone except its author at Wikipedia talk:Independent sources#State media, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not relevant?, and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Confusing addition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Should there be an essay on the use of state media sources on Wikipedia? If yes, then WP:RETURNTORED, if not, then we might be better off retargeting to WP:SSFN. Nickps (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Having an essay on state media might actually be helpful, given the confusion that lead to this redirects creation (not that I'm volunteering to write one). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and I un-volunteer myself from both writing it and from defending it against people who believe that they know something that nobody else knows and which can't be WP:Directly supported in reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Which is not relevant, it is currently in talk page. Absolutiva (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I've created a draft at Draft:Wikipedia:State Media and Wikipedia. Comments, concerns, and direct edits and modifications to this draft are welcome. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Lithuanian Cyrillic

• Lithuanian Cyrillic → Lithuanian press ban  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I understand that this is the primary topic, but the target article does not actually contain anything about the writing system. WP:RETURNTORED? Janhrach (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Sbaio or Pofka probably know enough to be able to write a couple of sentences about that. Whether it should be in Lithuanian press ban or in Lithuanian language or a separate article is beyond me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Janhrach:, @WhatamIdoing: The Lithuanians were forced by the Russian Empire to write Lithuanian language texts in Cyrillic alphabet with the primary aim of Russification of Lithuanians when we lost our statehood in 1795 (see: Grand Duchy of Lithuania), while the Lithuanian book smugglers illegally transported to Lithuania books printed in Latin alphabet (which is usual alphabet for Lithuanians historically and nowadays). I don't think that there should be a separate article "Lithuanian Cyrillic" because such a thing never existed voluntarily and simply Lithuanians along with other nations occupied by the Russian Empire were forced to write their native languages texts in Cyrillic alphabet instead of Latin alphabet. I think "Lithuanian Cyrillic" should be a redirect page to article "Lithuanian press ban" because it is related solely with this ban which was imposed in 1864 and was lifted in 1904. -- Pofka (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Pofka. Do you think we need a sentence in the Lithuanian press ban article that gives a definition of "Lithuanian Cyrillic" or describes anything about it (e.g., if it has any special characters or unusual features)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Sat (Romania)

• Sat (Romania) → City#Romania  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, and target section does not exist, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. In addition, if the intent of this redirect was to provide a translation, the target apparently is not the right target anyways; it seems the word "sat" in Romanian actually means village, but doesn't seem to be a clear place to target in that article either. It seems that no matter where this redirect is targeting, there is a WP:FORRED issue. Steel1943 (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any memory of a redirect I created 15 years ago, but MediaWiki does. The page "City" as it existed when the redirect was created shows there used to be a section on cities in Romania, of which sat is evidently a relevant term. Checking the backlinks and my own edit history, the redirect in question was evidentially added to fix the "SAT (disambiguation)" page. Probably the most productive thing to do next would be to see if the relevant content from city was moved elsewhere. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I attempted that before I made this nomination by using search phrases such as "Sat Romania" and couldn't find an adequate place to retarget this redirect. In addition, the word "sat" appears in the article Romania 0 times. Steel1943 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The content on Romania, and other countries, was not moved elsewhere, it was removed with comment Remove absurd section. Listing out how cities are defined and what they are like in every country of the world is obviously beyond the scope of this article. Later on, there was a discussion on splitting out the "Distinction between cities and towns" section to a separate article, but the participants may not have been aware of this large content that was removed. The most enthusiastic participant in that discussion has since retired.

Probably move that removed content to a new article? Jay 💬 09:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yuogsphere

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

I assume this is a reference to Yugoslavia? Term exists nowhere else on the internet. Not mentioned in target and should not be. Rusalkii (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a reference to the article of the Southeastern Europe boycotts. Earlier on, the article used the terms Yugosphere to reference the Balkan nations that participated in this event. Rager7 (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete It only "doesn't exist elsewhere on the internet" because it's misspelled. The correctly spelled version is a separate article in of itself, but due to the fact that the misspelled term doesn't exist anywhere else, it shouldn't be retargeted there. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I didn't realized that I misspelled it until you pointed to out to me. Rager7 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to Yuogsphere as {{R from typo}} -- adjacent character transposition typo -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Correction, use Yugosphere as the target. My bad, I made a typo. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  • I presume you mean Yugosphere. (I support this.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Yes, my bad, my typo -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, random letter transposition, no more deserving of a redirect than the billions of other possible such typos. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete this, because it's recent (so it hasn't "existed for a significant length of time", which would be a good reason to keep) and because it appears to be an unusual misspelling ("a frequent misspelling" would also be a good reason to keep). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Oswald the Lone Assassin

• Oswald the Lone Assassin → Lee Harvey Oswald  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such work by this name. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep per WP:CHEAP, it's a plausible search term, as most John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories allege multiple assassins (typically that Oswald was one of several gunmen), that he was present at the site but was not involved, or that he was not present at all. In other words, "Oswald the lone assassin" is logical shorthand for the official story of who killed JFK. Carguychris (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not at all plausible. The daily average pageviews for this redirect is exactly zero. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Whether it is "logical shorthand" or not, it isn't an expression that anyone uses, and the likelihood of anyone ever typing "Oswald the Lone Assassin" in order to find about Lee Oswald is zero. (Incidentally, I am also puzzled as to how it can be described as "shorthand".) JBW (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete, per JBW, also adding that the specific use of title case implies it being the title of a work rather than a "logical shorthand". Not more plausible than the myriad of other adjectives one could use to refer to Oswald. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Weak delete. Weak because it's existed for a significant length of time (WP:RFD#KEEP reason), and it gets used about ~36 times a year. Otherwise, this would be an easy delete for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I don't know where you got the statistic "36 times a year"; maybe taking the page view statistics for the year up to when you checked? If so, that's not a valid statistic, for two reasons. Firstly, the number of page views is not by any means the same thing as the number of times it is used as a redirect; there are many other kinds of page views, such as someone who has seen it in an editor's editing history & wonders what it is. Secondly, the figure is seriously inflated by the views by people checking because they have seen this discussion. The number of views so far in the few days since this discussion was started has been more than in the whole of the previous two years. The number of page views in the 365 days before the posting of this discussion was 18, & the number in the year before that was 10. The most one can say about the frequency of uses of the redirect, on the basis of that information, is that it is at most 14 per year, and there's nothing to say it isn't 0 per year. JBW (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want to exclude February 2025 (when it was originally listed), then it's 28 times in the previous 12 months.

I believe that this tool captured all page views, including uses as a redirect, and not just &redirect=no views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Your link covers February 2023 to January 2025 inclusive, which is 24 months, not 12. The total of 28 views in those 24 months agrees with what I said: 18 & 10 in each of two years. JBW (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for checking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Eternal Limited

• Eternal Limited → Zomato  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. I'm having some trouble figuring out the connection between this and Zomato, a search is pulling up lots of clearly unrelated things. Rusalkii (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Appears to be a name change: https://www.republicworld.com/business/zomato-changes-name-to-eternal-limited-company-confirms-decision Aprzn (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Well, no objection to the redirect and/or a move if it's actually called that and the target reflects that. Rusalkii (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This is part of a company renaming exercise (Zomato Limited → Eternal Limited) that has received board approval but has yet to receive shareholder approval [2]. If and when the name change takes effect, Eternal Limited will be the parent entity of Zomato, Blinkit and other businesses. This is similar to Facebook Inc changing its name to Meta Platforms. Yuvaank (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  It sounds like we should close this. Maybe the nom could put a note on her calendar to check back in a year. ("Not mentioned" is not actually a reason to delete a redirect. That only applies if it is "novel or very obscure".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:---

• Template:--- → Template:Long dash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Subst-then-delete or retarget to {{mdash}}. wikt:---#Punctuation_mark shows how a triple hyphen is an em dash, but this redirect is to a 3-em dash. Deviating from the customary Hyphen#Use_in_computing only causes confusion. 173.206.110.217 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep, because I don't think that anyone is helped by deleting this. I'd be happy to see all such templates replaced with the correct characters, but that should be done with a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks (perhaps once a year), and not by deleting a ten-year-old redirect that people might be accustomed to using as a short way to invoke the template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

We could make the template a wrapper set to {{subst only|auto=yes}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The people who might be accustomed to this are exactly the people that would be helped by deleting this. Deletion would free them of the misconception that "---" could mean anything other than a 1-em dash, and correctly teach future editors who see {{---}}. As an analogy, this is equally helpful as nominating a template that only supported yyyy-dd-mm, to teach them that the correct way of using ISO dates is yyyy-mm-dd. This should be deleted under WP:RFD#DELETE 2. confusion and 5. nonsense, unless someone can cite a source that recommends "---" for a 3-em dash. (same IP editor) 173.206.105.221 (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to teach editors that three hyphen-minuses, if rendered in plain text, will be interpreted as a single em dash by some people. People who can't figure out that typing {{---}} and typing --- all by itself are different are unlikely to be successful Wikipedia editors anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - It's a template only used by wikipedians, who can be expected to figure out what the template does before using it. Template names are pretty much arbitrary, and if people are using it, they find it helpful, and that's enough a reason to keep as any. Habit is fine in the backend, insisting on naming accuracy is only useful if more wikipedians find the naming confusing than not, and I don't think confusion is happening here. Fieari (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Shoo in

• Shoo in → Odds#Historical  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Shoe in → Odds#Historical  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Shoe-in → Odds#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The mention in the article was removed in June 2012. Shoo-in was deleted in May 2024.

Personal commentary: shoe-in is a very annoying typo that I see quite frequently in Wikipedia discussions. Hopefully deletion will serve as a deterrent for that. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Until this very moment, I thought "shoe-in" was the correct spelling. I had always assumed that it meant something going in as easily as it would with a tap of a foot. BD2412 T 04:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete all unless someone can find a relevant target. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• If Shoo-in can be recreated as a redirect to Robert Brooks (American football) as a {{R from nickname}}, Shoo in can be retargeted accordingly. Jay 💬 20:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Feels like a reasonable soft redirect to wikt:shoo-in. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  That was one suggestion of the nomination of the 2024 RfD. The RfD was closed as Delete on the basis of the lone vote of a blocked user, although at the time the block was for disruptive editing. He was found to be socking two days later. Jay 💬 08:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think Shoo-in should follow the result of this RFD, despite the May 2024 RFD; that RFD was a bit too underattended for me to feel like it reflects consensus better than this discussion would. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 01:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Would anyone be opposed to me creating Shoo-in as a soft redirect to wikt:shoo-in? I figure this is the best place to ask, given the previous RFD seems to have been only attended by a blocked user. It's more valid than any of the three redirects up for discussion, and I think it has a case to exist even if these three get deleted. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Demolition lovers II

• Demolition lovers II → Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

First time doing something like this, let me know if I've made a mistake. I believe this redirect should be deleted, especially to avoid confusion with the newly-created page for "Demolition Lovers". "Demolition Lovers II", from what I can tell, refers to the title of the album cover's artwork, but it is not referenced in the article (nor in reliable, secondary sources from a Google search). The redirect also seems to be rarely used, with Pageview Analysis showing only 121 uses over the past decade. In the case that this redirect ends up being kept, then it should at least be renamed to put it in title case. Thank you. Leafy46 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Life on the Murder Scene says "Demolition lovers II" is the name of the album cover of the target, however this is unsourced and I have tagged it with {{citation needed}}. Jay 💬 08:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep but change casing. The back cover of the album refers to front cover as "Demolition Lovers II", and there's a couple Reddit posts referring to it as such. There's a nonzero chance someone might want info about the cover art, so I would keep it under WP:CHEAP. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Banu Hoot

• Banu Hoot → Banu Hut  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Usage does not exist anywhere on the internet aside from this redirect. Page was at this title for all of two minutes. Rusalkii (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: What is confusing is that it is referred to in the article as Banu Hout, so should the article be moved to Banu Hout? There are other redirects Banu Houth and Banu Haut. Jay 💬 09:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  There are several very rapid moves in the history, I'm nowhere near qualified to determine which is the correct name. Rusalkii (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep. This is a transliteration into English. As is common, there are multiple "correct" translations. Just leave it alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Lifelore

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

Biology is about life, however this term seems odd. Biology used to have a #Etymology section that had: Historically there was another term for "biology" in English, lifelore; it is rarely used today. Later the entire #Etymology section was removed as: etymologies belong in wiktionary., and the suggestion was that these should go into a History section or a "History of" article, however this was not added back to Biology § History or History of biology. Without context, this redirect is confusing, as evidenced at another two RfDs for Life lore and Life-lore. Jay 💬 11:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Per Duckmather at earlier RfDs (life-lore and life lore), retarget to wikt:lifelore. it's lio! | talk | work 08:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Keep and add an external link to "lifelore". 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Soft retarget to Wiktionary:lifelore per HKLionel. Also, a mention solely in the "External links" section doesn't adequately fix the issue since the redirect is not mentioned or identified in the body of the article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, obscure, archaic synonym not mentioned at the target. Wiktionary soft redirects are harmful, as they inhibit searching within Wikipedia, and search results already display a Wikt link prominently if something has an entry there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  ...This redirect existing inhibits what while searching within Wikipedia? There is literally nothing other than the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Any future mentions of this term on WP, or just confirmation of the fact that there are no mentions. It might not be much, but it's something. Meanwhile, searching for it if the soft redirect isn't there yields a link to the Wikitionary entry (with the start of the entry even), which is better. Wikt soft redirects are invariably bad, and I've never understood why people clutch at them as some sort of better alternative than the normal search result page. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  That's a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL assumption there. You are basically betting on someone at some point in the future adding this word to an article, and if there's none now in the millions of article on Wikipedia, the odds of the word appearing later are next to nil. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Playhouse Disney around the world

• Playhouse Disney around the world → Playhouse Disney  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is this needed though? RanDom 404 (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete: not mentioned at target article. Unlikely to be a necessary search term. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the page history, this used to be a separate article but was moved when the channel name was changed. Later, the redirect was pointed to the current target. There is relevant content at both the original target and the current one. I don't think this should be deleted but unsure which article would be the better target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  That former target, Disney Jr. (international), also does not mention this redirect. From searching, I'm still not entirely clear what Playhouse Disney around the world even is, and I don't see any reliable sources with which to add a mention anywhere. I'm unconvinced that this would be doing any good at either page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  "Playhouse Disney around the world" just means non-U.S. versions of the channel, which both the original and current targets discuss. There's no need to "add" a mention because it's just describing the subject of the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete or the weakest retarget to Disney Jr. (international) since Playhouse Disney changed their naming scheme (i'm User:Someone-123-321 by the way, but due to reasons the reply system I'm using doesn't work on Chrome :[). Delete, because of the unnatural grammar, retarget to match redirect Disney Junior around the world 65.181.23.139 (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Indiana Jones Bonus Material

• Indiana Jones Bonus Material → Indiana Jones  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not really that plausible. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

High skool musical

• High skool musical → High School Musical  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 16:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Going Electric

• Going Electric → A Complete Unknown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Electric Dylan controversy is a better target for this phrase. The movie more or less is a derivative of the controversy. _pbp 15:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

As the redirect creator, I won't say I'm strictly opposed to this, though I will say that this is specifically a working title of the film (mentioned in the second sentence of A Complete Unknown#Pre-production), so it's not directed there for no reason, and I did add a hatnote to A Complete Unknown linking to Electric Dylan controversy regarding this redirect. There is one instance of the words "going electric" in the latter article, but it doesn't appear that this precise phrase is closely associated with the controversy (at least as far as I can tell). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Since this is an official working title (and is capitalized as such), then I think we should keep the current target. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Xavier Musk

• Xavier Musk → Musk family#Vivian Wilson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

MOS:DEADNAME, Vivian was not notable under her previous name, which is also not mentioned at the target article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Redirects are cheap and DEADNAME seems to be more about article titles and construction of articles than about Redirects _pbp 15:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  The page explicitly states the former name should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Several sources mentioned "Xavier Alexander Musk" in the news: Absolutiva (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Gaur, Abhilash (July 26, 2024). "What's this California law that Musk says 'killed' his son?". The Times of India. Mumbai: The Times Group. Retrieved March 3, 2025.
  • "Elon Musk: Billionaire's daughter cuts ties with her father". BBC News. London. June 21, 2022. Retrieved March 3, 2025.
  • "Who Is Xavier Musk? Elon Musk's Transgender Daughter Files for Name Change". Newsweek. New York City. June 21, 2022. Retrieved March 3, 2025.
  • Chakravarti, Ankita (September 2, 2024). "I am transgender, don't tell my dad: Elon Musk's daughter told aunt after cutting ties with father". India Today. New Delhi. Retrieved March 3, 2025.
• Keep, a redirect seems to be one of the only appropriate places to use a deadname. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete, it seems like all of the sources using the deadname are from after the name change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Deadname is not even mentioned at target article, nor anywhere else on site, and I don't think the articles linked above would be enough to justify its inclusion. That handful of mentions from multiple years prior to notability maybe barely scrapes past DEADNAME's requirements if applied conservatively, but I do not believe it is a guideline that should be used so loosely. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. vivian was not notable before she transitioned, nobody would look her up by her deadname. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. She has become notable after her transition. cookie monster 755 09:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete MOS:DEADNAME and WP:NPF violations. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

LGBTQ Conservatives

• LGBTQ Conservatives → LGBT+ Conservatives  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect exists only because a previous user mistakenly moved the article LGBT+ Conservatives here. "LGBTQ Conservatives" is not a name of that organization, so the redirect serves no purpose. It should be deleted. Dieknon (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to LGBTQ conservatism, which I imagine is what most readers typing in this redirect are probably looking for (and the current target is already in a hatnote there). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to LGBTQ conservatism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

President Elon Musk

• President Elon Musk → Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This would probably be a better redirect to criticism about Musk's role in the US federal government then his main article. cookie monster 755 11:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: the Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government article now focuses solely on lawsuits involving DOGE and is itself in the midst of a move discussion to make that clear. There may be a better target than the Elon Musk article, but Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government isn't it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe redirect to Political activities of Elon Musk or Views of Elon Musk? cookie monster 755 09:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

My guess is that it makes most sense to create a section about it in Public image of Elon Musk and redirect to that. Maybe I'll create a short section about it later today. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I like either Political activities of Elon Musk or Public image of Elon Musk better than the "Views" article. This is about how people view him, not about his own views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, I ended up adding text about it to Political activities of Elon Musk § United States. I also discovered that President Musk redirects to Éminence grise § Historical examples, so that should likely be retargeted as well. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Elon Musk. He is president of the Musk Foundation so it's been a legitimate title before the recent events. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  That's the current target, and nobody uses actually uses a title like "President Musk" as a way of addressing the head of a private foundation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Recreational hypnosis

• Recreational hypnosis → Erotic hypnosis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Although A) this is a redir from page move so we might need to be somewhat cautious of external links and B) thanks to what I can only call a redirect-specific version of WP:CITEGENESIS where other sources use Wikipedia as a synonym site, NN videos have started using the term in THIS sense...

it should be worth noted that the majority of usecases of "recreational hypnosis" I could find referred to... well, "recreational hypnosis" - as in turning someone into a chicken or something. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Stage hypnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as vague. Search engine results are likewise vague with no clear established meaning. There's no need to guess at what someone wants here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Stage hypnosis as what I believe best meets WP:PTOPIC... many more people have engaged with the stage performance (on TV, or at work/university parties/events) than the sexual version. If other agree with the IP that there's simply no consistent use of this term, however, then the solution would be to DABify it, which I would !vote for as my 2nd choice. Fieari (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

LemonParty

• LemonParty → Shock site  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

this is definitely a shock site that exists (proof: i fell for it when i was 12. long story), however since it's not mentioned to any encyclopedic extent in this article I propose that this redirect should be deleted User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". For example, "not mentioned" is a valid reason to delete a redirect if is is a translation of the title of the article into a non-English language that is unrelated to the article's subject. Redirects should not be deleted if the connection to the subject is obvious or if the redirect is correct but not appropriate for inclusion in the article, such as {{R from brand name}}. If it bothers you, then I'd suggest editing the target article to add something like a brief mention (e.g., "such as LemonParty") somewhere.
  Additionally, it's getting a lot of traffic – about 2000 uses during the last year. That's more than about 85% of our articles. Deleting it is therefore likely to break incoming links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thankfully RDELETE is not all encompassing and we can recognize redirects as misleading and deal with them. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's misleading: It's not deceptive. It doesn't create a false impression. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  It does though, there's an impression that a term like this would be mentioned or at least explained in some capacity. As it stands, it looks like someone just forgot a space when searching for Lemon Party. Anybody actually searching for that term won't find any relevant information at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lemon Party, as the current target is misleading given that there's no information or mention there. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• 50/50 keep/delete, but do not retarget. This is one of those rare cases where a redirect without a mention might actually be somewhat useful. It's pretty plausible that someone looking for information here won't know the specific term "shock site", but may instead search for a well known example of one, and might be reasonably happy to find general information, even without specifics about the one they searched for. Meanwhile, the lack of a space makes the above proposed retarget pretty questionable, especially given the existence of the current target. On the other hand, there's no mention, so I'm not really all that opposed to a simple delete either. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm opposed to keeping the current target for what it's worth. Being that there's no relevant information at the current target, it stands to reason that it'd be misleading to stay targeted there. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Vivian Musk

• Vivian Musk → Musk family#Vivian Wilson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No reliable sources mentioned as "Vivian Musk". Absolutiva (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep: very plausible search term, seeing as she is notable for being her father's daughter, and it's reasonable to assume they would share a last name even though that isn't the case. No other Vivian Musks are mentioned on Wikipedia so it's not impeding any searches. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with QuietHere that this is a very plausible search term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. cookie monster 755 09:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep She was previously known as "Vivian Musk" before changing her name. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2

McDLT

• McDLT → Big N' Tasty  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The decision was made in 2007 to merge McDLT into Big N' Tasty, on the basis that, in the opinion of an editor with industry experience, these products had fundamentally the same role in McDonalds's business strategy. Although I can see that this is true, and I am grateful for User:Jerem43's contributions to the article and especially our coverage of McDonald's in general, it's not clear to me why these sandwiches should be thought of as the same product from any other perspective. The McDLT predates the Big N' Tasty branding and had a different selling points to the consumer: the McDLT is about the temperature contrast of fresh lettuce and tomato. The article as it stands does not justify identifying this sandwich as an iteration of the Big N' Tasty "series," and I would argue that this particular merge was based on original research. This redirect should retarget to List of McDonald's products#Discontinued food products, where it is already summarized.

For comparison, McOz, Big Xtra, and McRoyal Deluxe redirect to Big N' Tasty as well. I understand these all to be names for tomato and lettuce sandwiches that appeared contemporaneously with or after the Big N' Tasty, and seem a lot more like localized "versions" of the Big N' Tasty concept to me. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep but the information on the product is at the target page; and *not* at the proposed target list. There is quite a lot of information on the product at the current target, and only a sentence for it at the proposed target. Thus the current redirect points to where the information is. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

University of Islamic Studies

• University of Islamic Studies → Al-Qaeda safe houses, Karachi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, possible confusion with ur:جامعہ الدراسات اسلامیہ, which does not say whether they are related. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: There's more content in the article history before it was blanked by an IP editor in 2021 and redirected in 2023. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Still no indicaction from the previous version that this is independently notable (i.e. no in-depth secondary RS in that now-redirected article), so I understand why this was redirected. But right now it doesn't seem to make much sense and is probably best deleted if it's not mentioned at the source article. (That article seems to have its own issues too, but that's not the purpose of this discussion). GnocchiFan (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Cáncer de Esófago

• Cáncer de Esófago → Esophageal cancer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obviously inappropriate FL redirect. The edit summary of the creation of this redirect is strange, as it makes it sound as though this redirect was created from a move, when there's no evidence here or on the target page that that was the case. — Anonymous 21:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• delete. that's... spanish. why? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 22:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Subtropical rainforest(s)

• Subtropical rainforests → Rainforest  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Subtropical rainforest → Laurel forest  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think these should probably point to the same title. Cremastra (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep but fix vandalism. First, the singular "subtropical rainforest" redirect appears to have been vandalized back in 2020. It should be restored as a link to "rainforest". It should be noted that tropical, subtropical, and temperate rainforests are rainforests that exist in three distinct climate zones. There are distinct articles for tropical and temperate rainforests, but not yet for those of the subtropics. It is quite plausible that a discrete article for subtropical rainforest could be created in the future. It therefore makes sense to redirect to the broader topic page for now. Grolltech (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Separate articles There should be separate articles for tropical, subtropical, temperate and dry rainforest. Each of these types of rainforest are important in Australia, at least, and there are important sub-categories of some of them, including vine forest (north Queensland) and cool temperate (Tasmania). Gderrin (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Senegal national under-16 and under-17 basketball team

• Senegal national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Senegal men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Saudi Arabia national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Saudi Arabia men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Botswana national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Botswana men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Guinea-Bissau national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Guinea-Bissau men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ivory Coast national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Ivory Coast men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Iraq national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Iraq men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Congo national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Republic of the Congo men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Burkina Faso national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Burkina Faso men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete all: Wikipedia:XY – the under-17 team is not discussed at these targets. Maiō T. (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Chtonobdella

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

Confusing: I expected a genus article, not a redirect to the family, which is already visible in a taxobox. Delete per WP:REDYES. Cremastra (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• I am not sure why this was moved from my original redirect (from what appeared at the time to be a monotypic species) to the family page. Needs genus page creation (appears to be about 7 spp): now starting ... Roy Bateman (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Don't delete; create a genus article as per Roy Bateman. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  First draft completed. Roy Bateman (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Enalio Sauri

• Enalio Sauri → Marine reptile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned anywhere at the target. Appears to be a very aberrant spelling of Enaliosauria, which redirects to the related concept Euryapsida instead. I don't think "Enalio Sauri" is even a plausible misspelling of Enaliosauria, let alone that Marine reptile (rather than Euryapsida) is the best target for it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

A cursory browse of historical sources shows that Enalio-Sauri was how Conybeare first spelled the concept now understood as Enaliosauria, with some sources using Enalio Sauri without the hyphen [3] [4], while others follow Conybeare [5] exactly in referring to the group as Enalio-Sauri. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I admit I should have searched in the historical sources before, didn't think of that. In that case, retargeting to Euryapsida and expanding on the history of the concept seems like the way to go (and maybe later retargeting it to Enaliosauria if it ends up being written one day). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Oakland Assembly Food Court Venue

• Oakland Assembly Food Court Venue → Jack London Square  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Oakland Assembly Food Court Venue" is not, and I don't believe ever has been, mentioned at the target. I recommend delete, and delete the hatnote at Oakland Assembly, and delete G14 Oakland Assembly (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete The latest article I can find on this is from 2021 and discusses chefs backing out of the venture. I can't find any references to the venue ever opening, so a mention wouldn't be worth adding. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Identitarian

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

This also refers to idpol Skemous (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. Some examples of "identitarian" being used in the sense of identity politics: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Alternatively, use a redirect template at Identitarian movement. Astaire (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. There is adequate disambiguation with the hatnote at the current target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  "Not to be confused with" isn't the appropriate template because "identitarian" is used to describe identity politics, as I showed above. It isn't a matter of "confusion". Astaire (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

A third thing to disambiguate, to avoid 2DABS, is social identity. Skemous (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Mixed-culture

• Mixed-culture → Multiracial people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is not synonymous with the target: Someone with multiple cultures is not necessarily of multiple races. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Multi-ethnic and Mixed ethnicity also redirect to Multiracial people. That article bolds multi-ethnic people in the lede as if it will meaningfully deal with the topic, but it does not as it stands. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Syncretism ? --- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Kentucky militia

• Kentucky militia → Kentucky in the War of 1812#Kentucky militia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The history of Kentucky militia is much greater than the War of 1812. The state had militia through to the Civil War era - see for instance Simon Bolivar Buckner's 1861 activities, or the various Home Guard units later in the war. I think the current target is far to specific to be useful. Hog Farm _Talk 18:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, this should be made into an article. It currently has 12 articles that link to it and there is precedence for separate state militia articles. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  wouldn't that be more of a reason to delete per wp:returntored? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 15:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Speared

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

weird case. "speared" as an adjective can refer to wielding or being poked with the big disjointed hitbox the target speaks about, sure, but as a verb, it can refer to pretty much any form of stabbing, plus tackling people with your head in gridiron football, and plants going brrr (so wiktionary says, at least). admittedly not keen on retargeting to spearing, but you never know consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Spears family

• Spears family → Spear  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

was about to retarget to spears (disambiguation), but nothing there strikes as "family-like". considered retargeting to spears (surname), but there's exactly one family there. considered retargeting to some section about britney spears' family, but that's pretty reductive. either way, the current target is grammatically incorrect, and that might be enough for keeping to not be an optimal choice. opinions? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

should note that it did target the dab before, but that was a redirect, so it eventually ended up at the current target consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, which is what I think ought to have been done in 2006. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Spears (surname). Since there is one family there it's a good fix. Can be retargetted again if things change. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC).
  

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PADEMELONS

• Wikipedia:PADEMELONS → Wikipedia:Large_language_models#Original_research_and_"hallucinations"  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as not explained at destination. While I found the in-joke viewing page history then searching, others may find this WP:RASTONISHing. This shortcut was never used by editors besides its creator and unnecessarily uses up a potential shortcut seeing the shorter WP:AIFAIL already exists. 173.206.110.217 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

(Creator) meh. Maybe it'll get used in the future, maybe it won't. That said, I don't find the WP:RASTONISH argument very convincing, since a silly title like WP:PADEMELONS could point anywhere. Cremastra (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep but include some mention of the exchange somewhere in the "demonstrations" section to make it a bit more obvious. It's an obscure internal shortcut that the public won't see, it's not doing enough harm to worry about deleting BugGhost 🦗👻 15:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Should we move the anchor down, retarget, or add the quote to the current section? (same IP editor) 173.206.105.221 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Volgare

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

An Italian word for vulgar, unclear relationship to the Latin language Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• This feels like a reference to Vulgar Latin, but I can't find any evidence that it's referred to as "Volgare" in English Aprzn (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Probably found as Late Latin is transitioning to Italian, or as a loan word in English. It looks like a word that might turn up in scholarship to refer to Vulgar Latin, so unless it's needed for something else, it serves a useful purpose. Redirects are cheap. P Aculeius (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Comment wikt:volgare#Latin Paradoctor (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's a verb not adjective. Also, "might turn up" is WP:CRYSTALBALL. 173.206.110.217 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  If not deleted, your argument seems to suggest it should at least target Vulgar Latin, not Latin. I don't really feel strongly enough about this one to vote, but just putting that out there. — Anonymous 20:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete unless there's any evidence that "volgare" is in fact found in Late Latin or as an English loanword, in which case we should redirect to Vulgar Latin. I can't find any evidence of either of these things though. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete, the possibility of it maybe referring to Latin without any more evidence to that regards isn't a convincing reason to keep. Otherwise, retarget to Vulgar Latin, although it still fails WP:RFOREIGN barring any evidence that it was used in Vulgar Latin (rather than only in Italian). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Misskarenenglishteacher

• Misskarenenglishteacher → That Vegan Teacher  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term and even unlikely someone would search this term without the spaces Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose/Keep: That Vegan Teacher has an alternative channel. It is titled "Miss Karen English Teacher". In some of Miss Kadie's YouTube videos, it can start with a voice intro that says "misskarenenglishteacher.com". That channel's handle also has no space. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Freedoxm above, useful search/indexing term. Mention not required. Fieari (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Nehruvian rate of growth

• Nehruvian rate of growth → Hindu rate of growth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nobody has used this term except fringe Indian right-wing. Capitals00 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as redirects don't have to be neutral. You yourself admit it's used by some. Should probably be mentioned at the target, though. — Anonymous 22:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Relighting

• Relighting → Polynomial texture mapping  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could also refer to Flameout#Engine restart, for instance. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and place a hatnote on the Polynomial texture mapping page, because it seems that said article fits more into such. Justjourney (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

March 1

Mass execution

• Mass execution → Capital punishment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This topic is not mentioned in the target article. It is likely notable and deserves a stand-alone article. Maybe someone can think of a better redirect target (User:Buidhe?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I would redirect to massacre (t · c) buidhe 05:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. There doesn't seem to be a good target here. I oppose retargeting to massacre because equating the two terms seems inaccurate based on the section defining "massacre". - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Mass killing. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Mass killing, as per MrPersonHumanGuy. The phrase certainly exists, and that seems to be the best target that we have for it. BD2412 T 21:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GOODRFC

• Wikipedia:GOODRFC → Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This relatively new shortcut is a confusing WP:UPPERCASE. It claims that an RFC is "good", but an RFC can comply with the advice in that section and still be bad (e.g., brief, neutral and tendentious). I assume it was created to match WP:BADRFC.

I suggest deleting per WP:RFD#DELETE #2, but, as with its sibling, another option is to repoint it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ, where some of the myths about RFCs and available solutions are outlined. This one could also be pointed at Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It is misleading to point to #Statement should be neutral and brief when the section itself doesn't clearly define or discuss what makes an RfC "good" or "bad" (and it probably shouldn't). Some1 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I added GOODRFC to match the existing BADRFC. No opinion on whether they stay, go, or are redirected, only that what happens with one, should probably happen with the other. - jc37 00:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, per my comment on WP:BADRFC. I do not think deleting this is helpful, unless both "WP:GOODRFC" and "WP:BADFRC" are replaced by "WP:INVALIDRFC" which might be best.Iljhgtn (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, RFCs that aren't brief or neutral usually aren't invalid. Most of the time, the problem can be solved with a quick, simple edit. You might be interested in reading Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ. Usually, the person who wants to declare the RFC to be "bad" or "invalid" is trying to gain an advantage in a dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - same as for BADRFC.

Wikipedia:BADRFC

• Wikipedia:BADRFC → Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This relatively new shortcut is a confusing WP:UPPERCASE. It claims that the RFC is "bad", but an RFC can comply with the advice in that section and still be bad (e.g., brief, neutral and tendentious), or appear to violate the advice in that section – at least in the opinion of the speaker – and still be good. (We are seeing editors declare an RFC to be "bad" when they actually mean "I think my side is going to lose", or because they don't actually understand what "brief and neutral" means.)

I suggest deleting per WP:RFD#DELETE #2, but another option is to repoint it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ, where some of the myths about RFCs and available solutions are outlined. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It is misleading to point to #Statement should be neutral and brief when the section itself doesn't clearly define or discuss what makes an RfC "good" or "bad" (and it probably shouldn't). Some1 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I added GOODRFC to match the existing BADRFC. No opinion on whether they stay, go, or are redirected, only that what happens with one, should probably happen with the other. - jc37 00:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, I think there is always the potential for misuse or misreading of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and in most cases people seem to use the WP:BADRFC argument to say "The pre-RFC requirements were not met", including discussion in advance of an RfC and therefore the RfC is "bad" or lacks standing or is invalid. Maybe change to "WP:INVALIDRFC" if that makes more sense or conveys the proper message without confusing anyone, though I think the status quo makes sense and has not proven to show widespread confusion or issues.Iljhgtn (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  This redirect has been used eight times, including three times by the same person, and once by you, the creator. You used it redundantly, giving two WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts to the same section of WP:RFC in the same sentence ("thereby making the RFC a WP:BADRFC and not WP:RFCNEUTRAL").

  If the people using it mean "The pre-RFC requirements were not met", then they should be linking to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the process ("WP:RFCBEFORE") instead of to the section that this redirect points to. More importantly, they should actually read that section first, so they can discover that there aren't any pre-RFC "requirements". There is only pre-RFC "good-but-optional advice".

  There are no provisions in Wikipedia:Requests for comment for an involved editor to declare an RFC to be "invalid". In my not-inconsiderable experience with the RFC process, I have noticed that most people who attempt to shut down RFCs, usually by asserting non-existent requirements or complaining about non-neutral questions (but some times through straight-up edit warring), are doing so because they are concerned that their side will "lose", and they think that if their side loses, Wikipedia will be harmed. If such people have serious concerns, they should post a note at WT:RFC. Otherwise, they should swallow their objections and respond as if it were "an ordinary Wikipedia discussion that follows the normal talk page guidelines and procedures, including possible closing", exactly like it says at the top of the WP:RFC page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  How do you see whom has used the redirect and how many times etc.? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - a BADRFC shortcut should point to a description of what makes an RFC bad, but this just points to a description of a specific way in which an RFC could be bad. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete mostly seems rife for abuse to shut down a discussion if a statement is nonneutral… generally community is smart enough to decide how to handle a nonneutral statement on its own. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

WLBJ (defunct)

• WLBJ (defunct) → WLBJ (Kentucky)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This disambiguator may itself be ambigous; WLBJ-LP is also defunct. (This is a large part of why "defunct" is no longer used as a disambiguator for broadcast station articles.) This may need to be retargeted to WLBJ as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WLBJ-LP has been nominated for deletion; if that article is deleted, that might eliminate the need for the WLBJ disambiguation page and render this RfD all but moot. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Not a very useful redirect apparently. Drdpw (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Wait for the AFD. Retarget to DAB if it's not deleted, otherwise delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• The AFD closed as redirect to Annunciation Radio. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Drdpw. If there was an active WLBJ station article, then it made sense to have the "defunct" disambiguator. All we have are two defunct ones, we don't need a "defunct" disambiguator to redirect to a disambig page. This was the earlier title of the Kentucky station page, so at that time it made sense. Jay 💬 11:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The AFD closed as redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Flatworm species redirects (3)

• Fletchamia dakini → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Fletchamia flavilineata → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Fletchamia fuscodorsalis → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Fletchamia mediolineata → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Fletchamia mmahoni → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Fletchamia quinquelineata → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lenkunya adae → Lenkunya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lenkunya arenicola → Lenkunya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lenkunya frosti → Lenkunya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lenkunya ornata → Lenkunya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lenkunya virgata → Lenkunya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:REDYES and per previous discussions of deleting circular redirects of this type. Thanks to Galactikapedia for their support in the discussions below. Sorry to make so many bulk nominations. Cremastra (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete All - per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation on clearly notable topics. Fieari (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Flatworm species redirects (2)

• Newzealandia agricola → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Newzealandia graffii → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Newzealandia inaequabilis → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Newzealandia inequalistriata → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Newzealandia iris → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Newzealandia moseleyi → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete all per WP:REDYES and precedent of deleting this kind of circular redirect. Cremastra (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Agree, delete. I created these long before I understood the purpose of redirects. They are pointless and obstructive. Galactikapedia (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete All - per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation on clearly notable topics. Fieari (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Flatworm species redirects (1)

• Kontikia andersoni → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia ashleyi → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia assimilis → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia atrata → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia bulbosa → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia canaliculata → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia chapmani → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia circularis → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia cookiana → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia coxii → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia cyanea → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia forsterorum → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kontikia insularis → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete all per WP:REDYES and precedent of deleting this kind of circular redirect. Cremastra (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Agree, delete. I created these long before I understood the purpose of redirects. They are pointless and obstructive. Galactikapedia (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete the lot (also applies to other batches) to open up the expected species redlinks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete All - per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation on clearly notable topics. Fieari (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

When you are young, they assume you know nothing

• When you are young, they assume you know nothing → Cardigan (song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Lyric not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

But lyrics don't need to be mentioned at the target. Anthony2106 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm kind of torn for this one. At face value, it seems fairly unambiguous and I can't see an especially strong argument to delete it. On the other hand, I think the creation of redirects to random and not especially significant song lyrics should generally be discouraged, as there is always some room for ambiguity (the English language only has so many combinations of words, after all), and they can always be potential vandalism targets. Still, I'm leaning keep unless someone could demonstrate a more concrete issue with this specific redirect. — Anonymous 01:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - It's a random lyric, and pageviews show no evidence that anyone is using this as a search term to find this article. If another song in the future includes this lyric, obviously we are not going to turn this into a disambiguation page.--NØ 04:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Would it of been better if I linked you put me on and said I was your favorite? Because that one is more popular. Anyway there's lots of lyric redirects, I don't really get why mine is worse. Anthony2106 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  It looks like most of those lyrics either include the title of the song or are mentioned at the target. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. — Anonymous 21:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

William Watson: Civil War Surgeon

• William Watson: Civil War Surgeon → William Watson (surgeon)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very novel synonym for the target. One might believe it is a film or book related to the subject which is definitely not the case. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete While unambiguous, this does not seem like a plausible way to search for the target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Afterlove EP

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:

2022–2023 Moldovan energy crisis

• 2022–2023 Moldovan energy crisis → 2022 Moldovan energy crisis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See Talk:2022 Moldovan energy crisis#Requested move 21 January 2025. The article was moved without any discussion or elaboration by PoppysButterflies on 1 January 2023 [12]. I tried to look into whether this was appropriate and proposed that the article be moved back, which it was. Even the Moldovan government was talking about the crisis in past tense by late January, and solutions to the original causes had already been found in December. This redirect suggests a timeframe that has not been defended by a single Wikipedia editor and is original research. I think it should be deleted to clean up from the undiscussed move. I think everyone can understand, from looking at the edit diff, that the move took place because the editor thought it was appropriate now that we were in 2023, as this editor is not active at all in the Moldovan topic area. Super Ψ Dro 10:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Also bundle 2022-2023 Moldovan energy crisis. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Canadiano

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

Redirecting a brand to "coffeemaker" may not be an appropriate approach. SunAfterRain 08:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• that's "canadian" in portuguese portuguese (with its brazilian portuguese equivalent being "canadense"). delete per nom, and i guess also per rlang, with mild opposition to soft retargeting to wikt:canadiano for the same reason consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 12:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Caffè americano. Lots of coffee shops in Canada are changing the name of the drink on their menus given the current trade war with the US. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniegravalese/2025/03/03/the-canadianowhy-canadian-cafs-are-renaming-the-americano-explained/) -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Visting the page

• Visting the page → World Wide Web#Linking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Visiting the page → Pageview  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not necessarily a world wide web thing, not necessarily tied to linking. originally created as... i'm just going to call it "an unsourced stub" consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and ... I'm not a knight from medieval times visiting pages. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  oh yeah? why is your name "steel1943" then? steel is a material known exclusively for being worn by knights, and anything before 2016 is basically medieval times, so what gives? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Haha ... before 2016 ... no lol. If you are serious though, look up the "steel" and "1943" with a space in between in any search engine, and the reference should become obvious. Steel1943 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Did you toss a coin before deciding on the name? Jay 💬 17:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  ...😂👍 Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Neutral now since I'm currently not sure if Pageview is an appropriate target or not. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete both. I am now convinced there is no good target for these. Steel1943 (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to pageview as {{R from other name}}. Duckmather (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Actually, delete because of the typo (visiting -> visting). I've created the correctly-spelled visiting the page redirect, so this one is unnecessary. Duckmather (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Duckmather: Probably should have waited until this discussion closed for this misspelled (I didn't even notice that) redirect before creating the properly spelled one. Now, I feel it needs to be bundled with this discussion (which I just did with this edit, so you may need to change your stance here.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Consarn: Pinging initial nominator since the properly spelled redirect has been created and added to this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

eh, i'd actually vote to have that one deleted as well, since i don't think pageview would be an appropriate target consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 10:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - unfortunate redirect that got created because of a poor page title for a good faith stub by newbie that was BLARd within 10 mins in 2015. For the one created by Duckmather, regardless of the reason for creation, poor title for a redirect. Jay 💬 17:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete both. One has a typo and the other is awkward, could technically refer to a bunch of things (pageview, browsing, etc.), and isn't a DAB candidate. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to close an old page and get more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 01:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete awkward typo Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete "visting":

"Visiting the page, refers to viewing a link on the internet when a he/she links you with a link leading to a page, in this case its the visiting the page page, NOTE THAT SOME LINKS ARE DANGEROUS! Do not open links from people you don't trust! An example of this is jump scares/scary rolls" reads more like some random Urban Dictionary entry than a wikipedia article.

No opinion on "visiting" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Xbs

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy retarget. BD2412 T 04:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

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

New disambiguation page XBS created. Should Retarget to XBS. Justjourney (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support. This could have been done boldly. BD2412 T 03:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  @BD2412 Should I do it now? Justjourney (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. I would. BD2412 T 03:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  Partially  Done, but I haven't removed the templates at the top of that page yet. Also, how do I close this discussion? @BD2412. Justjourney (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2025 (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).</noinclude>

True death

• True death → Soul#Life and death  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This formerly targeted a section which was removed in 2011, and which didn't seem to have anything related to the string "true death". Worth discussing what the best target is, or whether this is even a good redirect to keep. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• I can't help thinking that I have heard this phrase prominently in fiction. BD2412 T 03:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as generally vague. Although used frequently in True Blood, the article here mentions it merely once in passing, in quotes, without any further detail, and it would make a bad target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for now as vague. I got hits from DnD, WH40k and other franchises as potential targets but none of them seem to use this term in a non-obscure way --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

February 28

Gelong

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

VLCS

• VLCS → SLC27A2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Very long-chain acyl-CoA synthetase → SLC27A2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Incorrectly nominated for WP:PROD by user Abvdj (talk · contribs) with rationale: The very long-chain acyl-CoA synthetase (VLCS) comprises 6 isoenzymes: SLC27A1, SLC27A2, SLC27A3, SLC27A4, SLC27A5, SLC27A6. It is not logical to redirect it only to SLC27A2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I found another redirect — apparently, the page was moved unilaterally on February 16 from this title due to disagreeing with the actual scope, which is only about one of the six units. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Fatty acid transport proteins. Double checking the human proteins on Uniprot I see that they are manually annotated as having name variants like 'very long-chain acyl-CoA synthetase'. Fatty acid transport proteins lists the family. ⇌ Synpath 14:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably the best solution at the moment. Abvdj (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

History of metaphysical naturalism

• History of metaphysical naturalism → Metaphysical naturalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Incorrectly listed for WP:PROD by Chrisahn (talk · contribs) with following rationale: History section has been removed from Metaphysical naturalism in 2023. No more incoming links to this redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. No longer useful. The history section has been removed from Metaphysical naturalism a while ago, so this redirect has no good target anymore. No incoming links. Unlikely search term. P.S. Thanks for listing this here. Before I tagged the article, I had a quick look at WP:PROD, but missed the part about redirects. Sorry! — Chrisahn (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Guido Quaroni

• Guido Quaroni → SolidThinking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Guido Quaroni is probably notable in his own right, and is a voice actor in the Cars franchise. As such, he's a blue link in the cast list in our article on Cars 3 and probably other articles. But the link is this redirect to SolidThinking, a graphics company (and its product), which was bought by Altair Engineering. The SolidThinking article does associate Quaroni with the company, but I can find no evidence to support this, apart from more recent things that look as though they probably got the information from Wikipedia. The original source for the founders mentions the two brothers Mazzardo but not Quaroni. This redirect, which was originally an article about Quaroni (and converted to a redirect I think because of poor sourcing) is now inappropriate because (1) there is no evidence to connect Quaroni to the redirect target, and (2) even if it did, the target gives no information about Quaroni, and doesn't reflect his potential notability. To be honest, I think it's worse than getting rid of it and accepting that Quaroni should be a red link until someone gets round to writing a proper article about him. Elemimele (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

New name

• New name → Nomen novum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"New name" more commonly refers to name change or geographical renaming instead of the renaming of species. Mia Mahey (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete this hopelessly ambiguous placeholder title. Might as well have nominated New article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Maybe it should be retargeted to Rename (or Renaming if an article is ever created with that title)? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• I suggest a disambiguation page. In the context of biological taxonomy, "new name" is definitely used as an English term for nomen novum – see for example the entry in the Dictionary of invertebrate zoology – although "replacement name" is more common in botanical contexts, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with this discipline, but the fact that "new name" is in bold at the top of Nomen novum tells me that it's a conventionalized English rendering of that technical term. People who change their names are more likely to say that they "changed their name" than to say that they have a "new name." It is true that when geographical features are renamed, we often speak of its "new name," although I find it hard to believe that someone looking for the notion of renaming geographical features will search for it as "new name" with significant frequency. I think it could be reasonably argued that when a user searches New name, the topic that they are most likely to be specifically looking for is Nomen novum. This supports Nomen novum as the primary topic of New name via WP:PT1. However, the technical concept of Nomen novum is much less widespread, giving it less notability and educational value than Name change or especially Geographical renaming; therefore, WP:PT2 definitely does not support Nomen novum as the primary topic of New name.
  
  If it can be determined that Nomen novum is the primary topic for New name, then I don't think a disambiguation is needed. We could just replace the {{distinguish}} hatnote with {{redirect|New name||Rename}}, which will look like this:
  "New name" redirects here. For other uses, see Rename.
  However, if there is no primary topic, we should probably disambiguate. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• disambiguate per Peter coxhead -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate as suggested. People searching for this have a technical meaning in mind, and since there are arguably several in unconnected disciplines, a dab page would serve. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate as it could refer to a legal name change. cookie monster 755 14:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Curtiss-Wright Model 2500 Air Car

• Curtiss-Wright Model 2500 Air Car → Hovercraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I belive this redirect should be removed as the generic article for Hovercraft has nothing on it aside a single image. While there is an edit history it doesn't seem to be possible to view any previous versions anyway I am the pootis man1 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

2^61-1

• 2^61-1 → Mersenne prime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This particular prime number does not seem to need a redirect. Tagged as an "r to section" but no such section exists in the redirect. "61-1" is not mentioned at the article for the Mersenne prime, among the many other prime numbers that could possibly exist. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers. It is indeed a Mersenne prime (one of 52), and is indeed mentioned in the article, but the list is a better target. StAnselm (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  @StAnselm:, could you point out to me where "2^61-1" is mentioned in either article? Because I'm not seeing it in the list you linked either. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's the 9th Mersenne prime, where p=61. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was looking for the exact title-match of "2^61-1", which I didn't find at either article. It is generally encouraged to have something related to every redirect someone might use, to ensure that they landed on the right page and aren't stranded by mistake. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  We do not need to have every redirect of a synonym in their target article, if reading the article makes the connection clear. The article clearly defines a Mersenne prime number as "one less than a power of two" and has M_n = 2ⁿ − 1 as the definition. And then later does list 61 as a Mersenne prime number. I don't think it'd be all that helpful to readers to have this exact string in the article but having this be a redirect to either article is helpful to readers because this redirect allows them to find information about the topic even though their exact search term does not appear in the article. Skynxnex (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Followup: After some inference I do see now where "61" is mentioned, but I'm still not seeing how it becomes a useful redirect even with this fact? I.e. it's not obvious why 2^61-1 would be more important than 2^89-1, or 2^107-1 or any of the others in the sequence. We don't have any dedicated content besides just a list-entry, and nothing on the list besides the value of the number itself. Wikipedia isn't a calculator and these don't seem be useful redirects, if it's just to indicate that "it is on the table of mersenne primes". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is useful because it gets people to the right place. If you read about "2^61-6" on a website, and you search for it here, then you need to end up in the right place. You do not necessarily need to end up in the right place plus with circles and arrows and a paragraph typed on the back to reassure you that you really are in the right place, but you do need to end up in the right place. Therefore keep, and maybe even consider what it would take to get a WP:TBAN to stop you from nominating any more redirects on "not mentioned" grounds, because there is no such rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: It's inappropriate to suggest a TBAN in these sort of situations. It's fine to vote to keep something, but Utopes' nomination rationale is not at all uncommon for RfD, I myself have used the same rationale quite a few times. I can't even understand how you jumped to the suggestion of a TBAN. Looking through my XfD log, I find I use this reasoning quite often, as redirects that aren't mentioned at the target are misleading. In the future, I strongly suggest you do not suggest/imply a TBAN is appropriate when editors are acting in good faith, have been solid contributors in the area you're suggesting they be banned from, and have not been disruptive. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh, I think that systematically sending pages to XFD just to make sure that the community doesn't want to delete them is disruptive.

  I realize that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, but editors can earn a TBAN if they consistently and repeatedly send articles to AFD for reasons that contradict the deletion policy, so I assume that consistently and repeatedly sending redirects to RFD has the same potential outcome. If someone sent a couple dozen unref'd articles to AFD every day, for no reason beyond being in Category:Articles lacking sources, I'd expect them to be TBANned. If someone sends a couple dozen "not mentioned" articles to RFD every day, for no reason beyond being in Category talk:Redirects to an article without mention, I'd expect them to be TBANned, too.

  If lots of people think that it's misleading to have 1909 constitutional crisis redirect to an article that talks at length about a "crisis" involving the "constitution" that started in "1909", without using the exact consecutive string "1909 constitutional crisis", then either a lot of our editors have poor reading comprehension, or we need to change the rules at WP:RFD#DELETE. Those words currently say a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned. Those words currently do not say anything that is not mentioned, or even most things that are not mentioned, because it's misleading. As usual, my main concern is that the written rules match editors' actual practice. Either we need to stop using this made-up rule, or we need to make the rule a real one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: Right, and there's no evidence that Utopes has been nominating anything that contradicts policy. Their nominations frequently end in delete and, when they don't, they adjust how they approach and avoid wasting participants time with similar nominations. If someone sends a couple dozen "not mentioned" articles to RFD every day, for no reason beyond being in Category talk:Redirects to an article without mention... That's not what's happening though if you look at their edit history or their nomination rationales. They're retargeting redirects to some places, removing the tags when unnecessary/inaccurate, and nominating redirects without a valid target. I'm also not sure what you're referring to that needs to apparently be revised. They aren't nominating things that they're not finding to be a synonym. It feels like an extreme overreaction to suggestion a TBAN when someone isn't familiar with a mathematic equation and the RfD happens to not end in delete, so I invite you to WP:AGF. Lastly, their number of nominations hasn't been disruptive. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:RFD#DELETE says that redirects may be deleted if both of these conditions are true:

  1. novel or very obscure synonym for an article name
  2. that is not mentioned in the article

  "Novel" encompasses both newness and things that were made up one day. "Very obscure" means the connection between the redirect and the target article is so "hidden" or "difficult to understand" that almost nobody (=not just the nom personally, but almost nobody) would be able to figure out why it redirects to that page.

  You have to have both of these conditions. The written rule does not say "It's enough for it to be unmentioned, because every redirect must be explicitly mentioned. Who cares if ordinary readers can easily grok that this website name redirects to the company of the same name? Who cares if – as is the case for this particular redirect – it used to be mentioned in the article, in a format that anyone who remembers pre-algebra math should be able to recognize? If it's not worth mentioning the redirect in the current version of the article, then it's not worth having the redirect."

  I don't know if you were aware of it, but Utopes proposed systematically reviewing every redirect in CAT:RAW and either removing the cat or proposing deletion of the redirect. The rule they proposed using was that every redirect must be mentioned in the article, "If not exactly verbatim, pretty dang close to it" or deleted. The discussion produced objections. I have added mine here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers as a better target. I agree that both articles do mention it, although not by the exact string, but p=61 or M₆₁ are enough of a signifier to cover this redirect as being mentioned. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Either Refine to §History, where there's actual discussion of Pervushin's proving this number prime (well prior to the use of computers), although it could use some better sourcing, so it would be a better target than those above. Or I wouldn't be all that opposed to a delete either; despite there actually being a bit to say about the discovery of this number's primeness, this still seems like an unlikely search term. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The pageviews analysis shows it's being searched about once a month. StAnselm (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning toward refine to Mersenne prime § History but keeping targeting just the article would be fine (but remove r to section in that case). Slight preference to that over retarageting to the list since the main article actually discusses M₆₁ in particular, unlike the list. Skynxnex (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Onlyinclude

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

2025 United States coup

• 2025 United States coup → Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2025 United States coup attempt → Department of Government Efficiency#Actions within federal government  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a neutral title, not sourced adequately enough to call it a coup — Czello ^(music) 17:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable redirect because when I was trying to find out if there was a page on DOGE's recent actions I searched Wikipedia for coup and coup attempt until I eventually found Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk. So Keep for the third reason listed at WP:RFD#KEEP. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 17:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Department of Government Efficiency - changing stance since seperate article no longer exists but its still a valid redirect per above. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 21:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom pending consensus by scholarly WP:SECONDARY sources (not politicians, news-channel talking heads, or a handful of academics and journalists) describing the target topic as a coup. The term "coup" is WP:CONTENTIOUS, so it is WP:UNDUE to label an event this way without strong sourcing. Carguychris (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Strong Delete WP:UNDUE, for now, and WP:CRYSTAL. "Coup" has been used by some Democrats and, accordingly, is quoted in sources in almost all sources using the term, but that's it. Trump himself said Musk is acting to his bidding. This AP article has both statements, and attributes them. Even the article itself doesn't use "coup" in wikivoice, see lede. I'd go as far as to question whether the article itself is necessary and can't just be worked into Department of Government Efficiency, again for now, but let's wait and see. Mystic Cornball (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep for the reason given by Lollipoplollipoplollipop. Agree it's a non-neutral characterization, but the use of this language is verifiable - and that's all that is needed in this kind of situation. (There are I imagine similarly non-neutral search phrases which might be used by those strongly supportive of Musk.) Dsp13 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Strong delete Expanding the imperial presidency is undesirable, but certainly distinct from the term "coup." Let's at least wait for history to speak before we assemble the review of lit for future scholars and journalists. Ornov Ganguly TALK 19:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep as there isn't any meaningful difference between 'coup' and 'attempted takeover of federal agencies by an individual.' Perhaps someone can offer a line in the sand which isn't contrived for this particular issue, but until then, the synonymity here should be considered implicit to the English language. SpooxTheSkeleton (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Considering Musk isn't overthrowing Trump or acting against his will according to him, I would argue there is a very strong difference in this particular case. Mystic Cornball (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that the word coup necessarily implies an unwilling head of state. Donald Trump's complicity in the ordeal is at best a legal grey area. It's still an initiative to dismantle the current regime by an in-group of powerful actors, which I believe satisfies the definition of coup. SpooxTheSkeleton (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

There is when sourcing doesn't adequately support the word "coup" — Czello ^(music) 20:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@SpooxTheSkeleton, you are begging the question by presuming that a "takeover" has in fact occurred. An article title that violates WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not in turn justify a similarly contentious redirect. I contend that both titles violate WP:NPOV and are inadequately sourced. Carguychris (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see any reliable sources describing it as a coup; Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk only lists one article in the SF Chronicle which documents that one professor Seth Masket described it as a coup in his substack (substack is considered not a reliable source), but the chronicle always put it in quotes, indicating it's Masket's opinion. Hi! (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

To be fair Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also called it a coup, but also as per my argument for deletion above all of this is very clearly opinionated so far. Mystic Cornball (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

AOC's tweets do not qualify as a reliable source. Agreed that calling it a coup is opinionated. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment the target page has been moved to draftspace, so it may be appropriate for this RfD to be procedurally closed. Carguychris (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

And, sigh, it's been undrafted with zero explanation. I wish people would put the forks down and act reasonably for once. Cremastra (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. <shakes head> Carguychris (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete - The article has been moved back to mainspace. No reliable sources are calling this a coup, nor can it be characterized as such right now. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep (or, if the article is merged, redirect to Department of Government Efficiency#Initial actions. Blatantly partisan and obviously incorrect term, but the fact that some notable individuals have been using the word "coup" means that it is a plausible redirect, and redirects are cheap. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Calls for deletion using the argument that it violates WP:NPOV should be reminded that redirects are explicitly allowed to violate NPOV. We create redirects specifically TO violate NPOV so that it stays out of article space, but still allows users who themselves use or have seen NPOV terminology to find the correct article. Redirects are also not required to be reliably sourced, merely sufficiently in use such that the existence of the redirect aids in navigation. Redirects are not generally user visible, so biased, opinionated, and even outright offensive redirects are generally acceptable if useful. This one is useful, and has been demonstrated to be useful above, which is a valid keep reason in and of itself. So, keep. Fieari (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note, the article this redirected to no longer exists – therefore it is now eligible for Speedy Deletion under G8. — Czello ^(music) 16:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Try tagging it and see what happens :) —Alalch E. 02:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Department of Government Efficiency and and tag with Template:R from non-neutral name. Plausible search term and the target contains: DOGE employees have entered US federal buildings in Washington, D.C. The events have been described as "takeover", "freeze", or "coup" by members of the Democratic Party and media, who claim that the DOGE does not have the authority to carry out these activities (emphasis mine). The mention of "coup" in the lead is supported by content in the body.—Alalch E. 02:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep/retarget and tag per Alalch E., clearly WP:POV but redirects are not required to be neutral (Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Weak retarget to wherever contains the most information on the whole DOGE/Musk/Trump thing, which seems to be currently Department of Government Efficiency, per the above. Redirects don't need neutrality or reliable sources, just being plausible, unambiguous search terms. And I sincerely hope this one remains unambiguous, but there's still 10 months in the year! Sourcing found by Alalch suggests "coup" is plausible, though the full phrase "2025 United States coup" seems to occur nowhere but this redirect at the moment. Rusalkii (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - it is not a plausible search term. Google search gave me just five results for the term, with three of those results being to this discussion, one to Reddit and one to a post on Threads. So I don't why anyone would think it would be a credible search term on Wikipedia. Our readers aren't searching for this preposterous made up term, if they were, Google search results would reflect that. Redirects should make sense, this one clearly doesn't. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per Alalch E. Redirects to not have to be neutral per WP:RNEUTRAL, so deletion would have to be on other grounds. This term has been used to describe DOGE's actions and its usage is already covered at the proposed target. Fine as a redirect. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as vague and misleading. If the redirect title had the words "DOGE" or "Elon Musk", then that would have been a worthwhile discussion. Also Oppose retarget to Department of Government Efficiency#Actions within federal government (which will happen as an avoided double redirect if this is not deleted). The fact that some call it a "coup" doesn't mean the redirect title "2025 United States coup" should redirect to DOGE. Jay 💬 13:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Also bundle 2025 United States coup attempt which was created 3 minutes after the redirect under discussion. Jay 💬 13:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus not yet clear, and bundling 2025 United States coup attempt into the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Don't delete Redirects are not required to be neutral, and the recent events could (unfortunately) reasonably be called a coup. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant WP:NPOV violation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government, which actually does have a section on the coup allegations. ^Falling_Gravity 06:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

20500

• 20500 → White House  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous search term; not the obvious WP:PTOPIC Cremastra (u — c) 00:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm wondering how is this more ambiguous/different from the other examples in Category:Redirects from ZIP codes (which I'm somewhat surprised exists and only has ~400 entries but still they're there)? Looking some I can't find anything else referred to by 20500 that comes close to primacy compared to the White House's ZIP code. Skynxnex (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and disambiguate. Pretty much the only WP:PTOPIC for this redirect, and Category:Redirects from ZIP codes is cromulent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Changing to dab per Duckmather. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate, I think? A quick onwiki search reveals that this is also the postal code for Aiguá, Kalynopil, Katerynopil Raion, Mondragón, Nemea (town), and Tavas. Duckmather (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I think I'd oppose a disambiguation page or SIA per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Too ambiguous, a disambiguation page is inappropriate because it would just be a directory, and the creation is part of a slew of problematic redirects by someone who needs to stop creating redirects. oknazevad (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

(nominator comment): I also support deletion rather than disambiguation. Cremastra (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate this is just a number, make it a disambiguation page -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just drafted the dab! Duckmather (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep; it clearly refers to the target, and is at least as good as any other redirect from a ZIP Code. No objection to a proper disambiguation page if one can be created. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep or delete, oppose DABifying; not everything needs to be a DAB page. — Anonymous 16:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per oknazevad. The redirect was created in 2007 though, so I don't understand oknazevad's part about ..part of a slew of problematic redirects by someone who needs to stop.... Jay 💬 13:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, does not clearly refer to the subject. Multiple possibilities have been aired, and there's nothing at the current target that says "20500 refers to this subject". No mention of "20500" outside the infobox, and this is understandably vague with other codes as well as the Z 20500 article. I'm open to disambiguating if someone wants to list every code that overlaps here, but in any situation the "white house" is a very easy search term, and also notdirectory. I'm not convinced someone would type in "20500" to get to this page, when <1% of all zip codes have redirects on Wikipedia, rendering this a wholly unreliable means of navigation that nobody would bank on. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Utopes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate; apart from postal codes, 20500 can also refer to SNCF Class Z 20500 (per Utopes) and 20500 Avner on List of minor planets: 20001–21000. @Duckmather: Will you add these to the DAB draft? Have a nice day, because it's lio! | talk | work 15:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Partial title matches do not get into disambiguation pages per MOS:DABNOENTRY. Jay 💬 16:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, then please add a See also section. Either way, the number 20500 is significant in other articles, and therefore shouldn't remain specific to the White House. it's lio! | talk | work 16:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete (and do not disambiguate). Completely ludicrous to expect searches by postal codes, and to maintain them, when there are hundreds of thousands of these across different countries. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Birthright citizenship

US "Consular Report of Birth Abroad" for children of US citizen parents born in another country

• Birthright citizenship → Jus soli  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There has been a lot of toing-and-froing here. Jus soli is a good target, but the Infobox also has Jus sanguinis under the heading Birthright citizenship. It seems to me to be better to revert this page to the disambiguation page that it used to be [13]. Pinging contributors @Ben Azura:, @Hyphenation Expert:, @Lithopsian:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• I would agree if I was not writing an article for the redirect. There is a disambiguation page at birthright citizenship (disambiguation). Strictly speaking jus soli and jus sanguinis aren't ambiguous titles, but law latin is a special case and if consensus agrees to include the latin terms in the disambiguation page I would not revert that. I also support including the terms at birthright citizenship (disambiguation). Ben Azura (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Do you have a draft of the proposed replacement? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Note that Birthright citizenship (disambiguation) is a redirect, created as an WP:INTDAB redirect to Birthright citizenship when it was a disambiguation page. It now incorrectly targets Jus soli, which is the reason this situation came to my attention. But anyway ... we cannot proceed on the promise of a future article, the question is what to do now. If there is a new article it can overwrite a redirect or disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

    I do not have a draft written and I don't know if anyone else is working on these articles at this time. I don't care about the fate of the redirect beyond saying that the problems introduced by disambiguating could have been avoided by creating a brief article. The vast majority of RS use the term jus soli for birthright citizenship exclusively, but a significant number use the term for both jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship. This is not simply a matter of disambiguation. Some are using it for jus soli (including the natural born citizenship rights) and others are using it for citizenship that you can get at birth, in comparison with naturalization concepts like jus domicilii and related terms. There are multiple subjects but the inclusion of jus sanguinis is only used in the context of RS that are comparing "birthright citizenship" to naturalization. Too bad we can't just ignore the United States, that would make this easier. Ben Azura (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: There appears to be a complicated history here, where there was an article on birthright citizenship that may have been cut-and-pasted from this title many years before to what is now at Birthright citizenship in the United States. BD2412 T 19:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have history merged the cut-paste from 2006. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Info: I have reformatted the dab page at Birthright citizenship (disambiguation) to be valid, given the current redirect at Birthright citizenship. This is just so it doesn't get further edited, possible deleted as invalid, while this discussion takes place. Lithopsian (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have moved the US article to the See also section as a WP:PTM, and turned the disambig page to a WP:ONEOTHER. US is one of several countries that provide birthright citizenship, I don't see how the US article can be a disambiguation entry. Jay 💬 21:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Tentative support for a dab page: I'm no expert but it seems that there is ambiguity in what people might be looking for when searching this term. Lithopsian (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Revert to disambiguation page, could be either Jus soli or Jus sanguinis depending on country. HudecEmil (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not the accuracy that is the problem, it just isn't ambiguous. Birthright citizenship is a principle of receiving citizenship as a right simply by being born, usually a natural right. jus soli and jus sanguinis are the way that birthright citizenship can be acquired. If you include sources like Vox and NPR, the vast majority of RS use the terms interchangeably because of the American context and issues arising from the constitutional text itself. European publishers of books, which I find myself using a lot, may state this with less ambiguity. Irrespective of that, expansion of the article birthright citizenship was proposed on the talk page of the article in 2006. I'm just a little miffed that it was important enough to turn the article into a dab by a "cut and paste" move but not important enough to expand the article. Ben Azura (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Once a standalone article "Birthright citizenship" is written support changing this redirect/disambiguation to that article. HudecEmil (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems there are concerns with the validity of a disambiguation page...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. Consider my situation — my wife and I are US natives now living in Australia. We have birthright citizenship of the US, because we were born there, i.e. jus soli. Our children were born in Australia but have birthright citizenship of the US, because their parents are US citizens, i.e. jus sanguinis. Consider the image I've just placed here. It states that the holder was born in the Philippines and "acquired United States citizenship at birth" — the first bit shows that it's clearly not jus soli (subject wasn't born in US territory), and second bit shows that it's birthright citizenship. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

unmentioned suikoden characters (episode 2: j-l)

• Jeane (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Joshua Levenheit → Suikoden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kasim Hazil → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kasumi (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kessler (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Killey → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kraze → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kun To → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kwanda Rosman → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Leknaat → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Leon Silverberg → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lepant → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lilly Pendragon → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lorelai (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lucia (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

re-nominating those after this discussion closed as "if only we knew the suffering that would befall us next", but only by a small chunk at a time. same rationale applies. also, kraze might be vague, but i'm a little iffy on it consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 12:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak retarget "Lilly Pendragon" to Suikoden III where it is mentioned -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate "Killey" there are several non-Suikoden uses of this. [14], such as: Philip G. Killey; Killey River tributary to the Kenai River; Lynne Killey, a founder of Games for Good; John Killey, the last public capital punishment in New Zealand; Killey, an alternate spelling of Killay, County Tyrone; Killey's Hill, Laurel Bank; Ellis Killey who stood for election in the 1996 Manx general election; Jonas Killey, a fictional character from Flash Point (novel); Killey, listed at List of townlands of County Tyrone; Adan Killey, a member of the 2014 Isle of Man cricket team; Erin Killey, a medalist at the 2010 Australian Short Course Swimming Championships; Julie Killey, who was elected in the 2021 Lincolnshire County Council election; Liza Killey, a fictional character from The Bondman (1916 film) and novel it was based on; Julie Elizabeth Killey, who was elected in the 2017 Lincolnshire County Council election; Phillip Killey, who stood in election, see Results of the 1922 New South Wales state election; Quentin Killey, who stood for election in the 2015 South Gloucestershire Council election; -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  drafted, but left out killay (that should be a separate dab, i think), everyone who doesn't have an article of their own, and the fictional characters. a little iffy on adding them, to be honest. yes, i know this leaves the draft with three (3) entries consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 13:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget "Lepant" to Nafpaktos as {{R from former name}} -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate "Kraze" as there are many uses [15]: Central Florida United Kraze, the soccer team "Kraze"; Kraze, a musician, a member of Whistle (band); Kraze United soccer team; Kraze (Richard Jean Laurent), a musician, a member of Discomind; Kražiai also known as "Kražē"; -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  drafted, though the musicians have been left out as unnotable consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 13:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Repeating some of my votes from the previous RfD. Delete if there is no content worth merging, or restore and AfD for these: Jeane, Kun To, Kwanda Rosman, Leknaat, and Leon Silverberg. Joshua Levenheit has mention at Suikoden#The 27 True Runes. While dealing with or after dealing with Leon Silverberg, we have to settle Mathiu Silverberg (nephew), Odessa Silverberg (niece), Albert Silverberg (grandson), and Caesar Silverberg (grandson). Attempt disambiguation per IP 65 for Killey and Kraze. Retarget Lepant and Lilly Pendragon per IP 65. Delete Lorelai (Suikoden). Retarget Lucia to Suikoden III#Hugo's point of view. Others are {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 16:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  hopefully gonna draft dabs in a little over 2 hours. until then, do you think the silverberg family should be nominated on its own, separately? consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 19:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  drafted some stuff 3 days later. in my defense, i didn't procrastinate this time, i just thought i already did the thing. will say, though, that i actually disagree with taking them to afd, as they were completely unsourced stubs written in an entirely in-universe style, with no info we'd care about consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 13:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the dab drafts for Kiley and Kraze. They look good. Jay 💬 12:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Some of the Silverberg family have mention in the plot, some don't. Jay 💬 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• I support all listed WP:ATDs found so far (specifically, the suggestions for Lilly Pendragon, Killey, Lepant, and Kraze). Delete all others without listed ATDs, all of which do not seem useful and especially not so without mention. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• Do what Utopes said. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support the ATDs except that I oppose any restorations. There is no claim of notability. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist because the main RFD page is having expensive parser issues, and needs the old day which this entry was listed on to be closed since it didn't appear on the main RFD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think we're approaching WP:TRAINWRECK yet again. From my (involved) point of view, there is consensus to disambiguate Killey and Kraze, and consensus to retarget Lilly Pendragon and Lepant. Those should be enacted upon a close of this discussion. As for anything else, it looks pretty train-wrecky to me. Most should probably be deleted, but there's simply too many different situations with several R from merges pending investigation, as noted by Jay, so it'll be rough to enact those. Anything that isn't a merge should be deleted as well, if anyone is comfortable poking through this list to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  Definitely not a TRAINWRECK. Each and every entry has been analyzed. Just too daunting for a closer. I'm involved so... Jay 💬 08:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of the others. If an ATD has been found, I give my blind support as "probably fine". But at least for me I haven't actually looked at the histories of any besides the four I mentioned, and even those I only saw the disambig and new targets and stopped caring after as the pages would be kept so no history would be lost in those cases.

The line between "trainwreck" and "daunting for a closer" generally overlaps in definition, as it often hinges on one person having looked at every single one, and everyone else trusting the process and the judgement of that sole person without doing extra verification. In this case, you looked at them all. "Each and every entry being analyzed" can still signal a trainwreck in the making imo, especially so when the bar for reasonable participation hinges on an unreasonably high time threshold as this one does.

In this situation and similar ones, I'm trusting in your homework (the homework of whoever the solo checker is) because every single title here is totally different (different mentions on different pages with different histories) and this likely shouldn't have been bundled, or at least unbundled once the complex situation revealed itself. The fact that there are ~15 unique situations described for 15 redirects puts it pretty well in the trainwreck ballpark, imo, and nobody wanting to close this is pretty indicative of its nature. (RfD closes should be made as simple as possible for admins, to keep the process-cogs churning, and the structure of this discussion falls short of that expectation imo).

I appreciate what you've done in checking them all, and believe me I'd like this to be closed ASAP with everything besides the ATDs deleted, but with so much substantial history here from R from merges, I (personally) really feel the opposite of comfortable discussing all these titles as a bundle. At this point, it probably would've been faster to close this as a trainwreck a month ago, re-nom everything individually (as "individual nomming" was asked for by the closer of the original discussion), and get these decisions knocked out 1 by 1, rather than in a block of unbolded prose that makes it possibly difficult for admins to quickly analyze. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about bc I've never deleted a page, but I'd imagine that discussions with less titles are prone to being deleted faster, as the conversation coalesces around a single title rather than customized solutions for 15 names. Especially for names that are closer to the generic end, i.e. that "Kraze", "Lepant" and "Killey" are super short titles that can be seen as controversial, and probably should be separated from "Lorelai (Suikoden)" and "Kwanda Rosman". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 11:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jay: You said on 27 December at the end of your statement that the "others are {{R from merge}}", however it's hard to tell which exactly are the R from merges, and/or which titles you are including in the designation of "others" without name. Could you list the 15 and your proposed solution for each, preferably bulleted/bolded and/or in alphabetical order? I feel like that would help accelerate the closure of this discussion, as all of the analysis is from December and is (imo) becoming stale/un-fresh and hard to recollect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

After eliminating the ones I listed out, "others" would be only 3 - Kasim Hazil, Kasumi and Kessler. Jay 💬 13:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Is a lot easier (for me at least) to read the names here in this way than it is to deductively keep track which have been said somewhere and cross referencing it to the list above. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Also I've now removed the mentions of Lucia and Joshua Levenheit which were unreferenced and total undue trivia within the article, respectively. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit #2: I've also removed the mention of Lilly Pendragon as unsourced trivia, so now my preference for that title is to delete Lilly Pendragon instead. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

in any case, this seems like it'd be closed as dabifying the ones with drafts and deleting all the others consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 18:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Lepant should be retargeted to Nafpaktos as an R from former name. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

and that, if without prejudice to refining to #name, since it's where "lepant" is mentioned (as opposed to "lepanto") consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 14:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

...i'm nominating them two letters at a time next time consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Jay 💬 11:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the exact same reason as last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

funniest shit i've ever seen consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

T:SINGLE

• T:SINGLE → Template:One source  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 20 § T:ITNBOX and other Template redirects – keep
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29 § T: – keep
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 18 § T:WPTECH – no consensus
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 14 § T:SINGLE – keep

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

For a long time existed as a confusing redirect. There was never a template called "Template:Single", so the "T" did not serve as a pseudo-namespace, but as a cross-namespace redirect. It was only in 2024 when Template:SINGLE was created, solely to accommodate the shortcut that was in mainspace for 16 years prior (iirc). While at least the issue of the mismatch was finally fixed, still no valuable incoming links to T:SINGLE and no need to have such a T: title in mainspace in 2025+. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

T:ONES

• T:ONES → Template:One source  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 20 § T:ITNBOX and other Template redirects – keep
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29 § T: – keep
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 18 § T:WPTECH – no consensus

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

The one source template does not seem to benefit from a title starting with "T", when all links for templates can comfortably begin with "TM" instead. Has no valuable incoming links at this time, and TM:ONES exists. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Zeytinburnu İce Rink

• Zeytinburnu İce Rink → Zeytinburnu Ice Rink  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Improbable search term. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. According to the page history of this redirect, this was moved to Zeytinburnu Ice Rinkdue to a misspelling. Justjourney (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Justjourney. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 05:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete My bad. Sorry! CeeGee 10:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  You don't owe anyone an apology. Accidents happen and we have procedures to deal with them. No big deal at all! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete; Turkish dotted capital and dotless miniscule "I" don't belong in normal English text. Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

T:CD

• T:CD → Template:Centralized discussion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

Only has one pertinent incoming link onwiki. Confusing because Template:CD is a different link. Created in 2014 which is not that old in the grand scheme of things. Search usage is moot, as TM:CENT is suitable. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Jesus donkey

• Jesus donkey → Alexamenos graffito  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The story of Jesus riding the donkey is the primary topic here, not this graffiti. Unsure if this should be deleted or redirected to Triumphal entry into Jerusalem#The donkey(s). Rusalkii (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay. It was previously not redirected to anything. I added the redirect because I was looking for the graffiti but couldn't remember its name, so I put the two nouns in adposition as "Jesus-donkey".

If somebody wants to find the Triumphal entry I think they'd write "Jesus riding donkey" or something similar. Writing just the two nouns would strike me as strange coming from an English-speaker.

The one hesitance I have is that the page name might strike somebody as insensitive, but that kind of owes to the insensitive nature of the graffiti. I think that the two nouns most simply refer to the graffiti, while the nouns with the verb clearly refers to the Triumphal entry. Aspets (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment The first thing I thought of was the graffiti.★Trekker (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I may have seen the graffito before, but I don't remember it. I assumed this title referred to a donkey relating to Jesus—perhaps a character in a nativity play. I'm not convinced that Jesus' entry into Jerusalem is what people who type "Jesus donkey" are likely to be looking for, and the current target makes sense. My first impression is that any ambiguity could be solved with a hatnote at "Alexamenos graffito". A disambiguation page is also possible, but seems unlikely to be needed; I don't think that "Jesus donkey" is a very likely search term, though it's fine as a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Triumphal entry into Jerusalem#The donkey(s) as WP:PTOPIC, I agree with nom. I've never heard of the graffiti, but even if it does have some notoriety it's not going to compare with the huge portion of the world's population that is going to primarily associate these two words with palm sunday. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Aspets and P Aculeius - it doesn't make sense that the two nouns together would be used for Triumphal entry into Jerusalem#The donkey(s), although a hatnote may be added. Jay 💬 22:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I've gone ahead and made a hatnote, although if this discussion is closed in favour of retargeting, it can be removed, and a separate hatnote made at the section of Triumphal Entry. P Aculeius (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Aspets thinks the hatnote should be removed because it might upset readers. I don't really think that's likely, but maybe some of the other participants in this discussion could give their opinions. If we retarget the redirect, then the hatnote I made would be unnecessary. If we keep it where it is, I think we need the hatnote. P Aculeius (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I hope it doesn't come across as an attempt to censor, I'm just skeptical of the need for the hatnote. The graffiti is a little blasphemous, so the natural names we may think of can also be. It just seems unnecessary to highlight those names outside of the search function, which I see as working in the background.

  I do think the hatnote is a good idea if some people really associate "Jesus donkey" with Palm Sunday. Just a question, @Fieari, but does the phrase refer to the event for you, or the words? I think the phrase more naturally refers to the graffiti. Also, @Rusalkii, do you interpret WP:REDIR to denote redirects as "topics"? I've understood it as if there are topics (primary topics etc.) with disambiguations and shortnames, and then there are "alternative names" or whatever which are often descriptive (along with misspellings and graphical variants). Aspets (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand the question. Personally I don't think the hatnote is necessary here, since this is a pretty obscure redirect (I overall prefer deletion, it's not particularly useful for navigation). Showing everyone on the page the hatnote makes a much bigger deal if it than it warrants. Rusalkii (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  If your contention is that a different topic should be the target of the redirect, then it makes sense to have a hatnote linking to that topic unless and until it's retargeted, because people searching for "Jesus donkey" might be looking for that instead. P Aculeius (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  The association I have is both with the words and also with a slight modification of the phrase "Jesus's donkey", easily akin to a very minor typo or misspelling or mishearing... a fair few dialects of English I've heard don't really have a clear 's ending for words also ending in "s" when pronounced. Fieari (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, very good point. Aspets (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep on the whole - the graffito by some 2nd-century soldier frankly gets more attention than it deserves (really "Jesus donkey" oughtn't to suggest this first, but to some it does) & the redirect is adequate. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is ongoing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Whether or not it's reasonable, this is the primary topic. Tenpop421 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just to clarify-- by which criteria(s) do you say Alexamenos graffito is the WP:PTOPIC? Google hits, journal hits, direct description match, or...? (Not trying to change your mind, just trying to see which argument holds the most weight) Fieari (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget and hatnote the graffito at target. "Jesus's entry into Jerusalem on a donkey" is one of the most well-known events of the canonical Gospel narrative, so much that it has an entire Christian holiday commemorating it which has been celebrated for over a thousand years straight as part of the holiest week in Christianity. If you were to grab a random person off the street reasonably familiar with the gospel narrative and say the words "Jesus donkey" to them, this is the first thing they would think of. --Slowking Man (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget. The graffiti is absolutely not the primary topic for this. Palm Sunday isn't obscure. It is celebrated by millions and millions of people worldwide, who have absolutely not heard of the graffiti. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep since the expression still most readily refers to some sort of Jesus-like donkey, not Jesus's donkey. That mishearing which Fieari pointed out is the only case in which this expression refers to the Triumphal entry. Nobody thinks that the graffiti is more notable than Palm Sunday, but that's not important to the discussion. People don't refer to Jesus riding into Jerusalem with the phrase "Jesus donkey". Aspets (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to the Triumphal Entry per Slowking — when one possible target is an obscure topic, and the other is known by billions of people, we should be targeting the second possibility, since it's far more likely to be used for the latter. Also, Fieari makes a good point; "Jesus' donkey" would be pronounced identically (and obviously would refer to the Triumphal Entry), and someone could easily just leave off the apostrophe and be surprised to reach an unrelated article. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's particularly obvious that "Jesus' donkey" would refer to "triumphal entry into Jerusalem". I don't think many people would even remember that a donkey was involved; it's a fairly minor detail that had a slight symbolic value to generations that were more deeply invested in the story. And the donkey didn't belong to Jesus; he just rode it into town once—I don't recall if it was a loaner or a rental donkey. Without remembering that or the graffito, I thought that this redirect probably had something to do with the nativity. But I can certainly see readers who know about the graffito but don't remember its name searching under "Jesus Donkey" or perhaps "Donkey Jesus". P Aculeius (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Honest question... have you ever been to any church, anywhere, around the time of Palm Sunday? Personal experience here: pastors and priests of multiple denominations, both Protestants and Catholics. on at least two continents (probably more, but my personal experience only extends to two), put great weight and significance on the donkey. This is well known to literally (true literally, not figuratively) billions of people on the planet, without exaggeration. I'm not Christian anymore, and perhaps Christianity is declining in many parts of the world, but we can't discount the sheer number of Christians that still exist, former Christians, and Christian-influenced people with exposure to Christian cultural osmosis. Fieari (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  I really, really don't think that "literally billions" of people put "great weight and significance on the donkey", in addition to "the sheer number of Christians that still exist, former Christians, and Christian-influenced people with exposure to Christian cultural osmosis." In fact, that's such a bizarre claim of importance that I'm going to assume it was tongue-in-cheek. P Aculeius (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

WYU

• WYU → Wuyi University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to University of West Yangon, as at the top of the infobox, it states that WYU is a abbreviation to "West Yangon University", which is an alternative name to this university. Justjourney (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. Wuyi University (Guangdong) shows abbreviation "WYU"; List all 3 at the new dab; also list Hepburn romanization#Extended romanization for ウュ (wyu); Weiyuan County is abbreviated "WYU" and listed at List of administrative divisions of Sichuan; Wuyuan railway station has the station code WYU; SEEALSOs for WYUS, KWYU (station coded K-region+WYU), -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per IP. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Dabify per IP --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

UWY

• UWY → University of West Yangon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Google search mostly brings up the University of Wyoming (which was my expected destination when I typed this term in the search bar). Dab? Mach61 00:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. After searching Google, Bing, and even Yahoo search engines, they all showed University of Wyoming in their top results. Justjourney (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment the YMCA Student Center at University of Washington Tacoma apparently is abbreviated "UWY"; so along with West Yangon, a disambiguation page could be built -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per 65.xx. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per IP. University of Wyoming may have several hits when searching for this initialism, but it's by no means a significant majority which is my personal standard for a primary topic. On the first page of my Google search, there were two hits for the student center mentioned by the anon alone. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure if UWY should even redirect to University of West Yangon. Growing up in Yangon, I never hear of it as UWY, just WYU. The official English name is University of West Yangon but the student's union uses WYUSU for example. There are no wikipedia-approved sources for any of this though since all the abbreviations are on facebook pages anyways. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs)
• Disambiguate per the above. BD2412 T 04:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Dabify per IP --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

February 27

List of list

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Why Wikipedia Sucks

• Why Wikipedia Sucks → Criticism of Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/January 2006 § January 10 – keep
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 10 § Why Wikipedia Sucks → Criticism of Wikipedia – keep
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24 § Why Wikipedia Sucks – no consensus

Surprisingly, this redirect has survived multiple RfDs, while the very similar Why Wikipedia Is Not So Great that I listed recently was a fully uncontroversial deletion (no keep votes cast). I'm curious to see if community consensus has changed here. — Anonymous 20:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete Unlikely search term; redirects are not for Google-style searches. It might also be referring to the harassment site "Wikipedia Sucks!", which the current target does not mention. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, unlikely to type in a question, nobody is expecting an answer in the form of a baked-in redirect. Search results can definitely do their thing and we don't have redirects of this type for any other circumstance. If there was a subtopic of "Why Wikipedia Sucks" that received attention and coverage and a mention at the target, things would be different, but "Why Wikipedia Sucks" is mentioned nowhere and is not a plausible search term on an encyclopedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Utopes @Significa liberdade comment: isn't that an example of a "google search redirect"? Now that I know that google search redirects are, ill try to be more careful before making them, but it has "why" in the title doesn't that make it count? Would it be more appropriate if it didn't have "why" in the title? Anthony2106 (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - My opinion has not changed since the last RfD on this. I find it a plausible search term, with an unambiguous target. Fieari (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Fieari, they could just as likely be looking for our essays Why Wikipedia is not so great or Improvement sucks. — Anonymous 02:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  But this is a mainspace search, so mainspace content is strongly, STRONGLY preferred over namespaced content such as our essays. And we have information that matches what the search string is looking for... the Criticism of Wikipedia article does, in fact, have reasons why wikipedia sucks, colloquially speaking. Sometimes WP:XNRs are just barely okay, mainly for cases where it is clearly a situation of a prospective new wikipedian trying to learn how we work, and such a new wikipedian cannot be expected to understand yet what a namespace is. But here? This doesn't sound like a new wikipedian, it sounds like a user looking for encyclopedic content on the problems with wikipedia. We have that information. We can give it to them. Fieari (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Likely someone would search this when looking for criticism of Wikipedia. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems to me ethically problematic to potentially establish a precedent that we can create "Why ____ is bad" pages for any website, organization or, God forbid, person that has ever been criticized. I'd rather not see redirects of this sort exist. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:Please, put Pandora back in the box... precedent isn't really a good argument at RfD, as redirects are not generally user visible and should not establish any sort of precedent for existing. Any wikipedian who actively seeks out precedent amongst redirects should be playfully WP:TROUTed and asked to stop. Fieari (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  I actually can present a much better argument for deletion: it's an obvious vandalism target. In fact, it was just vandalized today. Redirects are generally not widely watched, and this particular one is just asking for it. I don't think the very small potential utility is worth this cost. I still can't say I agree with your logic about how we can know with certainty what someone who searches this is looking for. It seems extremely, extremely unlikely that anyone will ever search this to begin with, and it's impossible to say just what the one odd person who does was intending to find. — Anonymous 20:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Gets 11 views a month, which makes me pretty inclined to keep. The vandalism concern Anonymous brings up seems unfounded, as it has been vandalized once ever since 2006. I have also added it to my watchlist so there's another watcher (though I don't keep that close of an eye on my watchlist). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  Page views are generally a poor indicator of utility. Also note that being brought to RfD twice likely skewed those numbers significantly. If the vandalism concern is unfounded, then I'll stick to my main concern: that the name of this redirect is too bizarre to be easy enough to pin down to a single topic. Sure, cross-namespace redirects are generally not created, but that doesn't mean someone wouldn't attempt to search for one anyway. Trying to guess what someone who earnestly types "why Wikipedia sucks" into the search bar of Wikipedia is looking for is impossible. — Anonymous 20:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Interstitial space (biology)

• Interstitial space (biology) → Extracellular fluid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Interstitial region → Extracellular fluid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target does not mention "Interstitial space" or "Interstitial region", and the expression may be ambiguous: perhaps not all interstitial spaces are filled with fluid. My instinct here is to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget Interstitial space (biology) → Interstitium. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Ah this seems like a good idea, I agree with the idea to retarget per Hyphenation Expert. I created this in 2008 and don't actually care what happens to it. Seems like an unlikely redirect, but hey, they're cheap right? delldot ∇. 20:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget Interstitial region → Interstitial. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Interstitial space (biology) as an {{R from merge}}. Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets. Note that Interstitial is being discussed at AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Ambient jungle

• Ambient jungle → Jungle music#Subgenres  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Article has previously linked to a sub-section of the Jungle music article about sub-genres. That section no longer exists and there is no term "Ambient jungle" or any similar term on the page. Term for a genre or sub-genre of this does not appear to be in common use. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• It was removed from the target during a major rewrite by IP 77.86.103.78 whose edit summary said Commenced re-work and re-structuring, refs to be re-structured and added shortly, but that editor didn't add back the sub-genres. Probably retarget to Drum and bass#Light drum and bass which is the target of piped link Intelligent jungle, the alternate name for Ambient jungle, as stated by the redirect creator when he added the term to the target. Jay 💬 15:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I wouldn't do that as there is no source to this being an alternative name for the genre and there is no discussion of that genre at the re-direct either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to try and get more opinions, because I don't see any consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Water in Africa

• Water in Africa → Water supply and sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could also redirect to Geography of Africa. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: This edit by EMsmile to retarget the redirect to its current target may be relevant. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I think anyone searching this is more likely to be looking for information about Africa's infamous water availability issues than a list of rivers in Africa (which is its own article, by the way). — Anonymous 01:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Additional note: I am mildly opposed to deletion, but I am much more opposed to the creation of a DAB page. DAB pages by nature should be for common names held by multiple topics, not vague descriptive terms. — Anonymous 16:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per the above and add a hatnote for the rivers. BD2412 T 02:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Create dab I think there are potentially multiple targets for this redirect. The original target was Water-related industry in Africa and the redirect was preserved from a page move. Water scarcity in Africa is a better target, compared to the present one, since Water supply and sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa is more limited in scope. Overall a disambiguation page would work best. Polyamorph (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Support new disambiguation page. I think it's a good idea to set up a disambiguation page for this. Are there any "water in XX" for other continents or countries? I see we have Water in California. EMsmile (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Similar pages do not exist for other continents: Water in North America, Water in South America, Water in Europe, Water in Asia, Water in Oceania, Water in Antarctica. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Then again, Water in Australia is an article. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 23:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Either Create a SIA under the current title, that would include the articles noted by Polyamorph above, or Delete. Drdpw (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• The Water-related industry in Africa article was under the title Water in Africa for 7 years, until recently. For such a broad title, no SIA can capture what Category:Water in Africa has to offer. Retarget to the category or delete. Jay 💬 13:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Jay. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Jay. A DAB page doesn't seem feasible given the abundance of articles this could be referring to. Is the reader looking for something about human uses of water? Or do they want physical geography information? An SIA would be somewhat better but still implausible IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Brave Books

• Brave Books → Kirk Cameron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Brave Books is mentioned on the article, since the company published a book by Cameron. However, Brave Books is also mentioned on articles about other authors such as Chaya Raichik, Dinesh D'Souza and Kash Patel, so there would be more than one potential target. I've found some significant coverage of the publisher, so a red link could incentivize article creation in case more good sources are found. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe add mention to Conservatism in the United States or a similar article and retarget there? Orchastrattor (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about that, conservativism in the country seems like a very broad article topic. I thought about including it on the list of publishers of children's books, but each entry requires that an article is written first, according to the edit notice. ObserveOwl (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think there's already a basis for a subtopic of "American conservative literature" with Ayn Rand or other authors, the article does cover a wide topic but I'd say that's somewhat reflective of how wide the authorship is, as you pointed out. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Bottom dweller

• Bottom dweller → Benthic zone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This strikes me as a term with uses broader than life forms at the literal bottom of the ocean. BD2412 T 21:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Other than the usage for life forms at the bottom of the ocean, a Google search only yields results for a song and a Yu-Gi-Oh card. Aprzn (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate, a Wikipedia search shows that "bottom dweller" is also mentioned at AVN Awards#1990–1994, 13th AVN Awards and Patrick Collins (director) as the title of an adult video, Claw machine as the title of a song, a term used to describe various species of fish, notably on timeline of human evolution, and a term used in sports, for example in Baltimore Colts. Therefore I think linking to wikt:bottom-dwelling is necessary. it's lio! | talk | work 08:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per HKLionel. Enix150 (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VT

• Wikipedia:VT → Wikipedia:WikiProject Vermont  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obviously it's important to be very cautious when nominating project page shortcuts at RfD, but this one seems worthy of discussion. It's only been used 15 times, and of those instances, it seems that most did not intend to link to WikiProject Vermont. Its original destination in 2007 was Vandal target, and I see that it has also been mistaken as a shortcut for WP:Verifiability, not truth. Some of the intended targets cannot be readily determined, but they are clearly not the wikiproject. I think generally speaking, shortcuts to essays and guidelines are of more utility than wikiproject shortcuts. — Anonymous 15:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:CHEAP. Among the other U.S. states having no-to-low conflict WikiProject shortcuts which conform to their abbreviations, I found WP:AK, WP:AZ, WP:IL, WP:KY, WP:MI, WP:MO, WP:MS, WP:NJ, WP:NY, WP:OH, WP:TN, WP:WV and WP:WY. Why should this one be any different? The essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth already has an intuitive shortcut at WP:VNT. See a discussion about WP:NC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 33 § Unusual "were you looking for?" entries such as "WikiProject North Carolina". Havradim leaf a message 01:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that WP:CHEAP applies here, given that I'm not advocating for the deletion of this redirect. Your argument against retargeting seems to be a case of other stuff exists. I feel like I clearly explained why this one should be different in my nomination. — Anonymous 12:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"Vandal target", and even "Vandal magnet" (my preferred term, though WP:VM is already taken, and WP:Vandal magnet goes somewhere else) do not appear using Control+F on the 'arguments to avoid' page, and WP:VNT exists already, so where else would you like to redirect WP:VT to? Havradim leaf a message 17:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've just drafted a disambiguation page Duckmather (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree to disambiguate per WP:NOPRIMARY. However, I did revert your inclusion of WP:Verifiability, not truth, since it seems clear from the history that WP:VT never pointed there. Nor do I believe that WP:Verifiability, and truth should be included. I haven't seen any other major or minor essay with the middle adjective / adverb / conjunction / contraction / preposition format title style using a 2-letter shortcut. If this assumption were true, then WP:TV should go to Wikipedia:Trust, but verify (WP:TBV); instead, it links to WP:WikiProject Television. A good example of this is the major essay WP:Ignore all rules, which links from WP:IAR instead of WP:IR, which goes instead to WP:WikiProject Irish republicanism. These shortcuts are better off being as intuitive as possible, unless a move from a previous longstanding usage would be inconvenient to users. A better candidate for the dab might be WP:Vandalism types (the direct shortcut is WP:TYPES). Havradim leaf a message 14:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment 2-letter redirects to state WPPs are usually bad, since they cause conflict with better targets for mostly moribund state projects to occupy instead. Also, all these state projects should just be prepended with WP or WPP, such as WP:WPPVT or WP:WPVT or WP:USAVT instead of VT, and so on for the other states. As WP:WPVT already exists as a shortcut, this one should be repurposed, made a disambiguation page, or deleted. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on dabbing disambiguating?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

TV Patrol South Central Mindanao

• TV Patrol South Central Mindanao → TV Patrol#Regional editions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Not mentioned at the target 120.29.79.29 (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• It is mentioned, and was mentioned at the time of the nomination. Jay 💬 08:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I've cited the program's mention in the article --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Undescribed Carcharodontosaurine

• Undescribed Carcharodontosaurine → Mapusaurus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Incredibly generic redirect, Carcharodontosauridae is not a better target so I suggest deletion Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Not only is Mapusaurus described (and the redirect is therefore erroneous), but I'm not aware of any common use of the designation "undescribed carcharodontosaurine" to refer to a particular specimen. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

>undescribed carcharodontosaurine

>look inside

>described consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 10:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nomination and previous comment. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• delete per cynical. not even correct in the context of the article, come on~ consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 10:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment Should we delete the last item of Mapusaurus § External links (Named as Undescribed Carcharodontosaurine) as unreliable? 173.206.105.221 (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

i think that one's fine, but it likely won't warrant this redirect consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above. >tfw, undescribed is described --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Abandon Ship or Abandon All Hope

• Abandon Ship or Abandon All Hope → Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Rather low pageview count. RanDom 404 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment I haven't watched the movie but from some Googling I'm unsure what this phrase has to do with it. It appears to be the title of a song from Rise or Die Trying, but I wouldn't retarget to there because there's essentially no discussion of the song on that page. Aprzn (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Nominator hasn't presented a reason to have the redirect deleted: "Low view count" means that the redirect is being searched by someone, and thus makes it de facto helpful (unless it is determined the target is wrong ... but such a claim hasn't been presented yet.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - No rationale for deletion given. Fieari (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: While the nominator did not provide a valid reason, Aprzn has demonstrated that there is clearly some ambiguity here. The song certainly gets far more hits on Google than anything related to the movie. — Anonymous 20:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Rise or Die Trying. I agree the nomination is insufficient, but there's no mention of this at the target, and it's not even clear what this has to do with the target. On the other hand, this is the title of a track on the album, so redirecting there is generally pretty standard. On the other other hand, it's not all that useful either, so I wouldn't be that opposed to simply deleting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

COM:MOA

• COM:MOA → Help:Mobile access#Official mobile apps  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I declined a G4 by 173.206.105.221 based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_20#h-COM:MOA-January_20-20240120210700 as this new creation has a different target, so it is not a substantial recreation of the previously-deleted redirect. But I do not believe that issues brought up in the 2024 RFD are resolved by the new target. Hog Farm _Talk 03:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. COM: is not a real WP:PNS. 173.206.105.221 (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete not an acceptable psuedonamespace, target seems random. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Unlikely search term.

Adding signature here (my mistake) Justjourney (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

February 26

America derangement syndrome

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Teennick (Netherlands&Flanders)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

271k

• 271k → Holocaust denial  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The anti-semitic claim that 271k Jews were killed is not mentioned in the target article. Chuterix (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Odenpa Love Girl

• Odenpa Love Girl → Characters of Touhou Project#Cirno  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unmentioned meme, unnotable, results gave me nothing. i have no idea what else can be said so here's a ⑨ consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Raymoo

• Raymoo → Characters of Touhou Project#Reimu Hakurei  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

it's likely that following the target's afd closing as redirect, its own redirects will eventually be automatically relinked, but until then, might as well check a few of them out again. for this one... same case as the previous rfd, i guess. unmentioned, potentially unnotable meme, but might be a somewhat plausible mishearing (though i don't think it might be, considering that it comes from resident former touhou shitposter ciryes) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Same reason as last time: it's still a plausible misspelling or respelling. Technically speaking, the 'Raymoo' redirect was created in November 2012, while Ciryes didn't have a Tumblr or YouTube account until 2013, so I'm not exactly sure how you came to the conclusion that he came up with it? In fact, you can find 'Raymoo' being mentioned as far back as 2007–08 in the archives of 4chan's /a/ (old.sage.moe, desuarchive.org) and /jp/ (warosu.org) boards. I didn't bring this up last time since I know forum posts aren't reliable sources or anything, but here it is now. ┐(´ー｀)┌ — Nameless^(?) 03:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

ciryes, you lying liar! you lied to me! consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete As per before. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Css2date

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Cho-Marisa

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Folk colour

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

COM:AP

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Stop Pedophiles! Protect kiddies!

• Stop Pedophiles! Protect kiddies! → Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1978)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As creator: A recent statement from the DLP has clarified that contrary to media reporting, the WA party is not associated with the DLP. The current target article is therefore unsuitable since no discussion of the SPPK will be contained there. There is, at the moment, no alternative target. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to making it its own page, but as a temporary measure maybe just redirect it to the 2025 Western Australian state election page? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

(Alternatively if it doesn't make up enough for its own page, redirect to Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1978)#Copycat party in Western Australia) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I would have made a page for it but there is basically no secondary coverage of the group, and since there isn't any at this stage of the election, I doubt any will emerge. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Obviously the election campaign is still going on so I reckon it could happen, but in the meantime the redirect to Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1978)#Copycat party in Western Australia) might help to avoid confusion Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the redirect to the "copycat party" subsection of the DLP page is a good solution. Axver (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to the "copycat party" subsection per Totallynotarandomalt69. Jay 💬 08:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• Refine to Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1978)#Copycat party in Western Australia per above comments. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

2025 Kabaddi World Cup (World Kabaddi Federation)

• 2025 Kabaddi World Cup (World Kabaddi Federation) → 2025 Kabaddi World Cup (World Kabaddi)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect created due to misidentification of World Kabaddi with World Kabaddi Federation and subsequent page move. Later reverted after discussion at Talk:2019 Kabaddi World Cup (World Kabaddi)#Governance of global Kabaddi and World Cups. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or keep, whichever CX Zoom prefers: Its only potential usefulness would be to help someone who has read one of the off-Wikipedia articles that misidentified the sponsor of the World Kabaddi event or to help someone who was trying to track the history of how articles evolved on Wikipedia, but both of these are unlikely. On the other hand, its existence could add to the confusion that is inherent in trying to understand the world of kabaddi. The World Kabaddi Federation will not be holding a Kabaddi World Cup event in 2025. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Firee

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Empire of Death (Doctor Who)

• Empire of Death (Doctor Who) → Empire of Death  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode). The only other Doctor Who related article is Empire of Death (novel), and that is only a redirect to a list entry. It can be easily dealt with by a hatnote on the episode page (which already exists) so our readers don't need to go to the full disambiguation page if they are looking for Doctor Who related articles. --woodensuperman 08:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep There are zero articles that link to Empire of Death (Doctor Who), so there is no fear of our readers [going] to the full disambiguation page if they are looking for Doctor Who related articles.. As there are multiple titles of "Empire of Death" within Doctor Who, this redirect needs to link to the disambiguation page where both are linked, as neither is the primary topic. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  There are only two "Empire of Death" titles related to Doctor Who on the disambiguation page, not "multiple", and only one of these is an actual article. --woodensuperman 09:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Two = more than one - multiple. Is there any form of guideline stating that there has to be more than one actual article? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Retarget will make it slightly less of a hassle to wikilink the episode in the future. DWF91 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Retarget, the episode is much more well known than the novel, not to mention that the novel doesn't even have its own article. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 17:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Alex21 -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget as proposed by nom. This redirect includes a specific disambiguator for Doctor Who, while the current target is a DAB with half the entries being non-Doctor Who related. There are only two Doctor Who targets, and both are covered by the proposed retargeting given the existence of the hatnote. The person typing this into their search bar doesn't want DC comics or a book unrelated to Doctor Who, so let's not bother giving those options. Every Doctor Who option is covered by the retarget, and the episode is far more likely the desired destination anyway... it's the WP:PTOPIC for this narrow disambiguation. Fieari (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Cbc high

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Jd v

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 6#Jd v

2026 Indy NXT

• 2026 Indy NXT → Indy NXT  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No information at the target about the 2026 event. Delete as misleading to anybody who searches for this title and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I was looking at the Formula 2 and Formula 3 2025 season pages and they have a 2026 Formula 2 Championship and 2026 FIA Formula 3 Championship page. I thought I would just do that for Indy NXT as well, but if you want to delete it, that's fine. SteeledDock541 (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Super Mario Shirayuki-hime

• Super Mario Shirayuki-hime → List of non-video game media featuring Mario#Anime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, unclear connection to the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Super Mario Shirayuki-hime is one of the OVAs in Amada Anime Series: Super Mario Bros., listed in target Aprzn (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Per Aprzn's comment. Useful redirect, targets the correct location. Mentioned in the text as saying that the OVA covers the story of "Snow White", and Shirayuki-hime is simply the Japanese translation of "Snow White"... WP:RFOR allows this. Fieari (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

February 25

Redirects to disambiguation page "Jawi"

• Djawi → Jawi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dyawi → Jawi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chowie → Jawi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Djaui → Jawi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems misleading that these redirects target the target disambiguation page when all the subjects on the target disambiguation page are specifically spelled "Jawi". Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Both Jawi dialect and Jawi people mention the alternate spellings. Not sure how it should be handled given there isn't a primary topic. Kdroo (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate Djawi (drafted) for Jawi dialect and Jawi people, and add the Indonesia-related entries there once they meet WP:DABMENTION. ("Djawi" is the historical spelling of all the Indonesia-related entries at Jawi, from ꦗꦮꦶ 'Javanese'). No opinion on Djaui/Chowie/Dyawi whether the best solution is to create even more dab pages, or just redirect to Jawi people and hatnote for Jawi language, given that none of those are an alternative spelling of anything else. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Can't we just mention the alternative spellings on Jawi and specify that they are only alternative spellings of Jawi dialect and Jawi people? Otherwise support disambiguating Djawi and maybe others per 59.149.117.119 it's lio! | talk | work 08:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on it's lio!'s solution for Djaui / Chowie / Dyawi?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, feel free to refer to me as just lio :) it's lio! | talk | work 09:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I could have said HKLionel but then they'll wonder who that is! Jay 💬 11:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Refine all besides Djawi to to Jawi#Australia per lio's suggestion. I divided Jawi#People and languages by region and mentioned those alternative spellings there. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ... and Revirvlkodlaku (talk · contribs) removed them. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
    • I did, because you didn't provide any references. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
      • @Revirvlkodlaku: MOS:DAB: References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles. The references in question are already there at Jawi people#Alternative names and in the lede of Jawi dialect. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

        Oh shit, I totally didn't realize that's a disambiguation page! My apologies, and I've restored the edit. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Mario finale

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Moumita Debnath

• Moumita Debnath → 2024 Kolkata rape and murder  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Killing of Moumita Debnath → 2024 Kolkata rape and murder  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  Added -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Murder of Moumita Debnath → 2024 Kolkata rape and murder  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  Added -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Rape and murder of Moumita Debnath → 2024 Kolkata rape and murder  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  Added -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

A RFC decided that name of the victim should be excluded from the article - 2024 Kolkata rape and murder ; However this redirect explicitly contains the name of the victim which leads to the page. Given the conclusion of the RFC, I suggest that this redirect be deleted. The AP (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• So, as the RfC's closer, I'll note that the close only directly applies to the article. Now, generally, we don't redirect names that aren't mentioned in an article. However, we've sometimes made an exception for cases where a name is only omitted as a matter of editorial discretion but still serves a navigational purpose. Color me neutral, but I'd suggest that's the main consideration to bear in mind here—how to handle lack of mention when it's a discretionary omission. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Violence against healthcare professionals by country#India. Do the same for Rape and murder of Moumita Debnath. The name is mentioned at Rituparna Sengupta, so as a redirect, it provides context. Jay 💬 18:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I have removed both mentions. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Either keep as is or delete. The suggestion to retarget is misleading, if anything. If we are going to remove the name from that page it should be removed from the others. It gets where one wants to go so I don't see the problem with it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on this. I would lean towards keeping, because this is a valid redirect even unmentioned. Since Tamzin has clarified that the RFC closure only applies to that article, I would say WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:RNEUTRAL apply here, and redirects are meant to aid readers get to the correct article from whatever search term they're using. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is ridiculous that the name is mentioned at other articles with reference to the incident, but cannot be at the incident article itself. If mention continues to be there at the Violence article, but not at the event article, then I would oppose keeping at the current target. We don't want readers trying to discover easter eggs on wikipedia. Jay 💬 11:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree about this being an easter egg; this is a redirect from a valid search term (the victim) to the article that best explains what happened to her (the crime). It doesn't need to mention her by name for it to be helpful, and likewise an article that does mention her by name would be less helpful (I plan on removing those references to her in those articles at some point soon if nobody else gets to it first, I don't usually like touching topics like this but if nobody else is going to do it I should). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Eh, actually changing my mind to delete. Not in that it is misleading, but if the BLP issues are so overriding that her name cannot be mentioned whatsoever in article space I don't see why we should not also abide by that in redirect/article titles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Enough reliable sources have used this name. See no reason to delete this redirect. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak delete. While Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and this would have a navigational purpose, the RFC that led to the name raised the prospect of serious BLP issues for the victim's surviving family. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. There are other redirects that include the victim's name: Rape and murder of Moumita Debnath, Murder of Moumita Debnath, Killing of Moumita Debnath. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, no mention of this name at the target page. Also consider RFDing the titles that have been brought forth by Tavix. If consensus indicates that the name should not be mentioned in any article-space material, this redirect should go too, as redirects are also in article-space, and are "material". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 11:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Utopes - if it isn't appropriate to mention the name in mainspace then it's not appropriate to do so by the back door with redirects. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling with the other redirects as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Controversial autism therapy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close

Lindy Turn

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Interstitial fauna

• Interstitial fauna → Meiobenthos  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Interstitial" is not mentioned at the target, and I think the term may be ambiguous with Microfauna. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Interstitial fauna are those "Animals that inhabit the spaces between individual sand grains. The term is often used synonymously with meiofauna, mesofauna, and microfauna" (source) I assume interstitial fauna include both meiofauna (45 μm to 1 mm) and microfauna, but not larger fauna. Meiofauna is probably the best target but not ideal. The Interstitial disambiguation page has "Interstitial fauna, small aquatic invertebrates, larger than microfauna but smaller than macrofauna" (unsourced), which might be an alternative target, but has been proposed for deletion.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple targets have been suggested including one (Interstitial) that has an AfD in progress following a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Sången han sjöng var min egen

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cybersexism

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

Sexism is not restricted to bullying, and the target does not talk a lot about it anyway. There is wikt:cybersexism, but apart from that I am not sure how much relevant content we have to point the reader at. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete/Wiktionary redirect rare term that is too vague to point a specific article. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to sexism as {{r from hyponym}} and tag as {{r with possibilities}}, per "Cybersexism: How Gender and Sexuality Are at Play in Cyberspace ". Paradoctor (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Traumnovelle and WP:RETURNTORED (though maybe, given the concerns expressed at the essay WP:AVOIDCYBER, a future article wouldn't be at this exact title). Search results are probably the best we can do for now as they show the Wiktionary definition, online gender-based violence, and Laurie Penny's book. Sexism doesn't contain any discussion of sexism in "cyber" contexts, so would not be a useful target. Online gender-based violence does mention the word "cybersexism" but isn't quite an exact subtopic/supertopic (as that article itself points out), so I don't think retargeting there probably would be much improvement on the current situation. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Either sectionize if reliable sources are found, or redirect to Wiktionary otherwise. 67.209.129.142 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target. I did not get what IP meant by "sectionize", perhaps it is to create a section about the subject in some article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Cephalobaenida

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

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 17 § Cephalobaenida – keep

I’m putting this up again, for the reason that Invavita is also a cephalobaenid. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Jlwoodwa, Loopy30, and CycloneYoris: pinging the previous participants and closer, in case this is a Speedy. Jay 💬 19:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:WikiProject Palaeontology should be canvassed to determine if Wikipedia should follow either PBDB (classifying Invavita as a cephalobaenid) or Henga et al. (2020) (that places Invavita as a genus within the parent subclass Pentastomida). As Henga did not explicitly state that Invavita was "not" a cephalobaenid, I lean towards supporting the PBDB view in this matter. Loopy30 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Siveter et al. (2015) provisionally assigned it to the Cephalobaenida. Typical convention is that Invavita would be listed with a question mark in the taxobox (if Cephalobaenida had its own article), or Cephalobaenida would redirect to Pentastomida. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Bravo Nolan

• Bravo Nolan → Christopher Nolan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently this redirect is for a meme from 2010. There is no discussion of said meme in the subject article and there has been no adequate categorization or tagging of this redirect to justify its existence. Even the redirect creator admitted here (bolding emphasis): "I love the Bane-posting phenomenon. It is one of the most hilarious memes the internet has come up with in the last ten years. It does not merit any direct mention on Wikipedia. But the name they call the film's director should exist as a redirect." Not much merit to warrant in an encyclopedia. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Wait... did you misinterpret my edit summary? I have no memory of writing that, but its meaning seems very clear to me even now. We don't have to write an article on the various memes (I was unaware of the one you alluded to), but a name that was commonly used to refer to Nolan on various social media sites over the course of multiple years probably does merit a redirect. I don't agree with the implied conclusion that the Christopher Nolan article should reference one or another of these memes to justify the redirect's inclusion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

If the subject of a redirect bodes no mention at the target article, then there is no need for it to exist in the first place, especially just because it was used by some social media sites to refer to the subject. It has no encyclopedic value on its own. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at the target, confusing to anyone who searches for it and lands there without any info. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

DYXV

• DYXV → Century Broadcasting Network  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Not mentioned at the target 120.29.79.29 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep; it is mentioned. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 14:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The nominator did not tag the redirect for RFD. I have done so. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the redirect was tagged less than a week ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - It is mentioned. No other rationale given or apparent. Fieari (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Refine to Century Broadcasting Network § CBN stations. Jay 💬 11:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  @RemoveRedSky and Fieari: thoughts? it's lio! | talk | work 08:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Temmplate:Conservatism in Belarus

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. (non-admin closure) / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 18:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Temmplate:Conservatism in Belarus → Template:Conservatism in Belarus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A strange typo which also makes this an XNR. Maybe delete (since misspelling redirects to templatespace aren't usually kept)? Duckmather (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Tagged under G6 since it was clearly created in error. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jewish Israeli Aramaic

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Jewish Israeli Aramaic

February 24

Champaign-Urbana Mass Transist District

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Orabueze

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Orabueze

Beautiful, big-titty, butt-naked women just don't fall out the sky, you know

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ajit Kumar Banerjee (writer)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sonic movie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Sonic movie

Cotton ribbon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Cotton ribbon

Ribbon, typewriter

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:Utah Something

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Deleted

Ayno Maina (A Town)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Round Six

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Controversial autism therapy

• Controversial autism therapy → Applied behavior analysis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A cursory search indicates that ABA is one of multiple "treatments" for autism, all of which appear controversial to an extent, with this particular one apparently attracting more controversy due to being the most popular. Therefore, I think this redirect is ambiguous (and even if it weren't, probably not a likely enough search term to justify a clearly non-neutral redirect). — Anonymous 03:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No I think it's just this one, as it is controversial in the autistic community and it's not just because it's the most popular, its because of the mental health outcomes of autistic people who have had ABA and because it encourages normalization (all of witch is mentioned on the page). There arnt any other ones that I know of that are as bad as this one. Anthony2106 (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask WP:AUTISM to come vote on my side or is that against the rules? Anthony2106 (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

too late, i already did that consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Anthony2106, look up "bleach therapy" and "chelation therapy". They certainly appear much more controversial (and probably much less effective) than this. Also note that telling people to come vote on your side in any discussion is called canvassing and against WP rules. — Anonymous 13:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay these two you pointed out seem worse, maybe it should be changed, maybe re-targeted, couldn't be a disambiguation page could it? I've already made 8 bad redirects I don't wanna add to the list. Anthony2106 (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't usually make DAB pages for vague descriptive terms. Also, it seems we only have an article for this one. — Anonymous 14:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I support anyone developing a Wikipedia article on this topic, but opinionated disambiguation pages for topics where there are multiple perspectives are beyond what editors can manage. I support anyone criticizing this therapy. It seems developed in the 1960s, so I am sure like most psychological therapies it has been challenged. Wikipedia is not effective for setting SEO for disambiguation pages, so if the intent is to find readers seeking this term, then keeping this page will not achieve that anyway. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. ABA is still controversial, enough said. LarryL33k (Contribz) 17:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  @LarryL33k the problem the nom proposed is that it's not the only controversial flavor of "autism treatment" (whatever autism is) consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's true, but Most people who search up "Controversial Autism Treatment" would most likely be looking for ABA, anyway. LarryL33k (Contribz) 04:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  @LarryL33k, is there any way to prove this? If anyone ever actually searches it, we have no way of confirming which of the multiple "controversial autism therapies" they are looking for. — Anonymous 02:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Excuse me what is "whatever autism is"? There is an autistic person right here! Anthony2106 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Consarn I forgot to @ you Anthony2106 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Anthony2106 the reason a good handful of "autism treatments" are seen as controversial can be attributed to them being based on misunderstandings of what autism is or isn't, and whether or not it's something worth "treating" or "fixing". case in point, i've been autistic all along! maybe! the diagnosis was done at birth and was torn between autism and a really shitty respiratory system so i can't actually be 100% sure until i have that checked again but shush

  that aside aside, this is why my vote will be to delete, since it wouldn't be a fitting topic for a redirect or dab. if the concept can be expanded into an article about controversial treatments, i'd really recommend playing it safe and working with a draft until it's at least c-class consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 11:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oh cool you might also be autistic though I don't know how a bad respiratory system and autism can overlap, anyway good luck with an adult assesment especially if your a girl they might be sexist. The YouTuber I'm Autistic Now What? made some knowledge that might help:[16] Anthony2106 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, we don't redirect descriptions of things to the thing itself. Google is there, as is the Wikipedia search engine. No need for this redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Autism therapies. While orange tagged, it does go over criticisms of various techniques, including ABA. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A new target Autism therapies has been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• A quick google suggests that ABA is by far the main topic for "controversial autism therapy". On the first page of hits I get only one for something else (Facilitated communication [17]). That being said, this is vague enough that I think retarget per Patar knight is the best option here, I think someone searching for this will be best served by an overview article without us being opinionated about whether ABA is THE controversial autism therapy or just A controversial autism therapy, though I have somewhat mixed feelings on this given how predominate ABA is in the search results. Rusalkii (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete because the current target is misleading (this is not the only controversial or discredited therapy), a DAB page doesn't make sense, and there's no perfect alternative target. As a second choice, we could retarget to Autism therapies, as suggested by Patar knight above, but this article includes non-controversial ones as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing unrelated to the discussion, but it seems that in the process of voting, you accidentally duplicated the section lmao consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Pet Supermarket

• Pet Supermarket → MedicAnimal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's a chain of pet stores in the United States called "Pet Supermarket", which I'm wagering is an entirely different organization than the (former?) UK chain that this redirects to the purchasers of. This link should either be disambiguated or redlinked with Pet Supermarket (UK) linking to MedicAnimal. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Am I understanding you correctly in assuming one of the options you are proposing is that the nominated redirect be deleted and then Pet Supermarket (UK) be created? If so, that causes essentially a WP:PRECISE issue since the disambiguated version of the title "Pet Supermarket" would exist but the non-disambiguated version would not, which would almost be guaranteed to result in this nominated redirect being recreated anyways Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Actually, keep per my above comment and there being no other articles to disambiguate against that have been identified yet. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  • At the moment though it falls under, IMHO, WP:EASTEREGG as I suspect most viewers searching for "Pet Supermarket" will not be expecting the UK store. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: "Pet Supermarket" is also mentioned at Roark Capital Group#Current investments. Dunno if that's what The Bushranger is referring to. it's lio! | talk | work 08:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  • That would be the U.S. chain I'm referring to, yeah. @Steel1943:, would having Pet Supermarket (UK) (to Pet Supermarket's current target) and Pet Supermarket (US) to Roark Capital Group#Current investments (the latter, at least, as {{R with possibilities}}) as redirects be enough for this to be a dab? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough substance on either store at either target to warrant a redirect. Roark Capital Group#Current investments is a spammy mess that I'm tempted to delete entirely. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Convert to disambiguation page that says "MedicAnimal, business owning UK stores named Pet Supermarket" and "Roark Capital Group, business owning US stores named Pet Supermarket". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:---

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Template:---

Cyber cold war

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

I only hope that we don't lose sight of one thing - that it all started with a mouse.

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Juvéderm

• Juvéderm → Injectable filler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Juvederm → Injectable filler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Mentioned at Actavis, as well as some more specific articles like Non-surgical rhinoplasty or Lip augmentation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:RFD#DELETE is only concerned about redirects that are not mentioned when they are "novel or very obscure". {{R from brand name}} is a perfectly appropriate situation in which a brand name is not mentioned in an article. Therefore, keep.

Please think carefully about this: If we add the brand names for cosmetic treatments, someone's going to come screaming WP:PROMOTIONAL. We used to have a whole article there, but it was redirected to the generic product. Since we didn't add spammy stuff to the main article, then you complain that it's "not mentioned". This kind of Catch-22 (logic) doesn't work: we can't have the article, because too spammy, but we can't have the redirect, because it's not spammy enough.

PROMOTIONAL is a policy, and having a brand name redirecting but "not mentioned" isn't prohibited anywhere. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#cite note-3 even discourages it for situations such as this, when there are many manufacturers producing nearly identical products. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Answering this comment, but this applies to the several different places where you mentioned that "WP:RFD#DELETE is only concerned about redirects that are not mentioned when they are "novel or very obscure"' - I interpret reason #2 at WP:RFD#DELETE, "The redirect might cause confusion", as supporting deletion in any case where the person might not understand why they've been dropped onto this page from this redirect, which includes most (though not all) redirects without a mention in the target. There's no Catch-22: we can simply not have redirects for most topics that aren't prominent enough to actually deserve a (non-spammy) mention in the article. Rusalkii (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Not mentioned at the target, making it a misleading/confusing redirect for anybody who searches the term. WP:RDELETE is not an extensive list of the only reasons to delete a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a product directory or a venue to promote corporations. That what these, through nobody's fault, inherently amount to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Juvéderm Ultra

• Juvéderm Ultra → Injectable filler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Juvéderm Ultra Plus → Injectable filler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Juvederm Volbella → Injectable filler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Juvederm Vollure → Injectable filler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Juvederm Voluma → Injectable filler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target, and no apparent alternatives for these specific brands. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:RFD#DELETE is only concerned about redirects that are not mentioned when they are "novel or very obscure". {{R from brand name}} is a perfectly appropriate situation in which a brand name is not mentioned in an article. Therefore, keep. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, making these redirects misleading. Counter to what WhatamIdoing implies, WP:RDELETE is not an extensive list of the only reasons to delete a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a product directory or a venue to promote corporations. That what these, through nobody's fault, inherently amount to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Chicken Noodle

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

2025 United States constitutional crisis

• 2025 United States constitutional crisis → Department of Government Efficiency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As well as DOGE's activities on federal agencies, the term 'constitutional crisis' has also been used around the same time to refer to threats to ignore court rulings as well. Xeroctic (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete popular discussion of a constitutional crisis is not limited solely to DOGE or to its actions.

This would have to be its own article, but the use of the term in a descriptive sense would have to become much more widespread in the RS than it currently is in order for it be considered a neutral point of view description. Mikewem (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete as the identification of this name with the target subject is not sufficiently established. Neither is expansion to an article appropriate to describe what is currently a matter of passing opinion (WP:RECENTISM). 2601:642:4F84:1590:DDA6:FEA5:D834:38CE (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Federal_funding_freeze, the same as the 2024 United States Constitutional Crisis created earlier that I made in January 2025. Also I don't know why this specific redirect was created, as the capitalized one led to it, so delete one as you don't need two. The current usage of the term comes from the Government freeze of which (I can't believe I am saying this) DOGE is responsible for. Usage: 1. Des Vallee (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  different capitalizations are fine and dandy, so don't worry too much about that part (provided they're not implausible) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 12:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yea that is completely fair so keep both. Des Vallee (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Xeroctic: I was looking to close this discussion. Is Des Vallee's suggested target fine with you? Do you wish to bundle the 2024 redirect as well to this discussion? Jay 💬 14:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete It would be WP:CRYSTAL to say that one will occur this year, and an outright constitutional crisis as that term is generally understood has not yet occurred (concerning developments wrt rule of law etc notwithstanding). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Don't delete I'm not convinced this is a crystal ball violation - IMO even the current situation could reasonably be called a constitutional crisis. DOn't care what target to use, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Islamic imperialism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 5#Islamic imperialism

Reverse privatization

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

May 21, 2004

• May 21, 2004 → 2004#May  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of May 21 at the target. Can't easily find anything to restore in the page history either. Departure– (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Google also isn't informing me of anything notable that happened May 21, 2004. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Portal:Current events/2004 May 21 per precedent. Note that this redirect used to be an article, and that article has been transferred to the portal (so deletion would contravene attribution requirements). J947 ‡ ^edits 08:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Portal:Current events/2004 May 21 per J947. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Every day in 2003 and 2004 with the exception of December 2003 has its own redirect, and I don't see much of a reason to limit the discussion to this specific one. I would think to delete all since every other year page has few or no redirects like this. I am bad at usernames (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That could just as easily be an argument for the creation of any redirects that are missing (which I am in favor of, as expressed in previous discussions.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Jamie MacDonald (comedian)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Boys only want love if it's torture

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

Rapes of Ronald Bennett

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

February 22

Dim Bastards

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Traditional architecture

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

L10n (disambiguation)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Allied star

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Sharqi Arabic

• Sharqi Arabic → Varieties of Arabic#Regional varieties  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. "Sharqi" is apparently a romanisation of the Arabic word for "eastern", so maybe it could be retargeted to the DAB page Eastern Arabic. — Anonymous 23:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Should be a rd to Mashriqi Arabic, which did not exist when I created this.

Though there are no incoming links, there are a couple hits on Gbooks from the 2010's that contrast Sharqi dialects and Maghrebi dialects. — kwami (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Mass execution

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 1#Mass execution

Junkers Ju 53

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Western civilization

• Western civilization → Western culture (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Western civilisation → Western culture (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Western Civilization → Western culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Western Civilisation → Western culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Following RfD in 2022, this was retargeted to Western culture (disambiguation), but challenged within weeks by User:Archer1234 (who I belive did not noticed the RfD at all, but made a good point that there was incosistency with the target of Western civilisation). I'd also add that there is a ton of links to those terms, so piping them to a disambig is problematic (pinging non-blocked participants of 2022 RfD: User:Furius, User:Carchasm, User:El cid, el campeador). There is no perfect solution, but I think the best solution would be to retarget this to Western world which is a broader concept. Arguably, we might also want to rename "Western world" to "Western civilization" (discussion started). The Western culture is only about culture, world and civilization are IMHO larger in scope and similar to one another, and if there is confusion, it is the 'world' concept that is more ambiguous, isn't it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see what the inconsistency is. People talking about "Western civilization" might mean the western world or western culture or the other options on the dismbig page, so the disambig page is a good place to send people. It also encourages people linking to "western civilization" to choose the appropriate concept rather than assuming that linking to western civilization will magically go to the version of the concept that they have in mind. Furius (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I've added the "s" spelling and the Title Case redirects given nom mentioned the inconsistency with the target of related redirects. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Change to consistent target of Western culture (disambiguation). An ambiguous term should point to disambiguation page. Oppose the proposal to change the target to Western world, as the latter is much better defined term. Викидим (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Outline of the history of Western civilization which provides links to, seemingly, all of the reasonably relevant targets. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Following Alalch's purge of the disambig page, it has turned into a WP:ONEOTHER and I have PROD'd it. Jay 💬 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• A target page was deleted through PROD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  As the lowercased entries became targetless, I have retargeted them to Western culture. Jay 💬 19:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Disambig Western civilization between Western culture and Western world. Revisit when nom's RM discussion concludes. Jay 💬 14:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Drafted at Western civilization. Jay 💬 07:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Western world, which is closer in meaning. @Jay: I didn't find an RM, where is it? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Right, the discussion mentioned in the nomination was a move discussion, but not an official RM - Talk:Western world#World, culture, civilization. Jay 💬 06:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• DAB. Multiple possible meanings for this, so a DAB page is helpful. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or dabify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment Retargeting to Western culture (disambiguation) is no longer an option as the article has since been PRODDED by @Jay. However, the problem of the redirects being vague still remains User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yuogsphere

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Yuogsphere

Canadian Oak

• Canadian Oak → American chestnut  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. I can't find any evidence that "Canadian oak" refers to American chestnut (thefreedictionary.com scrapes Wikipedia). From what I can find, "Canadian oak" is oak wood sourced from Canada, often used for making barrels in alcoholic beverage production. Canadian oak wood may be from Quercus alba (this is generally considered one of the best species for barrel making), but there are some websites that mention Quercus rubra as being a source of Canadian oak. Plantdrew (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

After a short search I cannot find a source either. The species is planted very locally in South Africa as a street tree, and then appears to be known by the name "Canadian oak". It was introduced to me by that name, but the person who did so died during covid, so I cannot check with him either. It may be a commercial name, or a name that is suppressed to avoid confusion. You may delete. JMK (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I think the closest would be a oak timber industry entry at Forestry in Canada but it doesn't exist now. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguate – this phrase is used [18] [19] [20] and may lead readers to the not-unreasonable assumption that there is a tree species known as the "Canadian oak". There are several oak species found in Canada [21] and these can be listed on the DAB page as they could all be referred to as "Canadian oak". Cremastra (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The phrase is used, but disambiguating the potential sources of a product of a particular national origin doesn't make much sense to me. The phrase "Canadian oil" is used, but it would be silly to disambiguate the oil companies or oil fields in Canada where Canadian oil might come from. Plantdrew (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of trees of Canada, which has a list of oaks. Paradoctor (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Plantdrew, JMK, Lenticel, and Cremastra: what do you think? (not just about Paradoctor's proposal.) it's lio! | talk | work 14:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  I stand by my nomination to delete this. It's not a common name for American chestnut, nor any oak species (or even a common name shared by multiple oak species). It only appears on the internet as phrase denoting a particular national origin of oak wood and there really isn't an article to redirect it to that covers that sense. I understand it appears like it could be a common name for one or more oak species, but I don't think Wikipedia needs to cover redirects for every descriptive phrase that could be misunderstood to have a specific meaning. Plantdrew (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment still delete. I get where the new proposals are coming from but I think they aren't enough to keep this redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Isnt

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Clayton Ray Huff

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Felix Arvid Of Shellberg

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

When you are young, they assume you know nothing

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 1#When you are young, they assume you know nothing

Tau Ursae Minoris

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Cackalacky

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

This redirect is currently useless because the article does not contain this word, and so gives no explanation as to why the redirect exists. Either a section should be added to the article explaining nicknames, or the redirect should be deleted as useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I found a couple of sources attesting to the nickname, but it looks like the primary topic for this phrase may actually be a brand of food products mentioned on a couple articles. None of the articles seem to give much information on the brand, so I think a redlink is best here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Any thoughts on the page history? This was created in 2006. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Content was merged to the target and I have tagged this as an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 16:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

February 21

Spears family

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 2#Spears family

Speared

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 2#Speared

Pointy stick

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mixed-culture

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 2#Mixed-culture

Kentucky militia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 2#Kentucky militia

Foundations of Aritmetic

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Nations at the 2025 SEA Games

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Soft delete due to no participation

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/NAME OF PAGE

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

Curse you, Perry the Platypus!

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

VerbalAse

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Disney Cartoon Studios

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 6#Disney Cartoon Studios

Homo smalluseditus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ronald Trump

• Ronald Trump → Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 25 § Ronald Trump – keep

Clearly a typo. Readers will never search "Ronald Trump" to find Donald Trump. RealStranger43286 (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete of course Marcus Markup (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not sure it's a typo since there is a Ronald L. Trump, son of Ermal and Effie Trump, born 1939 in La Grande, Oregon, who self-published a book about his life in 2011 (Man named Trump). Donald T. is a tad too well-known for anyone to intentionally enter Ronald T. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep based on my reasoning at the prior RfD, where sources using this term to refer to the target were presented. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as an implausible error. It stretches credulity that anyone would have problem finding the target article normally and needs this redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, "implausible error" makes no sense. R and D are close to eachother on the keyboard. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 11:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably not an error, but a meme missing a word ... search "Ronald McDonald Trump" on third party search engines and see what happens. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - valid typo -R and D are right next to each other and are hit with the same finger in QWERTY touch typing. Furthermore, as the arguments were presented in the last RfD, there are some sources that refer to "Ronald Trump" to compare Trump to Ronald Reagan. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Re typo: a) Standard touch typing uses the left index finger for the R and the left middle finger for the D, and it's pretty hard to make that specific typo, and b) there are billions of possible such typos, what makes this one so special? And re: comparison to Reagan, if that's the case, we have no mention of this at the target, so if someone is using this to search for information about it, they'll be left confused. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  right next to each other and are hit with the same finger — nope. The D is in the row below and to the left of the R on both QWERTY and QWERTZ keyboard layouts, and they're typed with the middle and index fingers, respectively. One of the sources cited in the RfD, the Daily Beast, uses 'Ronald' once, in scare quotes, and I don't know what Cohen aka Ali G's 2018 "tongue-in-cheek Twitter post" referring to Trump as "my main man, President Ronald Trump" proves.

QWERTY keyboard layout (US)

QWERTZ keyboard layout (German)

Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as potentially referring to Ronald Reagan, another Republican president. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 20:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  What? Are you suggesting we should retarget to Reagan instead? This doesn't really make any sense, nor does it address the various objections people have raised above. Why would anyone plausibly search for this? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep as a Template:R from typo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for "D" by "R" but retarget to Donald Trump (disambiguation) as it is for the term -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not convinced. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as plausible typo. R and D are close on the keyboard, so calling Donald "Ronald" is a plausible mistake one can make when they ade typing too fast. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 11:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete "Ronald" is not his first name. Herr Böna (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong keep unless there is another notable person named Ronald Trump I think having a typo redirect is fine. LegalSmeagolian (talk)

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have listed the previous RfD from 2003, and the current RfD has no new rationale as compared to the previous. As there was no closing explanation for the keep, it is not evident if the previous closer Cremastra closed it as a plausible typo or because of the Ronald Reagan reference or both. Jay 💬 19:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I can't tell you which one I meant, though, since this was one and a half years ago. Probably both, since that seems to be the slant of the discussion. Cremastra (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Zeolite redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

New name

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 28#New name

"Bruin Theater"

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

February 20

Main page/sandbox

• Main page/sandbox → Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unneeded cross-namespace redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see anybody without the knowledge of namespaces using this. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above. / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 14:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep Since the page main page is in mainspace, I think it is natural to append /sandbox directly. It does not appear in search results so there is no clutter for readers. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment There was a discussion for Main Page/Yesterday, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 15#Main_Page/Yesterday, that was closed as no consensus. I'll also note that there are 10 similar redirects under "Main Page/" (the nominated one is the only one under the lower case "Main page/"): Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Main+Page/. Not sure if there's desire to bundle them at this point. Skynxnex (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - Useful redirect to the sandbox. Interstellarity (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note that capitalized Main Page/sandbox has been salted since 2011. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep unless you move the main page first. Suggest Portal:Main Page and Portal:Main Page/Sandbox since this is the front portal, it should be in portalspace -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep As it is a helpful redirect, and it does not seem to be and issue currently. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 22:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom in order to be consistent with the current state of Main Page/sandbox; doesn't make sense for the nominated redirect and Main Page/sandbox to be different considering they differ only in capitalization. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and salt To match Main Page/sandbox User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete this unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Ca and Interstellarity. It's a useful redirect, linked to the page it pertains to. Main Page/sandbox should probably be recreated as a redirect too.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete If it's being used at all, it's probably causing Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox to be mistaken for Wikipedia:Sandbox. Peter James (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• I don't see why this should exist but not Main Page/sandbox. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and recreate Main Page/sandbox, both are sensible redirects. JayCubby 16:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Ấp

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Town ("US state not mentioned in the Town article")

• Town (Delaware) → Town#United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Town (Georgia) → Town#United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Town (Mississippi) → Town#United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Town (New Mexico) → Town#United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Town (South Carolina) → Town#United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Town (South Dakota) → Town#United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Town (Tennessee) → Town#United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Town (West Virginia) → Town#United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Each of these redirects has a disambiguator that is not mentioned anywhere in the target article. Yes, these states are part of the United States (which is probably why they target the section they do), but there's no information in the target article regarding the states themselves, leaving readers with no real information about anything specific to these states that could be a useful or exclusive to the United States ... which seems a bit misleading, considering that redirects such as Town (Washington) target specific sections in Town regarding towns in the state represented by the respective redirect's disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Retarget each redirect to its state-specific section Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

...Again, such sections don't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep: There is a whole set of redirects of this form which redirect to the appropriate US state section in Town, or to the United States section where no state-specific section exists. It is perfectly possible (and desirable) for someone to add a missing state section to that article, at which time the relevant redirect can be modified to go directly there. In the meantime, the general description of what is meant by a town in the US is at least some help. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually, since there are more readers than editors, that's probably not going to happen unless it occurs by someone responding to this RfD. Readers will try to skim through the page, theming to find information about these states, and find nothing. Utilizing WP:RETURNTORED (deleting these redirects) has a better chance of encouraging editors to add the missing information and/or articles than leaving them intact. As it stands, the lack of specific information about each state referenced in the disambiguators of each redirect in this nomination suggests that the target has state-specific information at it for each individual redirect, which it does not. Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Clarified/corrected statement with strikeout and italics. Steel1943 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. We need no "consistency" here, other than that of the redirect layer faithfully reflecting the article layer and not leaking. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. If there's no state-specific information at the target, then these are not helpful. I suspect that some of these states do not have formal "town" definitions like those listed at the target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Colonies Chris. These seem like clear cases of redirects with possibilities. Content may be written about what's meant by a town in Tennessee, but for the time being the reader is at least taken to a section talking about the situation in the US generally.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  The problem I see with that is in most cases where a redirect is tagged with {{R with possibilities}}, the redirect represents a subject that is at least mentioned in the current target article, presumably to give article creators a basis of where to find initial information to create such an article. In other words, I believe that redirects that can be tagged with both {{R without mention}} and {{R with possibilities}} do not make sense. Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Probably keep, because they might have possibilities, but it is important to actually show that they are possibilities per Presidentman's concern. I checked South Dakota and apparently it has 154 towns and 914 townships, which I assume overlap in some way. That's not a definition, but it does show it's a used term someone might want to look into. CMD (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree there's potential for some of these titles to possibly hold content, especially given the South Dakota example above. However, in my experiences with dealing with redirects, the purpose of stating a redirect is a {{R with possibilities}} means that the target article has content specific to the subject of the redirect they can be used and/or moved to create content specific to the subject of the redirect; in this instance though, that is not the case since information specific to these redirects's states is not in the target article. Without content at the target specific to these states, WP:RETURNTORED could have a higher potential for content creation since there would be no confusion of a redirect targeting nonexistent content, meaning it so a potential editor could then create the content at/and this title in the same edit(s). Steel1943 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think I'm generally supportive of RETURNTORED for redirects which don't have a clear target yet are clear standalone article topics, but I've not really encountered it in the context of the possible content being perhaps a paragraph in a larger article. (I suspect the best course of action would be clearer if the United States section was its own article (Town (United States)?) and you could have a section for South Dakota that would be due even if it just said the number of towns without a definition.) CMD (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep It's useful to have these redirects, to confirm that towns exist in the state and what they are. Some can be retargeted, for example Town (Delaware) to List of municipalities in Delaware. Peter James (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not keen on the idea of this redirect, as it seems to me that a user clicking this link would be looking for the definition of 'town' in Delaware, rather than just a list. However, the list in the target article does classify municipalities into 'city', 'town' and 'village' so there clearly is a distinction that could usefully be added to Town by someone with the knowledge. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  Most lists for states not currently in the town article mention that some municipalities are cities and others are towns but there is no legal difference. I'm not sure about West Virginia and South Dakota as the introductions are very short and do not explain much. Mississippi is the exception, where they are classified by population. Peter James (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Porkberry

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Miwiki

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Identitarian

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 2#Identitarian

Parachute Type foundry

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

PE infection

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move without redirect

KWHY-TV

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

P:

• P: → Wikipedia:Contents/Portals  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Probably not useful as an open-ended redirect when no article title is given for it. There are mainspace articles such as P:Machinery and P:ano that could have very well been sought, but instead these two characters (which would otherwise indicate portalspace if a portal's name was given to them), take readers to a portal of its own choosing. People looking for portals using the P: pseudo-namespace, can do so by typing in "P:", followed by the name of the portal they were after. I'm not convinced an "empty"-titled redirect is going to be of much use here. Targeting P seems more useful, if it targets anything. This one doesn't even point to portal space. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep – I don't follow your reasoning. It's not for users looking for a specific portal, and it doesn't take users to a portal of its own choosing. It's a shortcut to portal space, and while it doesn't technically go to a portal space page, it goes to the contents for portal pages. Whether that's the best use for P: (as opposed to going to P (disambiguation)), I don't know, but it does make sense as a shortcut. Mclay1 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A shortcut to portalspace is good. I'm just not convinced that people who type in one singular alphabet character and a punctuation is looking for information on portals. Because all articles have a title, there is nothing specified after the "P:" so there is never any assurance that a portal is being sought after. And PNRs are not widely known about to our general reader-base, and especially so as this PNR is just the letter "P", so I don't think there's an automatic assumption here that adding a punctuation to this letter "P" would take someone to Wikipedia:Contents/Portals. We try to keep a barrier up to prevent readers from falling into the backrooms while navigating the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Contents/Portals already has P:CP and P:PORT. P:P doesn't exist but perhaps it should in place of this titleless pseudo-namespace redirect for the simplest trapdoor people can fall into without catching innocent reading passerbys who were on their way to the P:ano content article but hit enter too early after the colon. Very plausible to type this in while looking for a mainspace title, which means that the search result should stay in mainspace and these two characters as a XNR is impeding that, imo. I'd suggest targeting P (disambiguation) where the portal page can very well be hatnoted. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, makes sense as master shortcut for portals. —Kusma (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Other similar RfDs have ended in deletion. If this is going to be a keep contra all those, I'd like to see some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Similar discussions: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 17#CAT: (no consensus), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#T: (delete), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 17#H: (delete). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. This may offend some, but portals are quite frankly not something most readers will use. There have been efforts to kill the concept of portals on Wikipedia altogether, and if nothing else portals have been removed from the top of the Main Page. Hence I doubt that many people would use this as a search term. Also, basically per OP. feminist🩸 (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  refer to WP:NOTCENSORED Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think this is a valid reasoning to delete this redirect. Portalspace still exists for now, whether or not editors are trying to get it deleted. I also don't really think this redirect is meant for readers; how many readers that aren't editors know namespaces even exist, much less shortcuts for them? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  It is a valid reason to delete this redirect if it starts clogging up searches for otherwise legitimate topics such as P:Machinery and P:ano, as pointed out by OP. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget and hatnote. I agree with nominator that this redirect will WP:ASTONISH a reader looking for something like P:ano. Redirecting to P (disambiguation) keeps newer users from accidentally leaving article space, and adding a hatnote or banner there that links to Wikipedia:Contents/Portals will ease the transition for anyone accustomed to using this redirect. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a potentially confusing WP:Cross namespace redirect. Deletion would be consistent with T: and H:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"Christian Tămaș"

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

"Drug-liking"

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Desert cities

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

City work

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

City employment

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Insular city, Insular cities, Island cities

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sat (Romania)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Sat (Romania)

Città

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Batembo

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bangladeshis held in the Guantanamo detention camps

• Bangladeshis held in the Guantanamo detention camps → List of Guantanamo Bay detainees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Bangladeshi detainees at Guantanamo Bay → List of Guantanamo Bay detainees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Bangladesh captives held in Guantanamo → List of Guantanamo Bay detainees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

deletion, there are no Bangladeshi Guantanamo Bay detainees. this redirect suggests that there are. this redirect should be deleted as it serves no purpose.
Tausheef Hassan (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Mubarak Hussain Bin Abul Hashem's article states that he is a Bangladeshi who was held at Guantanamo. WikiBlame is giving me HTTP 504 errors so I can't check if he was previously mentioned at the target and been removed for some reason. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Bangladeshis held in the Guantanamo detention camps (old version) of 2010 mentions him from this source of department of defense. the link is currently unavailable and wayback machine achieve gives "one pakistan/bangladeshi and one bangladeshi" I couldn't find if the original article ever mentioned him or why they didn't mention him. However, I believe that having only one or two individuals may not justify the need for a redirect. Tausheef Hassan (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Also bundle Bangladeshi detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Bangladeshis held in the Guantanamo detention camps. Jay 💬 15:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling both redirects mentioned above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The nominator's presumption appears incorrect and there is no policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• No entries from Bangladesh in that list. Delete unless there is another target. Jay 💬 08:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

State of the Turks

• State of the Turks → Turkey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This name is more than a little ambiguous, and it doesn't seem like a particularly natural search term or general way of referring to Turkey. — Anonymous 21:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I saw "State of the Turks" and wondered: emotionally? politically? economically? Neither clear nor expected. KeepRetarget, CheeseyHead for the win. Largoplazo (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  By "Keep", and referencing CheeseyHead, did you mean "Retarget"? Jay 💬 15:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Largoplazo: ping. Jay 💬 17:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, yes, sorry. Retarget. Largoplazo (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Mamluk Sultanate, since that's what it's referring to. CheeseyHead (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed I made it lol. Definitely was a mistake on my part having it lead there. CheeseyHead (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to a disambiguation page. The name seems to not only apply to Mamluke Sultanate but also to Second Turkic Khaganate. Given its generic nature maybe other Turkic polities? DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget. The Mamluks definitely established a state, whilst the Second Turkic Khaganate sounds like a barbarian chiefdom; retargeting to the Mamluks, with a hatnote for the khaganate, seems better. Background thinking — is "state" correct, when it's in a language spoken by a pre-state confederation? I'm just wondering if there were alternate meanings, comparable to English "realm" or "domain" or "chiefdom". Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. Another possible target would be Turkestan. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as unusual title and especially since it is ambiguous. Will reconsider if we have other page titles of the form "State of the <ethnic or regional people>" (State of the Russians, State of the Chinese, State of the Arabs, etc.). I see we have State of the Jewish People redirect to Jewish state. Turkish state redirects to Turkey. Does it make sense to have redirects of "State of the xyz" to correspond to "Xyz state"? Jay 💬 13:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate, second choice retargeting to Mamluke Sultanate. The Mamluke Sultanate is what I associate it with, but our Second Turkic Khaganate article does include the term as a translation one of its names. CMD (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't "disambiguate": there's already disambiguation page at Turk to which Turks redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  The Mamluk Sultanate does not appear on that disambiguation page, which is what the longer phrase was the name of. That is probably right, as I doubt "Turk"/"Turks" is often used on its own to refer to the Mamluks. CMD (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

ready mixed

• Ready-mixed → Concrete  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ready mixed → Concrete  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ready mix → Ready-mix concrete  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

was about to retarget the "mixed" redirects to heavy mix concrete, but results, at least on my end, were a little torn between concrete and mortar. admittedly on the extremely weak end of noms since concrete was still a primary enough topic and the article on mortar doesn't mention its ready mix flavor, but i'm pretty sure i'm missing something consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Well, I stand by my edit from 13 years ago for the last one, lol. I think they should all redirect to Ready-mix concrete if they all refer to concrete. I have never heard anyone say "Ready-mixed concrete," but if I did, I would immediately assume they meant Ready-mix concrete. I like to saw logs! (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: When I hear "ready mix" I think ready mix food or instant food powders. Remove "concrete" from your search, and all the food results you get was my idea of the primary topic. Anyway we don't have an article on ready mix powdered foods, and concrete seems to be the primary topic. No comment on the nomination. Jay 💬 12:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete could just as easily refer to food [22][23][24], or other stuff that should be mixed before use -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  • That sounds like an argument for a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

    ...Sounds more like a list of WP:PTMs, and I would oppose a disambiguation page of such listings. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Adding to the complications, Ready Mix is a concrete company: https://readymixusa.com/ We don't seem to have an article on Heavy mix concrete, so I'm confused by the opening statement that was about to retarget the "mixed" redirects to heavy mix concrete. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  minor spelling mistake （；´д｀）ゞ consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  So which page did you want to redirect it to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  ...I believe what Consarn means is that they meant "ready" instead of "heavy". Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  i mean... yeah. i don't think there exists such a thing as "heavy mix concrete" or "heavy mix mortar". then again, i'm not much of an expert on things you can't eat, so don't quote me on that consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 11:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep/Retarget all to Ready-mix concrete. We have a topic, it exists, and we can revisit this if other articles are created. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete all Ambiguous term, pointing to concrete is presumptuous. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. This is too ambiguous. The companies are Ready Mix USA, or I suppose Ready Mix, and there's also RMC Group plc, formerly Ready Mixed Concrete Limited, all of which are different from the redirects nominated here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep/Retarget to Ready-mix concrete. The page literally already exists. Why delete? Paintspot Infez (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Court packing

• Court packing → Supreme Court of the United States#Size of the court  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Court-packing → Supreme Court of the United States#Size of the court  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Packing the court → Supreme Court of the United States#Size of the court  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 19 § Court packing – keep (targeting Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937)

It is unclear why these redirects target where they do instead of Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. Seems the aforementioned article deals more with these phrases than the current target does. (However, the redirects have a complicated history, having an RFD in 2020 to "keep" the redirects targeting Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, but then the Court packing was retargeted in 2021 to its current target.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• I would expect that the change was made because there were a flurry of proposals at the beginning of the Biden administration to more or less undo Trump's Supreme Court picks by expanding the court along the same lines as was proposed in 1937. Rather than redirecting anywhere, perhaps the best solution is to create a separate article on the concept of court packing, in terms of attempting to change judicial outcomes by changing the composition of the courts deciding them, with discussion of both the 1937 Bill and the Biden era proposals, along with instances of this occurring or being attempted with respect to other courts, including state supreme courts and federal appellate courts. BD2412 T 21:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• It's unclear to me why this is a redirect; court packing is a notable concept in the U.S., perfectly capable of being covered independently from the articles on any individual court.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Added Packing the court to the nomination. @BD2412 and Swatjester: Pinging current participants in the event this addition changes their comments. Steel1943 (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This addition redoubles my comment. BD2412 T 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom; it's far more relevant to the 1937 attempt than to any other currently existing article. Anyone's free to write an article about the subject, and until that happens, it's far better to serve wannabe readers of the 1937 article than to encourage article creation by deleting the redirect. (If we did that, probably someone would come along and recreate it as a redirect to the 1937 article.) Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Court packing was merged to the target (then called Court-packing Bill), and I have tagged it as {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 09:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The current target discusses both the 1937 and 2021 efforts. That said, I would welcome creation of a general article on the topic, especially if it's a concept that exists in other countries. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete to encourage article creation. Court packing is not limited to the United States. For example this paper on comparative court packing lists about 100 examples, of which only 6 are American. [25] -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Patar, this is not a US-specific topic and should either have its own article or redirect somewhere that covers the topic generally. I may take a stab at it later today, we'll see how the sources look. 02:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input is definitely needed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Patar, and I don't think re-listing was appropriate... the volume and quality of discussion seems fine. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Court-packing and Packing the court per WP:RETURNTORED. Redirecting a broad topic to one instance of it coming into play is usually a bad idea. Move Court packing to Court packing bill without redirect (or another title if preferred, but this seems fine) to preserve page history for a page that was merged. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Bill should be 'B' uppercase. How about Court packing Bill? Jay 💬 17:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  Also fine. I went for the full lowercase title because I figured it's slightly more likely as a search term (if someone doesn't turn on caps lock). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete to WP:RETURNTORED. It's a broad topic that shouldn't point to a particular instance in the United States. At a very quick look there are papers like this one (noting I don't have full access), which discusses court packing in Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. (These cases also seem to be included in the source Patar Knight found.) CMD (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Harry Oppenheim

• Harry Oppenheim → List of Austria international footballers (1–24 caps)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This has been a bug-bear of mine for a while: this was the product of an AFD discussion which closed as redirect. The problem was that Harry Oppenheim was not the name of the subject, since the non-notable Austrian footballer it was about was actually called Heinrich Oppenheim. "Harry Oppenheim" therefore isn't mentioned on the target page. FOARP (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Harry Oppenheimer I thought it would just be redirecting it for the sake of it, but I see "Harry Oppenheim -er" in a lot of OCR scans etc. from the time. I think it's actually a surprisingly common misspelling after all; and might be useful for someone coming from there JeffUK 21:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I’d support this as a more useful redirect. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources in the former article show that Harry Oppenheim and Heinrich Oppenheim likely refer to the same person. See also de:Heinrich Oppenheim (Fußballspieler) and it:Harry Oppenheim. - Eureka Lott 22:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• I've added a {{citation needed}} at the target. I did see the word "Oppenheim" without the first name in one newspaper cutout from the sources at the de wiki, but as they are images, I could not get them translated. Someone who reads German may want to check these out. Jay 💬 19:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The current target is a dubious misspelling of a bare list entry without enough substance to warrant a redirect. I'm not convinced this is a plausible misspelling for Oppenheimer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

2025–26 College Football Playoff

• 2025–26 College Football Playoff → College Football Playoff  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• 2026 College Football Playoff National Championship → College Football Playoff National Championship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Please note that a similar discussion was closed as delete. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 17:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Misleading at this point, as the target does not provide enough relevant context for those who may be looking to find information about the event. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Was created WP:TOOSOON. Dmoore5556 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – This redirect is not misleading, as it directs users to the College Football Playoff National Championship page, where general information about the event can be found. The 2026 game is already scheduled for January 19, 2026, at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida, so WP:TOOSOON does not apply. Previously, 2025 College Football Playoff National Championship was a redirect until the game happened, at which point it became a full article. The same will likely happen with the 2026 game, so deleting this redirect now would be inconsistent with past handling of similar events. Many other major future sporting events have redirects well in advance, and keeping this one helps users find relevant information more easily. Abhiramakella (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  Many other redirects of this type (also made by you) were deleted due to being WP:TOOSOON. Also, a reader looking for information about the 2026 College Football Playoff National Championship will see only that it will be hosted at a stadium also used by an NFL team and that it will be hosted at Hard Rock Stadium, which they would have to scroll down to Venues to even find. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 17:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  I understand the concern regarding WP:TOOSOON, but I believe the 2026 College Football Playoff National Championship redirect should be treated differently for a few reasons:

  1. The Event Is Officially Scheduled – The 2026 College Football Playoff National Championship has a confirmed date (January 19, 2026) and a set venue (Hard Rock Stadium). This aligns with other redirects that have been allowed for major sporting events once their details are finalized.
  2. Precedent for Similar Redirects – In previous years, redirects for upcoming College Football Playoff National Championships have existed without issue. For example, the 2025 College Football Playoff National Championship now has an article because that game has already passed. The same will apply to 2026 as coverage increases.
  3. Redirects Improve Navigation – While it’s mentioned that readers can find information under the general "Venues" section, a redirect would provide faster access to relevant content. Without it, users searching for "2026 College Football Playoff National Championship" might struggle to locate the correct information.
  4. WP:TOOSOON Needs Clarification for Sporting Events – Right now, WP:TOOSOON does not define a specific timeframe for when a future sporting event is "too soon." It might be worth discussing whether events within 12 months (or those with confirmed venues) should be exempt from automatic deletion.

  That said, I agree that the 2027 College Football Playoff National Championship redirect should be deleted, as it is much further away and lacks significant coverage at this time. However, I believe the 2026 redirect meets the criteria for retention.

  Would love to hear thoughts on this! Abhiramakella (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Personally, I agree that WP:TOOSOON should be clarified for next year's (or this upcoming year's) scheduled sports events... I would prefer such redirects kept as long as the target mentions some bare minimum information about the upcoming event. I think we may need a formal RfC for it though, since a lot of people are adamant that no redirect is allowed to survive before the event takes place per this guideline. Do you think we should we village pump it first, or do just jump in towards an RfC now? I'd want something like "If an upcoming event (or whatever thing) is sufficiently noteworthy to have been mentioned in an article, a redirect is appropriate/allowable." added to the page. Fieari (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  (Noting this reply was made by the person who created the redirect)

  When we create redirects for events to articles there should be relevant information for the people who are searching for said event. There is, in this instance, not. It ends up misleading folks as a result and would be better left as a red link for the time being. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with an article (or redirect) creator defending their work, especially when legitimate arguments can be made. In this case, there are multiple mentions of the 2025-26 Championship Game on the main championship game (such as the game having been awarded to Miami being noted in the hosts/cities and the resuts sections). Not quite so much on the general CFP article, but even that covers general broadcasting and format descriptions of modern playoffs (which include 25-26) Frank Anchor 12:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Can someone more Wiki savvy then me please bundle in 2025–26 College Football Playoff? Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 19:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @CycloneYoris: In the future, please consider not adding in additional redirect nominations 8 days after the initial nomination took place and multiple people have voted. There wasn't really a good reason to do so in this case and I'm personally bothered when I vote for something and then what I'm voting on changes after the fact. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry! Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 16:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled together with 2025–26 College Football Playoff as requested by the nom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep redirects or spin out to full articles. This is not misleading as each links a specific edition to an event to a page describing the event in its entirety. That said, as these are less than a year away, there is likely content pertaining to the specific events (especially the championship game itself) such as location and broadcasting information, such that WP:TOOSOON does not apply. Frank Anchor 12:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Transparency (Guatemala)

• Transparency (Guatemala) → Front for Democracy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target page RaschenTechner (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep It's given as a former name in the infobox. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Presidentman. Obviously useful, and RaschenTechner probably just overlooked the infobox. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I did overlook the infobox, but the article doesn't give much information about the party's time as Transparency and when and why they were renamed. RaschenTechner (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, unsourced (what's there is dead), and I can't find anything to corroborate this...a simple google search for "transparency guatemala" finds all sorts of other stuff besides this, even when including the current name. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Wrong: it's sourced. Linkrot doesn't affect the validity of a properly cited source — consult any major academic style guide. As well, this is a print citation with a link for convenience; you wouldn't make such a statement if a link weren't provided. Not everything's on Google. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  See below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Update. I have removed the claim in the article that was the basis of this redirect, since it was unsupported by the source (which I was able to track down after all here). This would seem to render the keep votes above without merit...especially since even in the source, it was only referred to by its Spanish name (and always with "partido" attached, rather than mononymously). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand this removal to be honest. It's a Spanish language document, so obviously it was only referred to by its Spanish name. Plus, the document is from 2003, just as the removed claim stated. It's worth noting that the article explicitly referred to Transparency as a former name. From what I see, the source did in fact support the claim made in the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  How does the source support the claim? It has some information about a "partido Transparencia", with absolutely no information about it being a former name of Frente por la Democracia. In fact, the other main (later) source in the article seems to directly contradicct the claim, based on information about Frente's founding date and origins (also with no mention of Transparencia). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  But see this source, still in the article, which seems to confirm that "Transparencia" and "Frente por la Democracia" are the same party. I have added the claim back to the article based on this source. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to the footnote at page 51 that says 47 Transparencia cedió su ficha para la conformación del Frente por la Democracia., which in my translation gives 47 Transparency ceded its tab for the formation of the Front for Democracy.? Is this a bad translation, because I do not understand what ceded its tab means? How does this footnote show that "Transparencia" and "Frente por la Democracia" are the same party? Jay 💬 18:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Half black half white

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rex Pacificus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:Toy Story 6

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

"Carolingian system"

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

February 19

Pottery Museum

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Abandon Ship or Abandon All Hope

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 27#Abandon Ship or Abandon All Hope

Aztec treasure of cortez

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Toy Story 4.5

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Stop Pedophiles! Protect kiddies!

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 26#Stop Pedophiles! Protect kiddies!

Socio

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

S.P.D.

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget

S.L.C

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Why Wikipedia Sucks

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 27#Why Wikipedia Sucks

Dihydrogenmonoxid

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ghost Archive

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to List of web archiving initiatives

Kekius Maximus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Arhat bed

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Joshua Sturm (musician)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep Withdrawn by nominator with no non-keep !votes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians that poop

• Category:Wikipedians that poop → Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per this previous deletion discussion. Recreating the page as a redirect is an end run around the deletion closure, since it categorizes tagged pages. The category is contrary to WP:USERCATNO, specifically "Categories that are all-inclusive" and "Categories that are jokes/nonsense". If the closure had been "convert to redirect", the page would have been converted to a redirect, but that was not the closure.

This page was recreated after deletion, then deleted per CSD G4, then recreated before a deletion review was complete. I retagged it with G4, but that tag was removed. Pinging Alalch E., Est. 2021, and Isabelle Belato, who have edited the page most recently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

All-inclusive? Speak for yourself! BD2412 T 00:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose that deceased Wikipedians no longer poop, but I think the spirit of the guideline still applies. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong delete: Pretty clearly an attempt to get around the consensus found to delete the category. The category, since its creation as a redirect, has been repopulated. Should be G4 eligible from my perspective and I found this RfD because I went to G4 tag the category myself. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  For the record (if I weren't recused from admin actions regarding user categories per promises I made in my request for adminship) I would have declined the G4 - I don't think a pseudo-category of this sort is substantially identical to the original category that was deleted. But I can see the argument otherwise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Personally I think it stops being a pseudo category when people treat it as a regular category, but I can also see the other point of view. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  The page has content. The page has category members. The name of the page appears on pages that list it as a Category. The only thing that makes it different from a non-redirect category is that when you click on it from a member page, you are sent to the redirect target, where the member page is not even listed, perhaps counter-intuitively. It's a category duck. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Let's have the will to do the right thing, and not pamper people insisting they are above the law. We got the target in the first place because people lacked that will, so here we are almost a decade later ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  What's the right thing regarding Category:Wikipedians who are dyslexic (CfD), which you created as a redirect? (Genuine question, not leading) —Alalch E. 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  That should also be deleted. I only created that as a redirect many in April 2022 because I had myself tagged it for speedy deletion as empty in March 2021, and I figured that had I not done so that would have made me responsible for the fight that would have inevitably occurred when someone tried to empty it. So in short, I did the wrong thing because I lacked the will to do the right thing, and I acknowledged that in my edit summary. I've undeleted some of the deleted history to make what happened there clearer. And I still don't really have the will to do anything other than !vote in deletion discussions, because I've spent way too much of my time on enwiki lately picking fights with others. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC) (edited * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC))

  All of these redirects exist for the same reason: Fighting over the "funny" user categories is a waste of time, and letting these category namespace redirects exist and point to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages is a way to manage the overarching dispute. —Alalch E. 04:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  And at the same time establish a culture that people are above the law and Wikipedia's deletion discussion venues are toothless. That's the problem. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Then let's RfD all of the members of Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, because this one is no different than any one of them.—Alalch E. 03:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  That is a good idea for any of the categories that have been deleted through consensus CFD discussions and then recreated. Either that, or change the WP:USERCATNO guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's probably what comes next, but it's often a good idea to take the temperature of a situation by nominating a single entry prior to nominating a large batch. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Prior discussions on this concept: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11#Category:Abusive, mean, petty Wikipedians (no consensus), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 10#Category:Wikipedians who put really really long redlinked categories at the bottom of their userpage as a conversation_piece (no consensus, later quietly emptied and deleted). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Also, for historical context: Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. —Alalch E. 04:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural Keep - I'm not really familiar with standards around categories or user categories at all, and I was surprised to see the standard that user categories are not allowed to exist purely for humerous purposes (what's the harm?). That said, the target here is explicitly for exactly this kind of redirect... it is the sole purpose of the target page. So before deleting this redirect, I would STRONGLY prefer consensus to be gathered to delete the target, which would include a consensus to delete ALL the categories that redirect to it. Fieari (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • WP:NOHARM, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

    WP:NOHARM refers expressly to articles, not redirects, and I'm not even arguing it (I was expressing surprise, not giving a reason to keep). As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... I feel that supports my procedural keep option. I'm not even arguing that this category should exist! My argument is more akin to @Alalch E.:'s above... either this one should be kept, or all of them should be deleted, and I don't think this specific redirect is the venue to discuss ALL of them. I think the venue to discuss all of them is CfD. Fieari (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Procedural keep may be the wrong wording here, what's the procedural aspect? It's fine to vote keep, but I think you're arguing for keeping on different grounds than procedure. Additionally, the category isn't actually being treated as just a redirect, as it's being populated. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  The procedure I'm talking about is filing an XfD (in this case, a CfD) for the category that this goes into, because this redirect is EXACTLY what the category was made for. The category is populated by many many users who use deleted categories that redirect to this one. That's the purpose of the category, is for deleted categories to redirect to it, specifically so that those deleted categories will not exist per consensus, and to allow users to customize their user pages to their preference. If we don't want to allow the latter, then we have to delete the category that allows them to do that. There is no deleting of this redirect under the rationale that it bypasses the consensus of CfD without deleting ALL the redirects to this category, because they ALL do exactly that same thing, and in fact, that is the entire and sole stated purpose of the category that this redirects to. Fieari (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with you. Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages should be CfDd and the redirects should be G8'd. —Alalch E. 23:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily think that deleting is a fantastically productive outcome here, but I am registering my !vote as delete as a token of moral support to deletes with whom I entirely agree on a philosophical level. —Alalch E. 09:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yep. I plan to nominate more of the categories after this, since they're clear efforts to evade the outcomes of CfD discussions that resulted in deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Fieari: The category was deleted at CfD, and if this is "what the category is made for", then it's meant to be G4 deleted. There's no procedural keep in this instance because the only procedural process that would be involved would be a procedural G4 deletion in this context. I'm really unsure what you're arguing except to ignore all rules because some folks like it and don't like the outcome of the consensus building process. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. This is, as mentioned, a case of "we can have this anyway even though it was deleted". In some cases, creating a redirect after an article is AfD'd is fine. In some cases creating a category redirect after an category is CfD'd can be acceptable. This is not one of them. There is no encyclopedic use for this category, and there is no community need for this category. It's disruptive, pure and simple. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: They don't have to be encyclopedic, they are user categories. That's the whole point of Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, which is a longstanding convention and passed dozens of discussions with clear consensus. Was it a user category? Yes. Was it deleted? Yes. Are there Wikipedians wanting to retain it? Yes, so it goes to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you point to anything policy or discussion related that supports this @Est. 2021? I'm not sure why the outcome of deletion discussions should be ignored. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Delete For reasons of consistency of application of rules, though I'm mildly concerned that only a few Wikipedians have working digestive systems. Also a bit concerned I'm not in this category, meaning I need to investigate just what I've been doing in the bathroom for several decades. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: For reasons of consistency of application of rules, the page should stay as a redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, like any other deleted user category which Wikipedians chose to retain on their own userpages. How is it different? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep things. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not going to express an opinion one way or the other here — in an indirect way I'm sort of responsible for it, as the recreation came out of the slapfight that ensued when I tried to remove the redlinked category from the userpages that are in it.I will say that there are lots of ways to add some humor to your userpage without needing to fill the category system with jokes, so the common argument about the need to allow editors some leeway to express themselves in humorous ways on their userpages isn't a compelling one given the wealth of alternative ways to do that.
  And I will also say that the argument that the reverter tried to rub in my face after I removed the redlink was that because their userpage was theirs and not mine, anything they wanted to put on it is automatically sacrosanct and I have no right to touch it at all. Now, the lifers know that's not how things work — administrators and other cleanup gnomes don't need the user's personalized permission to clean up or remove content on user pages that's actually disrupting the encyclopedia, like redlinked categories, mainspace categories that violate WP:USERNOCAT or content that's obviously trying to misuse the userpage as an advertorialized alternative to a mainspace article about themselves — but the mindset is still out there, among more editors than it should be, that their userpage is hallowed ground for them to do anything they want to and nobody else is allowed to touch it at all. So some user education may be needed on that point.
  I don't have a strong opinion either way as to whether this should exist as a redirect or not — but what it absolutely cannot do is get deleted but stay populated as a redlink anyway. Again, not that I think the regulars are confused about that, but some more casual users (and the editors whose pages are in the "category" right now) might be, which is why I'm stating it for the record. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. This is a recreation of a category deleted via consensus. Gaming the system by either leaving it as a populated red-link or as a populated redirect is circumventing a community decision, which leads to this completely pointless CfD as one was already had on this specific category. Nothing has changed since. Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep the redirect, users have a right to retain deleted categories on their userpages. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  There never was any such right. All that has happened is that some people (including myself) have chosen to turn a blind eye to it in the interest of avoiding this sprawling mess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  There is, as long as there's consensus on Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. If you don't agree with it, I think you should challenge it by candidating the main category for deletion, instead of pointing fingers at Wikipedians that poop (weird!). Btw I don't think BrownHairedGirl and Tryptofish were closing eyes when they established this convention almost a decade ago. They did it out of pure respect for both users and consensus. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  You're badly misreading BrownHairedGirl. In her own words: The deliberate disruption by a few editors is a selfish and self-indulgent action which should, as the nominator notes, be dealt with by removing it from their userpages. (I would not have used such personal-attack-ridden language). And your ping to Tryptofish was inappropriate canvassing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Est. 2021: Can you point to any discussion or policy which makes it clear there's "a right" to retain categories deleted at CFD? As I'm unaware of such a right existing. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Two pages that say they should removed are WP:G4, a policy, and WP:USERCATNO, a guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's much more about a felt right about one's userpage consisting of such and such desired content, including redlinks. —Alalch E. 22:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just because it's a felt right doesn't make it a right. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's why I wrote "felt right", otherwise I would have written "right" sans "felt". —Alalch E. 22:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. So I've been inappropriately canvassed, have I? Facepalm I still hold to the opinions I expressed a long time ago, that basically amount to saying that editors who want to have humorous or silly userspace categories on their userpages should be able to do so, except when it creates problems that spill over into mainspace. Or, equivalently, WP:MALVOLIO. The long-ago discussion involving BHG and me was over redlinked categories, because those spill over into requested categories, and we agreed that the aforementioned humorous categories should be kept blue. But I'm saying delete in the present case, because this is the wrong way to make them blue. If there has been a consensus that a category should really be deleted, then leave it deleted, don't redirect it to a nonsensical category of, in effect, deleted categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Adding: Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories is an appropriate parent category for, well, unconventional user categories. In contrast, a category for use of deleted user categories is unhelpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, and I dare say scatological humor is beneath us. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Strong speedy delete and list at WP:DAFT. 67.209.129.142 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea as to who these "people who think that anything they wanted to put on it is automatically sacrosanct and I have no right to touch it at all" @Bearcat mentioned are, I simply found the whole controversy surrounding this category absolutely hilarious.

In fairness, though, the reason this controversy all started in the first place was because this redirect became a redlink. If this redirect was kept as a redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages THEN Bearcat wouldn't feel the need to remove it from userpages :P So, keep to avoid a similar situation happening later. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, category redirects are not the place for silly toilet humour. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:CAF6:A3C3:27CC:D17D (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

February 16

Wikipedia:CNN

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Toy story tree

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Miner's guild

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Melon Fasion Group

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted via G6

National Memorial Museum

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#National Memorial Museum

Wikipedia:VT

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 27#Wikipedia:VT

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) for development

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2025 United States constitutional crisis

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24#2025 United States constitutional crisis

BEASTofBURDEN

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gaza massacre

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Laa laa laa laa laaaaaaaaah...

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Friends lesbian kiss episode

• Friends lesbian kiss episode → Friends season 7#ep166  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Are descriptive episode names like this helpful? I'm genuinely asking. Also, it seems to have been wrongly tagged as being from a merge. — Anonymous 02:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep I don't doubt someone would see smth like "my favourite episode of friends was the lesbian kiss episode" on socmed and look up something like "Friends lesbain kiss episode" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, implausible search term, no evidence that this is a name. Let the search results do its thing imo. We don't redirect any "kiss episodes" of any television series, to the episode in question, on Wikipedia of all things, where every redirect requires perennial maintenance. Unhelpful redirect, let's not give the impression that these types of redirects are encouraged or acceptable. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@user:Yirba did you use this redirect in Wikidata? Because it might be deleted. Anthony2106 (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning keep. Accurate, harmless, I could see a reader looking up an episode centered on a moment iconic for the series in this way. BD2412 T 02:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: Per the discussion below, I would also have no objection to retargeting to Lesbian kiss episode#Friends. BD2412 T 20:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Based on searches, this actually seems to be ambiguous with The One With the Lesbian Wedding. Since we can't be for sure which episode the reader is looking for, I think this redirect isn't useful. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Presidentman. LarryL33k (Contribz) 00:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete bordering on uninterpretability. The way this is structured does not imply that it is an episode of "Friends", rather, it is some episode of something where some friends have a lesbian kiss. Which I construe could be an episode of Roseanne, that the U.S. Congress launched congressional investigations about. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a plausible search term, and an episode like this airing in 2001 is noteworthy. Also as far as I can tell, "The One With the Lesbian Wedding" episode didn't actually show a kiss. Correct me if I'm wrong Presidentman. Anne drew · talk · contribs · 15:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't seen either episode so can't say for sure if there was no kiss. However, if you google "Friends lesbian kiss episode," information on both episodes pops up. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  From the "The One With the Lesbian Wedding" article:

A writer with the Associated Press noted in an article that week that the ceremony would not include a kiss by the newlyweds, including the episode as part of an observed trend of portrayals of gay characters while skirting controversy by avoiding or minimizing physical contact.

And a clip I found of the ceremony on youtube does not have a kiss. Anne drew · talk · contribs · 17:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: our article lesbian kiss episode lists "The One With Rachel's Big Kiss" (and not "The One With the Lesbian Wedding") as the Friends lesbian kiss episode. "The One With the Lesbian Wedding" does not seem to be a lesbian kiss episode: most obviously it apparently did not actually involve a kiss, but it also was not aired during a sweeps period, it did not involve a presumed heterosexual regular character, and the lesbian relationship wasn't solely for that episode. By contrast "The One With Rachel's Big Kiss" did have a lesbian kiss, did air during a sweeps period, involved an otherwise-heterosexual recurring character whose heterosexuality was reaffirmed by the end of the episode, and the lesbian character was solely introduced for that episode. It seems to me that "The One With Rachel's Big Kiss" is clearly what "Friends lesbian kiss episode" refers to; the question is whether or not this kind of redirect is useful. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Plausible search term per Anne and unambiguous per Caeciliusinhorto. First choice retarget to Lesbian kiss episode#Friends (where I added this anchor and linked the episode) because of the subgenre context, second choice keep. Jay 💬 15:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Support this. it's lio! | talk | work 09:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Lesbian kiss episode#Friends per Jay. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

English WikipediA

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 23#English WikipediA

Dhruva Natchathiram

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Killer is Calling

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Grieving process

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

February 15

Pet Supermarket

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24#Pet Supermarket

Bottom dweller

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 27#Bottom dweller

Interstitial fauna

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 25#Interstitial fauna

Interstitial space (biology)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 27#Interstitial space (biology)

Lifelore

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Lifelore

Anti-Muslim propaganda on Facebook

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

2025–26 Big Bash League season

• 2025–26 Big Bash League season → Big Bash League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 7 § 2025–26 Big Bash League season – delete

Delete this future season not mentioned even trivially in the main article. Similar nomination as the January 2024 RfD, where it was deleted. It has been recreated twice since, as redirect to the same target, and deleted the first time as a WP:G4. An attempt to make this an article was reverted as the article you have here has virtually no infomation in it. i suggest we certainly wait until the current afd about the 2026 and 2027 ipl seasons is complete Jay 💬 09:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Fine by me as the person who reestablished the redirect, but it'll need watching properly and squashing each time then Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, or preferably convert into an article. That will be created in a few months anyway when the full season details are released, but there has already been a lot of coverage of the retained players and unlike previous years, they have already held a Player Movement Window this year. There is enough for an article already for a tournament that absolutely will take place before the end of this year. The-Pope (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and protect: a protection should keep it from being turned into an article before time. Vestrian24Bio 11:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and protect per above. it's lio! | talk | work 08:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• If "there is enough for an article already" per The-Pope, then the redirect should be converted to the article shortly, or deleted per WP:REDYES. It definitely should NOT be protected, which will only prevent creation of the article. I understand the 2nd and 3rd Keep votes were based on the 1st Keep vote, but I didn't get the rationale of the 1st Keep vote. How many months are we talking? How is this useful as a redirect if the article might be created only by the end of the year? I don't see a draft in progress at draftspace either. The 4000+ bytes article attempted by Kumarpramit was blanked as well, as mentioned in the nomination. If creating a redirect as a placeholder and then watching and squashing each time someone tries to work on it, is a problem, a solution would be to delete and salt. Jay 💬 10:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  I assumed that the article was created disruptively; looking now, I see that it was done by a long-time editor. Then I don't think protection is necessary, although I don't know enough about the subject to determine whether or not an article right now would be appropriate. I have therefore struck my vote. it's lio! | talk | work 11:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Nothing at the target about this season, making it a misleading redirect for anybody who searches for this. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Josh. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Brave Books

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 27#Brave Books

Les Dix Commandements

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Final (album)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Banu Hoot

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Banu Hoot

Turnib

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Video clip

• Video clip → Music video  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While this is mentioned in the target article, and this should definitely not be deleted, I don't believe that this is the primary topic. Potential disambiguation or retarget? -1ctinus📝🗨 14:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• So, in French, and I imagine probably some other languages, the English loanword clip is how you say 'music video'. I wonder if that's contributed to the decision to move the longstanding article at this title to Video clip (online media) and retarget the redirect. Either way, it's clear there wasn't consensus for that, so reverse move; send to RM if necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Reverse the move per above. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Short-form content, along with the plural. CheeseyHead (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Reverse move per Tamzin. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Procedural close this and take up the reverse move / WP:RM outside of this RfD. I did not realize it during my relist, but Video clip (online media) too was moved, to Short-form content. Jay 💬 20:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Reverse both moves and send to RM. Nickps (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• This is a messy situation, but I think the least disruptive option is just to send Short-form content to RM at its current title and let them deal with it there given it's been moved twice (one of which was during this RFD), and the structure of the content there has changed significantly. For now, it's probably best to target the redirect there while it plays out so older links to the article still point there, and if the Short-form content title is kept, this can be re-nominated at RFD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Also pinging @Tamzin, Utopes, CheeseyHead, and Patar knight: to notify them that Video clip (online media) has been moved to Short-form content, which may impact their opinion on what should happen. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  I would reverse all the moves as not uncontroversial and then start an RM. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate between Music video and Short-form content. The context is important, so I don't think there is a primary topic. Another benefit to disambiguation is that it may be useful to have links cleaned up. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  I would also be fine with disambiguation, at least for now (I would nominate Short-form content at RM if disambiguation is the result of this RFD). Reverting the moves as controversial feels damaging with how much the article has developed since the moves. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to close an extremely old log page and to try and get some more eyes on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Nobody is going to search up "Video Clip" trying to find "Music Video". Those are two different things. LarryL33k (Contribz) 04:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate "video clip" and "clip" was used in the 1990s in Canadian English as a synonym for music video -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• This RfD started on 1st January with a lot of promise, but has been stuck in limbo. I have struck my WP:RM suggestion, and support Tavix's and IP65's suggestion of disambiguate for now. It appears there is a lot of cultural context that we don't comprehend. Jay 💬 19:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Finario

• Finario → The Bonnie Lass o' Fyvie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as ambiguous with Damian of Finario and Battista dei Giudici. These three minor details do not between them warrant a disambiguation page, and search results will do the job quicker and more simply than hatnotes. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or disambiguate The other two are "surname-type" uses, while the current target is an alternate name. If kept, we can hatnote the two people pointed out by the nom -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. We have three entries, none of which is an obvious primary target. Tevildo (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and let search results help. The current target subject is known as "Fennario", not "Finario". Jay 💬 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Struck per Tavix. I missed reading the part in the target that talked about permutations like "Fennario", "Fernario", "Finario"... Jay 💬 20:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Keep and hatnote per Patar knight. Jay 💬 06:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Disambiguation draft requested * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Done. Cremastra (u — c) 22:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be entirely PTMs and passing mentions without enough substance anywhere. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, the article attests Finario as a permutation of the alternative title Fennario. I agree the other uses are WP:PTMs so there's not enough to disambiguate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus still does not seem clear...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Tavix. Cremastra (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and hatnote to Finale Ligure, which was historically known as Finario. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• Patar knight has brought up a fourth target, which makes me feel that disambiguation is the correct option. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's still a WP:PTM, since those two people were from Finale. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, yeah, I'd be fine with keeping and hatnoting to Finale Ligure. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to close an extremely old log page and to try and get some more eyes on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Sharqi Arabic

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 22#Sharqi Arabic

February 14

Davids wars of Conquest

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Anti-Muslim propaganda on Facebook

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy close

Scimmy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Aldaspan

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Near Eastern sword

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ouija Board Criticism

• Ouija Board Criticism → Ouija#Criticism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term (particularly considering the capitalization), unlinked to internally, and redirects to a no-longer-extant section of the article (the criticism of Ouija being dispersed to various sections.) Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 5Q5|^✉ 12:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Any thoughts on the history? This was created as an article in 2010. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Content was merged to the target and I have tagged this as an {{R from merge}}. The next edit by another editor had attributed the merge with summary Noting that the previous edit merged material from Ouija Board Criticism. Otherwise null edit. Jay 💬 10:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Alternative Learning Center

• Alternative Learning Center → Edmonson County High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This content only lasted 2 months in 2008 and was completely unreferenced. However, many articles [26] have "Alternative Learning Center" sections, or entire articles about one, while this target does not. Seems like a missing article on a generic topic, or a dab list should exist. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as I have reviewed all mentions of the term and there does not seem to be a suitable target. However it may need to be kept as content was added to and then removed from Edmonson County High School in 2008. The UK equivalent, Pupil Referral Unit has its own article.

Alternatively, it might be possible to add a sourced sentence to High school in the United States (or a similar article) and point the redirect there. TSventon (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The edit history can be displaced to Edmonson County High School Alternative Learning Center to clear the base location of the troublesome history -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Convert to a disambiguation page per WP:D. As the nom points out there are many qualifying articles for the term. Any interested editor should do this. 5Q5|^✉ 12:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:CONCEPTDAB, because alternative learning programs are broad and relate to roughly the same concept (Alternative learning programs at public schools in the US), I believe this should be an article/subsection of an article instead of a disambiguation. Theadventurer64 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Here are some sources:

  • https://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/ConnectWithUs/Organization/Offices/StudentSupportServices/AlternativeLearningProgramsBranch/Pages/default.aspx
  • http://www.austinisd.org/schools/alternativelearningcenter
  • https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/schools-online-learning/1044

  Theadventurer64 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Special education, which covers the same subject in depth and globally. Someone should just include a mention of the term there. 5Q5|^✉ 12:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  They're similar, but still different; Special education refers to those who receive education because of certain intellectual disabilities, while ALO programs are designed more for at-risk youth, not necessarily with intellectual disabilities. Addionally, there's a section which states that at-risk students being housed with Special Ed could be an issue?

  Edit: After writing this, found Alternative education. Could be added there.

• Alternative Learning Programs

  While not directly related to Special Education, Alternative Learning Programs may refer to alternative Learning Programs for at-risk youth. This can be accommodated through a designated part of a school, or students can be housed in another school altogether. Students in these programs may receive differentiated instruction from regular schools. Theadventurer64 (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to At-risk students (note, not At-risk youth), until such time someone volunteers to write a separate article. I'm done. 5Q5|^✉ 13:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Weak retarget to Alternative education; else delete. As noted above, any specific target would be a surprise. My "weak" retarget comes from the capitalization. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Move without redirect (equivalent to Delete) to Edmonson County High School Alternative Learning Center per IP65. The capitalization is a concern per Significa. It is unclear to which country this capitalized term relates to. Alternative education is sub-sectioned by country and I would not know where to add Theadventurer64's drafted mention. Mention may still be added now or in future, but it doesn't change my view of this redirect. Jay 💬 15:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

References

'cause kalmer is my boyfriend

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Ravinder Kumar (wrestler)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cackalacky

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 22#Cackalacky

Tau Ursae Minoris

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 22#Tau Ursae Minoris

Calling all engines-deleted scenes

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jhoom

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

February 13

Wikimedia Brasil

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

Delete, due to criteria 10, it has no content about the chapter and worse, the new item Brazil should link to a red article to get people to create an article for that, but instead it redirects to same page. Augustresende (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't think this deletion nomination is valid. The target article mentions Wikimedia Brasil so it's definitely a reasonable search term. If you want to expand the redirect into an article, be bold. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Criteria 10: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Augustresende (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have fixed it at the target by removing the self-redirect. Note that the self-redirect was created by nom a few minutes before making this nomination. Jay 💬 10:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete A bare entry in a list is not really enough substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

List of 'years in home video'

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Johann Hertel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Johann Hertel

Wikipedia:Deletion log

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Simpsongate

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

West Baltimore

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

MAGAt

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

British genocide

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#British genocide

Klonoa (video game)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

5.1 Music Disc

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Rojo (Cuban baseball team)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

What is wikipedia about

• What is wikipedia about → Wikipedia:About  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Awkward, implausible cross-namespace redirect, especially with the lowercase "w". Compare Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_2#What_is_wikipedia * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep or retarget to the article Wikiepdia. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep, but certainly don't redirect to Wikipedia. This was one of my first attempted cross-namespace redirects, and I didn't know if this would qualify as much as How to edit etc. I suggest not redirecting to the Wikipedia article because essentially anything under What is foo about can be a redirect. I'd be sad to see this redirect go but it must be for the best.

𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. It's one of those occasional cross-namespace redirects that is actually helpful. If you type this into your browser address bar or your search box, you're looking for a brief summary, not an article whose sixth sentence includes a tidbit about Germany representing 4.8% of Wikipedia traffic in November 2024. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - Valid and useful WP:XNR... anyone looking for this is not going to be aware of namespaces, and yet this is the information they are clearly looking for. Nyttend's arguments are strong that Wikipedia is not going to be helpful to this query. Fieari (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete XNR, and if you want to know about Wikipedia, read Wikipedia -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, this is not how redirects are constructed, and not how we do cross-namespace redirects. WP:XNR indicates that "most newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted". This is also not one of the "very old ones [that] might retain their value for extra-Wikipedia links." No fear of broken links as this is indeed less than a week old. There is nothing that suggests that people will be looking for an article, or for the about page, by typing a question phrase. As it happens, there is a link for this very About Page on everyone's sidebar, which doesn't require typing in an awkwardly constructed question in the search. Aside from some of the first ever redirects, we never accommodate the "question-redirect to answer" format in titles nowadays, as its unlikely and unhelpful to maintain in mainspace, distracting from real topics that start with "what is". This can always be navigated to from the About Wikipedia redirect, which has served well for years. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Utopes. We're not google. -- asilvering (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: a very likely search term. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Instead of tying ourselves in knots with redirects like this, we should fix the real problems. For example, the search tool currently displays the meaningless (to new users) option ‘Search for pages containing foo’; it should make it clear that it is searching articles (at least by default). We should also decide what the proper entry point to this project is; the current main page’s most prominent link is to the article Wikipedia, and the main page does not seem to link to Wikipedia:About at all. Of course, that article’s lead should be a brief summary of its subject, as desired by Nyttend; if it is not, we should also fix that. Brianjd (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:About is linked on the sidebar that appears on every page. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  The sidebar? I see a few options for controlling the appearance of the page. I don’t see this ‘Wikipedia:About’ you refer to.

  Oh, you mean the other sidebar? The one that appears when I click those three lines in the top left corner, which are dwarfed by the graphical link to the main page? I’m not sure that counts.

  Even if it did count, my comments about the main page prominently linking to the article and not the Wikipedia namespace page would still apply. Brianjd (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Experienced editors should be careful here: the traditional left-hand sidebar is no longer displayed by default. Brianjd (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I guess it only appears on the new Vector if you're logged in. I didn't think to check what it would look like without an account. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Index of statistical mechanics articles

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Index of statistical mechanics articles

Faith Cavendish

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Faye Donnelly

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Self-partnered

• Self-partnered → Emma Watson#Personal life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect title and the article content do not seem to be related at all. I was not able to find a better target page. Kwonunn (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

When I saw that this seemingly nonsensical redirect was created by an established Wikipedia admin, I knew I wasn’t getting the full story.

The redirect title used to be mentioned at the target article; that mention was removed for dubious reasons. See Talk:Emma Watson#‘Self-partnered’. Brianjd (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Bagumba. Brianjd (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Add back the mention. Jay 💬 11:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jay: If you mean to add back the mention at Emma Watson, see the linked discussion at that article’s talk page. (It’s not really a ‘discussion’ yet, as no one else has contributed. Maybe you can change that.) Brianjd (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I did see that before, and saw it has a link to this RfD. This RfD will have stronger consensus. Of course, if someone wants to take part in that discussion but skip this RfD, it is a separate matter, but I didn't see any participation other than yours. Jay 💬 12:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I think RfD is the wrong place to discuss issues specific to target articles, but you probably have a better idea how things work on this project. Brianjd (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• retarget to Single person; The referenced material can be added there. And add link to wikt:en:self-partnered there. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Support. it's lio! | talk | work 13:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Confection (song)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

410 (song)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices

Darren Sargent

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Floyd Charles

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Washington Nationals minor league players

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Navy ratings

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Expansionary

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

T:WPMHA

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

T:POV

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

T:POTD

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:R from style

• Template:R from style → Template:R from non-neutral name  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should be retargeted to Template:R from stylization as natural target for this redirect. Gonnym (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment, the current documentation has the following hatnote: "Template:R from style (in the sense of honorific royal/noble styles) redirects here; you may be looking for Template:R from stylization.". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to TM:R from stylization since that is probably the primary topic. All three of {{R from style}}, {{R from styles}} and {{R from royal style}} are unused in mainspace so I'm guessing royal style redirects just use {{R non-neutral}} directly. Also, {{R from styles}} should probably be added to this RfD as well. Nickps (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep as-is. It already has a hatnote, and a noble style is a specific thing, for which there isn't an alternative name (they are distinct from titles and other appellations). The use of such a style in place of a usually more encyclopedic name for a biographical subject is indeed something that should be catalogued for potential cleanup with redirect-categorization templates.; The more specifically named redirects of those in turn, like the one at issue here, can be used more specifically with "What links here" (constrained to transclusions) to track a specific issue (and they sometimes become their own template category and separate rcat template over time anyway). The fact that someone somewhere paying no attention of any kind might be confused and use this to refer to typographic stylization is not important, since it's not frequent and is easy to fix. By the kind of "prevent any misunderstanding or misuse at all costs" reasoning behind this RfD, we'd have to rename several thousand templates, redirects, and other pages (including even some policies, using terms with a special WP-specific meaning rather than the vernacular one a noob would have in mind). This is not HeadInTheCloudsAndPayingNoHeedToAnythingPedia or EngineerEverythingForLowestCommonDenominatorDunderheadsPedia or ReduceFunctionalityForExperiencedUsersToMakeItAllEasyForNewOnesPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The template redirect isn't titled {{R from noble style}}, if that was the intended usage of it. {{R from stylization}} should be the primary usage of "style" alone. Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you list a few examples from the thousands of templates, redirects, policy pages, etc.? Just trying to understand what you have in mind. Jay 💬 21:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - This redirected template does not appear to be currently used on any redirect page. As long as it isn't commonly or habitually subst'd, it might be safe to change the target without much in the way of repricussions. Fieari (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to {{R from stylization}}. {{R from royal style}} can be used for nobility styles (also {{R from noble style}} could probably be created as a redirect to the same location). Neutral on {{R from styles}}, as I would be less certain that it refers to a stylization in the plural. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

T:OTD

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

T:OAFD

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

T:ITV

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2026 Belgian Cup final

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2029 Uruguayan general election

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2026 NBA draft

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Provincial law

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

2028 NFL season

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

T:DOC

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

T:DAB

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: G7 deleted

T:ADMINDASH

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

T:ACI

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

T:ACDS/T

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Eastern (basketball)

• Eastern (basketball) → Hong Kong Eastern  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are several other basketball organizations named "Eastern". Ones we have pages for include Eastern Basketball Alliance and Eastern Basketball Association, while google gives a number of other hits. The Hong Kong team doesn't seem to be the primary topic. The redirect is tagged as from a move I don't see it under this name anywhere in the history, but I may be missing something, since the redirect has gotten hundreds of views this month. If the page has substantially history under this name then happy to withdraw this. Rusalkii (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• REtarget to Eastern (disambiguation) as {{R from partial disambiguation}} and itemize the other uses there -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hong Kong Eastern is a guest team in the 2024–25 PBA Commissioner's Cup and is the cause of the page (redirect?) views. Retarget and itemize as per the anon above. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

In the 2024–25 PBA Commissioner's Cup, Hong Kong Eastern is simply referred to as "Eastern"; I've named it as such but was reverted because in WP:OFFICIAL PBA lingo, the team from Hong Kong is simply referred to as "Eastern". Compare to the parallel 2024–25 East Asia Super League where they are referred to as "Hong Kong Eastern" and are referred to by that name on that article. I figured "Fine, let's do what they say". The links were originally targetted to Eastern Sports Club (basketball)", then was retargetted to "Eastern (basketball)" by Gayviewmahat on this edit. He also created this redirect, and has not commented here; that guy just edits and never engages in discussions. That's where the pageviews came from. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Don't keep: The only hit for "basketball" at Eastern (disambiguation) is Eastern Sports Club (basketball), which is the current target. I disagree with the current target, but I'm not sure what the best course of action would be. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  "Eastern" can also refer to Eastern Conference (NBA). The problem with "Eastern" is that it's an adjective and should always have the accompanying noun it's supposedly modifying, that's why "Eastern" by itself is ambiguous. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Don't retarget to the disambig as the current target is the only hit for basketball there per Significa. Disagree with itemizing other uses there are they are all WP:PTMs. If a Phillippines tournament can refer to a Hong Kong team as just "Eastern", per Howard, then this is good enough for a weak keep. Otherwise delete as a confusing disambiguating title. Jay 💬 15:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as the only "Eastern" in basketball that's not a partial title match. Can someone find sources of the NBA's Eastern Conference being called simply "Eastern"? The short form seems to be "The East". -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Could definitely be ambiguous with Eastern University (United States)'s basketball teams, which would often be referred to as just Eastern. Unfortunately, that article is not on the DAB page itself and is instead behind Eastern University (disambiguation), so retargeting to the DAB is less helpful. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
  • We could just turn this into a new disambiguation page, with ESC,HK and EUni,PA,USA teams -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Vitamin C2

• Vitamin C2 → Choline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No presence of the term in the article. Nothing seems to show up (in the article or from searches online) that classifies Choline as anything close to a "Vitamin C2". it does say that "..Choline is not formally classified as a vitamin despite being an essential nutrient with an amino acid–like structure and metabolism..", but otherwise there is virtually nothing going for this redirect, unless I'm mistaken. DM5Pedia ^(ctr) 22:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Vitamin C2 appears to be a registered trademark of the "Life Priority" company for the combination of calcium ascorbate and ascorbyl palmitate, which it calls "water soluble" and "fat soluble" vitamin C, respectively... which may or may not be BS as I don't see anyone else talking about it and they do mention they aren't FDA evaluated (to be fair, both are approved as food additives as safe at least). There is also a paper published in Nature that says Vitamin P is also known as Vitamin C₂. These are the only hits I find for "Vitamin C2" on google. Searching for choline +"C2" specifically shows some papers that say choline has something to do with something called "the C2 domain" which doesn't appear to have anything to do with vitamins, but I genuinely don't really know what what it does mean. Fieari (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Delete: The "C2" in choline research is to do with "complement" protein. It has nothing to do with any vitamin, so "Vitamin C2" seems as you say to be the purest of BS; or at best, a simple error of identification. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Aesculin (aka Esculin). Several databases record Vitamin C2 as a synonym for esculin (e.g. NCBI search results, DrugBank). Note that Vitamin P refers to multiple molecules which are glycosylated versions of quercetin. Databases can always be wrong when it comes to these things, but I see no problem in WP reflecting these likely inconsequential minutia. Also, don't be fooled by the number of databases that make the synonym claim, most are just copying one source, just look at the description field. ⇌ Synpath 21:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Delete. No authoritative regulatory source (FDA, EFSA, Health Canada) uses vitamin C2 for choline (or anything else), and neither is vitamin P an accepted scientific term for polyphenols which are not "vitamins" and have unknown properties in vivo. As for "WP reflecting these likely inconsequential minutia", our job as editors should be to provide simple, verifiable content for readers of the encyclopedia - the KISS principle applies. Zefr (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Aesculin per Synpath above. Even if this is in error, it is an attested error, and plausible for search. The redirect can be tagged as {{R from incorrect name}} if necessary, although I don't have the qualifications to say whether this is actually needed or not. Fieari (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment doi:10.1111/1747-0080.12212 Table 2 lists C2 as being mentioned in 1948 (doi:10.1038/161557a0) as a synonym for Vitamin P. Perhaps Vitamin C2 should be a dab page; maybe chemistry needs a category tree like Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names jnestorius^(talk) 02:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be fine with a DAB. Fieari (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per jnestorius, including Esculine and Flavenoids (aka Vitamin P). A quick search of the literature on google scholar using the term "Vitamin C2" yields several papers listing it as a synonym for vitamin P (albeit mostly in the 1950s by 1 principle author) [[27]] [[28]] [[29]].

Additionally, I did find a tentative link to choline. This book lists vitamin C2 as a synonym for vitamin J on page 510, and vitamin J is an established synonym for choline (see Redirect). Definitely seems incorrect, I'll leave it to others to decide what to do. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per jnestorius and VolatileAnomaly. Enix150 (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I have drafted a proposal for a disambiguation (or is it a set index?) page, making it clear that this term is not a correct term for any of the items linked but merely that some have referred to these things as Vitamin C2 in the past. Feel free to modify as needed, of course. Fieari (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Demolition lovers II

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Demolition lovers II

Glamorgan women's cricket team

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

LGBTQ+ production of family

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#LGBTQ+ production of family

Draft:Invest 92L (2024)

• Draft:Invest 92L (2024) → Hurricane Milton  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are more than one invest called 92L in 2024 A1Cafel (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete, at a certain point, it just becomes routine.✶Quxyz✶ 13:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete, as the designation Invest 92L was used multiple times in 2024, not just for the system that became Hurricane Milton. Drdpw (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Did any of the content added by LemonJuiceIsSour get merged into the target, or did Vida0007 BLAR it? May be deleted if it was a BLAR. Jay 💬 08:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I know, this was how it looked before I redirected it to the then-draft for TD14 (which became Milton); I do think that some of the contents there were merged into the target, particularly the infobox part. Vida0007 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

UKCF

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Jesus donkey

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 28#Jesus donkey

February 12

Mexico City Metro Line C

• Mexico City Metro Line C → List of Mexico City Metro lines#Line C  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Although it was proposed in the past, there is no Line C in the MCM system and it is unlikely to exist soon. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 07:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• There's a sentence about a hypothetical Line C in List of Mexico City Metro lines § Line 12; línea del Bicentenario: Mixcoac – Tláhuac, but it's not entirely clear to me what it's trying to say, and the main article Mexico City Metro Line 12 says nothing about any Line C. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  Lines with letters (like the existing A and B) are lines that go to the suburbs outside Mexico City. The system skipped from 9 to A to B to 12 because Line 10 was replaced with BRT buses (Mexico City Metrobús Line 1) and Line 11 was merged into Line B. Line 12 doesn't go outside the city. Line C was meant to run from El Rosario metro station to the municipality of Cuautitlán Izcalli but that plan is unlikely to be completed since that line will be replaced by Mexibús Line 5 in the near future. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of Mexico City Metro lines#Line 12; línea del Bicentenario: Mixcoac – Tláhuac. We don't have an WP:RCAT for hypothetical or proposed names, or this could have been tagged that way. Jay 💬 07:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think failed speculation about the name of something deserves a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget. Proposed target uses the proposed name. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• There is some mention of a line-C in this paper, which I think is supposed to be line 3? Unclear what exactly it's trying to refer to, but based on the citation in that line I'd guess it's line 3. Probably just delete, there's no line called line C and retargeting to a section because it has a mention rather than the actual article on the line in question which doesn't mention it makes little sense. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have removed the possible unsourced speculation / WP:OR from that section. It was added in 2008 when the system skip from 9 to A to B to 12 happened per nom. Jay 💬 10:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tavix: Was this relisted because of Patar knight's !vote (which was based on mine, and which was no longer valid since the proposed target did not use the proposed name any more)? Or were you looking for feedback on whether my removal was acceptable? Jay 💬 17:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The removal was the same day as my relist, so it gives the chance for others to respond in case they had any issues with it and/or would allow them to change their !vote accordingly. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Transparency (Guatemala)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Transparency (Guatemala)

Strawberry frosting

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of triject aircrafts

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums number ones of 2025

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

MicMac Online

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

S.P.D.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 19#S.P.D.

DIhydrogen monoxide

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Meet the

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Byng Arts Mini School

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Restore article and send to AFD.

February 10

TLU1

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Qingyun Wang

• Qingyun Wang → Chinese Figure Skating Championships#Ladies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Multiple people of equal or grater importance than this figure skater (王青雲). There was the 19th century Qing Dynasty official (王慶雲), who was Viceroy of Sichuan and Viceroy of Liangguang, a governor of two different provinces of China; There was a 5th century rebel leader (王慶雲) against Emperor Xiaozhuang of Northern Wei. Clearly historically, the figure skater doesn't really hold a candle. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I would say "Disambiguate" but those articles don't appear to exist on the English Wikipedia, so I am not sure. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • WP:DABRL can support redlinked articles if there is a target bluelink article that mentions the topic (such as the emperor article, or the viceroy articles, or the games article), that could be made red or are already red in the those targets. At any rate, this current target is the least prominent of the 3 figures, so should not redirect there in any case. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Well in that case, I support turning the redirect into a disambiguation page. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The historical figures are unlikely to be referred to with Western name order ("Qingyun Wang") as opposed to Chinese name order ("Wang Qingyun"). Wang Qingyun would be a reasonable disambiguation page, but I think Qingyun Wang is only likely to refer to a modern individual. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or DAB?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 20:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• At last month's RfD for Wang Qingyun, I had recommended deletion because the (same) disambiguation that was suggested, looked complex, and I didn't think anyone was up for the task. However, in this case, the nom had already converted the page to a disambig before the RfD, but it was reverted promptly as non-notable individuals do not need disambiguation. Target was already sufficient. I have now restored the disambig as a draft so it can be reviewed. Jay 💬 18:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate at Wang Qingyun based on the current draft, then retarget Qingyun Wang to the disambiguation page. feminist🩸 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

P:

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#P:

Law of fives

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Dormammu, I've come to bargain

• Dormammu, I've come to bargain → Doctor Strange (2016 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "I've come to bargain", much less "Dormammu, I've come to bargain". Searching for a quote from a movie has a 0% chance of taking you to the movie in question. People who search for this particular quote instead of searching for Dr. Strange, are going to be intending to receive some specific piece of information related to the quote that they searched for. With no mention to anchor this redirect down, it becomes unhelpful and misleading, as the existence of this redirect implies that we have material directly related to this search term, when we do not. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a fairly iconic line, and it is probably possible to find sources supporting mention of the line to add it to the article. BD2412 T 21:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I suppose I should have elaborated on my delete !vote here, as well. As much as I am a fan of the MCU and Doctor Strange in particular, I do not think this quote is a necessary inclusion for this encyclopedia as a whole. There is currently no mention of this quote from analysis sources or reception to it since the movie released in 2016. Because no mention has been included in the eight-to-nine years since that film's release, it may be telling that it is not important to this encyclopedia. There have been several quote-related redirects being created lately that veer on WP:FANCRUFT. This encyclopedia is not a fan wiki, and I think any mention of this quote without sufficient evidence of notability would be giving it WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. We do not need a redirect pointing to each related project or character for a quote deemed iconic by the fanbase of a franchise, and we do not need to host such redirects. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Not all movie quotes are created equally. In my experience, this particular quote is entering the culture/English language as an idiom with the specific meaning of requesting something over and over and over again, with the hopes of winning via exhaustion of the other person. I've seen it with regards to scambaiting, and with people requesting refunds from retail stores. I've seen it referring to children begging their parents for something. When a movie quote starts to be used extensively to mean something non-obvious, Darmok style, people are more likely to search for what it means. In this, case, the redirect makes it clear what the source of the quote is by the existence of the redirect, and close reading of the plot section will provide information to the searcher as to what the phrase is referring to. I believe that's enough to justify keeping the redirect. Fieari (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Soft redirect to Wikiquote. This is mentioned at Doctor Strange (film). Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 04:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I would support soft redirection to wikiquote over the status quo. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

If there is no clear consensus for deletion, then I would support redirecting to the film's Wikiquote page as an alternative. As it stands, this serves no purpose on this English encyclopedia, but it could be useful there if arguments that readers need to be pointing somewhere adequately pertaining to this material hold enough weight. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a pretty well-known quote that gets used outside of the immediate MCU fandom as a meme. The plot section includes Dormammu, "enters", and "bargain" in close proximity. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Quote is not mentioned or discussed in the article. Past discussions on non-notable movie quotes have almost always resulted in deletion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• (reply to Fieari above) close reading of the plot section I know Wikipedia has spoilers. I know Wikipedia has no spoiler warnings. But surely that doesn’t mean we need to shove spoilers down user’s throats? If the quote is notable enough for a redirect, it should be notable enough for a proper discussion in the target article, with only those spoilers (if any) that are necessary to explain the quote. Brianjd (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep because the assertion that People who search for this particular quote instead of searching for Dr. Strange, are going to be intending to receive some specific piece of information related to the quote is wrong. People who are searching for a quote are often – I'd say usually – trying to remember the name of the film/song/book it came from. In this particular case, it's possible that people are looking for information along the lines of https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dormammu-ive-come-to-bargain and the article can (should?) be expanded to include that, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup even if you think the quotation should be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Not every quote that is memed about is notable for a mention in this encycloepdia, and this has intentionally not been discussed in the target article for that very reason. The fact that there is no valid content covering this redirect should be a contributing factor to this RfD, not the other way around by forcing an inclusion to justify a redirect that most readers would know is related to the Doctor Strange character if they know of the quote/meme already. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - On a lark, I checked google scholar to see if there are any academic papers mentioning this quote. To my surprise (and delight) there's not only mentions, but actual papers that expressly discuss the phrase directly: [30] [31] [32] (and more!). If we want to discuss the quote, I think we can. My !vote above still stands, that I don't think we necessarily need the exact quote to keep the redirect, but... Fieari (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  The first two links are to chapters of the same book, so that only counts as one source. I'm not going to pay to access that one, but the other source only mentions this quote in an off-hand comment unrelated to the overall analysis and critical discussion of the work, so I do not think those merit proof of notability because these (and many other search results) just appear to be simply mentioning this quote exists, rather than analytically dissecting it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Trailblazer101: If an edited book contains chapters by different authors, I believe we usually consider those to be separate sources. In any case, no one is proposing that we have an article on the phrase, so notability is not the policy to be considering. The question is whether this is noteworthy to be mentioned in the article, which is a much lower threshold. BD2412 T 18:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I did not see it was different authors. My main concern is that unless there is any critical commentary of this phrase worth adding to the article, it shouldn't be there. We do not just note something just to note it exists, and the intent should not be to simply add a brief mention to preserve the redirect. There should be some genuine merit in why this quote is particularly relevant, beyond just being used as an internet meme. I have seen people in this discussion call it "iconic", to which I ask, how? What sources call it such? I feel if we cannot verify it is somehow important in a cultural conversation beyond just being in a popular Marvel movie, it looses all value and should not remain just to be a search term. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thee Movie011

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Super monkey ball game cabinet

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ashley Guillard

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 17#Ashley Guillard

National News

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

A: AOU

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Bank of the Cook Islands

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Noinclude

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

KWHY-TV

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#KWHY-TV

31 April & 31 September

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:!

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Glass-ceiling feminism and others

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 23#Glass-ceiling feminism and others

February 9

Immune complex deposition

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Disney Channel (TV channel in Asia)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus to delete, therefore retarget to Disney Channel (disambiguation) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Târnavele Blaj

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of cameos of the Mario series

• List of cameos of the Mario series → Mario (franchise)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cameos in the Mario series → Mario (franchise)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cameos of the Mario series → Mario (franchise)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list or topic in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete all per nom or retarget to a specific heading if applicable. Also, if only 2 or 3 exists, won't 2 act as 3 and vice versa? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

delete per nom and as... kind of vague, if i'm being honest. on top of there not being a list, what would this mean for donkey kong, for example? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 11:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• The List of cameos of the Mario series redirect was created as a result of a merge and I have tagged it as an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Particularly, List of cameos of the Mario series was merged into Mario in popular culture, which was then blank and redirected to Mario ("nothing to merge").

  I'm not familiar with how the community/policy goes on this rather protracted case of attribution of removed/diluted content. Tule-hog (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect: Cameos of the Mario series could be redirected to Mario#Cameos which mentions other characters, outside of the series itself.
  • Delete: Cameos in the Mario series not so much.
  • Comment: Barring my subcomment above about attribution, from what I understand from MOS:LISTBASICS, lists are a particular formatting style which Mario#Cameos does not follow so would not suit List of cameos of the Mario series. Also not familiar here with the precedent of 'List of' redirects to non-lists. Tule-hog (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all except for Cameos in the Mario series which is sufficient when redirected per above. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget Cameos of the Mario series to Mario#Cameos and delete the other two per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Cameos in the Mario series and Cameos of the Mario series as not having a suitable target. The suggested target Mario#Cameos is about the cameos of the character Mario, and not about cameos in or of the Mario series. Move without redirect the list to an appropriate title to keep attribution, if the merged content requires attribution. Jay 💬 13:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

May 21, 2004

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 17#May 21, 2004

Snape kills dumbledore

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

• @Consarn: G8 does not apply because it is a redirect pointing to a blue link. However, it does seem that G4 might actually apply because there was apparently an old RfD lol, although now that I'm actually reading it, G4 wouldn't apply either because back when this page was deleted in the 2009 discussion of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 26#Snape kills dumbledore → Spoiler (media), it pointed at "Spoiler (media)" instead of the Harry Potter novel, so this wouldn't be a one-to-one replica either. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Brasileiros

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sour apple

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 23#Sour apple

Main page/sandbox

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Main page/sandbox

Red Movement

• Red Movement → Red#Use by political movements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, nor does the target section exist. Seems the section target may be intended to be Red#In politics, but with there not being any specific mention of this phrase in the target article, at the least, there may not be a guarantee that readers searching this phrase are intending to locate information about politics. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Red Power movement, which seems like the most likely intended destination. Anonymous 20:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. In the first two pages of results from a Google Books search for "Red Movement" in quotation marks, I see this phrase mainly used for socialist, communist, or closely related movements[33][34][35][36][37]. I also see one reference to the Red Shirts (Thailand)[38], a movement that should probably be added to Red#In politics. Oppose retargeting to Red Power movement as my search didn't find any sources using the term with that meaning, so I strongly doubt it's the primary topic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. At this capitalisation indicating a proper noun, I would expect to see something about a movement with that name, and we have nothing. I can't access all @Mx. Granger:'s examples but the first 2 aren't proper nouns. I also oppose a retarget for the same reason they do. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Shhhh. Jay 💬 13:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Shhhh. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note that current target doesn't exist, and if kept the likeliest closest retarget would be Red#In politics. 18:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)
• Move to Red movement to avoid the proper noun issue and keep per Mx. Granger. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  A redirect page move makes sense if the page's pre-redirect content would align more with the new title than the old. In this case, the page started out as a redirect and we don't really know what Brandmeister meant with capitalized title. Jay 💬 07:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete "Red movement" is a literal, descriptive phrase, not an idiom or name for one or more distinct concepts. We need somewhere to link to where the term gets defined, not just used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Doo (pseudonym)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Doo (pseudonym)

Lukas Miklos

• Lukas Miklos → List of Left Behind characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirected at AfD in 2009, no longer mentioned on the list of characters from this series, or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• He's mentioned at The Indwelling, The Mark (novel), and Desecration (novel). I read these books in the mid-2010s but I have no memory of this character or his role in the books, which probably isn't a good sign. Hog Farm _Talk 03:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• One of the options at the AfD was to merge into the list. If that cannot be done, take back to AfD since it has been 15 years. Jay 💬 14:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And also consider AfDing the target as poorly-sourced fancruft. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Fédération de la Fonction Publique Européenne of the European Patent Office

• Fédération de la Fonction Publique Européenne of the European Patent Office → European Patent Office  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The FFPE is a union that has a subsection at the European Patent Office. This page redirects to the European Patent Office article, which doesn't even mention the FFPE. I just don't see the point of this redirect. Aŭstriano (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The statement that "the European Patent Office article [...] doesn't even mention the FFPE" doesn't appear fully correct. The FFPE is mentioned in the "External links" section. Per "WP:RPURPOSE" "Subtopics or other topics that are described or listed within a wider article. [...]" (underlining added), this redirect does not appear useless. Of course, ideally the "Employees' representation and labour relations" section should mention the FFPE. --Edcolins (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have removed the staff union websites from the External links. Jay 💬 15:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Even before Jay's edit there wasn't enough substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - no information at the target. Jay 💬 15:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

HowDoesOneEditaPage

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

G (unit)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Telemedia International Italia Ltd.

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chaguan

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Tamago

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 17#Tamago

Oil Pan (Transformers)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cybersexism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 17#Cybersexism

Bo'oh'o'wa'er

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Concise Grove Dictionary of Music

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 17#Concise Grove Dictionary of Music

PE infection

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#PE infection

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Taumarere

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

ZeuS

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 17#ZeuS

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Pukemiro

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: premature close

Cyberwarfare by India

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Clickskrieg

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cyber cold war

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 17#Cyber cold war

Online harassment

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Point all to Cyberbullying, Delete Attacking users

Soutane (malware)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Scamware

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft redirect

Momovirus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Play Mp3

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Play mp3.exe (trojan)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Friends lesbian kiss episode

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 16#Friends lesbian kiss episode

Ddox

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

English WikipediA

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 16#English WikipediA

Пример

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Divrras šokolahta

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bitter chocolate

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

The Y

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn by nominator

February 8

Gerald Rashard Everett

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

＃saveminecraft

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Saveminecraft

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Talk:Besame Mucho (film)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Talk:Besame Mucho (film)

The China Project

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pet Supermarket

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 15#Pet Supermarket

Kill Two Birds with One Stone

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily closed

The way all good men go

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Universo Paralello

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bar-e-Sagheer

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

White Gold (musician)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Genesis (2008)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banana à milanesa

• Banana à milanesa → Banana fritter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

no affinity with brazil (whatever that is), or other portugese-speaking countries for that matter consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 13:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment The rationale for deletion is unclear. It is a Brazilian recipe for Banana fritters. Although it appears to be almost completely unused redirect (35 views since its creation in 2022). Polyamorph (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  yeah, the wording was pretty bad, to be honest. but from about 35 minutes of searching, i found nothing of note (which is to say that i found blogs, family recipes, instances of it being involved in unrelated news, and articles in portuguese that don't have much to do with its presence in portugal or that other place). then again, google kind of hates my guts, so it might just not be giving me anything of note

  also, that's an english article in an italian food news outlet blog thing (i'm leaning on blog) focused on brazilian food (whatever a brazil is), in this case a regional variant of a dish with a seemingly unclear point of origin that seems to be mostly associated with india and southeast asia. truly the stardust crusaders of food consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 18:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Consarn: Whatever the "whatever a brazil is" joke is supposed to be, I don't think it's landing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• At a glance, the dish seems likely notable enough for a section at the target article. But basically all sources are in Portuguese, and today isn't one of those days where my brain decides it can halfway read Portuguese. Heyyyy @JnpoJuwan: Would you be interested in taking a look here, and adding a section to the target article if there's enough coverage in reliable sources? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Tamzin my mother loves fried bananas like those! it certainly is not just an Asian thing. if I get some help with the research, I could make a little section for that. I haven't taken a look if there are enough reliable sources (or actually, what would count as such for food articles), but I believe that it is popular enough to have a few good ones! Juwan (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Valereee is my usual person to palm food articles off onto—she wrote List of meat and potato dishes just the other day after I closed a related RfD—but to my knowledge she doesn't speak Portuguese. But perhaps she could help you with research questions? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing much online for the Brazilian verson of banana fritter being even noteworthy enough for a section at Banana fritter, not finding much besides bare mentions, menu/festival offerings, and recipes via google. @JnpoJuwan, you might look at high-end cookbooks, as they very often do discuss a dish in some depth rather than simply giving a recipe. From the number of restaurants and festivals that seem to be offering it, it's obviously at least broadly-known.

  From the online recipes and the fact it's served in restaurants/at festivals, it looks like a completely reasonable redirect that might be used by someone whose first language is portuguese, so I certainly don't see any reason to delete the redirect. They may not know it's called a 'fritter' in English, but they'll definitely recognize it when they land on that page, and that's almost certainly what they'd have been looking for.

  But unless we can find some RS somewhere at minimum mentioning it as a commonly known or traditional dish in Brazil, I can't even see adding to Banana fritters something like, "The dish is also known in Brazil as bananas a milanesa" because of course everywhere bananas are eaten, someone is deep-frying them and posting a recipe. And in fact Banana fritter is looking a bit that way right now lol...might have to take a look at tightening that up a bit. Valereee (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep although this is rarely used, it does appear to be a valid redirect. I don't understand the original deletion rationale or the "clarification" following my initial comment. Polyamorph (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Polyamorph: The deletion rationale seems to be "per WP:FORRED". Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clarity about the target's affinity with Brazil or other Portugese-speaking countries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Weak delete simply because whether or not the target has a connection to the Brazilian language is currently a bit unclear, so it may be better to be safe than sorry. Also, the recipe linked by Polyamorph may not be exactly what the target article is about, considering various English translations of the word "milanesa", which could mean "cutlet". Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  "am brazil, can speak brazil" isn't much of a reliable source, but if it helps, "banana à milanesa" can't be a cutlet because cutlets are explicitly not a fruit thing. also, "chuleta" has an almost completely different meaning 'round these parts, and saying "chuleta de banana" is a crime against food consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - we are speculating, we are not sure. Which would not have happened if there was mention of this eatable anywhere on enwiki. Regardless, is the redirect name a Portuguese term? Milanesa is not Poutuguese-specific, nor is à, but this specific usage of à would be Crasis#Portuguese, hence this nomination? Jay 💬 13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  yeah, that's a properly-used crasis. ultimately, it doesn't have much to do with the redirect's plausibility, as "banana a milanesa" would be just as implausible without proof of affinity consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Let's just put this to rest already. Not shown to warrant WP:RFOREIGN. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep per the discussion spurred by Tamzin's initial comment. Seems to be popular enough in Brazil that I don't think RFOREIGN applies here. Then again, this got just 11 views across the entirety of 2024, so it's lightly-used enough that I wouldn't care that much if it were deleted. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Not mentioned at target -> time for it to meet its fate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Allied star

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 22#Allied star

V For Vengence

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ambient jungle

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 27#Ambient jungle

5217

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Most Expensive City In The World For Expats

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Les Dix Commandements

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 15#Les Dix Commandements