Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives

Shortcuts

XFD backlog
V	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	27	27
TfD	1	4	1	6
MfD	0	1	1	2
FfD	1	4	6	11
RfD	0	4	42	46
AfD	0	0	48	48

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

Shortcut

WP:RGUIDE

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?

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history)

Shortcuts

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

Shortcut

WP:RFD#DELETE

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):

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.
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.
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.
The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
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:.)
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.
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.)
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.
Shortcut
- WP:RETURNTORED
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
If the redirect ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page or a page performing a disambiguation-like function (such as a set index of articles). Speedy deletion criterion G14 may apply.

Reasons for not deleting

Shortcut

WP:RFD#KEEP

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut

WP:RNEUTRAL

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:

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).
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).
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

Shortcut

WP:RFDHOWTO

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.

Does this look too complicated?
Try this semi-automated process instead: (note only confirmed users can use this)

Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.

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 it is an inline template, use |showontransclusion=tiny instead.
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.

This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current list

Shortcuts

May 15

Second prize in a beauty contest

Second prize in a beauty contest → Monopoly (game)#Second prize in a beauty contest (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Phrase not mentioned at target Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly here and now limited edition 2005

Monopoly here and now limited edition 2005 → Monopoly (game) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Oddly specific Monopoly edition not mentioned at the target Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Butt (sailing)

Butt (sailing) → Butt joint (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Neither accurate nor usefull. Qwirkle (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Butt is definitely a sailing related term [1] but I'm not sure what the best target would be on Wikipedia, or even if we have an appropriate target available. Golem08 (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nahh. That’s a general carpentry term. Butted planks and butt blocks are used in wooden boatbuilding and shipbuilding, but also in house carpentry, concrete formwork, furniture…hell, even field fortification…name it, if you use planks, that’s the simplest (crudest?) way to put them together, and the same vocabulary is used across most disciplines. And I don’t think a reference work should classify things by arms-length connections. Shipbuilding isn’t sailing any more than driving a car is automotive engineering. Qwirkle (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is not how the subject is classified, but whether this is a plausible search term for the target. We do not require people to have detailed knowledge of what they are looking up before they have looked it up. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this be a plausible search term? Qwirkle (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that it is (or isn't), I'm saying that is the question we are here to answer but it is not addressed by your comment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is Glossary of nautical terms (A–L) § B, but the description there is laughable / not useful. Jay 💬 14:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gottlieb Institute

Gottlieb Institute → Leslie D. Gottlieb (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No evidence this institute ever existed. May be a hoax. The previous state of the article, before becoming a redirect, did not verify its own existence (the sources don't mention the purported institute or Colorado at all), and while I don't know all the intimate details of Leslie D. Gottlieb's life, it seems a bit suspicious that he would be founding a research center in Denver between his undergrad at Cornell and finishing his masters at the University of Michigan (especially since he graduated with a B.A. in English and "after writing fiction and non-fiction for seven years and working as an architectural magazine editor in New York, he moved with his family to Taos, New Mexico" before moving to Michigan to pursue botany). No credible evidence this institute has ever existed has ever been provided. If the institute never existed, there is no reason to keep the redirect. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete or retarget to Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute. And a quick search showed up even more "Gottlieb Institute"s, as the george gottlieb institute, maybe someday that would be a disambiguation... - Nabla (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If any retargeting occurs, I think the prior content should be fully deleted as a likely hoax, rather than being preserved in the edit history. So this discussion is also a de facto deletion discussion, since the former article PROD was declined. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. - Nabla (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purgegate

Purgegate → Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Is mentioned on neither the 2006 or 2017 pages, 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This term also appears to have been used for the 2006 scandal but not as heavily. Most of my hits actually pull up some sort of valve system, which makes me question whether the scandal would be the primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Original author) keep This term was widely used at the time, and a Google search now for '"purgegate" us attorneys' produces many results. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Bovlb (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovlb: just FYI, the current target is now a DAB page. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seem appropriate. Bovlb (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to the 2007 page, secondarily delete. Most results are various valves, but after some aggressive filtering all hits seem to be for the 2007 incident, which was pretty regularly called that. Rusalkii (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Graph

Knowledge Graph → Google Knowledge Graph (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Should it point to Google Knowledge Graph or Knowledge graph? The latter seems a better target to avoid confusion. Frost 09:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalized Knowledge Graph is the actual name of the Google product, and in that proper noun form the product should be the target for those who are actually looking for the dang thing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of this comment, a requested move involving this redirect is still open. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Knowledge graph - I don't think the capitalization is distinctive here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the linked move request is still open, which affects this redirect. (Probably should have not nominated this redirect until the move request closed since the move request came first, but here we are.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia

Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia → Abkhazia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirects to the de-facto breakaway republic of Abkhazia, and not the de-jure Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. While yes, latter is about the government of the de-jure state, and the former is about the de-facto state itself, the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is the de-jure state. Without a dedicated article for it, it seems to make sense to redirect to the government of the state instead, if that's the best that can be mustered. kxeo mailbox 01:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dedicated article, so to speak, is Upper Abkhazia. Start-class and not too informative, but it covers the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia when it was functioning de facto. CMD (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either I'm illiterate, or stupid, or both; but this seems to talk only about the region itself in relation to the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia; not as a whole, apart from:

“

On September 27, 2006, on the 13th anniversary of the fall of Sukhumi to the Abkhaz rebels and their allies from the Northern Caucasus (1993), the Kodori region and the adjacent pieces of land, governed by Georgia, were officially renamed Upper Abkhazia and declared a "temporary administrative center" of Abkhazia and the headquarters of the de jure Abkhazian government. In spite of Abkhaz and Russian protests, a new office of the de jure government was inaugurated, on the same day, by a high ranking delegation from Georgia's capital, Tbilisi, including President Mikheil Saakashvili and the Catholicos Patriarch Ilia II.

”

I wonder if I'm missing anything. wikipedia-kxeo mail contributions 22:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The region itself was the whole Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, in terms of existing as an entity rather than a body in exile, at least, post Georgian independence (the time period covered by the Government article). If you feel the Upper Abkhazia article isn't in strong consideration (and thus not worth disambiguating), then I'd support the proposed redirect as an improvment. CMD (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kxeon: The discussion seems to be incomplete. CMD wanted to know if you feel the Upper Abkhazia article isn't in strong consideration. Jay 💬 17:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of the reply seemed to imply he already thought that I thought there wasn't enough focus on the Autonomous Republic.^[a] Now it seems you've gotten me doubting my own judgement on what he actually meant here. Drats. wikipedia-kxeon mailbox contributions 18:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ he was right lol

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try... I guess. It almost seems like a "no consensus" close is incoming ... may help to have some specific stances ("delete", "keep", etc.) stated in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

Have You Seen Her (T-Pain song)

Have You Seen Her (T-Pain song) → T-Pain (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Could not find any evidence that this song actually exists, and it's not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia so I don't see a good reason for this redirect to exist. Also nominating T-Pain Have you seen her. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terkey

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Asgfvje

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Hottest

Hottest → Temperature (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Phrase not exclusive to the target. Would have been an WP:X1 candidate if the criterion was still active. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grand Prix

Template:Grand Prix → Template:Belgian Film Critics Association Grand Prix (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Exceptionally ambiguous template redirect likely to cause confusion. Οἶδα (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template was moved over two years ago, and no links or transclusions remain. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor topic taking up a major name -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's absolutely no way to determine any specific target anyone could be looking for when searching this title. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles → Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I normally wouldn't touch an {{R from move}} page, or a redirect that's this old, but I just saw this WikiProject essay get cited from the "MOS" name, as if it were an actual guideline, in a POV-pushing way. There are very few links to this page. Perhaps we can live without this one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The solution to an editor using a redirect to push a POV is to deal with the editor in the same way we would deal with them if they had linked to the target directly. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The L/L Research Transcripts

The L/L Research Transcripts → UFO religion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Same rationale as other redirect. This is not mentioned at target. It may be notable, but it is not mentioned anywhere onwiki and has no history. It was never mentioned at this target. Also, this isn't even really a UFO religion thing, strictly speaking, so it doesn't even get the reader to a logical place. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L/L Research

L/L Research → UFO religion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is not mentioned at target. It may be notable, but it is not mentioned anywhere onwiki and has no history. It was never mentioned at this target. Also, this isn't even really a UFO religion thing, strictly speaking, so it doesn't even get the reader to a logical place. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these appear to be related to "Law of One", a new age group that is notable, but which we do not have an article on. This can be remade if someone makes that article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First period

First period → First Period (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Considering the extensive hatnote at the target article (noting the first menstrual cycle, or first menstrual bleeding at Menarche, the first period in ice hockey at ice hockey, the first period of chemical elements at Period 1 element, and the communist doctrinaire period discussed at Third Period, as well as the concept of "first period" in school, I think that "First period" at this capitalization should be a disambiguation page. BD2412 T 17:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Just curious: Why did you choose this route (RfD) instead of creating First period (disambiguation) and then submitting a move request? Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: I honestly was lazy to make the disambiguation page, though in retrospect it would have taken about the same amount of time as filing this RfD. I'll do it now. BD2412 T 20:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska C-I7 plane crash

Alaska C-I7 plane crash → 2010 Alaska USAF C-17 crash (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Alaska C-17 plane crash → 2010 Alaska USAF C-17 crash (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Wrong symbol (uses a capital I instead of a 1). Delete. Mr slav999 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not a plausible enough mistake to keep? It gets picked up by OCR sometimes. As a redirect, it seems harmless enough, it was a former title of the page, it gets over a view per month, and it's unambiguous (assuming Alaska C-17 plane crash is also unambiguous; probably should be tagged as an avoided double redirect to that title). I'll say keep off that. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are several C-17 crashes in Alaska, such as Sitka 43 listed at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–2019) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle the properly titled Alaska C-17 plane crash if the discussion is turning towards ambiguity. Jay 💬 16:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling per Jay
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Anomalies

Sexual Anomalies → Disorders of sex development (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sexual anomaly → Disorders of sex development (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sexual anomalies → Disorders of sex development (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Sex anomaly is unambiguous because it refers to sex. Paraphilia used to be the target of one of the redirects. Sexual phobias and sexual anorexia are often discussed together with these terms.
Hatnote or disambiguation page? LIrala (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LIrala I believe since this was a merge it would fall under WP:RFD#KEEP They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge but I'm not an expert in this tbh. Would you mind indicating which of the WP:RFD#DELETE criteria these fall under? I do see a disambigulation being helpful though. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: This is redirects for discussion, not deletion; actions such as disambiguation or redirecting an alternative target are often discussed here, and deletion is often not a proposed outcome (which seems to be the case here; the proposed outcomes are placing a hatnote at the current target or turning it into a disambiguation page). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, we should really come up with some more acronyms (or I should just fully read the article titles). IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7 Grand Dad

7 Grand Dad → The Flintstones: The Rescue of Dino & Hoppy#7 GRAND DAD (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not notable enough. If I can't add info about 7 Grand Dad to the page The Flintstones: The Rescue of Dino & Hoppy, then this redirect needs to go.Dr. Precursor (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unmentioned. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Vinesauce Oreocooke (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Why? The connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The meme was originally created using a clip of Vinesauce’s reaction to the game. Dr. Precursor (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not mentioned in the target by the time this discussion closes. The current target seems to be the most applicable target due to it essentially being an alternative version of the current target, but as stated, the redirect is currently not mentioned in the target. Also, apparently, besides Vinesauce (where the redirect is currently not mentioned), this redirect also has affinity to SiIvaGunner (where is redirect is currently mentioned), so retargeting to either would be a potential WP:XY issue. Either way, if this gets deleted, Template:The Flintstones should probably be updated to remove the reference to "7 GRAND DAD". Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:DPROCESS

Wikipedia:DPROCESS → Wikipedia:Deletion process (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I originally put up this redirect for it to be a shortcut to the deletion process page because the page had no main shortcut, but now, the main shortcut to this page is "WP:DELPRO", which sounds much better than "WP:DPROCESS". Furthermore, WP:D stands for Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which could be confusing to someone trying to look up how to create disambiguations, thinking that they are going to find the "Disambiguation process". I could have just requested speedy deletion per WP:G7, but I'll let the community decide whether the redirect should be deleted, kept or retargeted. RaschenTechner (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for those who wish to use this shortcut, which would be available for use whether or not it's one of the advertised shortcuts. Personally, I like DPROCESS better than DELPRO (which to me sounds more like someone in favor of deletion). There is no page for Wikipedia:Disambiguation process, so I don't see ambiguity as an issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a WP:G7. When I saw this in the TOC, I thought it was for something akin to 'due process' instead. It's only been here a few weeks and is unused. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion isn't an option since Tavix voted for something other than deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving contact lubricant

Moving contact lubricant → Lubricant#Keep moving parts apart (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Moving Contact Lubricant → Lubricant#Keep moving parts apart (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not directly mentioned in the target article or section (specifically, the use of the word "contact" does not match content in the target) in a way which could satisfy readers to believe they have found the subject of the redirect. Seems this topic may also have a connection to the subject at Moving parts. Steel1943 (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this issue! It's been a long time since I created these redirects, so I no longer have the context of why I did it; but the fact that I created one also with the capitalized form of the term leads me to think I might have come across it as an acronym (MCL). Strangely, the "Keep moving parts apart" section was almost identical at the time to its current contents, so the lack of mention of the specific expression "moving contact" (or even of merely "contact") would already be puzzling back then. I don't think the contents of Moving parts are particularly more enlightening than those of Lubricant in the sense of being intuitive targets for the redirect, apart for the use of the term "contact".

Therefore, my suggestion would be to either tweak the text of Lubricant#Keep moving parts apart so as to include the term "contact" (which sounds easy enough, following e.g. the phrasing used in Moving parts), or remove the redirects if we decide we can't make the connection obvious. My preference would be for the former approach, but since I've long forgotten how I came across that term in the first place, I don't really mind either outcome. Waldyrious (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic lubricating cup

Automatic lubricating cup → Lubricant (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Automatic Lubricating Cup → Lubricant (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This phrase, and specifically the word "cup", is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear why readers would be redirected to the target article when searching these terms. Steel1943 (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it's an important invention with lots of coverage in sources. It has good possibilities for a section, or even an article, but at least a mention. Better to fix the lack of mention than to delete it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Something being that notable seems to be eligible for WP:REDLINK if it's not mentioned. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Automatic lubricator#Displacement lubricator for now, and add a mention. This seems to refer to patented invention by Elijah McCoy, known as The real McCoy; both articles mention his "oil-drip cup invention", but the best target would be the article describing the invention and related things, not the inventor or terms derived from the invention. There is old content at Automatic Lubricating Cup but it would definitely be a case of WP:TNT if brought to AfD, as it is more about McCoy than the invention. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca de Vera

Bianca de Vera → 2 Good 2 Be True (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Filipino actress is unmentioned. No mention of "Bianca", "de", nor "Vera" at the target article. 124.104.16.92 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see "Bianca de Vera as Patricia "Pat" M. Cunanan : younger sister of Ali" in the supporting cast section. However, I also see search results for "Bianca de Vera" on several other pages, and none to suggest that this is the most valuable target for the name. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. There's been a couple attempts to create an article on her now and she has enough credits that notability is likely. The edit summary of the first redirection back in December admitted as such, but still redirected anyway due to a lack of coverage. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh??? 124.104.16.92 (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist history in Latin America

Feminist history in Latin America → Role of women in the Nicaraguan Revolution (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This should probably redirect to feminism in Latin America instead. ★Trekker (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support retarget, as more apropriate scope. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Feminism in Latin America per nom. I'm not sure who create this redirect for Role of women in the Nicaraguan Revolution because it didn't describe about Latin America as whole. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shatter belt (geopolitcs)

Shatter belt (geopolitcs) → Shatter belt (geopolitics) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is the only use of "geopolitcs" in any name. The other two uses is an instance in the name of an organization, which should probably be fixed, and a use in a source name, which should not be fixed (assuming the typo is also in the source name itself) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The target page was originally created with the spelling mistake. After 2 days I moved it to a more correct name. I am quite happy for the redirect to be eliminated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Graeme's opinion is no weightier than that of other editors, since the person who created the title is Македонец. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Square root of 4

Square root of 4 → 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Square root of 9 → 3 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sqrt4 → 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unneeded, it's very unlikely that someone would look for the articles for 2 and 3 through this. Wikipedia is not a calculator. Square root of 1 was deleted for similar reasons in a 2019 RfD. I am bad at usernames (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Square root of 4 to set a consistent pattern with the articles Square root of 2, Square root of 3, Square root of 5, Square root of 6, Square root of 7. That was the same reason I created Square root of 9 last year, but I acknowledge the argument is weaker there since there is no Square root of 8 article. And if I had seen the 2019 RfD I would probably have supported keeping it for that reason too. And 9 is as far as this will go - I did not create (and would support deleting if someone else created) Square root of 16 Square root of 27 etc. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding Sqrt4 to this for the same reason, I didn't notice it when creating the RfD. I am bad at usernames (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sqrt4 by the same argument: Sqrt2 Sqrt3 Sqrt5 Sqrt6 Sqrt7. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is potentially useful for our readers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me what? I have to call bullshit on this one. If someone so badly needs to know what the square roots of 4 or 9 are and can't figure it out some other way, they should go to our article on the square root itself, not to the specific value they type in. This also doesn't really address the "WP isn't a calculator" argument -- why stop here? Why not Square root of 2209 -> 47 (number)? Or 1+(2*3) -> 7? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I was going to write a couple sentences, but they would have been almost identical to the nomination statement. I don't buy the argument that a sequence of titles has to be complete if anything in that sequence is sufficiently different, as is the case here. As a side note, I'd also advocate deletion of all of the "Sqrtn" redirects as malformed and useless (and all recently created). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is it possible to have articles on the square root of four and square root of nine that are distinct from the numbers 2 and 3? As far as I recall, both positive and negative integers are square roots of the positive integer. BD2412 T 18:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Is it possible to have articles on the square root of four and square root of nine that are distinct from the numbers 2 and 3?" Is it possible? Of course, in the sense that it's also possible to have an article on the cheeto I found in my bathtub this morning. Is it realistic or even a good idea? No. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These redirects are more likely to confuse than clarify. Articles are better served by linking to Square root. Clicking on a link for Square root of 4 but ending up on a page about a different number (2) without an explanation may be disorienting. Brigandeur (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iyf

Iyf → International Society for Krishna Consciousness (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. "IYF", regardless of capitalisation, isn't mentioned in the target. The history here looks a bit complicated; originally iyf redirected to ISKCON Youth Forum (IYF) Ahmedabad, which eventually became a redirect to ISKCON Youth Forum Ahmedabad, which eventually became a redirect to this target. (At the same time, IYF was a redirect to ISKCON Youth Forum and got deleted after that page was deleted, but it wasn't restored when that page became a redirect to this redirect's target.) Happy to withdraw this if someone can explain a good reason for "iyf" redirecting here, but I can't see such a reason right now. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguate there are many uses of IYF on Wikipedia Robert College § International Istanbul Youth Forum (IYF), International Year of Freshwater listed at List of environmental dates, International Youth Federation explained at History of youth work, NYSE ticker IYF listed at List of American exchange-traded funds, I.Y.F. song from the album Sanity Obscure, -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

Early Start

Early Start → Draft:Early Start with Rahel Solomon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Someone created this redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8c:4182:9ab0:2889:2d68:1245:f06d (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator changed the target of the redirect in the same edit they made to place the {{RfD}} tag on the redirect: [7]. The previous target was CNN This Morning with Audie Cornish. Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to CNN This Morning with Audie Cornish Targeting the draft is not helpful at this time IMO when a valid article exists in mainspace. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt

CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt → Draft:Early Start with Rahel Solomon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Someone created this redirect to CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt and moved the original article that was at this title to CNN This Morning (2022) without any discussion. All the articles that linked to that original CNN This Morning article are now redirecting to the wrong page. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8c:4182:9ab0:7df1:280a:ed3e:1e4 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to CNN This Morning with Audie Cornish: alt name. Cremastra (u — c) 23:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Cremastra. As with Early Start, the nominator changed the target and nominated this redirect in the same edit. The redirects should point to the current article for now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nominator's IP range is currently blocked. Also, this proposal is a direct copy-and-paste of mine from a while ago. So odd. Limmidy (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Molliwood

Welcome to Molliwood → Sonny with a Chance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Welcome To Mollywood → Sonny with a Chance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Welcome to Mollywood → Molly Parkin (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Welcome to Holliwood" and "Welcome to Mollywood" are both titles related to the series. But is this variation needed? RanDom 404 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Welcome to Mollywood (disambiguation) which has an entry for Sonny with a Chance, and shows Welcome to Mollywood redirecting to the Molly Parkin autobiography as the primary topic. Welcome To Mollywood (uppercase T) redirects to Sonny with a Chance, and can be retargeted to Molly Parkin as well. Jay 💬 17:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Welcome to Mollywood (disambiguation) and move it to the base title. I don't think Molly Parkin is the primary topic—if anything it's the mixtape. The variant Welcome To Mollywood should also redirect to the disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling Welcome To Mollywood and Welcome to Mollywood into this discussion, given the trajectory of the discussion after the initial nomination statement. Also, notified all applicable redirects' creators' talk pages, all redirects' targets' talk pages, and Talk:Welcome to Mollywood (disambiguation).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget both to Sonny with a Chance. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RanDom 404, Jay, and Tavix: Pinging current participants to make them aware of the bundling of the additional redirects. (Totally meant to do this earlier, apologies for the tardiness.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Yamaguchi

Rico Yamaguchi → List of former members of AKB48#Graduated members (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

AV alias of Rina Nakanishi, whose article was deleted in October 2017. As the page only keeps track of names as when they are in the group, there is no way to fit her AV name on the target. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 19:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Sharma

Prashant Sharma → IIT (ISM) Dhanbad#Controversies (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. The unrelated Prashant Sharma (politician) exists, so maybe delete and move that article over the redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move with a hatnote to Prashant P. Sharma per nom. मल्ल (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima (spell)

Ultima (spell) → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Magic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ultima (Final Fantasy) → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Magic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ultima Weapon → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Monsters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Final fantasy ultima → DigiCube#Ultimania (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention at target. Special:Search/"ultima" "final fantasy" has some relevant mentions; not sure whether any of them is a suitable alternative. The last one was apparently originally about the same as the other three, and I am not fully sure it is pertinent, but Ultimania points at a different article so it should probably be consistent with either that or the three mentioned above. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: any other thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try, and any thoughts on the pre-redirect page content?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Ultima Weapon" is bad, since it could refer to weapons from Ultima unrelated to Final Fantasy (such as Ultima (series)). If the edit history needs keeping, it should be dispalced to Ultima (Final Fantasy weapon) and redlinking the current title -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benz (2025 tamil film)

Benz (2025 tamil film) → Benz (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Just started filming, highly unlikely it will release this year. If it does at all, it would better be Benz (2025 Tamil film). Kailash29792 (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course apparently they said the shoot will last more than 120 days aprox yes bring back the benz 2025 tamil film. Leo2324 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOGAI and others

MOGAI → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Commonly used queer acronyms → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Commonly Used Queer Acronyms and their Meanings → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
MVPFAFF+ → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
MVPFAFF → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget back to LGBTQ (term) or List of LGBTQ acronyms? --MikutoH ^talk! 02:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget MVPFAFF and MVPFAFF+ to LGBTQ (term)#MVPFAFF, where the term is defined. Retarget the remaining to List of LGBTQ acronyms. This list seems like the best target for the two more generic redirects, and MOGAI is also mentioned there. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that MOGAI may be gaining sufficient references to be considered notable and qualify for an article rather than a redirect. Taylor & Francis has two books by different authors or editors discussing this term, The Great Pronoun Shift: The Big Impact of Little Parts of Speech, By Helene Seltzer Krauthamer, 2021, and Queer Technologies: Affordances, Affect, Ambivalence, edited by Adrienne Shaw and Katherine Sender, 2017. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC) (Edited Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the suggested targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to List of LGBTQ acronyms, with no prejudice to future articles for any that are notable.--Trystan (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chyrhyryn Soviet Republic

Chyrhyryn Soviet Republic → Chyhyryn Soviet Republic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible typo (extra "r") made by the original article creator. No utility even as a cheap redirect; proposing deletion. Yue🌙 17:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now, as a {{R from move}}. The article was created here in March and was moved immediately before this nomination. We need to give time for people and mirrors to find the new location. Thryduulf (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no external mirrors of "Chyrhyryn Soviet Republic" that I could find, and after correcting all the Wikilinks, there should be no issue of navigation because the typo won't be reachable through links (i.e. you'd have to type out the typo specifically). Yue🌙 19:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urges

Urges → List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes#ep18 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

unexpected common word redirect Duckmather (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Urge (a dab page, to which I added a link to our article on Desire, the plain meaning), and feel free to add an entry for this episode there as well. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Urge per IP. I’ve added the episode as well. मल्ल (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. The dab page is the right place for this rd to point to. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Physiology or Medicine

Physiology or Medicine → Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

weird phrase, possibly WP:XY, or maybe there's a broad concept article in there to retarget to somewhere? Duckmather (talk) Duckmather (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems unambiguous for me. A Google search shows that this phrase only appears in the context of the novel prize. An XY would use "and" and not "or". Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:XY specifically does mention both and and or as cases it applies to. But there really is no topic about "physiology or medicine". It just so happens that the Nobel prize combines these into a single category. I'd expect someone searching for this to want some sort of information on the combined topic, rather than the well known prize that happens to lump both into a single category. Likewise, I wouldn't expect someone searching "peace" would want our article on the Nobel peace prize, either. But we don't have an article on "physiology (and/)or medicine" (obviously), and our article on the prize itself gives no detail on the specific combination of fields. So yeah, I just don't see why this should stay. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar and Academic Libraries

Google Scholar and Academic Libraries → Google Scholar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Remnant of Google Scholar and academic libraries, an article created by an apparently-blocked user, then WP:BLAR'd and deleted at RfD. Maybe delete this redirect too? Duckmather (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From a Google search, there was never any initiative/project named "Google Scholar and Academic Libraries". There is also WP:XY concerns. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wrongly capitalized phrase that would not be needed as a redirect even with the correct capitalization. Could well have been deleted under the 2022 RfD; we can correct that now. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, just as Google Scholar and academic libraries is a blue link now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Azerbaiyan

Azerbaiyan → Azerbaijan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This appears to mainly be the Spanish name for Azerbaijan, but without an accent on the á (the accented version Azerbaiyán was previously deleted in 2022), although maybe I am missing other uses. Maybe weak delete per WP:FORRED? Duckmather (talk) Duckmather (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Protective League

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: moot

Kurt Mertig

Kurt Mertig → National Renaissance Party (United States) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mertig is notable and this article contains virtually no information on him. WP:RETURNTORED PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to having an article about Mertig, since he was a notable person in far-right movements. For the moment though, someone looking him up would likely be well-informed by being redirected to the main party that he founded. PickleG13 (talk) PickleG13 (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it the main party he founded, he is most notable for the CPL, which is my main issue. If he hadn't done that this would be a fine redirect but as is this tells you nothing about him and it redirects to one of the less significant things he did. And that can just as easily be done through the search function. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. If you'd like to change it from a red link, let me know, and I'd be happy to assist in the creation of the page. PickleG13 (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

Citation templates

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

WP:XNR. I reproduce my comment a related discussion:

...my searches before making this nomination showed that Wikipedia's citation templates are far from the PTOPIC for that title. In fact, it is far more likely that a reader searching "citation template" is looking for an article (or section) on something like this. Yesterday enwiki was viewed by 77.7 M unique devices, but we only have 118,000 active users, and I'd hope most of those know enough to not search "citation template" in mainspace hoping to end up at WP:CITET.

While helping new users is a worthy goal, we should put our readers first, especially in this case where the word does not refer unambiguously to Wikipedia (unlike something like "redirects for discussion" which is unambiguous). Cremastra (u — c) 23:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Citation#Styles with a hatnote to current target. That is where I would expect the redirect to go as a non-Wikipedian. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as XNR to pipeworking not actually showing readership wanting citatin skeletons/examples of various citation sytles. OR weak retarget per Ca to Citation#Styles -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basal Retinal Neuron

Basal Retinal Neuron → Bulla (gastropod) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm not sure what to do with this. It apparently started as a WikiEd article, which was history merged into Bulla (gastropod) (and then Bulla article was moved to this title, which I reversed). I assume basal retinal neurons aren't found only in Bulla, but they are apparently only the subject of study in Bulla gouldiana. The basal retinal neuron content is overwhelming in the Bulla article and I think it is UNDUE (and would also be overwhelming in B. gouldiana).

I think perhaps what should be done with this redirect is to reverse the history merge, and restore the student article (which might then be subject to a deletion discussion). Plantdrew (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidental Unit Citation

Presidental Unit Citation → Presidential Unit Citation (United States) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Missed this one when attempting to nominate other redirects with the same typo the other day. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a plausible misspelling, not a typo. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Presidential Unit Citation. The typo is plausible, but no less ambiguous than the correct spelling. BD2412 T 19:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Series X

Xbox Series X → Xbox Series X and Series S#Xbox Series X (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Should this redirect to a section? The article is about the two, but very similar consoles. Jumping to the section skips an informative introduction. Same with Xbox Series S and variations. Stumbling9655 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tl;dr

Wikipedia:Tl;dr → Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Summary: Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #3 ("The redirect is offensive or abusive"). "Tl;DR" is an insulting way to characterize another editors post, and we don't need formal community-approved redirects for that. (It may be accurate (sometimes) but that doesn't mean its not also insulting). This redirect contravenes WP:CIVIL which is a fundamental core policy.

So, our article TL;DR starts off "TL;DR [is]... frequently used to indicate...that the content was disregarded because of its excessive length". Or in other words, "Your stuff is not even worth reading, so I didn't". That's probably not a good way to engage in thoughtful and reasoned and fruitful discussion with your colleagues.

It is true that some -- not most -- really long posts are worthless or prolix blathering, and sometimes editors do want to be harsh or even insulting about it, we're not supposed to but it does happen and if it's truly deserved maybe it's not really all that bad. Fine. Do it in your own words, colleague, and on your own dime. Let's not have an official redirect which can imply that you're pointing to some actual rule. (By the same token I would also be opposed to WP:SHUTUP etc. existing as a redirect here. [edit: Good grief, it does. Well anyway I've never seen it used and hope never to, and at least it is supposedly a "joke".]

It is true that "TL;DR" is also used to mean "here's a summary of my post". And that is perfectly fine of course, but in that case you just use TL;DR rather than WP:TL;DR if you want a link. Nobody normally writes "Here is the WP:TL;DR of my post" because that would indicate that you just wrote some stuff that you recognize is worthless blather. It's only used to characterize other people's posts. Herostratus (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep, nomination was too long; didn't read it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously, wrong venue...if you don't want people linking to it, nominate the essay at WP:MFD. The redirect to it is completely normal, and it can be a convenient shorthand for pointing out that someone needs to be more concise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, this essay has no less than 27 different redirects to it, so I'm not sure why you singled out this one. Is there something with its specific formatting that irks you? A lot of the redirects seem less than useful, but this is at least a standard abbreviation of the phrase. 35.139.154.158 (talk)
Keep per IP. I don't see anything wrong with an essay asking editors to be concise. Sdkb ^talk 19:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure I entirely understand the nomination, but "tl;dr" is a common abbreviation for "Too long; didn't read," which is the title of this essay. This seems like a reasonable redirect to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Looks like we have a problem here. The reason why it's a problem worth figuring out to deal with is that this redirect contravenes WP:CIVIL, a key foundational rule. We want to be quite conservative when overriding key foundational rules like WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL and so forth. I don't this this little redirect is a hill worth dying on in that regard.

So, the request (which does have a summary for those lacking the interest, diligence, time, or acuity to engage more thoroughly, and fine) starts off "Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #3 ("The redirect is offensive or abusive"). "Tl;DR" is an insulting way to characterize another editors post..." which, maybe it's dead wrong, but I don't think this it's too obscure to be understood.

Nevertheless, two of the responses so far are "I'm not sure I entirely understand the nomination..." and "I'm not sure why you singled out this [particular redirect]...". The other two responses don't even address the question at hand. They are "if you don't want people linking to [an essay], nominate the essay at WP:MFD..." and "I don't see anything wrong with [the] essay..." which are red herrings because this is redirects for discussion. For all I know the essay is fine, what does that have to do with anything? I think that Wikipedia:Consensus is fine too, but that doesn't mean that WP:YOU_LOST_SO_FUCK_OFF would be a good redirect to it. Different things. I've seen plenty of cases where a redirect has been deleted but the target page not deleted, and I'm OK with that.

So, I hate to have to say this, but... an editor can certainly write short things that aren't really worth reading either. I mean the quality of the posts so far are such that it'd have been better if the commentors had just stayed WP:AFK. You all don't have a problem with me saying that, right? If the criteria for what is OK is "it is a common abbreviation" or "I don't see anything wrong with an essay asking people to not be WP:BAM", well, we're good, right? Sauce for the goose. Or do we have an "OK for me but not for thee" type situation here? Cos that's not a good look.

Now, there are ways to argue against the proposition. They're extremely weak and some are a bit nasty, but at least they actually address the topic. Hoping that any future posters can step up their game. It's not a vote.

(Oh, and "I don't even understand your question" or "I'm going to address a completely different question than what you asked" can also be disingenuous rhetorical devices. We certainly have seen them used a lot recently, by people who don't have an actual argument so instead flood the zone. It's not well thought of, and not condusive to collegial discussion. So in good faith I'll assume that that's not in play here.)

Sorry to be so long. Nobody has to read it in which case they are certainly free to go contribute somewhere else. It's just that I feel kind of strongly that we don't want formal community-approved redirects that undermine WP:CIVIL. Herostratus (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the essay itself, RfD is not the appropriate venue to deal with that. The existence of the redirect has no bearing on whether or not the essay is suitable for Wikipedia. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read is the name of the essay, and the tl;dr abbreviation is natural, non-gratuitous, and legitimately part of the content of the essay. See WP:RFD#D3, unless... legitimately discussed in the article. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with 35, why single out this particular redirect and nothing else? What makes specifically citing WP:tl;dr far less civil than citing WP:TL;DR, WP:TLDR, or even WP:Too long; didn't read in general? TL;DR is a completely standard abbreviation in use in many different places, and it makes linking to the essay more convenient. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 22:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep I fail to see where this is an attack, since it is a shortcut to an essay. If you have issues with the essay, that is not what RfD is for. If you believe the essay is not worthy of having redirects, then your nomination is wrong, as it is not formulated that way. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovaks in Russia

Slovaks in Russia → Slovak diaspora (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

See WP:RFD#DELETE criterion 10: If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Slovak diaspora has no information on the Russia's part of the diaspora. --Wolverène (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albanians in Russia

Albanians in Russia → Albanian diaspora (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

See WP:RFD#DELETE criterion 10: If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Albanian diaspora has no information on the Russia's part of the diaspora. --Wolverène (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenes in Russia

Slovenes in Russia → Slovene diaspora (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

See WP:RFD#DELETE criterion 10: If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Slovene diaspora has no information on the Russia's part of the diaspora. --Wolverène (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

Poor people's rights

Poor people's rights → Equality (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I am not sure if we have a page that this is a natural fit for, but the "Equality" disambig page certainly isn't it. I can imagine a redirect to Economic inequality, as at least much more on topic? But that isn't really talking about rights at all, just the general existence of economic inequality. There's an ACLU handbook of poor people's rights, which isn't mentioned anywhere on wiki. I think the most common use of this phrase is for various social safety net programs? Rusalkii (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is definitely wrong. I'm wondering whether a set index would be the right fit here? A couple of minutes searching finds Poor People's Alliance, Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, Poor People's Campaign, Poor People's Movements, Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for a Moral Revival and English Poor Laws which all seem to deal with some aspect of this search term, and I strongly suspect there are more. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per a suggestion of @Thryduulf at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Navigation pages, I agree that it could be fit to be a navigation page, which would match better than either a set index or redirect. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on the {{navigation page}} conversion. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Set Index Article or Navigation page? For reference, we have 3 navpages on enwiki, and one is at AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Navigation pages are still under discussion and have not yet achieved official consensus. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Welfare rights if that's the best option, otherwise delete. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, not everything that could fall under the umbrella of "poor people's rights" may have something to do with welfare. Some people and organizations are mentioned as advocating for "the rights of poor people", but that phrase doesn't seem to be well-defined, so delete for sure. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Bush

Dancing Bush → Miniclip (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention at target. Doubtful whether the (unrelated) mentions at Vivien Alcock or Skeheenarinky make for suitable targets. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 22:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirect targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly (character)

Shelly (character) → Brawl Stars (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The Brawl Stars article does not mention Shelly. Mia Mahey (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some characters mentioned at Shelly#Fictional characters. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Shelly#Fictional characters. BD2412 T 19:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German Film Museum

German Film Museum → Deutsche Kinemathek (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect is incorrect. It would have to redirect to (or be the title of) "Deutsches Filmmuseum", which doesn't have an article in the English Wikipedia yet. I already tried to speedydelte it, but it was declined although the redirect is clearly redirecting to the wrong article. Therefore, there actually shouldn't be much to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxeto0910 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the article it's targeting and done a bit of an update and cleanup there, as well as checking and fixing articles linking to it. Agree that it could be deleted for now, although it would be nice to have at least a stub article on the other museum. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be deleted until we have an article about it, as the current link target is just wrong. If you want to write a short stub article about the Deutsches Filmmuseum and correct this redirect by linking to it, you have my support though. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/opinion: The target of this redirect is clearly wrong.

However, the correct target de:Deutsches Filmmuseum in the German Wikipedia has currently the following text in it [my rough and somewhat shortened and modified translation from German]: The articles Deutsches Filmmuseum and de:DFF – Deutsches Filminstitut & Filmmuseum overlap thematically. You are welcome to take part in the redundancy discussion or help directly to merge the articles. In de:DFF – Deutsches Filminstitut & Filmmuseum, it says: The Deutsches Filminstitut & Filmmuseum e. V. has been a publicly funded film research institution based in Frankfurt am Main since 1949. In 2006, the Deutsches Filmmuseum, also founded in Frankfurt in 1984, was merged with the Filminstitut, but the original founding name Deutsches Filminstitut e. V. was only abandoned in 2019. The homepage www.dff.film/ also shows the title DFF – Deutsches Filminstitut & Filmmuseum. And: the German Wikipedia page de:DFF – Deutsches Filminstitut & Filmmuseum has its counterpart in the English Wikipedia: en:Deutsches Filminstitut.

Therefore, I suggest modifying the redirect to the target en:Deutsches Filminstitut.

--Cyfal (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I notified of this discussion at Talk:Deutsche Kinemathek. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 20:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faraday's law induction

Faraday's law induction → Electromagnetic induction (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is just "Faraday's law of induction" with a missing word. Constant314 (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike the two alternative capitalizations, omitting the "of" does not seem plausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Presidentman, ungrammatical, and will cause confusion with correct form: Faraday's law of induction --Chetvorno^TALK 01:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Faraday's law of induction since this mistake is in fact well-attested in the google search results. Not implausible at all. Duckmather (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faraday's Law of Induction

Faraday's Law of Induction → Electromagnetic induction (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is just an alternate capitalization of "Faraday's law of induction". Normally redirects are insensitive to case. Constant314 (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag as an {{R from alternative capitalization}}. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag is acceptable to me. Constant314 (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Agree with Constant314 --Chetvorno^TALK 01:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag as alt caps --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faraday's Law Of Induction

Faraday's Law Of Induction → Electromagnetic induction (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is just an alternate capitalization of "Faraday's law of induction". Normally redirects are insensitive to case. Constant314 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag as an {{R from alternative capitalization}}. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag is acceptable to me. Constant314 (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag as alt caps --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations templates

Citations templates → Wikipedia:Citation templates (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ungrammatical WP:XNR; Wikipedia is not the primary topic for "citation templates". Delete. Cremastra _talk 16:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move without redirect to Wikipedia:Citations templates. (Curiously due to wikimagic typing "Wikipedia:Citations templates" or "WP:Citations templates" leads to the current redirect.) CMD (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Citation templates, an XNR to the same target that has been uncontroversially helping new editors find how to reference articles (something that is unquestionably desirable) since 2006. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is such an unlikely error to make that it seems to me that it does more harm existing as an XNR than it could conceivably help people. Secondly, I would also object to the citation templates redirect as also having an inappropriate focus on Wikipedia – my searches before making this nomination showed that Wikipedia's citation templates are far from the PTOPIC for that title. In fact, it is far more likely that a reader searching "citation template" is looking for an article (or section) on something like this. Yesterday enwiki was viewed by 77.7 M unique devices, but we only have 118,000 active users, and I'd hope most of those know enough to not search "citation template" in mainspace hoping to end up at WP:CITET.

While helping new users is a worthy goal, we should put our readers first, especially in this case where the word does not refer unambiguously to Wikipedia (unlike something like "redirects for discussion" which is unambiguous). Cremastra (u — c) 23:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletes per nom. Any XNR is immediately on thin ice, and this one is especially pointless with the ungrammaticalness. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above IP. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete redirect into the pipeworking not relevant to the readership. Readers wanting templates (skeletons, examples) on creating citations for their term papers will not be helped by this redirect. It shows nothing of IEEE citation style, barely shows Harvard style, etc. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wubwubwub and Wub wub wub

Wubwubwub → Helmholtz resonance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wub wub wub → Dubstep (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Inconsistency in redirects. The term "wub" is mentioned on the Dubstep page, while "Wub wub wub" appears in the title of an external link on the Helmholtz resonance page. Do note that a Wiktionary entry for "wub" exists as well. -insert valid name here- (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the dubstep one, it's a common association to the genre, per the content at Dubstep#Wobble bass. I don't really know enough about "Helmholtz resonance" to comment, though it strikes me as less likely to be typing all of the "wubs" out as one long "word". Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Of note, "wub-wub-wub" appears in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. BD2412 T 18:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DXYK

DXYK → List of GMA Network radio stations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. No mention of "DXYK" at target page, became a redirect as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXYK just in case it ever became notable 1 year later. 124.104.16.92 (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while it's not mentioned on the target, I guess this is because it's not an active station, as opposed to bearing no relevance. That said, it has some history from the former article and the AfD result ended in a redirect specifically to avoid a scenario of deleting it outright. As the initialism was relevant once to a GMA radio station, I don't see any harm keeping this redirect. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation (Dragonlance)

Creation (Dragonlance) → Dragonlance#Fictional history (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think this was intended to mean "the creation of Dragonlance", but it's ambiguous. I was expecting to find details of a fictional character or something called "Creation", but there's nothing here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When it was an article, it was about the fictional creation story of the world and its early fictional history, rather than the real-world development of the world setting. Maybe there is a better name for it if it needs to be moved for clarity purposes? Or if necessary, a little more context can be added to Dragonlance#Fictional history? BOZ (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title may be somewhat ambigous, but the target is what we currently have on the subject of creation of the world of Dragonlance. To my knowledge, there is no more suitable target, nor any content present on Wikpedia which would fit to what other meanings one might think of under this heading. Even after the significant condensation of former content as described by BOZ, creation of Krynn, aka the world of Dragonlance, is still present. Daranios (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and despecify to Dragonlance instead of Dragonlance#Fictional history based on the argument of Caeciliusinhorto. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Daranios. BOZ (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or retarget to simply Dragonlance. There are two sections in the article on Dragonlance which this might plausibly point to: the current target (about the in-universe creation of the world) and Dragonlance#Creation (about the real-life origins of Dragonlance-the-media-property. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirects from page moves are usually kept, if only to avoid breaking links, and the same reasoning applies to merges (even if no text is moved in the merge). Furthermore, the current target is the best because it matches a common dab pattern of fictional elements with the fictional setting in parentheses. Examples include Galactic Empire (Star Wars), Gimli (Middle-earth), and a good chunk of Category:All fictional element redirects. — Jruderman (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Daranios and Jruderman. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rational function field

Rational function field → Rational function (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Function field seems to be a more appropriate target. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 03:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refine to #Abstract algebra, in which is described the field of fractions of a polynomial ring, which seems to be the far most likely thing meant by this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The target Rational function#Abstract algebra is going to be more helpful. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

Kashmir earthquake

Kashmir earthquake → 2005 Kashmir earthquake (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambiguous; see 1555 Kashmir earthquake, 1885 Kashmir earthquake, 2019 Kashmir earthquake. Make dab instead 162 etc. (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dab per nom. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate I'm sure that DAB page hasn't created yet despite having multiple earthquakes in the region. Additionally, "2005 Kashmir earthquake" is NOT WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Kashmir earthquake" unless three other earthquakes never happened at Kashmir. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per nom. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 14:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cacapoopoopeepeeshire

Cacapoopoopeepeeshire → Family Guy season 4#ep60 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unmentioned, from a 5-second gag in this episode. Was originally an unsourced, unnotable stub, blanked ages ago. Suggest deleting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's not notable. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 18:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, term is not mentioned in article. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nonsense --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cacapoopoo

Cacapoopoo → Feces (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Term not mentioned in target article. Doing a search online for the term's meaning says the terms "caca" and "poo poo" separately are both childish/informal terms for the target, excrement/feces, though I have never used them seen both together outside of an Urban Dictionary definition for this term, spaced as "Caca Poo poo", that pops up as one of the results when Google searching "cacapoopoo meaning". 1033Forest (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OHCOMEONALREADY. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 18:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it's likely that someone will search these individual terms together. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 14:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer in Iowa

Cancer in Iowa → Health in Iowa#Cancer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is a redirect to a single section in another article. Redirects should not be created for every single section in every article. Noleander (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is unambiguous, harmless, and takes someone using it to the exact content they are looking for. Deletion would not bring any benefits to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:PANDORA. Nor should we be making redirects to the other sections, like "Obesity in Iowa", "Diabetes in Iowa", etc. etc. I don't buy the argument that this is harmless. Indeed, it might lead someone to expect to find other such formatted redirects, and then have more difficulty finding information in the future because they don't know what to look for instead. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This redirect is about a topic that has recently been gaining attention. I'm sure a lot of readers will benefit from getting redirected to that section, rather than to have to do some extra searching on the topic to find a related article. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cancer in Iowa in particular seems to be quite notable compared to the other sections, with the University of Iowa publishing reports on it and going on Iowa PBS. I made it as that was the working concept I built the article on, and decided to scrap due to content length issues. I also don't understand what the IP is saying as other redirects could be made to Health in Iowa and other articles. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very likely search term. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 14:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - redirect takes the searcher to the exact content they are searching for. I've written an essay about why Pandora isn't a very good argument to delete these kinds of redirects. BugGhost 🦗👻 21:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death in biology

Death in biology → Death#In biology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The Death article has about a dozen sections; this redirect points to one of them. I don't think there is a need for a dozen redirects, or even a single redirect, each pointing to one section of death. Noleander (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This redirect takes people using it to the exact content they are looking for, it's not in the way of anything else or otherwise harmless and "not needed" is never a reason on its own to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a highly unlikely search term. This only makes sense because of the current organization of the Death article, which can easily change, and WP section titling conventions. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to search for this, or to reward them for doing so, or to incur the potential technical debt of fixing this if the article is ever reorganized. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, despite being a highly unlikely search term it is nonetheless a useful redirect, a redirect being difficult to maintain is not a reason for deletion Cognsci (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's pointing at the correct place. Even in the hypothetical scenario where the section title get changed, the target will still be Death, which isn't an awful choice. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extra time

Extra time → Overtime (sports)#Association football (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect was changed to be to the association football section back in 2024. However, since the lead of the target says "Overtime (OT) or extra time", it should drop the section part. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 16:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For anyone else thinking "didn't we discuss this recently?", that discussion was Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 22#A.e.t. and so not directly relevant. When looking for that I did discover Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 29#Additional time (and subsequent sections) where Additional time, After extra time, Injury time and Stoppage time were all retargetted to Overtime (sports) as they were determined not to relate exclusively to association football. Stoppage time was subsequently retargetted to Association football#Duration and tie-breaking methods and Additional time made a disambig between that and Overtime (sports). Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator is correct that this is not exclusive to any one sport, however my searches found that additional time in academic exams is equally common. I've not found a single good target for that meaning, with everything being passing mentions and or country-specific. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Justjourney: Can you cite examples of other sports that commonly use "Extra time" rather than overtime? 162 etc. (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition: [8] (generic "sports"), Collins: [9]

Some sources past the sports results refer to exams [10], [11], [12]. Maybe writing an article about this exam extra time thing may be a possibility? I haven't found many sources about other sports that use extra time. I may withdraw this nomination, but I"m not making any decisions right now. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 19:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite examples of other sports that commonly use "Extra time" rather than overtime? Handball, Gaelic football, hurling, field hockey, water polo, ... I stopped looking at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate extratime/extra time - for exams and sports, such as we have overtime (disambiguation); there also being the videogame ESPN MLS ExtraTime 2002 (gamebox showing "ExtraTime"), Extratime.com -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urodelus

Urodelus → Epsilon Ursae Minoris (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Like Durre Menthor, appears to be a fake star name originating on Wikipedia. This one is even called out on Ian Ridpath's website. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because a Google search also brings up a fish. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al.

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. → President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Health and Human Services (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No reason for this redirect: there are dozens of permutations of the words .. not every permutation deserves a redirect. WP "Search" feature will provide the correct article. Noleander (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Health and Human Services literally says at the beginning, quote, "President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al.". Its the case's official name. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RedactedHumanoid. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per RH, and the fact that not every permutation deserves a redirect is a reason to not create the redirect, not an actual reason to delete it. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani war of 2025

Indo-Pakistani war of 2025 → 2025 India–Pakistan conflict (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible redirect. No reliable sources or mainstream media have referred to this conflict as a war. Searching for the term "Indo-Pakistani war of 2025" on Google returns negligible results. 9ninety (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be used on social media, and that may well cause it to be a search hit. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "war" is close enough to "conflict" to be a plausible search term, especially since that name puts it in line with previous confrontations like the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe it was a mistake to turn this into a redirect in the first place, but since everything operates on consensus, I will accept that. This was a full-scale war involving numerous air battles and cross-border firing along the Line of Control by ground forces from both countries. These were not isolated strikes that could simply be described as such, nor was it a minor standoff or conflict. Many battles and retaliatory attacks took place. The aerial combat alone, involving a total of 125 fighter jets from both sides, is sufficient to classify it as a war. It is not necessary for sources to explicitly use the term "war" for it to be regarded as such; comprehensive coverage of the various battles and attacks by reliable sources is enough. I can foresee scholars referring to this conflict as a "war" in the years to come. I also anticipate an article eventually being recreated titled Indo-Pakistani War of 2025. I was the first to recognise it as such. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chaotic Enby's point. Disagree with SheriffIsInTown's justification; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and editors' personal opinions and predictions are not references to policy. Yue🌙 04:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The word "war" was initially used in sources when this hit the news ... right before the immediate ceasefire was called. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Bonnin

Bryce Bonnin → Cincinnati Reds minor league players#Bryce Bonnin (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

non-notable minor league player; not active, no longer has a section on Cincinnati Reds minor league players Joeykai (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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, ✗plicit 14:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Down

Phoenix Down → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Phoenix down → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Fenix Down → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pheonix down → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pheonix Down → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. Minimal information exists at Final_Fantasy_VI#Localization; there is also a band named after the item, which is mentioned at Kane_Roberts#Career, as well as Phoenix Down (The Unguided song). As for the last two, I am not sure the misspelling is likely enough to warrant a redirect independent of the outcome for the other three. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 01:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a section in the article referencing them, and they could be further refined to point to the section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion I was invited to this discussion by some entity - human or bot - that was under the impression that I had some interest in this topic/discussion, which I apparently do not, as I do not show up in the history of any of these pages. While I do appreciate being advised of anything I might be interested or involved in, it might help people if it told what specific page or issue triggered someone's involvement. I mean, where I have interest or involvement with something I do appreciate a warning, but, to put it bluntly, I don't know what the hell I did to be honored with the privilege of this invite. Thank you for reading.

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rfc1394: I do not show up in the history of any of these pages. Of course you do. You created Phoenix down in September 2008 (as you can see here), which explains why you were notified by the nominator. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The added mention has been removed for relying on iffying sourcing. Rusalkii (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The added mention was restored. Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal respect

Personal respect → Individual (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Target page does not discuss respect of any sort. Seems too vague for a retarget, though if there's a philosophical concept that maps relatively cleanly to this that may be a good fit? Rusalkii (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My immediate thought was this redirect could mean "self respect" (which redirects to Self-esteem), but with the way this redirect is structured means it could refer to someone respecting someone else. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we do have Respect for persons, which is close to what I get from the search term but I'm undecided if it is close enough. I also wondered about respecting personal boundaries, but the personal boundaries article (the closest title I could find to that search string) is not a good fit imo. Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Respect for persons per Thryduulf. Jay 💬 15:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom: respect for persons is pretty far from what I'd think of if I said "Personal respect", I think I'd still prefer deletion, but the proposed target seems much better than the current one. Rusalkii (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still leaning "delete" since the phrase is ambiguous, and I'm leaning towards this phrase being more attached to Self-esteem than Respect for persons. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roubke

Roubke → Ruble (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely misspelling. Does not seem to be attested on the web either. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 22:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a very likely typo. If you enter it to Google (or even Facebook) you will find roubles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete since the "k" is unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's next to the 'l' in the keyboard, making it quite likley. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plausible typo of an alternate spelling. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Steel, and as it's ambiguous. This can be a misspelling of Rubke, the German village, as well. Jay 💬 15:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Jay - ambiguous, not obvious what the searcher is looking for BugGhost 🦗👻 08:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infotech

Infotech → Information technology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Currently redirects to Information technology, and all links from articles shown at Special:WhatLinksHere/Infotech are referring to a company. The target article currently has "Infotech" redirects here and is not to be confused with Infotech Enterprises. For the political group, see Information Technology (constituency).

Either delete or retarget redirect for now (disambiguation would be better, but unless there are 2 or more companies/articles with the name of Infotech), while noting that User:Info-Tech Research Group is attempting to create an article for Info-Tech Research Group. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thiatetrazole

Thiatetrazole → Heterocyclic compound#5-membered rings (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The search engine is able to find the right page. Better to have a redlink as incentive to creation of a proper article. See similar: RfD: Oxatetrazole. -- Nabla (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incentive to creation of new article 62.18.108.129 (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was an article (stub) before it was merged and redirected. I just tagged it as an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore stub or section detailing this specific compound. Enix150 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now with no prejudice against any editor restoring the boldly merged article. Strongly oppose deletion, as the redirect contains meaningful page history of the merge, as required by WP:CWW. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxatetrazole

Oxatetrazole → Heterocyclic compound#5-membered rings (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The search engine is able to find the right page. Better to have a redlink as incentive to creation of a proper article. See similar: RfD: Thiatetrazole Nabla (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incentive to creation of new article 62.18.108.129 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was an article (stub) before it was merged and redirected. I just tagged it as an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 15:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore stub or section detailing this specific compound. Enix150 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now with no prejudice against any editor restoring the boldly merged article. Strongly oppose deletion, as the redirect contains meaningful page history of the merge, as required by WP:CWW. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Americo Tomasso

Americo Tomasso → Larry Marshall (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The disambiguation page Larry Marshall had a an entry added at the same time as the redirect was created: "Larry Marshall (actor and comedian) (1924–2012), Scottish-Italian actor, born Americo Tomasso" which I have reverted per WP:REDDAB. The term Americo Tomasso isn't mentioned in another article so I couldn't another article to retarget to. Suonii180 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utah NHL names

Utah Outlaws → Utah Mammoth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Utah Wasatch → Utah Mammoth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Utah Yeti → Utah Mammoth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Propose deleting these redirects, because they were in a group of four final names to be chosen for the Utah Hockey Club who chose Utah Mammoth as their permanent name. – sbaio 08:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in keeping these redirects, unless a future team assumes one of the names. Flibirigit (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CHEAP. 162 etc. (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they're all mentioned in the article and I could see them being potential search terms. Maybe retarget it to the section Team identity as that's where the terms are mentioned. Suonii180 (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, now that the official team name has been chosen, I doubt anyone will search under these old names.

Assadzadeh (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ensues

Ensues → Ensuès-la-Redonne (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Yet another common word with no good target (except maybe wikt:ensues)? Duckmather (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect using the template {{Wiktionary redirect}}. Xoontor (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to the French Wikipedia, this village is called "Ensuès" in its native Occitan and "la Redonne" in French, but the official name combines both terms, as "Ensuès-la-Redonne", and historically, was labelled "La Redonne-Ensuès" as well. So, instead, create a disambiguation page, of the Wiktionary entry and the village within the commune. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep (2nd option delete). Ensuès-la-Redonne seems to be the only (relevant) "Ensues" in WP, so the redirect seem OK. I also like deletion, just let the search engine do its thing! And readers choose. No need to redirect everything to wiktionary (but all options are acceptable, for sure) - Nabla (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per Xoontor. The French town is almost certainly not the primary topic in English. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, Ensue does not exist and has never existed. Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 65's findings. If this town does in fact go by "Ensuès", then this is a perfectly fine redirect sans diacritics, and the only reasonable encyclopedic target. What's the point of disambiguating or even getting people to wikt in the first place? It's a completely common English word, and we're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 35 and 65. Cross-site redirects are annoying and should be avoided, and the french village is the primary topic. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mcds

Mcds → MCD (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I suggest moving to MCDS and retargeting to Marin Country Day School CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Feel free to create the other redirect if necessary, but there's rather strong ambiguity this redirect has with McDonald's. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, retarget to McDonald's. There's nothing else on MCD this redirect could refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @User:Steel1943 If Mcds retargets to McDonald's, then shouldn't mcd also redirect to McDonalds? Also, if multiple abbreviations for MCDS exists, then Mcds should become a disambiguation page instead. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to first question is "No, primarily due to the overwhelming amount of subjects listed at MCD". Answer to second sentence is "We deal with present situations, not WP:CRYSTAL, when redirect and article titles are involved". Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Marin Country Day School (note that MCDS, in all caps, already points there) and add a hatnote to MCD and McDonald's there. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What actually happened was MCDS was created after the first relist, given its existence is no longer compatible with the nominator's initial statement. Steel1943 (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LR.127 created it based on request of 88.235.230.142 whose reason was From other capitalisation. From the plural form. First preference - Delete as it does not make sense as a plural. Second preference - retarget per nom as an other capitalization. Jay 💬 15:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing at MCD is realistically known as "Mcds" (not even McDonald's); MCDS already exists and points to the correct primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CN-91

CN-91 → Hong Kong (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I don't think "CN-91" refers to Hong Kong. Searching this on google gives me a bunch of random stuff, such as trains and product identifiers. Maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment (delete?), Duckmather, It seems to be an old version of ISO 3166 country (subdivision) code. You can find it at the change log at the bottom of iso.org/.../#iso:code:3166:CN. It went from CN-91 to CN-HK. Is it enough to keep? I doubt it, and note that CN-HK is not a WP page. Nor I think we should be chasing such changes, other than updating lists at the ISO code's page - Nabla (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I tried searching CN-91 on Bing and it showed up travel and destination information in Hong Kong. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And those codes seem important too, see User:Thecurran/Subdivisions#C. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to ISO 3166-2:CN#Changes where there is a relevant mention alongside the new CN-HK code. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican Press

Vatican Press → Dicastery for Communication (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No related article mentioned for "Vatican Press". Absolutiva (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The target article absolutely mentions that the Dicastery for Communication runs the Vatican Press. The Dicastery also runs (and the article also mentions and links to) all of the other possible organisations which might be intended by someone searching "Vatican Press", such as Holy See Press Office, Vatican Publishing House, and Vatican News Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there page translation from Italian to English Wikipedia article, or just draftify. Absolutiva (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Europe

Cricket Europe → European Cricket Council (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

www.cricketeurope.com is a website which doesn't have a page on English Wikipedia. but, redirecting to the now defunct unrelated council seems misleading. Vestrian24Bio 12:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there might be scope for a disambiguation page at a title like European Cricket with pages like ICC Europe, European Cricket Council, European Cricket Championships, European Cricket League, Women's European Cricket Championship and see alsos to Europeans cricket team, Europeans cricket team (Ceylon), Central Europe Cup and Category:Cricket in Europe. If created then this wouldn't be a bad redirect to that dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to new disambiguation page per Thryduulf. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 03:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New DAB per above BugGhost 🦗👻 08:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Auburn

Mayor of Auburn → List of mayors of Auburn (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Could possibly be disambiguated with Mayor of Auburn, Alabama, List of mayors of Auburn, List of mayors of Auburn, Maine. I’m not sure that the defunct local government area in Australia is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig per nom, given that Auburn has no primary topic. I've added a hatnote at the current target for now, but if this discussion does conclude to disambig the article should probably be moved to something like List of mayors of Auburn, New South Wales. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted the dab! Duckmather (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per my "keep" vote, I can agree that the target needs to be renamed, possibly prior to this discussion closing. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per nom. I also agree with Thryduulf about moving the current target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have recently nominated the relevant List of mayors of Auburn, Maine, under articles for deletion, if this deletion goes through, it could affect this RfD. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but I would still prefer disambiguation in that case. I agree with the nominator that the Australian city can't be considered a primary topic. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation, given the target's current title. The play here may be to move its target, List of mayors of Auburn, to a more WP:PRECISE title, especially given that Auburn is a disambiguation page. (If the target is moved prior to this discussion being closed, consider my vote "moot".) Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 I have moved the page to a more appropriate target per primarytopic Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, moot now. Struck. Steel1943 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As mentioned above, List of mayors of Auburn, the original target of the nominated redirect, is now itself a redirect, and may need to be bundled with this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like List of mayors of Auburn should itself be a dab page, or more properly, a {{list of lists}}. But in any case, hard to reach consensus with changes to the status quo occurring during discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joehio

Joehio → Family Guy season 2#ep25 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target article, cruft from a BLARd page. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unlikely and apparently irrelevant search term. Departure– (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not explained in target article --Lenticel ^(talk) 16:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; I've added a mention. Duckmather (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the name that important to the episode's summary? If I recall correctly, "Joehio" was given one passing mention throughout. Should Joe's pool redirect here too? Departure– (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the mention?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbullies

Cyberbullies → Big City Greens season 1#ep16 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget I think this would be a better redirect to Cyberbullying rather then a television episode of the same name. Would be a more direct match. twisted. (user | talk | contribs) 02:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support retarget per above EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 06:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cyberbully already targets to Cyberbullying ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support retarget per nom and Ouxyz. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 02:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Cyberbullying as per all above. Current target is very likely to surprise readers. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katwe Combined Boxing Club

Katwe Combined Boxing Club → Uganda Boxing Federation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. Was redirected to the target page as an alternative to deletion after an expired PROD. Pinging Kaynsu1 who redirected it and Onel5969 who PRODed it. Rusalkii (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable club. If not mentioned in target, then delete.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD after restoration. Jay 💬 09:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: Why? -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was an article and AfD participants are not expected to come to RfD for article-level discussions. Jay 💬 14:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, RfD participants are expected to take a look at the edit history and do a basic check to see if an AfD would be worthwhile. Did you find evidence of notability or anything that would cause you to believe this would pass an AfD? -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the edit history before suggesting restoration and AfD. When a PROD is contested, we can either improve the article, find an ATD or send to AfD. I have objected to the ATD (this redirect) and don't see scope for improvement. Jay 💬 17:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A redirection is not a contestation of the PROD. Someone who redirects an article would agree with the PROD that there should not be an article at that title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oops I should have said "When a PROD is objected..." Jay 💬 17:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be incorrect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be incorrect? A redirection is not a PROD objection? Jay 💬 19:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Someone redirecting an article is agreeing with the prodder that the article should not exist—which is not an objection. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEPROD, removing the PROD tag is objection. Per WP:PRODNOM, the nom is expected to check ATDs before nominating, so if there is a PROD, and another editor thinks there was an ATD that the nom would have missed, he is effectively objecting to the PROD. Jay 💬 17:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Onel, no evidence of notability has been provided. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice per Jay as a contested PROD and contested BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

WP:ABOUTYOU

Wikipedia:ABOUTYOU → Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Consider retargeting to WP:About you as a more direct match. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alloromanticism

Alloromanticism → Aromanticism#alloromanticism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Alloromantic → Aromanticism#alloromanticism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to romantic orientation? Skemous (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case this is retargeted, Alloromantic should be as well. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 15:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Alloromantic with this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget both to Romantic orientation#Romantic identities, where the word "alloromanticism" is mentioned (which also makes it clear that it's not purely defined in opposition to "aromanticism" as the current target might suggest). Duckmather (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Bangladesh Standard Code for Information Interchange"

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move to Bangladesh Standard Code for Information Interchange without leaving a redirect

Pope Leon XIIV

Pope Leon XIIV → Pope Leo XIV (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pope Leo XIIV → Pope Leo XIV (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"XIIV" seems like an implausible typo for "XIV" to me. So, both redirects should probably be deleted. GTrang (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Invalid Roman Numerals, implausible typos. Zinnober9 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete both per WP:R3. --Tim Parenti (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, R3 is inapplicable, since neither are recent. That said, neither of them should have been redirected to the current target. Both are invalid Roman numerals. Both are implausible typos. BusterD (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One has the wrong name and both are the wrong numerals. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Invalid Roman Numerals. Implausible typos. search: Pope Leon XIIV yields no results.

21:54, 20 September 2008 User:Hektor Redirected page to Antipope
10:15, 18 January 2023 User talk:195.169.52.25 Changed redirect target from Antipope to Conclavism#Conclavist claimants to the papacy

2601:646:203:E7B0:74A9:81B1:3DF4:2859 (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete both. These typos are somewhat plausible as some people will accidentally duplicate the "I" when typing (think typing out "trolll") or type the Spanish name minus the accent (León → Leon). However, this doesn't take away the fact that "XIIV" is impossible to form in Latin, and that it's unlikely that someone will accidentally type "Leon" and duplicate the "I" at the same time, so ultimately it's better served deleted. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 04:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as they have invalid numerals and thus are implausible typos. Strong delete for "Pope Leon XIIV" as it also have a wrong name. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. These kinds of dubious redirects weaken search results by cluttering them with implausible typos. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Both of these have a invalid Roman numeral, making them misspellings. Quincy2293 (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta separatism and annexationism

Alberta separatism and annexationism → Alberta separatism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete - Implausible search target; redirects to a shorter title; created from an inappropriate page move; NPOV violation. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 15:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The target is about movements both for independence (separatism) and annexation by the United States (annexationsim) so it's not misleading and doesn't seem implausible. The title length is irrelevant and I'm not understand why you claim this is an NPOV violation? Even it if is non-neutral, it's important to note that redirects do not have to be neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis, that the redirect was part of a unexplained move and the article is 97% not on annexationism compared to other articles, so agree largely implausible. Alberta annexationism would redirect readers to the more relevant article. Dank Jae 22:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13th Street

13th Street → 13th Street (TV channel) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Either 13th Street (TV channel) is in fact the primary topic, as 13th Street (disambiguation) has it, in which case it should be moved here without a disambiguator, or it's not in which case the disambiguation page should be moved here. Regardless, having an undisambiguated redirect makes no sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidental

1990 Uzbek presidental election → 1990 Uzbek presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2000 U.S. presidental campaign → 2000 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2000 US Presidental Election → 2000 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2004 Democratic Presidental nomination → 2004 Democratic Party presidential primaries (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2004 ROC Presidental Election → 2004 Taiwanese presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2007 Slovenian presidental elections → 2007 Slovenian presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2008 Obama presidental campaign → Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2008 Presidental Election → 2008 presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2008 presidental election → 2008 presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2008 U.S. Presidental election → 2008 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2008 United States Presidental Election → 2008 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2012 US presidental election → 2012 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2016 us presidental election → 2016 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2020 presidental debates → 2020 United States presidential debates (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2020 US presidental election → 2020 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2020 us presidental election → 2020 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2024 presidental eligibility of Donald Trump → Presidential eligibility of Donald Trump (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2024 United States presidental election → 2024 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Azerbaijani presidental election, 2018 → 2018 Azerbaijani presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Coast Guard Presidental Unit Citation → Presidential Unit Citation (United States) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidental election → Trump fake electors plot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of major party U.S. presidental candidates who lost their home state → List of major-party United States presidential candidates who lost their home state (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Presidental campaign of Rick Perry → Rick Perry 2012 presidential campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Presidental dollar → Presidential dollar coins (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Presidental Limousine → Official state car (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Presidental system → Presidential system (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Next Slovak presidental election → 2024 Slovak presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Next United States Presidental Election → 2028 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Next United States presidental Election → 2028 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
ROC Presidental Election 1996 → 1996 Taiwanese presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
ROC Presidental Election 2000 → 2000 Taiwanese presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
ROC Presidental Election 2004 → 2004 Taiwanese presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ryan Binkley 2024 presidental campagin → Ryan Binkley (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Semi-presidental system → Semi-presidential republic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Serbian presidental election, December 1997 → 1997 Serbian presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
US presidental election → United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
US presidental elections 2012 → 2012 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Some points and insights to consider:

If I type "2004 us presidental election" into search, 2004 United States presidential election would appear as the top result. The creation of a redirect titled 2004 US presidental election may seem convenient in this case, but I wouldn't really need it.
Ryan Binkley 2024 presidental campagin is the only mainspace page with the typo campagin in its title. It was apparently created as the result of an undiscussed page move performed back in February 2024.
Next Slovak presidental election also appears to have been the result of a wrongful page move back in January 2022.
1990 Uzbek presidental election, 2024 presidental eligibility of Donald Trump and Azerbaijani presidental election, 2018 were the original names of those articles when they were first created. The correctional move in each case happened shortly after creation, so deleting these redirects may not cause a lot of meaningful page history to be lost.
After being created as Serbian presidental election, 1997, that article was moved to Serbian presidental election, December 1997, then to Serbian presidential election, December 1997, all in January 2007.

Me talking to a wall, making instructions for properly tagging pages after universal midnight, and following my own instructions to make up for my procrastination

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It may take a while to tag all of those pages. The tagging markup shall begin with {{subst:afd|Presidental|content= so that each transclusion of "this redirect's entry" links to this section. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, it may be too late to tag pages now, as doing so will result in links to RfD logs for later dates. (May 8 as of the time of posting) If I have nominated a large amount of redirects within a few hours of Greenwich midnight, then I probably shouldn't have procrastinated when it came to tagging all of these pages. If they should still be tagged anyway despite it being too late to tag them conventionally, the markup added to tag the pages now should look something like this:

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#invoke:RfD||Presidental|month = May
|day = 7
|year = 2025
|content=

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done: All 30 pages have been tagged. The task would've only taken me a bit over a dozen minutes, so I may have had no excuse to procrastinate in hindsight. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPersonHumanGuy (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the target pages and authors were not notified (now resolved), in addition to me adding redirects the nominator may have initially missed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added the (currently) last 5 redirects, (2008 Presidental Election, 2000 US Presidental Election, US presidental elections 2012, 2008 U.S. Presidental election, and 2020 us presidental election) to this discussion. The rest were nominated by the initial nominator. (Note that this does not mean I have a vote in this: I added the last 5 since it seemed as though the nominator missed them, so I added them for completion of the nomination ... since it seems that all of these redirects were nominated due to the misspelling "Presidental", including that Presidental doesn't exist and never has.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget about 2004 ROC Presidental Election and Next United States presidental Election as well. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems HouseBlaster wasn't a big fan of their creation Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidental election, considering it was speedy deleted per WP:G7. Steel1943 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most as an evidentally very plausible typo. Some notes:
- The following three are eligible for G6 speedy deletion for being unambiguously created in error:
  - 1990 Uzbek presidental election moved by creator 2 minutes after creation
  - 2024 presidental eligibility of Donald Trump moved by creator 5 minutes after creation
  - 1997 Serbian presidential election page mover corrected typo 3 minutes after initial move.
- Some of these redirects got a not insignificant (in some cases very significant) number of page views:
  - 2008 Obama presidental campaign (16 last year)
  - 2008 presidental election (30 last year, 19 this year)
  - 2012 US presidental election (103 last year, 15 this year)
  - 2016 us presidental election (308 last year, 35 this year)
  - 2020 presidental debates (23 last year, 6 this year)
  - 2024 presidental eligibility of Donald Trump (53 last year, 13 this year)
  - 2024 United States presidental election (688 last year, 460 of them on 15 August; 31 this year)
  - Coast Guard Presidental Unit Citation (113 last year, 55 this year; note was linked until just now)
  - Presidental system (35 last year, 35 this year)
  - Next United States Presidental Election (83 last year, 41 this year)
  - ROC Presidental Election 1996 (77 views last year, 69 of them in March which doesn't corelate with the target article that peaked in January, 10 this year)
  - Ryan Binkley 2024 presidental campagin (53 last year, 43 of them in February, 11 this year. Note two misspellings).
  - US presidental election (143 last year, 31 this year)
  - 2000 US Presidental Election (71 last year, 23 this year)
  - 2020 us presidental election (1,119 last year, 42 this year)
- Coast Guard Presidental Unit Citation was linked at Awards and decorations of the United States Coast Guard, I've fixed this.
- The three ROC redirects need to be kept for attribution and discovery purposes: They are redirects from moves that are too old to be recorded elsewhere (all made in September 2003): ROC Presidental Election 1996, ROC Presidental Election 2000 and ROC Presidental Election 2004. The 1996 election also got significant page views last year.

Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews visualized

2008 Obama presidental campaign

₁₆

16

2008 presidental election

₃₀

₁₉

49

2012 US presidental election

₁₀₃

₁₅

118

2016 us presidental election

₃₀₈

₃₅

343

2020 presidental debates

₂₃

₆

29

2024 presidental eligibility of Donald Trump

₅₃

₁₃

66

2024 United States presidental election

₆₈₈

₃₁

719

Coast Guard Presidental Unit Citation

₁₁₃

₅₅

168

Presidental system

₃₅

70

Next United States Presidental Election

₈₃

₄₁

124

ROC Presidental Election 1996

₇₇

₁₀

87

Ryan Binkley 2024 presidental campagin

₅₃

₁₁

64

US presidental election

₁₄₃

₃₁

174

2000 US Presidental Election

₇₁

₂₃

94

2020 us presidental election

₁₁₁₉

₄₂

1161

Total: 3282

This year (367)

Last year (2915)

Just thought I'd offer this. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that as the creator of 2024 United States presidental election that this is a fair assessment, and I agree with all of it. I myself made that redirect cause I made a typo. It's quite common to forget an I, especially considering that the last part of presidential is pronounced "shul" which can confuse people sometimes. While it is true that searching it up normally with the search bar has the real article as the top result, the redirect has 700+ visits already since it was created, so it's justifiable to keep it. Also it's a really plausible typo like stated earlier and there are plenty of redirects from typos on this site. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 15:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...Meh, at this point, I vote that this discussion be speedy closed since with Thryduulf's vote, this is now a WP:TLDR (well, it already was before Thryduulf's vote) and WP:TRAINWRECK situation. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally opposed to that. It took me about an hour to look at the links, history and stats for all the redirects and it seems I missed Next United States presidental Election (without having looked at the stats, the capitalisation of that one has me immediately doubting its utiltiy). Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having now looked at the data for that one I see no need to keep it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created one of the typo redirects accidentally, which appears really dumb at first, but then I looked at the pageview stats; apparently it was useful for thousands of people. Maybe don't delete. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as useless. Typos are a dime a dozen, and making every plausible typo for every word in every article on Wikipedia is madness. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mostly accurate and unharmful Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as plausible typos. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La Paz Hospital massacre

La Paz Hospital massacre → Peruvian–Bolivian War of 1841–42 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I googled "La Paz Hospital massacre" and found no results related to the Peru-Bolivia war. Noleander (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The L

The L → Chicago "L" (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. Pointless redirect. The rapid transit system is never referred to as "The L" anywhere in the article. GilaMonster536 (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very common nickname for the target. It's used in the lead multiple times despite the nominator's claim otherwise. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Presidentman. Enix150 (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Presidentman. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons above. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Presidentman 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publican

Publican → Publicani (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The Roman tax collector is not the primary topic, since it also has another (presumably more common) sense of "pub owner or manager". My suggestion is retarget to Publican (disambiguation), then potentially move that to Publican. Alternatively retarget to Pub if there's consensus that the "pub owner" sense is the clear primary topic. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Publican" is not that widely used to mean "tavern keeper" or "barkeeper", and I note that we don't even have an article about barkeepers: the term is a redirect to bartender, which is not the same thing. Also, the term seems to have arisen humorously, presumably by allusion to the Roman publicani. Evidently at one time there was also a trade publication by this title, but it is no more, and the number of readers searching for it is extremely small (average of two daily pageviews over the last ninety days). Apart from these, the only significant use that does not refer to Roman tax collectors is a synonym for the twelfth-century Arnoldists. So I think that the current target is the best choice; hatnotes should be sufficient to help users who are looking for some other use. P Aculeius (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The word "publican" is so uncommon I doubt either can convincingly be said to be the "common" usage. Moving to a neutral disambiguation page is unobjectionable. Ifly6 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget and move as suggested by the nominator. There is not a clear primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The biblical meaning is 'tax collector', so I think the current target is fine. Srnec (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

Adhab

Adhab → Upsilon Andromedae (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target, wasn't mentioned when the redirect was created. The word appears in a few articles so retargeting or disambiguating might be a possibility. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as best as I can tell, this is just (a rendering of) an Arabic word that can either be a name or is part of a couple other phrases, but there's nothing about this specifically. One of those search results seemed to be a typo for "Ahdab", which I fixed. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic and gender minorities

Gender minority → Gender identity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Romantic minorities → Romantic orientation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Romantic minority → Romantic orientation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Sexual minority, which is about to be moved to include gender as a result of a copyedit/merge of LGBTQ (term)#SGM/GSM/GSRM. Gender minority may also be ambiguous with Gender diverse (redirects to gender nonconformity) and Gender diversity. Hatnote may apply? LIrala (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Sexual and gender minorities now that the move is complete.--Trystan (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turn to article (for Gender minority) Gender minority can include intersex people. Sharouser (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imam Reza

Imam Reza → Ali al-Rida (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It's unclear why this redirects to Ali al-Rida. The word "Reza" appears twice in the entire article and it is unclear who it refers to. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xe/xem

Xe/xem → Neopronoun (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Xe (pronoun) → Neopronoun (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Xem → Neopronoun (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Xemself → Neopronoun (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns § Table of standard and non-standard third-person singular pronouns, where they are mentioned and linked to Wiktionary. Note: the mention was removed by XeCyranium. LIrala (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Its hard to say, but if I was a reader who didn't know what they meant, I think the current target of neopronouns better helps the reader understand what they are than that busy chart... Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate "xem" there being multiple topics. Kembayan language (ISO 639 code "xem"), Marvel Comics' "Xem", XEM-TV former name of XHBC-TDT, the doctrine of 'Xem' in the Temple of Set, Little Games (album code "XEM") -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per IP. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a murder

There's been a murder → Taggart (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

When I search this phrase, mostly what comes up is a card game and a Jay-Z song. I'll admit, my searches from the US might not come up with Taggart due to it being a Scottish show, but I still think this is far from unambiguous. I added {{R from quote}} if it is kept though. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 19:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My searches from the UK are a roughly equal mix of Taggart and the card game, with Jay-Z not getting a single hit on the first four pages (I stopped looking at that point). We have no content about the card game that I've found, but there is an EP and a TV episode with this title, both references to Taggart (The Gresham Flyers#Extended plays, Dear Green Place#Season 1). Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramuh

Ramuh → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Summoning Magic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ramuh (Final Fantasy) → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Summoning Magic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. On-wiki search does return a bunch of mentions in articles related to Final Fantasy, though whether this should be retargeted (and if yes, to which of the articles) should probably be left to someone familiar with the franchise. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The articles that mention "Ramuh" which are not associated with Final Fantasy are Adaptations of Little Red Riding Hood and Disco Fries. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget, and if so where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Or disambiguate? Also, thoughts on the pre-redirect history in case of support for deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. the current target doesn't mention ramuh (or name any summons for that matter, which i guess makes sense), the other articles only mention the name in passing, and most results i got were top however many summon lists and guides, so he's probably not on the notable side of summons consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 19:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mouth Noise

Mouth Noise → Burping (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The mouth makes many different noises, not sure why the current target is the target for this. Delete as ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A google search shows that there is no PTOPIC. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. My google results are very different to Ca's in that there is a very clear primary topic - unwanted noises from the mouth during audio recording however we do not have any content about that under this title or the alternative name for it "vocal noise". Pop filters (also being hydrated and not smoking weed beforehand) are the recommended solution to getting rid of these noises, and while it doesn't use the term the second sentence means that people arriving there after using the term will understand the connection. Another possible target is ~~Side Hustle#Season 1 (2020–21)~~ Side Hustle#ep22, where "Mouth Noise" is the title of episode 22 ~~(redirecting to the specific episode would be better than the season but they don't appear to have anchors)~~. I think redirecting one with a hatnote to the other (in either direction) is preferable to a two-item dab. Burping is definitely the wrong target, indeed I would describe that as a throat sound rather than a mouth sound. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I think you are looking to mention the possibility of retargeting this to Side Hustle#ep22? Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't spot that anchor existed, thanks. I'll tweak my above post. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Side Hustle#ep22 per Thryduulf. Mouth Noises sounds like a new Neil Cicierega album... -insert valid name here- (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the suggested episode per the others. It's the title of something we have content about, it's already capitalized, and the non-proper noun is just too vague to point to any particular target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Mouth#Other functions of the mouth, which mentions that Mouths are also used as part of the mechanism for producing sounds for communication (in a paragraph all about different ways animals use their mouths to create noises). If people want more content about how animal mouths create noises, that section could be expanded. Another possible target is Animal_communication#Auditory. The TV episode seems too surprising for such a broad and common topic. Duckmather (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian cargo plane crash

Ukrainian cargo plane crash → Meridian Flight 3032 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not the only WP-notable Ukrainian cargo plane crash; there are also Ukraine Air Alliance Flight 4050, the 2003 Ukrainian Cargo Airways Ilyushin Il-76 accident, and others I can't remember. Delete or dabify. Mr slav999 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it could also refer to cargo planes operated by other carriers that crashed in Ukraine. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change to DAB page Clearly not the only cargo plane crash in Ukraine Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or dabify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it could refer to cargo planes made in Ukraine that crashed, cargo planes that crashed in Ukraine, cargo planes owned or operated by Ukrainian entities that crashed, a collision between a cargo plane and something else owned or operated by Ukrainians; the very prominent 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history in case of support for deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The title is too vague and doesn't warrant a disambiguation page as per what 65.92.246.77 said above. The title could refer to either of the following (or more) besides Meridian Flight 3032:

List of crashes involving "Ukrainian cargo planes"

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too vague. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding and Blood Clotting

Bleeding and Blood Clotting → Bleeding (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:XY: Bleeding and Blood clotting (a redirect towards Coagulation) are two distinct subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Coagulation. The first two sentences of that article make it clear that this the article deals with the intersection of bleeding and blood clotting - exactly what someone using this search term is looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Coagulation per Thryduulf. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania mayoral election

2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania mayoral election → List of mayors of Lancaster, Pennsylvania#Mayors of Lancaster (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The election is not discussed at the target, a list of mayors does not have info on the 2021 election Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there have been two articles about this election, both deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election in 2022 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania mayoral election in 2023; the first title has a comma after Pennsylvania that the second (and this redirect) omits). As far as I can tell, the creation of this redirect in 2024 was in good faith and unrelated to either AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this redirect due to it appearing in a most wanted list showing over 500 links to it. I think the source is a template: Template:Elections in Pennsylvania sidebar -Bogger (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

Dorothy of Oz (manhwa)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Module:Citation

Module:Citation → Template:Citation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirecting a module to a template is confusing and generally a bad idea - the two systems are distinct, not interchangable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As creator weak keep to provide breadcrumb links back to Template:Citation or similar, rather than making navigation more difficult. Alternatively, retarget to Category:Citation templates or Help:Citations or similar, or possibly disambiguate. There was a previous debate as to whether the module should be a redirect to Module:Citation/CS1 but that did not work. Having a redlink as the parent makes navigation unnecessarily difficult. If it should not be a redirect so be it. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 16:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this again. To avoid yet-another-similar-discussion, restore the 11:38, 21 May 2018 version of the module. For those who can't see deleted modules, that version simply emitted this glaring red error message when Module:Citation was invoked:

Lua error in Module:Citation at line 1: This module is retained for historical and structural reasons; consider using Module:Citation/CS1..

The associated ~/doc page had some explanatory text:

Development of Lua support for both Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 began at Module:Citation. That development was abandoned in 2013 as development of Module:Citation/CS1 began.

Though this module remained unused, it is and has been the root page of the several module subpages that implement cs1 and cs2. The content of this module was replaced with an error message return as the result of a 2018 TfD.

That was sufficient to occupy space, to explain why there is nothing else there, and to keep those who care about bread crumbs happy.

—Trappist the monk (talk) ~~17:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)~~ added text from Module:Citation/doc; 23:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How might disambiguation work? The script error is probably better than a confusing Lua error. We can hard redirect to Module:Citation/CS1 if that is a concern, but there are dozens of citation modules including Module:Cite book that should be considered. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what you're talking about. Why should we care about disambiguation? Why is the Module:Cite book family of modules a concern for this RfD about Module:Citation?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the old version per Trappist the monk. That seems very significantly more helpful than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Module:Citation/CS1 as an {{R to subpage}} and {{R from short name}}. Trappist the monk's proposal is certainly better than the current situation and I support it as my second preference but I don't see why leaving {{#invoke:Citation}} broken is preferred to it being a shortcut to {{#invoke:citation/CS1}}. Nickps (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Citation was soft redirected from 20:05, 8 July 2024 – 22:35, 16 August 2024 when the module was deleted. We could go back to that though I'd rather do the hard error message that I advocate above so that we avoid the confusion of invokes of redirected modules in templates. If you want to use Module:Citation/CS1, use Module:Citation/CS1; don't take the roundabout path via Module:Citation. This is not a case where we are making life easier because there are lots of things invoking Module:Citation; there are none so there is no reason to act as if those invokes exist.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to do that route, why not just move Module:Citation/CS1 to Module:Citation and call it a day? Module:Citation/CS2 is barely used. In fact, I probably will TfD CS2 as mostly unused and redundant with Module:Citation/CS1. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I TfD'd it: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_17#Module:Citation/CS2 Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave reasons why we should not move Module:Citation/CS1 → Module:Citation in the previous discussion. Acknowledge that Module:Citation/CS1 is an oddball and leave it be.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion at TFD. Izno (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restore the glaring red error message version or Delete per the previous TfD? Retarget to CS1 or Disambiguate per the page drafted at the redirect? The mentioned TfD for CS2 was withdrawn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous TfD. The module was history merged, and that is how it is retained. It is not retained at "Module:Citation".—Alalch E. 16:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On another thought, could we potentially redirect to Module:Cite (and change the content model back to Scribunto)? Aasim (話す（はなす）) 17:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have left a notice at the relevant talk page (Module:Citation's redirects to Help talk:Citation style 2). Let's try one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Supertian8 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TfD where it was deleted. This is an exact WP:G4. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the old version per Trappist the monk. Optimal outcome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Sebastiao

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine

Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine → Atlantic hurricane season (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

More than one "Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine" since 2017. Has been used in 2020 and 2024 A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: what is the relevance of 2017 to this redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not much, just a basic info of Potential Tropical Cyclone. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thryduulf: Seems designation was introduced then. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

This isn't going to a specific yearly season anymore, it was retargeted to the generalized non-numbered season article. It originally went to 2024 before being retargeted to Hurricane Helene before the lack of a year disambiguator brought it to its current page. Departure– (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ambiguous title. Should've been suppressed when it was moved to Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine (2024) back in September. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to !vote initially but I'd vote either keep or retarget to Tropical cyclone naming. This originally did redirect to 2024 Atlantic hurricane season but now it redirects to the vague general Atlantic hurricane season article so for all I care it's moot without a year disambiguator. Departure– (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: It's moot without a year disambiguator. No, it isn't. The lack of disambiguator only makes this more confusing, since the term "Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine" is used every single year, so we don't want readers getting confused. The term isn't even mentioned at target anyway (nor anywhere else for that matter). CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hopelessly vague. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 💬 18:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete or DABify - There have been several Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine's in history. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would retarget to Glossary_of_tropical_cyclone_terms#P which is where Potential tropical cyclone targets. Any other ambiguous potential tropical cyclone redirects could point here too. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no mention of a "Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine" there either. Why are you proposing to retarget this to a page where it isn't mentioned? CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not going to have a list of PTC Nines, it lets readers see what a Potential Tropical Cyclone is; I don't think it needs to mention every number ever used for a PTC, though the final sentence of These systems are designated as "Potential Tropical Cyclones" could potentially be worded to indicate that they are numbered. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Skarmory, or dabify. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Various draftspace redirects

Draft:Buttercup → Jack Stauber (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Draft:Chicken Jockey (quote) → A Minecraft Movie#"Chicken jockey" TikTok trend (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Draft:Fire in the hole! → Geometry Dash (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Draft:Happy ghast → Minecraft#The Nether (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Draft:I've played these games before! → Squid Game season 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Draft:Libet's Delay → The Caretaker (musician) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Draft:Lobotomy Dash → Geometry Dash (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Draft:Pixel Peeker Polka → Kevin MacLeod (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Draft:Superman 'Starman' → Starman (song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Draft:Three-point-one-four-one-five-nine → Pi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Draft:Two steps ahead → Nikocado Avocado (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete all. These unnecessary draftspace redirects do not appear to have a clear purpose. They have always existed as redirects rather than actual drafts, and almost no pages link to them. I don't think that there is a single reason to keep them. Xoontor (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GSK (talk • edits) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whilst I'm sure there is a good reason somewhere to have a redirect in draft space to main, I can't think of one. These certainly aren't suitable uses.

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's WP:RDRAFT, but that's only for redirects left behind as the result of page moves (not applicable here). jlwoodwa (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these redirects were created as a result of page moves from draftspace to mainspace, so technically, WP:RDRAFT applies, but it's a bit more complicated. WP:DRAFT states: Drafts are pages in the Draft namespace (draftspace) where new articles can be created and developed for a limited period of time.. It doesn't mention anything about drafting redirects, which is what primarily happened here. I am not even sure if drafting redirects like this is allowed (if it is, it should probably be mentioned in WP:DRAFT). Even though WP:RDRAFT applies to some of these redirects, we can always ignore all rules. Xoontor (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those that originated from moves. About those created as redirects in the first place, in draftspace (haven't checked, but the nominator says that there are such cases): If someone really created Draft:X, a redirect to Y, and moved Draft:X to X, and now both Draft:X and X redirect to Y, that's not worthy of having a discussion. It's not one of the reasons to delete redirect.—Alalch E. 22:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Office hours

Office hours → Working time (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Office Hours → The Dandy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Could also refer to office hours in classes, or this random podcast Duckmather (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've added Office Hours to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Business hours or refine to Working time#Workweek structure. I've also created a new disambiguation page at Office hours (disambiguation) but the business usage is clearly the primary topic. The academic usage could be added to the dab page if we have an appropriate target, but I failed to find one. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The collegial academic meaning of this term does not seem to be covered anywhere, which I find surprising. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's included at wikt:office hours, which is one reason I included the Wiktionary link on the dab page, but I too wasn't able to find any other use of the term on en.wp. Perhaps there isn't anything encyclopaedic to say about it? Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

El mahdi Mohammad Senosi

El mahdi Mohammad Senosi → Mohammed El Senussi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not sure whether this is a plausible name. This is a {{redirect with history}} however as it used to be a content fork (???), even though the history doesn't seem to have gotten into any other pages as far as I know. Duckmather (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man II

Mega Man II → Mega Man II (1991 video game) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

We should have consensus on the target of this redirect (or if it should be converted into a dab). From a contested technical request to move the article on the 1991 video game to the base page name (permalink):

Pointless disambiguator, despite its Roman numeral title being clearly distinguishable from the original NES game. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MimirIsSmart, weirdly enough, I think the redirect should go to WP:RFD—not for deletion, but for consensus on its target. Seems to have been the victim of a cut-and-paste move that was subsequently fixed—so an argument exists that Mega Man 2 should be the target as a de facto {{R from move}}; this is reflected by several retargets in the page history. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is consensus that WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't apply and to create a disambiguation page instead. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguator is far from pointless. A casual reader seeing "Mega Man II" will think it's talking about the NES game that is 100x times as famous. Classic case where SMALLDETAILS doesn't work well. SnowFire (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(above comments copied from technical move requests) Courtesy pinging @MimirIsSmart and SnowFire. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mega Man 2 says that it was styled "Mega Man II" but the box art pictured very clearly shows it using the Arabic numeral. Google hits for "Mega Man II" -Wikipedia show the 1991 Game Boy game as the most common use (of those where I can easily determine which is being referred to in the snippet) but not to the exclusion of results about the 1988 NES game. Searching fot "Mega Man 2" -Wikipedia is essentially the same in reverse: the NES game is the most common use (of those where I can easily tell), with a greater but not complete dominance than the Game Bay game has for the Roman Numeral. In both cases there are several results I can't tell which is being referred to from just the snippet (I've not looked further at any). The only two valid options seem to be either primary disambiguation with both 2 and II redirecting to the same dab page, or having the articles at Mega Man 2 for the NES and Mega Man II for the Game Boy. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, meant to mention earlier that I've notified Talk:Mega Man 2. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, there being 4 Mega Man TWO games, all of them should be disambiguated, and the base terms point to a disambiguation page; the 3 games with articles, and the mobile game listed at List of Mega Man video games; and the other numbered Mega Man should also be so done. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Varian Carty

Varian Carty → Huntingdon College#Notable alumni (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The subject of the redirect is not named in the section the redirect points to. If Carty were truly a notable alumnus, then he would probably have his own article and would not need a redirect. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Varian Carty apparently played on the Anguilla national football team, but isn't mentioned on any page. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - inappropriate redirect. Giant Snowman 18:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidental

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 9#Presidental

Pope John XXIV

Pope John XXIV → Pope John XXIII (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No reason for this to exist, there is no John XXIV. Might change in the next few days but unless it does then its just a needless redirect. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should the next Pope choose to be called John XXIV, he would have his own article. Should he not choose that name, then it's an implausible redirect. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per upon his choosing the name, there was some confusion as to whether he would be known as John XXIII or John XXIV. Alternatively, retarget to Pope John numbering where the confusion is explained in more depth. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tavix Hektor (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pope John numbering, where the issue is explained. At the very least, the current target would be surprising for most readers. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pope John numbering per the explanations above. Neither the original target (Antipope) nor the current target make much sense. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Pope John numbering where it explains why there's no "Pope John XXIV". The current target is just straight up wrong. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego, United States

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 14#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles

Enemies list

Enemies list → Nixon's Enemies List (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Enemies List → Nixon's Enemies List (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Although Nixon's enemies list was perhaps the most famous, the general concept is much broader than one person. BD2412 T 01:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was disambiguation, with the current target and Enemy of the people. When searching for others I discovered that we have many comic book lists along the lines of List of Aquaman enemies, List of Batman family enemies, etc, that all seem to be covered at Lists of villains. I'm not sure whether slightly broadening that page or creating a new disambiguation page at this title, Lists of enemies or Enemies lists and linking them as see-alsos would be better? Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I'd wager that moving List of villains to either Lists of enemies and villians or Lists of villains and enemies would be a good call here, given a synonymous relationship between the words "enemy" and "villain" cannot be assumed. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could imagine making it a disambiguation but the term as such—"enemies list", not "list of enemies"—is almost always a direct or indirect allusion to Nixon's. (If anyone wants anything from me beyond this one remark, please ping me: I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki.) Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I was recently hit up about this on my talk page, and I stand by my original remark. See, for example, https://politicaldictionary.com/words/enemies-list/, https://www.history.com/articles/richard-nixon-enemies-list-who-was-on-it. Question to those who say this term should be treated as more generic: is there any indication of the term being used prior to Nixon? - Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In a good amount of fictional media, the phrase "enemies list" is synonymous with Bestiary. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of villains (or wherever the aforementioned titled redirects to when this discussion is closed). The article may need to be updated to include the current target of the nominated redirect, but either way, the current material of List of villains seems like the appropriate target for this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally meh at this point per the comments following this one. Any other comments I've made in this discussion still apply. Steel1943 (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given the varied responses without clear target. Personally, my first thought the enemies list TV trope. The first page of Google search results included Enemies List Home Recording, Kash Patel's enemies list (NYT), Trump's enemies list (Independent), Nixon's Enemies List, and Rick Wilson's The Enemies List podcast. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the podcast is mentioned in Rick Wilson (political consultant), I now do think that there is sufficient content to disambiguate. I would add Rogues' gallery, if that was expanded to touch on the concept in fiction. BD2412 T 02:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per the however many different definitions of "enemy". it doesn't necessarily mean "villain" or even "antagonist", and definitions can vary based on extremely fickle variables. for an example i'm pretty sure most people would understand, some could consider king dedede an "enemy", but even ignoring how he's friend-shaped (i will hear no arguments to the contrary), his enmity with kirbo (or with anyone else for that matter) has been a matter of perspective or a misunderstanding at best since the second game. i oppose a dab for the same reason, since then "enemy" could just refer to anything in any context that opposes anything under any perspective we can see something in (give or take this caveat, even) for any reason in any way consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Significa liberdade and consarn; this term has myriad possible definitions, there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it's too ambiguous to target any particular article. I suggest that a WP:DAB page is a good idea in the long term, but in the meantime, WP:REDYES and WP:WTAF apply. Carguychris (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An enemies list is a common subject in fiction and real life (as far back as The Mikado's "As someday it may happen"), and thus a redirect to just one of them is counterproductive. -insert valid name here- (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've added the capitalised Enemies List redirect to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafted a list of lists at Draft:Lists of enemies and villains to which I propose retargetting both this redirect and Lists of villains. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would say that Enemies list and Enemies List are separate concepts from List(s) of enemies. As such, I would disagree with redirecting the first two to the latter. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, Steel1943, Consarn, Carguychris, and -insert valid name here-: Pinging participants to notify the listing of the capitalized Enemies List. Jay 💬 16:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
same case, if it needs to be said consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have drafted a potential disambiguation page for the specific phrase, "Enemies list", under the current redirect. BD2412 T 17:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the separation of "enemies list" and "list of enemies" and consider this dab to be significantly inferior to the one I drafted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: There are three things in the encyclopedia specifically titled "Enemies list", with or without internal capitalization. I don't think the podcast is a proper subset of a "list of enemies", because despite its name being derived from that, it is not merely a literal listing of enemies. At the least, in your page the podcast should be in the hatnote rather than the body. Otherwise, a disambiguation page should exist (albeit, possibly at Enemies list (disambiguation), with the current redirects pointing to your list as the primary topic). BD2412 T 00:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 I'm not sure I understand your comment (this is probably on me as I feel like I should understand it), could you try rephrasing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that we should have separate pages for the concept of a set list of enemies or villains, and for disambiguation of unrelated meanings of the phrase "enemies list". BD2412 T 16:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enemies List per WP:SMALLDIFFERENCES but delete the first one due to unresolveable ambiguity. Cremastra _talk 18:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: any more thoughts on the capitalized version or the dab?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the DAB, though given all three entries on it are capitalized, it should probably be at Enemies List with the sentence case version redirecting there. I am also fine with keeping the redirect to Nixon's list. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the primary topic, but I would not be opposed to adding Lists of villains to the hatnote. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid dog

Stupid dog → Courage the Cowardly Dog (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is something that Eustace says in the show, but I don't think most people would associate this phrase with this particular show. Delete as I don't think there is a more suitable target. Mr slav999 (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is too generic. My only hesitation is that the redirect is so old (2013) that it might have incoming links. However, the actual page views are so low (~once every 10 days) that I think this is unlikely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/Stupid dog shows no incoming links in article space. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 2 Stupid Dogs. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It's really really broad that it can't lead anywhere. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Anomalies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 14#Sexual Anomalies

Theory of Gender Neutrality

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Needs of the Many

The Needs of the Many → Heroes Reborn (miniseries)#ep4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This phrase could also refer to other things besides the current target. Suggested action: Retarget or Disambiguate. Oreocooke (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate with what? Give examples. Gonnym (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Examples: the series it's from (if applicable), the character that said it, the specific episode (if in a series), &c. (note multiple series being implied) Oreocooke (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the character said "The needs of the many" and not "The Needs of the Many". Oppose so far as there aren't any other articles other than this episode with this exact title. Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Oreocooke (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for now, as no new target or dab entries were actually suggested. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's on me for forgetting to give sources. I believe Star Trek II may be a good idea in addition to anything else I've provided or will provide. Oreocooke (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Oreocooke. Plant🌱man (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New idea: Keep, and make a separate disambiguation. Oreocooke (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Gonnym. Oreocooke (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RanDom 404 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spock § Cultural impact, where the phrase "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is mentioned. It's a quote from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, also mentioned at Wikiquote. I found several songs and TV/podcast episodes and a licensed tie-in novel Star Trek Online: The Needs of the Many that currently have no mention on en.Wikipedia, and I added the redirect "The Needs of the Many" (The Bill) and The Needs of the Many (disambiguation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 02:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
guess I don't need my dab draft anymore, you handled this great. Oreocooke (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Gonnym (again). Oreocooke (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly suggested target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hopefully consensus actually happens this time. Oreocooke (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose. The character never said "The Needs of the Many" with a capital "Needs" and a capital "Many". Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:DIFFCAPS? It seems clear that the quote is the primary topic here. Paradoctor (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A third relist because of less participation numbers. Despite the back-and-forth, there have been only two voters (discounting the blocked IP). Is Spock's quote the primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate a la the new page, which should be at the base title, since I doubt either of these is primary. I'm mildly opposed to including the quote there, since it's only like half of it, but I don't really care all that much. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The qoute is the primary usage as all the other usages descend from it, but that being said, I'd be fine with having the dab page at the base title. Paradoctor (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i would also be fine with that Oreocooke (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay Isn't that the whole reason this started? because spock would be less ASTONISHing? Oreocooke (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuanshuo era

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Falsterbo Horse Show

Falsterbo Horse Show → Skanör med Falsterbo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This should either be an article, or the contents of Category:Falsterbo Horse Show should be deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Dabify – There are three appropriate options: 1) make an article, 2) dabify it to the three existing year articles of the show, or 3) keep target to the community. #2 seems to be the easiest route as three year–based articles exist.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created Draft:Falsterbo Horse Show. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Redirect to Category:Falsterbo Horse Show, or turn it into a disambiguation page listing everything in the category and delete the category. SeaDragon1 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we reach consensus around dabifying as the solution for this redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create article. Disambiguation would not be appropriate, this is not an ambiguous title. There's an article in Swedish on the event that can be used to flesh out the article (sv:Falsterbo Horse Show), but in the meantime a skeleton article linking to the year articles should do. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and threw something together under the redirect. Please improve it if you can! -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving contact lubricant

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 14#Moving contact lubricant

Automatic lubricating cup

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 14#Automatic lubricating cup

River House Records

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Asian Library

Asian Library → University of British Columbia Library#Asian Library (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Created by a very recent merge. There are several possible targets in addition to the UBC Library, however. These include East Asian Library and the Gest Collection, C.V. Starr East Asian Library, and Harvard–Yenching Library, among others. A disambiguation page may be in order. Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the merger, if consensus can be reached on suitable entries, no problem with disambiguation. it's lio! | talk | work 02:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to a disambiguation page. I agree that Asian Library is quite broad as a term. Cyali (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig in addition to the above, there is also Cheng Yu Tung East Asian Library and Washington University Libraries#Specialist libraries. If a dab is created, East Asian library should be created as a redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "L" is capitalized, showing that this is being used as a proper name; and while there are indeed other generic "Asian libraries", the UBC example appears to be the only one actually titled "the Asian Library". I'd have thought, therefore, that the redirect should be left as it is; but that dab pages should be created for "Asian library" and "East Asian Library". GrindtXX (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Grind. Jay 💬 10:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation seems like the most reasonable approach here. Not convinced by above argument that the title is indeed distinct enough to clearly only refer to the one subject. The dab page should be made regardless of outcome, but I personally don't see what would make the current target the primary topic. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca de Vera

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 14#Bianca de Vera

May 6

Durre Menthor

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Main Article

Main Article → Main Page (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
MAIN ARTICLE → Main Page (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Could also refer to {{Main}} (which produces a "main article" hatnote); google search also gives me a bunch of random unrelated stuff too Duckmather (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unconvincing nomination (mainspace titles aren't ambiguous with templates), but then the redirect's existence is itself unconvincing (I don't see this as a plausible search term for the main page). Weak delete I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your claim that mainspace titles aren't ambiguous with templates is quite correct, though. For example, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 12#Multiple issues ended in deletion. Nevertheless the phrase "multiple issues" is still a highly enwiki-specific phrase, and I would guess that {{multiple issues}} is the main way many, if not most, ordinary people would ever see that phrase in the wild. Duckmather (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main Article as sensible. Do not keep MAIN ARTICLE, as it is implausible, probably a joke, and will likely get G7 anyway. Oreocooke (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oreocooke you are the creator of MAIN ARTICLE, is this a request for it to be deleted? Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not exactly. Oreocooke (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted MAIN ARTICLE by G7 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I technically didn't request yet but I was going to anyway so it isn't really a problem Oreocooke (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sensible. The Main Page is not an article, it is not the main article about Wikipedia either, which is Wikipedia. It is not the main article about articles. article (disambiguation) shows several possible base topics. Nor is it the main article about main. Main (disambiguation) shows many articles about Main -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~idea: disambiguate Oreocooke (talk)~~ 18:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

idea: convert to disambiguation or retarget to Main Oreocooke (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a plausible term to a newbie for the Main Page (or Main page in the Main menu), where a prominent link to Wikipedia can also be found (Note: I guess you just have to know the main menu is ... there, somewhere, now in the menu button. Fun fact, when I first started on this site, I was oblivious to the main page even though the main menu was once visible.) But we don't have things like Taylor Swift article or Taylor Swift page, nor should we—the Main page/article needs to be disambiguated from Main. As for {{Main}}, Edit article was created as a way to get to the Wikipedia space instructions for how to edit articles, but was subsequently moved by the redirect's creator to Editing, which seems like an afterthought to me, but at least there is a hatnote for Help:Editing. Havradim leaf a message 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrism

Electrism → Electricity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~~I'm not sure whether "electrism" is a real word; google search gives me a random mix of stuff, which suggests it isn't. Maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have not heard this word in any context. Constant314 (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only significant thing that comes up is a Huffington Post article about Carmen Electrism, relating to Carmen Electra. There's no use of that term anywhere else, though, so that redirect target also doesn't work. Based5290 :3 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! A Google Books search comes up with numerous pieces of evidence, for instances this that this is in fact a real, if perhaps archaic, word, whose meaning is 'electricity'. Jay Cubby 02:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JayCubby: Good catch! Consider my initial nomination struck then. Duckmather (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As best as I can tell, this seems to be the ramblings of a crackpot, and it's unclear that "electrism" is even talking about electricity as it's normally understood, and not some related crackpottish idea. As I noted below, I'm unable to even find this term in the OED. It's unlikely that anyone is going to search for this, let alone that they're merely looking for the general topic of electricity if they are. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just double checked, and a search in this book finds 31 matches for "electricity" vs. 18 for "electrism", so it's quite unlikely that the author actually means for "electrism" to refer to the same thing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JayCubby. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, at best, an obscure, archaic term that's not (nor should be) mentioned at the target. I don't even see it listed at the OED. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to add a sourced mention to the section Etymology of electricity#Electrism instead of at the main Electricity article (as the latter has a hatnote to the article Etymology of electricity, which includes the former). Duckmather (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zldksnflqmtm

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Googlovic

Googlovic → Ivan Gašparovič (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No idea why this would be a synonym of Ivan Gašparovič, googling doesn't help. Sounds like just a newbie mistake (made by a user with 7 edits) that should have been deleted in 2009. --Joy (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also cannot figure out what this term means, and the AfD that created the redirect offers no clues as well. The article was never referenced so no sources from the old history either. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Presidentman. Mark Ironie (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squidward on a Chair

Squidward on a Chair → Livin' on a Prayer#In popular culture (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Target article no longer mentions "Squidward on a Chair". loserhead (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syriacs

Syriacs → Assyrian people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Proposing a new retarget to Terms for Syriac Christians, as the reasoning is outlined in the proposed target article: "Syriac Christians of Near-Eastern (Semitic) origin use several terms for their self-designation. In alphabetical order, the main terms are: Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, and Syriacs." This indicates that the term is not solely associated with Assyrians. Academically, Syriac and Assyrian are distinguished, with Syriac often used as a synonym for Aramean. Syriac functions both as an exonym and an endonym for Aramean Christians. For reference, see this source, which states: "genocide of the Assyrians, Syriacs, and Chaldeans." Until a modern Aramean people article is established, this redirect would be more fitting with Terms for Syriac Christians as the target. Note: I was unable to place the RfD notice on the redirect page; if someone could do so, it would be appreciated.--Wlaak (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is - Today, the modern Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac group is covered at "Assyrian people" and is named so per WP:COMMONNAME. Modern scholars consider them to be the same ethnic group. The disamb page would also be a better alternative than the proposed target article. Shmayo (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Common name or not, Syriac is used to refer to multiple groups, not exclusively Assyrians. Terms for Syriac Christians speaks of this term being applied to various people, it is the most fitting one. Modern scholars do not apply "Syriac" to "Assyrian", they keep them separate, hence often speaking of Syriac/Chaldean/Assyrian, as the source I referenced. Keeping as is, would according to me, seem to be WP:POV, to only limit it to the Assyrian people and not the broader Syriac Christians which Terms for Syriac Christians is for and speaks of. Wlaak (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wlaak, I have previously listed several historical quotes and sources under the Gungoren village talk page but here are also some sources from our own community and church in which we identify ourselves as Aramean and not as Assyrian.

- "Syriac is a Greek derivative term for Aramean, which was widely used after the conquests of Alexander the Great."

https://www.wca-ngo.org/heritage/102-people

- "The Holy Synod of the Syriac Orthodox Church declared in 1983 that the Syriac language is in fact Aramaic, and the Syrians are Arameans."

https://www.wca-ngo.org/our-heritage

- "Syriac Orthodox Christians often identify as Arameans, tracing their heritage back to the ancient Aramean kingdoms and preserving their language and traditions."

https://www.academia.edu/5159897/Ethnicity_Ethnogenesis_and_the_Identity_of_Syriac_Orthodox_Christians

- "The term 'Syriac' is derived from the Greek word 'Syrian', which itself is a translation of 'Aramean'."

https://www.wca-ngo.org/heritage/102-people 145.222.94.129 (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is - For some reason I don't have the ability to directly reply to the first comment so I will leave my comment under Shmayo. The people who call themselves Syriac are the same as those who call themselves Assyrian. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this is also what is used to identify the community. Terms for Syriac Christians discusses the various...well, terms used by them and other groups who follow the Syriac rite of churches, so it's not really fitting to redirect it there.

By the way @Wlaak, the Dutch IP 145.222.94.129 was the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation only last September [13] for disrupting Güngören, Midyat in favor of Aramean identity. They are absolutely not fit to take part in this discussion based on that alone, and seeing them write:

"The only group that calls itself Assyrians are the Iraqi Nestorians and some Chaldeans. You are talking nonsense and no one from our community supports your illusion."

...is extremely telling here. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not talk to me about who is fit and not fit to be participating, I am my own. Talk to him about it. I called out his manners already. Wlaak (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are both discussing on that article's talk page how to find sources to change the name of the villagers to Aramean, and you mentioned the redirect to Terms for Syriac Christians in one of your responses. It was just my inference. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No we weren't. IP asked how we could change the redirect, I told him if he wishes to do so, there is a open discussion for it and linked it. I said if you have sources that do indeed tell that the village is Aramean, then it can be changed, if there isn't, it remains as what the sources say. Wlaak (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is - the terms "Syriac" and "Assyrian" refer to the same group of people. However, "Assyrian" is the common name. Terms for Syriac Christians is an explanation of the different terms, not an article about the people per se. Mugsalot (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost no one in our Syriac Orthodox community who identifies as Assyrian. You are talking nonsense here to suppress your illusion of a great Assyrian people. Our people and church have massively stated that we are descended from the ancient Arameans. The only group that calls itself Assyrians are the Iraqi Nestorians and some Chaldeans. You are talking nonsense and no one from our community supports your illusion. 145.222.94.129 (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relax mate Wlaak (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate but both Shmayo and Mugsalot have been blocking everything for years now and every change we make they change it back to their Assyrian ideology. It is very frustrating and my limit was that they would change my village. However, they have filled in everything that has to do with 'Arameans' as if they are extinct. An example is the page "Tur-Abdin". That is our home area where all Syriac Orthodox Christians come from. This area has nothing to do with the Assyrian identity. I would very much appreciate it if something would be done about this once and for all. Also on the page "Arameans" they constantly try to remove all links that have to do with the Syriacs and add parts as if we no longer exist. It all has to fit in their own Assyrian street. 145.222.94.129 (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the common name, but it is no exclusive to Assyrians, that's the point. In academics, the terms are often differentiated, with Syriac often equated to Aramean. Today, the article that speaks of all groups is Terms for Syriac Christians, it includes the Arameans, Chaldeans, and the Assyrians. Assyrian people writes three sentences of Arameans, neither does it write of the correleation between the Syriac name to these three different names. It is also only the Assyrian name being "prevailed". Wlaak (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support retarget - not exclusively Assyrian per Terms of Syriac Christians Historynerd361 (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I agree with the proposal. The term "Syriac" is not exclusively synonymous with "Assyrian" and is often used in broader contexts that include Aramean and Chaldean identities as well. As noted in the target article, several groups of Near-Eastern (Semitic) origin—Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Arameans use "Syriac" as a self-designation. The academic distinction between Syriac and Assyrian, along with the usage of Syriac as both an exonym and endonym for Aramean Christians, supports redirecting to the more inclusive "Terms for Syriac Christians" rather than a narrower ethnic designation. Until a dedicated article on modern Arameans exists, this redirect better reflects the current scholarship and self-identifications! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kivercik (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Wlaak: I have tagged the redirect. For future reference, please see WP:RFDHOWTO regarding how to tag redirects with the {{Rfd}} template ... since this edit of yours does not seem like the resulting template usage per the instructions listed at WP:RFDHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! Wlaak (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as nominator. Wlaak (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget. "Syriac(s)" should not be treated as a synonym of "Assyrian(s)". Syriac is primarily a linguistic term. Its use an ethnic term (as opposed to 'Syrian') is relatively recent . Srnec (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget

Not a single source claim Assyrians to be the lone representatives for Syriacs. Therefore this is a strongly misguiding feature and thus, a more adept retarget would be Terms for Syriac Christians. 777network (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karyolysus lacerate

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Auto-asphyxiate

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Blae

Blae → Blue (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Blae" means blue in Scots, but blue isn't an especially Scottish topic (as compared to many other countries that have blue in their flags), and there are no other good targets, so I suggest deletion per WP:FORRED. Duckmather (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue, as it links only to Early Scots (ignoring RfD, XfD, and stuff like that). SeaDragon1 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your proposal is that the Blue article doesn't tell me what "blae" means, which is exactly the sort of situation that WP:FORRED is designed to avoid. (If someone can add a sourced mention of "blae" or even find a decent source that can be used for such a mention, however, then I'll retract my comment.) Duckmather (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Blae Loch (Beith), a hatnote could explain the Scots use and the target "blue" -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, with only mild opposition against retargeting. results gave me a type of artificial fly, a surname, and... fucking fortune tiger (pt article, what can you do), how the hell does that tumor keep spreading itself like this? anyway, the funny puddle took a few seconds of scrolling down to find, so i don't think it's what most readers would be looking for consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 19:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Jay 💬 13:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TAG

Wikipedia:TAG → Wikipedia:File copyright tags (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Suggest converting the numerous hatnotes at the target to a disambiguation page. Looking through uses of this redirect, even experienced editors are often using it for something other than file copyright tags - most frequently maintenance tagging, sometimes also tag-teaming. For example, WP:V currently links this in a context in which maintenance tagging is intended. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The ongoing RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 27#Wikipedia:TAGS may be related. Steel1943 (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to disambiguation page at Wikipedia:Tags, as I've suggested at the April 27 discussion linked above. Havradim leaf a message 12:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Tags, which is a natural and broader target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At present, it's not a broader target - it's another specific use of the term "tag". If that becomes a dab page as proposed in the other discussion then it could be a good target. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my use of 'broader' is in contrast to "file copyright tags" being a very specific and niche topic. Broader as in "has broader mass appeal". -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Tags. (everyone, and most of all the closing admin please see the related discussion) - Nabla (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Tags is not a disambiguation page (yet). The hatnotes there do not include WP:TAGTEAM which is a hatnote at the current target. Note to closer, in case we are retargeting to Wikipedia:Tags before the Wikipedia:TAGS RfD closes or the move request is made: move the TAGTEAM hatnote from current target to new target. Jay 💬 13:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

Benching

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sans song

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Infinite Frameworks

Infinite Frameworks → Film industry#Indonesia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Yesterday I turned this redirect into an entirely new type of page called a "navigation page" which would list article sections that mention the company, including the redirect's current target. I was subsequently reverted by MPGuy2824, who restored the redirect. When I first stumbled upon this page, it used to redirect to Franklin and Friends, which I never considered to be helpful to readers at all. Sure, the studio did help produce that show, but that article isn't going to give readers any substantial information about Infinite Frameworks. (it would be odd if it did) In fact, no article alone can give readers substantial information about it; what little information is present on Wikipedia is scattered across multiple articles, hence my decision to turn this redirect into a navpage. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Navigation pages before adding your vote here. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this be a Navigation page? For reference, we have 2 navpages on enwiki.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice until there is a consensus about disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I would favor deletion if no suitable target can be found (and renavification is still not an option), which I think may indeed be the case. Otherwise, convert into a stub with a filmographical list, like with Amari McCoy. The lead section for such a stub can start with "Infinite Frameworks is a Singapore-based company", and {{Infinite Frameworks}} should be included on the bottom. In hindsight, I could've been able to do just that much sooner had I not opened this RfD nomination in the first place; now I have to wait a while until this discussion is closed before anything is allowed to happen to this redirect again. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four Fiends

Four Fiends → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Monsters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Currently the only mention of "fiends" at the target is the hatnote for this redirect, which points at Four Perils. While articles like Final_Fantasy_(video_game)#Story mention the fictional element, the mythological use is potentially the primary topic. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 01:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget, and if so where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of supernatural beings in Chinese folklore, where the historical topic is clearly explained -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 💬 21:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Bangkok University

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Talk:Avoidant personality disorder/Archive 9

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Chyrhyryn Soviet Republic

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 13#Chyrhyryn Soviet Republic

Trioxin

Trioxin → 1,3,5-Trioxane (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Trioxane is not trioxin. Only possible trioxin is 1,2,4-Trioxine. Look PubChem CID 21570762. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.16.92 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CAS suggests Trioxin as other name for Trioxan 1,3,5-Trioxane but not for 1,2,4-Trioxane older ≠ wiser 14:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not 1,2,4-Trioxane, but 1,2,4-Trioxine. 176.200.67.159 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, sorry. Copied and searched for name from the wrong tab. As there is no article at present for 1,2,4-Trioxine and no other reasonable target for the actual chemical, perhaps this should redirect to The Return of the Living Dead where it is a plot element. older ≠ wiser 14:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, PubChem also lists Trioxin as synonym for 1,3,5-Trioxane. older ≠ wiser 15:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incentive to creation of new article 109.54.241.24 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the name trioxin for trioxane is inaccurate. 62.18.105.190 (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying PubChem is wrong? older ≠ wiser 11:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/1_2_4-Trioxine 176.200.96.74 (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the point of this link is what? older ≠ wiser 13:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying PubChem contradicts itself 176.200.96.74 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.19952826.html 176.200.96.74 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am biochemist and trioxine (or trioxin, chemical formula C3H4O3) exist in two forms: 1,2,3-trioxine and 1,2,4-trioxine. Also trioxane (or trioxan, chemical formula C3H6O3) exist in three forms: 1,2,3-trioxane, 1,2,4-trioxane and 1,3,5-trioxane. But trioxane is not trioxine, is another compound: the first is saturated and the second is unsaturated. 109.54.230.249 (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I doubt there is a valid target as "trioxin" only exists as a substructure of other, larger molecules. As far as I know, only 1,3,5 trioxane is stable of any molecules listed in this discussion. 1,2,3 trioxane/trioxine are almost certainly unstable and only theoretical, and 1,2,4 trioxane has only been studied computationally. Doubt 1,2,4 trioxine would be stable either. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYRG

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore and AfD

Discover World

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kdam Eurovision 2018

Kdam Eurovision 2018 → Kdam Eurovision (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Kdam Eurovision was a previously used selection format to select Israel's entry for the Eurovision Song Contest. However the last edition to be held was in 2014, and in subsequent years the Rising Star talent show has been predominanly used to select the Israeli artist. Therefore was no "Kdam Eurovision 2018" and as such, this redirect is unlikely to be useful, given that Kdam Eurovision is not mentioned at Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018 and is only briefly mentioned at Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dei

Dei → Deus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Recently, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has become more talked about, especially with Donald Trump as President again. People typing "dei" are almost certainly searching for DEI rather than the Latin word for god. Mast303 (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS. The initialism is spelled in all caps, but the Latin word for god is not. That is enough of a difference to distinguish these topics. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Diversity, equity, and inclusion - Dei (disambiguation) and that page are the two top outgoing links from Deus [14] and the article is top outbound link from the dab page[15] (Dues is third). Every hit on the first three pages of Google results for "dei" -Wikipedia is also about diversity, equity, and inclusion - whichever way you look at it there is a clear primary topic and it is not where we are currently sending readers. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not caps sensitive so it's a poor way to determine a primary topic, especially in a WP:DIFFCAPS scenario. Google results also skew towards recent events, which is counter to WP:PT2 and WP:RECENTISM. Dei being a Latin topic is very much in the opposite direction in regards to long-term significance. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google was only one part of my rationale, and while diffcaps is relevant it is not the whole story. I can find no evidence that points towards the current target being primary, but lots of evidence from multiple sources that the diversity meaning is. If you have any evidence that contradicts this, please present it and I'll reconsider. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move Dei (disambiguation) to Dei since someone could reasonably be looking for either target when not typing an all-caps acronym. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dei (disambiguation) should be moved to DEI (disambiguation) because most entries there are initialisms. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
I have no opinion on that at the moment (I mean, WP:DABNAME states the word is preferred, and Wiktionary:dei exists) ... but if that happens, "retarget to the disambiguation page (whatever its name)" would be my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that guidance at WP:DABNAME. I withdraw that opinion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not RM; this is RFD. Mast303 (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter: a "retarget to Dei (disambiguation)" result would end with "move Dei (disambiguation) to Dei" anyways per WP:DABNAME/WP:MALPLACED. So please, find something better to do than being pedantic. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity, equity, and inclusion has become more talked out, especially with the Black Lives Matter movement and Trump's efforts to remove DEI. Therefore, most people searching for Dei are probably searching for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Mast303 (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. The plural for 'god' is a reasonably important word by itself, and has been for a very, very long time, where as the acronym "DEI" is very recent, and may not be particularly noteworthy for a long time—not because the concept is necessarily of little importance, but because sociological terminology tends to be very unstable, and the current political environment is likely to make it even more so. But "DEI" is distinguishable because of its form, and hatnotes are sufficient to distinguish them for Wikipedia. I'm also not sure that "DEI" is widely used throughout the English-speaking world, or whether it's primarily used in the United States. Either way, its current popularity as a topic title is very recent and likely to be short-lived. P Aculeius (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the disambiguation page. I don't think either the Latin word or the diversity acronym can be described as the clear primary topic, and I think readers would be best served by redirecting straight to the disambiguation page, putting both topics on equal footing. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS ("small details are often sufficient to distinguish topics") and WP:PLURALPT ("the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overwrite with the disambiguation page -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is Per WP:DIFFCAPS policy. DEI should no go to the same place. But people need to learn to use the Shift key. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to diversity, equity, and inclusion WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here. Although people often mistaking for write an acronym "DEI" in more usual style such as "Dei" and "dei" (all-lowercase), it does not negate the status of "diversity, equity, and inclusion" as a primary topic for the acronym "Dei" (not all-caps DEI). 2404:8000:1037:587:3168:5857:B7AD:816D (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Dei (disambiguation). The "diversity, equality and inclusion" topic is much more common, but it's always spelled in all caps, so it's not the primary topic for "Dei" (not in all caps). However there's still a good chance that someone typing in "Dei" is looking for diversity/equality/inclusion (or some other term abbreviated as DEI), rather than the Latin word for god. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MN

Wikipedia:MN → Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:MN pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Noticeboard from 2006 to 2018. It was then redirected to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and currently points there. It has received about 1200 pageviews since 2018. Editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota have requested that the shortcut point to that project as MN is the standard abbreviation for the state. A discussion at the notability guideline's talkpage did not find consensus. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 21:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments in the linked discussion - Shortcuts being ambiguous is very common and not a problem. What is a problem is retargetting well-used shortcuts as this just causes confusion when one person refers to it (not necessarily linked) expecting it to still target the original location (how often do you check the targets of shortcuts you use frequently) at the same time as others refer to it expecting it to point at the new location. Editing long-closed discussions to change the target of redirects like this is disruptive makework. The incomming links for this redirect I spot check all clearly intend the current location. Deletion would just break things for no benefit to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota as a short and logical shortcut to a project that needs one. I'm not buying an argument that it's a sensible shortcut for the current target. When referring to notability, the N comes first, not last (eg: WP:NBAND, WP:NALBUM). Employing a hatnote (especially with an explanatory note that it was the previous target) would resolve any confusion for anyone following old music-related links. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This has been used as a shortcut to WP:MUSICBIO etc. in discussions and presumably in edit summaries for many years now. What Thryduulf said. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate due to being old, and this most likely has excessive edit summary linking, which cannot be changed. I do sympathize with the nominator, but it seems this is now the best solution. Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget or Disambiguate – "NY" goes to the WikiProject New York (state). I do not see any reason for MN not to redirect to WikiProject Minnesota. The Minnesota User Group is trying to rekindle interest and develop new projects after going dark after COVID-19. This means rebuilding the infrastructure and making finding resources on Wikipedia for Minnesotans and those wishing to help on Minnesota topics more straightforward.

As per my original comments: The original link was created in 2006 to redirect to "WikiProject Music/Noticeboard" which is currently inactive. A redirect to "MN" made sense for "Music/Noticeboard." It makes little sense to for WP:MN to go to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" it appears someone just coopted it. As @Pingnova pointed out the section already has three shortcuts and WP:MN is not listed as one of them supporting the idea that it was just taken.

It is important to point out that the shortcut WP:MN has been used only 96 times since 2006. However the shortcuts WP:BAND, WP:MUSICBIO, & WP:SINGER each has been used thousands of times. The comment that MN is a "well-used shortcut" does not play out according to the evidence. Keeping a "MN" as short link "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" appears to be nothing more than link hoarding or pride. If it is a case of the latter then remove it from "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" and send to a Disambiguate page, so then no one will be happy. Myotus (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget - I believe this should be retargeted to Wikiproject Minnesota due to its relatively few uses and we could simply change the link in places it is used because of how infrequently it is used. Especially as it isn’t even listed as a link to that section in the section itself. Lastly Minnesota is very frequently abbreviated to MN and this is the first time musicians has been abbreviated to it. Macaw* 16:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally add a hat note mentioning the former redirect Macaw* 17:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate WP:Minnesota will never be a sought out target. No U.S. State wikiproject should occupy 2-letter abbreviation shortcuts, since they are all moribund, and it would not be a very useful use of such a prominent short redirect. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but other state wikiprojects have two letter links such as WP:NY and the criteria for musicians is rarly linked to with WP:MN compared to it's other shortcuts and a hat note would solve any issues that disambiguation would solve. Macaw* 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:65.92.246.77 (aka: anonymous), "Minnesota will never be a sought out target." It is rather insulting to hear such bias. We will move our state to the coast so folks will seek us out.
The following US States use 2-letter abbreviation shortcuts in the English Wikipedia version.
If two letter codes are too valuable to assign to US states and need to be held in limbo just in case they might need to be assigned in a possible redirect in the English Wikipedia version for some unknown future use then we need to pull these State codes too. Myotus (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak disambiguate (or keep as second choice) as retargeting seems like it would disrupt a lot of links. I've drafted the dab page. Duckmather (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but this rediret is only used 96 times and the disruption could be solved with intuition when you get sent to a irrelivent page to the topic you were just in and a hatnote. Macaw* 21:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Macaw:, yes, possibly 96 times in links in pages and articles, but there could be links in edit summaries that are not included in count. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. I prefer to err on the side of preserving shortcuts, but in this case, there doesn't seem to be a need for WP:MN to point to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. It isn't a commonly known or used shortcut, and the few instances of its most recent use (since 2018 when its original target was deprecated) can largely be corrected. This type of shortcut is intuitive and common for many regional WikiProjects. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disambiguation. Projectspace shortcuts are generally ambiguous by nature. It is only appropriate to disambiguate them in rare or special cases, a bar which this does not seem to quite meet. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Postgaardida

Postgaardida → Postgaardi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

According to the article on Postgaardia, Postgaardida is not monotypic and has more than 1 genus (Postgaardi and Calkinsia). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes: A 2020 study also mentions Calkinsia as part of Postgaardida: Kolisko M, Flegontova O, Karnkowska A, Lax G, Maritz JM, Pánek T, Táborský P, Carlton JM, Čepička I, Aleš H, Julius L, Simpson AG, Tai V (2020). "EukRef-excavates: seven curated SSU ribosomal RNA gene databases". Database. 2020 (baaa080). doi:10.1093/database/baaa080. PMC 7678783. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to be done with this redirect? Jay 💬 08:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to either turn it into an article or delete it (sorry, I don't want to turn it into an extremely short stub like many of the articles about protistology, e. g. Vahlkampfiidae or Trichomonadidae only contains a sentence about where it belongs, a list of genera, a list of related articles, a reference list and a list of further reading, but no (or a minimal amount of) more details; articles like these are called substubs in my main WP). Other articles merely contain a taxobox, the sentence "X is a Y in Z" with 1 reference, where X is the name of the clade, Y the name of the taxonomic rank, Z the name of the group containing X. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to Postgaardia where a sublist for it exists -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Singh Rathore

Kunal Singh Rathore → List of 2023 Indian Premier League personnel changes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not a suitable target; The page does not describe much about the player. Vestrian24Bio 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Not much" is a good target unless there is a better one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Wait until has established more notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget: more information about him at Rajasthan Royals#Current squad. The-Pope (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, I guess, restore and send to AfD if you're someone who thinks that's necessary) in favor of search showing all of the multiple mentions of this person each with too little substance to warrant a redirect rather than arbitrarily choosing one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and AfD per Pppery. Kunal Rathore is mentioned in several articles, and Rajasthan cricket team § Current squad is a better target than the current or suggested targets. There is no best target. Jay 💬 13:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Petraseme

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

May 4

Niggerz

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

Historic Palestine

Historic Palestine → Palestine (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 30 § Historic Palestine – retarget to Palestine (disambiguation)

Following this discussion, the page was redirected to the disambiguation page over the argument that the term might refer to Mandatory Palestine. Well, see the opening at Palestine (region): history starts long before 1920. Retarget to Palestine (region). ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the exact same reason it was retargetted here in the last discussion: The term may refer to either topic on the disambiguation page with neither being the clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re missing the point. “Historic Palestine” never refers to Mandatory Palestine per se, nor is the latter term antithetical to the simple wording “Palestine”. Mandatory Palestine is only the final polity to exist in the region of Palestine, or “historic Palestine”, before the establishment of Israel. In other terms, “historic Palestine” refers to the region throughout the centuries, not to a specific point in time. Therefore, it should redirect to Palestine (region), as the lead section of this article clearly shows. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. It's not explained why Historic Palestine would not refer to Mandatory Palestine, that seems like a very plausible target for this and just as much so as the region and its older history. Neither meaning is primary so keeping as a disambiguation is best. — Amakuru (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to the above vote. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Based on my searches, this mainly appears to be a vaguely-defined geographic term. I'm not seeing any sources that specifically refer to the polity of Mandatory Palestine using this phrase. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom and Presidentman 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to History of Palestine, which covers Palestine historically (including the mandate!). -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...I removed the mandate template from this page as apparently improperly used when on non-article talk pages. Steel1943 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to History of Palestine per Tavix, as well as the redirect being the closest title match to that target. Steel1943 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current target, History of Palestine, or Palestine (region)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Palestine seems like a reasonable target to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to History of Palestine which seems the most appropriate. The current target Palestine (disambiguation) (a) lists only those historic entities that include Palestine in their name, thereby missing out quite a few that don't, and (b) also lists various other articles not related to the region (except in name); the alternative suggestion of Palestine (region) is better, though not limited to history. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But “historic Palestine” is an expression referring to the territory historically identified as “Palestine”, not necessarily to its historical events. Hence why it is literally mentioned as a synonym in the lead of Palestine (region). ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can always add a hatnote. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s for sure, but it’s still a bit weird to me how redirecting to an article literally mentioning “historic Palestine” in bold in the lead is not the most obvious option. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...It seems that what's obvious to some is not obvious to others. That, and the bolding can always be adjusted, as well as it still being valid if the page which it is on is included in a hatnote on another page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's another redirect, Historical Palestine, which currently redirects to Palestine (region) (where it is mentioned in the hatnote). Whatever decision prevails for the historic redirect should presumably also be applied to the historical one too. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I’m responsible for the latest changes to that redirect and the hatnote, for the same reasons I have opened this discussion. I’ll obviously be amending that one, too, in accordance with the outcome here. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to History of Palestine (or its alter ego History of Palestine (region), depending upon the outcome of the move request). Let us see if we cannot form some kind of consistent approach to this question. Of the countries I found, we have Historic Iran redirecting to History of Iran for almost 16 years; Historical China to History of China for 11 years; Historical India to History of India for 7 years; relatively new Historical germany to History of Germany; new Historical Pakistan to History of Pakistan. On the other hand, only Historic syria redirects to Syria (disambiguation) for 12 years instead of History of Syria; relatively new Historic Israel to Land of Israel instead of History of Israel; brand new Historical Armenia goes to Armenian highlands instead of History of Armenia. Havradim leaf a message 23:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is “historic Palestine” has a pretty defined usage as a name for the geographical region. It makes sense for Historical Germany to redirect to History of Germany because it cannot refer to anything else, as Germany (region) is not an established concept. Historic Israel redirecting to Land of Israel is a good analogy. until 1948, both “Israel” and “Palestine” had a different meaning than they do now, and the modern polities have not emerged in continuity with anything; so marking the name with a “historic” tag has more implications than just the history of two countries which have basically never existed until modern times, both as political concepts and as political entities. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of List of historic states of Germany or Pan-Germanism as 2 plausible targets for Historical Germany; Greater India, Indian subcontinent, or Hindustan as targets for Historical India; Greater China as a target for Historical China, and so on. Your argument that *Historic Palestine* is any different from these is not convincing. On the other hand, Historic England and Historic Scotland are well defined entities. Havradim leaf a message 12:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t get my argument. “Historic Palestine”, unlike the above phrases, has been used as a meaningful expression with a pretty defined meaning, it’s not a simple juxtaposition of adjective+name that may convey a number of different meanings (which ones is up to the reader to interpret based or the context, like you’re trying to do here). While Historic England and Historic Scotland have nothing to do with this discussion to begin with because they don’t even refer to territories. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying hard to understand what you mean. If you mean to say that *Historic Palestine* is a term that was meant to convey the idea that the area that is roughly analogous to what was previously known as Mandatory Palestine has since been only partially reclaimed by the State of Palestine, with the rest being filled up by a nation with a completely different name (Israel), and that therefore there is a need to connect the rest of the territory with Palestine, I can see why you think that this term is different from the other ones mentioned in my first post. However, it could well be argued that Historical India fits this definition as well, since Pakistan and Bangladesh currently fill up the remainder of what was once the Indian subcontinent (I'm unaware of any designs India may have on Pakistan or Bangladesh proper, but this may be beside the point). And yet, precedent here has still found History of India to be the correct target. I agree with Tavix and Steel1943 that the history articles cover the geographic and political boundaries quite well already, and they are the closest to the redirect linguistically. Fortunately, Palestine (region) is linked on the first line of the history article. I am loathe to doing what sounds to me like needlessly introducing a nationalism dispute to Wikipedia. For the record, I think Historic Israel should be retargeted to History of Israel, for neutrality reasons and consistency with the above points. Havradim leaf a message 18:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was very simple. A region that remained historically cohese for centuries was at one point divided, and since then “Historic Palestine” has been used by scholars to refer to the entire region as historically understood, to avoid using the now politically-charged simpler terming of “Palestine”. I overlooked that India/Pakistan has gone through something similar, but to be fair I’m not as familiar with the history of the Indian subcontinent and the terminological practices adopted in its regard, so I don’t know if the things can be compared. Anyways, my point still stands in contrast with most other cases, where the territories identified as China, Germany etc. still are approximately the same as their historical predecessors, so an expression like “historical Germany” does not carry a geopolitical meaning and cannot be compared to “historic Palestine” (or “historical India” for that matter). ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on Germany and China though. If you read List of historic states of Germany and Pan-Germanism and peruse the maps, one could make the argument that Poland, Russia and Czechia have filled out areas of former iterations of Germany. And the Chinese have their One China policy (regarding the contested status of Taiwan). I don't think it would be fair to give preference on Wikipedia to one nationalistic group over another. Havradim leaf a message 20:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOGAI and others

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 13#MOGAI and others

Breeing

Breeing → Screaming (music) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned anywhere in our articles (apart from the Bree disambiguation page); web search does not seem to show anything relevant. The page was hosting an unsourced article before being redirected. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 16:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert without prejudice to AfD. I'm seeing enough relevant hits in unreliable sources that the former article seem likely to be verifiable by someone who knows where to look to find relevant reliable sources. Such people are very much more likely to be aware of an AfD (and thus that reliable sources need to be found) than they are an RfD. Google insists that I most likely mean "brewing" and most of the hits are typos for "breeding" but it would not be a useful redirect to either. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and AfD Yeah, this seems like an obvious outcome. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. it was an unsourced stub before, so if anyone wants it up, recreation would be a better option. can't think of any fitting targets for a redirect either consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Being sourced is not a speedy deletion reason and whether a stub or redlink is better is a matter of opinion. The article content has not been discussed at an appropriate forum and deletion here would be contrary to the consensus of the recent discussions regarding BLARs. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consarn is not advocating for deletion via WP:CSD, so whether or not it's a speedy deletion reason is irrelevant. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...this again? if it needs to be from my mouth, i'm not voting to speedy delete. if i was, i would've said so consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Consarn, but as always I'm willing to change my !vote if someone is able to provide evidence of notability. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, repeated consensuses have determined that RfD is not an appropriate venue for determining notability or similar of pre-BLAR content. Deletion at RfD is accordingly an abuse of process and entirely inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the opening sentence of WP:RFD: Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. There are no exceptions listed, including for redirects with history. This is a potentially problematic redirect, so the place to discuss it is RfD. For another policy, let's examine WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You are advocating to restore an unsourced article, so you need to support the content with a source. It is a violation of policy to restore it otherwise. (I'll also ping Someone-123-321 with this request because they think it's an obvious outcome.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to rehash the arguments here when we've spent multiple months debating them in multiple locations with wider audiences with the outcome every single time that no, RfD is not the appropriate location to debate the suitability of article content just because it was BLARed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you are still unable to come up with any evidence to support this article. I also note that this is not a WP:BLAR situation—which requires an editor to disagree with the blanking-and-redirecting by reverting this action. For example: this was redirected back in 2008 and no one at the time objected to the redirection. If someone were to do so then, the proper procedure as outlined there would be to then take the restored article to AfD. But we're long past that point. Instead, the issue brought before us is an issue with the redirect, namely that it is not mentioned anywhere in our articles (apart from the Bree disambiguation page); web search does not seem to show anything relevant. That's a question that RfD is more suited to handle, so AfD is not the correct venue for it. Of course, if you are able to find sourcing that would support an article on the subject, then WP:BURDEN would be satisfied and I would be okay with a restoration. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to engage further with your attempts to subvert community consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not subverting community consensus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly explained how you are doing exactly that. Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar cases have happened before where articles get turned into inappropiate redirects just to avoid WP:AFD User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make that or this action appropriate. When something is redirected to an inappropriate location explicitly to avoid AfD, then that's all the more reason to send it to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned this disagreement (about disagreement) between trusted editors I respect is going sideways, and I'm having difficulty fully understanding why sysops with a combined admin tenure of 29 years can't find some resolution on what we each consider an important issue for Wikipedia. Today I ask both of you to cease your fire in this space, knowing you have every reason (and agency) to choose not to honor my request. I'm wondering whether we should work somewhere more private to hammer out an RFC wording which will help us streamline this apparent inconguity in our community understanding of written policy and guidance. If it's an actual issue between two trusted sysops, it must be a real problem for less experienced, less tolerant people. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We had an RFC very recently Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 201#RfC: Amending ATD-R (which confirmed the results of 2018 and 2021 RFCs that when a BLAR is contested the preferred venue for discussion is AfD* with the talk page as a second option) which followed on from Wikipedia talk:Redirect#on interpretations of the blar section and Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Amending ATD-R.

While we haven't had an explicit RfD about whether RfD is ever an appropriate discussion venue for article content replaced by redirects without consensus, I cannot imagine any logic by which it isn't for BLARs that are contested in one manner but is for BLARs that are contested in a different manner. *well, technically "the appropriate deletion venue for the pre-redirect content" but in practice that is almost always AfD (as it is in this case). Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respect you both, but we're all guilty of failing imagination from time to time. It's precisely why you two are in disagreement. If the previous discussions didn't nail down this specific issue, then we need to calibrate that ending (as opposed to witnessing two of our best admins duking it out in talk space, an ugly and unworthy display). BusterD (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has no relevance to this issue, as the closer explicitly stated: This close does not comment on WP:RFD suitability for BLARs in any scenario, nor does it comment on what deletion venue is appropriate for what kind of page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

admittedly, this is kind of unrelated to the discussion. an article being improperly blar'd to avoid afd isn't really directly tied to it ending up in rfd. case in point, this one was an unsourced stub, and last i saw, unsourced stubs can get deleted here without issue consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Top options at this time are "delete" and "revert and send to AfD"...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ever on and on, we continue circling around in a carousel of agony... consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I generally agree that old BLARs that appear at Rfd that are not good redirects should be restored and addressed at Afd. However, I also see that in some cases, it is clearly undesirable to restore the blanked content, even for a week during an Afd discussion. Here, I can find nothing online in support of WP:VERIFY; of course WP:RS extend to other media, but the lack of anything apparent online suggests at least a lack of notability. Again, this is supposed to be determined at Afd, but I find there is not a very good chance this gets kept at Afd, so delete here per WP:SNOWBALL. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether RfD is an appropriate venue for the expression of deletion opinions or not, 3-2 is unarguably not SNOWBALL territory. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you necessarily oppose deletion, you just oppose deletion here. My invocation of WP:SNOWBALL applies to what would happen at Afd, not here. I do not strongly oppose going to Afd, especially if there is a genuine question whether this would be deleted there, but restoring a poor article just so it can be deleted is a WP:NOTBURO weakness in that view of proper procedure. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When there are five comments, 3 of which support deletion and two of which do not support deletion, there is no justification for a SNOWBALL close as delete (or as anything else for that matter), even if that's what your crystal ball says would happen at AfD, and even if you believe NOTBURO is a justification for deletion (it isn't, but that's another matter). Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

say this goes to afd. would you, then, support keeping there? that's the big question here, and i really can't see you supporting a completely unsourced stub in afd

i also found nothing by the way, give or take one article about echidnas that was clearly a minor spelling mistae consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether I would support keeping at AfD, that's completely irrelevant to the point here about snowballs. You absolutely cannot presume that someone who has explicitly supported something other than deletion would support deletion in a different venue. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, the snowball thing is kind of a weird one, even i disagree with it, if only due to 3 votes not really being enough to warrant that. hence my comment being about something else (in this case, what you'd vote for in afd), to which i need to ask what sources you found that weren't just typos, since i still only found one (and it was a typo), and i really don't think you wouldn't know what you want done with something if you checked it (in this case, to see that it was an unsourced stub) and looked for sources yourself consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOWBALL says If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.. Is/does anyone here really doubt this would be deleted at Afd? If not, there is no reason to go through the process. If there is genuine doubt, then yes, we should send it to Afd if there is consensus there is no good redirect target. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my very first comment I'm seeing enough relevant hits in unreliable sources that the former article seem likely to be verifiable by someone who knows where to look to find relevant reliable sources.. I don't think deletion at AfD is guaranteed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you found stuff, even in seemingly unreliable sources, please show it. this isn't the first time you mention having gotten results and just leave it at that, and i'm honestly unwilling to believe that you did this time, because three other people so far (other from your perspective, that is, because i'm one of them) found nothing. and if no one else has been able to get results here, what hope do you think people in afd would have without it turning to assuming that people here are somehow less competent? more importantly, do you think the possibility of sources existing warrants taking a clearly problematic stub back to mainspace for even a week, as opposed to just recreating it (in draftspace or even under this redirect)? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 00:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources include [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] (for some you might need to search within the page, the first is a facebook link I don't know if it will work for those without an account). I found those in less than a minute using the search string "breeing" music -wikipedia -brewing (the last element because Google insists it's a typo for that and shows results for "brewing" rather than "breeing" even without typos). As noted these are all unreliable sources, but the presence of so many relevant sources in unreliable sources is an indicator that it is plausible reliable sources exist. I haven't shared these before because nobody has asked to see them before, and previously in similar RfDs it good faith has always been assumed that if someone says they have found sources that they have actually found them. Particularly because the specific sources are commonly not relevant at RfD - AfD is the place sources are evaluated for reliability and notability.

more importantly, do you think the possibility of sources existing warrants taking a clearly problematic stub back to mainspace for even a week, Yes. For reasons I've explained ad nauseum this is article content that was contributed in apparent good faith and about which no consensus discussion has taken place in a venue appropriate for the discussion of article content. Per the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, article content is not deleted unless (a) it meets a speedy deletion criterion, (b) there is consensus to delete it after a discussion at AfD, or (c) it is properly PRODed and receives no objections. None of those apply here. I know nothing about this topic, and very little about the wider music genre(s?) in which this occurs so I don't know what sources are likely to have covered this if it is notable and the people who do know such things are extremely unlikely to know that this discussion exists at RfD (because why would it? RfD isn't where the notability of article content is discussed). Listing it at AfD, partly by design and partly because of the way things have evolved naturally around AfDs, will maximise the chances of those people being aware of the discussion and thus of the need to find sources. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a little late to note because i ~~fell asleep~~ was extremely busy with important yet conveniently indeterminate work, but... well, i have two things to note about the results (regardless of reliability), and i guess i'll start with the less negative and confusing one

nice-a. that's at the very least proof that the term wasn't made up
while i did do a mostly identical search (i didn't include "-wikipedia" because i generally just ignore wp results and move on lol), it gave me nothing besides that one thing i mentioned (that was still a typo) then and nothing now... but specifying that i wanted results from before this page was created gave me exactly two results (result 1, result 2, nice coincidence with result 1, what the fuck is result 2). doing an actually identical search gave me the same results in both cases (yes, both meanings of "result"). i'm still 99% sure google just hates me lmao, but why other people also got nothing if results do exist is beyond me

the important part aside, this seems to be one of those cases where i have to point at that one discussion again, as proof that people in rfd can, in fact, judge article content and come to the conclusion that an unsourced stub is not worth taking back to mainspace, especially if nothing reliable can be found, and then rip tavix off and mention that the rfc's closure deliberately didn't make any statements about whether or not rfd is appropriate for blars, which would put the assumption that it isn't somewhere between possible interpretation and misinterpretation

just because rfd is made for discussing redirects, doesn't mean that any single aspect of any given discussion has to be limited to only that. article content is removed over stuff in rfd (someone doesn't find a source, they remove an unsourced mention, the redirect is deleted), article content is added over stuff in rfd (someone finds a source, they add a mention with it, the redirect is kept or retargeted), and sometimes articles are created over stuff in rfd (self-explanatory, i think). a rigid "rfd is only for redirects" mentality not only causes more, needless headaches, but is actively reductive towards why redirects exist, and waving at the "fundamental principles of Wikipedia" doesn't work when i can just as easily wave at pillar 5 (assuming the principles even cover oddly specific cases like this) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That one previous discussion got things seriously wrong does not mean we need to get things seriously wrong again. As for pillar 5: The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording is exactly what is at stake here: The principle and sprit that article content (which doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria) is not deleted without a consensus at an appropriate venue that people have the opportunity to know is happening. For the reasons I keep explaining that does not and cannot happen at RfD. Edits to articles are not relevant here, because that is normal article editing and shows up on watchlists, etc. it is not deletion (there is a reason admins get desysopped for deleting pages out of process). Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

first i hear of the possibility of an admin being demoted over this, should someone tell legoktm (see that discussion again), patar knight (and by extension jay, who voted in the linked discussion), explicit (and by extension significa liberdade), and a couple others from discussions i haven't bludgeoned- i mean, participated in? their adminship might be at risk!!

if those things are so seriously wrong, the fact that other admins don't seem to realize it and just delete blars like it's nothing should really point to an issue on either side. i'm not entirely sure if it's the pile of people doing something with no issue or consequence, or the one admin insisting that there is one and pointing to a discussion that, on top of being a bit of a mess, deliberately said nothing about whether or not this is an issue consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 14:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ATD: There is a mention of "pig squealing" at Screaming (music)#Deathcore, which the article pre-BLAR mentions as an alternative name for breeing. I would personally rather send this specific case to AFD than delete it here; I wouldn't guarantee this gets deleted there, unlike List of Strogg in Quake II. It's likely, but not guaranteed, especially if info about it can be worked into another article. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's info on squealing, not breeing. a mention of one term says nothing about a possible synonym. even then, that mention is unsourced, so it might be better off removed consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since various actions on previous RfDs have been interpreted as support for one side or the other of the can-BLARed-pages-be-deleted-at-RfD debate I would like to make it very clear that my relisting this should not be taken as an opinion in any direction beyond the fact that we do not appear to have consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retarget to Screaming (music)#Deathcore, per Skarmory's suggestion, in that breeing is closely related to pig squealing vocals.[22] Having never heard of this before, but being convinced that it definitely does exist, let it remain (almost) where it was so that (if? when?) proper sourcing appears, the page history can be retrieved and worked on. I don't think this would run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, which is mainly about future events, not current trends in popular culture. Specifically, in point no. 5 we read, Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creators, a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Havradim leaf a message 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poor people's rights

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 11#Poor people's rights

Hot Lava and Chicken

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Heroic Sons and Daughters

Heroic Sons and Daughters → Children of Troubled Times (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Completing incomplte nomination on behalf of Wheezythewave. The rationale appears to be The two film being linked is not the same. There is not much relevancy, per WP:RFD#DELETE. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can give a convincing reason for keeping. From the Chinese Wikipedia, Heroic Sons and Daughters seems to be the name of a completely different film: see zh:英雄儿女. Pinging LlywelynII, who made some early edits to this redirect and may know what's going on. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just notified of this discussion at the target talk, which has a sourced mention, although that was from 10 years back and I'm unable to get to that source. Jay 💬 13:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay, the relevant content from that source is Even the current Chinese national anthem comes from the film Heroic Sons and Daughters (风云儿女 1935). The name of this song is March of the Volunteers (义勇军进行曲 1935) composed by Nie Er (Di 2008). This unambiguously refers to the target (our article has patriotic 1935 Chinese film most famous as the origin of "The March of the Volunteers", the national anthem of the People's Republic of China). The original content of this page was a dismabig page, with one entry pointing to the current target Children of Troubled Times and the other to a 1964 film which seems to be the one Mx. Granger linked the zhwiki article for, which doesn't seem to have a corresponding English article. Rusalkii (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So we have one source using this title for the 1935 film, but I think the 1964 film (currently a redlink) is the primary topic for this title. That suggests we should disambiguate per WP:PRIMARYRED. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if Google is showing that the other less important film is the correct PRIMARYTOPIC for the namespace but the current guidance at PRIMARYRED is contradictory, not helpful. As far as the posters here have noted, there isn't a blue link to provide at a dab landing page so any temporary dab just would be deleted by other overzealous editors. The productive options here are for one of y'all to either go ahead and create a stub for the 1964 page or to just leave the redirect where it is and note the other title in a dab header on the 1935 film's page. — LlywelynII 02:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume the good-faith assumption of assuming the assumption of good faith was in good faith

Wikipedia:Assume the good-faith assumption of assuming the assumption of good faith was in good faith → Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:AGFAAAGFGF → Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This does not seem to be pertinent to the target. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, humor is allowed in wikispace but at this point it just gets nonsensical. Even back in 2009 when this was created it wasn't mentioned at the target. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator; in use in two essays at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Assume_th. — Jeff G. ツ 19:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both in "See Also" sections. They can just be removed, and in fact probably will be removed automatically should this RFD close as delete. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 19:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Assume the good-faith assumption of assuming the assumption of good faith was in good faith as one of those super-rare occasions where ... seriously? The redirect is odd/humorous, the target is marked numerous, and ... unless the redirect is somehow determined to be ambiguous, I'm not seeing an issue here. However, with that being said, weak delete Wikipedia:AGFAAAGFGF since using shortcuts to humorous targets may not be the best utilization of a shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug per Steel1943. It's Wikipedia space and it's not like we're using the title for anything else. Rusalkii (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete B; delete A—but WP:BJAODNify (maybe I just don't get the humour ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Havradim leaf a message 10:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless the humour is justified. What does WHACK have to do with the recursive AGF? When or where should we use this? How are readers of WP:AAAGF or WP:AAGFAAGF who see this in the "See also", and click on it, benefitted? Just trying to figure out if some of us get the joke. Jay 💬 05:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DXYK

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 11#DXYK

Creation (Dragonlance)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 11#Creation (Dragonlance)

PD2

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate

Wubwubwub and Wub wub wub

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 11#Wubwubwub and Wub wub wub

Fapstinence

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Supercute!

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Six Million Germans (Nakam)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Higer K-group

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Poast

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Penis cola

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

May 3

Robo Rampage

Robo Rampage → Miniclip (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention at target; previously hosted an unsourced article whose content was not merged anywhere. The two other search results for this on the English Wikipedia, Robbie Morrison and Transformers: Rescue Bots Academy, are probably not suitable targets. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canyon Shooter 2

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Scribble (the game)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dancing Bush

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 11#Dancing Bush

Spineworld

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Highwind

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Xena: Warrior Princess (album, Volume NUMBER)

Xena: Warrior Princess (album, Volume 2) → Xena: Warrior Princess (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Xena: Warrior Princess (album, Volume 4) → Xena: Warrior Princess (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no mention of the word "volume" in the target article, leaving it unclear what these redirects are meant to define/identify. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article says there are 6 soundtrack albums, so it isn't particularly a reach to conclude that they're called volumes 1-6 (as in fact they appear to be). Rusalkii (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be a valid assumption (and I'm assuming you are referring to the content at Xena: Warrior Princess#Theme music), it's an assumption which still results in the issue similar to what I presented in my nomination statement: If a reader is looking for specific information for either one of these subjects, the rather short, generic one-sentence statement referring to 6 albums is really not sufficient enough to expect readers to find what they are looking for if they search the redirects in such a precise manner. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd say delete, but not because it's unclear from the article what Volume 2 of this album , just because the reader is not going to get the information they expect to see if they follow these links. (And also this strikes me as a very strange disambig formatting, though idk what one should actually do if you did want to create such a page, maybe this is right after all) Rusalkii (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page histories?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and Sexual Minorities

Gender and Sexual Minorities → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gender and Sexual Minority → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gender and/or Sexual Minority → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gender and/or Sexual Minorities → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gender and/or sexual minority → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gender, sexual and romantic minorities → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sexual and gender minorities → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minority → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sexual and Gender Minorities → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sexual and gender minority → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gender and sexual minorities → LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Refine to LGBTQ (term), accordingly --MikutoH ^talk! 02:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to LGBTQ (term)#SGM/GSM/GSRM. fgnievinski (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The content on GSRM should be moved to LGBTQ people; it has never really belonged in an article on the term LGBTQ. They both describe the same topic (LGBTQ people), but a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article should be limited to discussing the term-as-a-term. Substantive coverage of the subject the term refers to should be elsewhere.--Trystan (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to to fix the redirect quickly to the current content location. Then, a longer discussion about splitting/merging the content to a better location could be held separately. But since there is was no consensus so far, I've started a counter-proposal: Talk:Sexual_minority#Requested_move_26_April_2025. fgnievinski (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra _talk 21:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to Sexual and gender minorities now that the move is complete.--Trystan (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waluigi Pinball

Waluigi Pinball → Mario Kart DS (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it's not mentioned in Mario Kart DS's article. Do you wanna know where it IS mentioned, however? Mario_Kart_8#Booster Course Pass. Thus, retarget there User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned once in passing in the Reception section, where someone says it looks nice. I don't think that is enough to warrant a redirect. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the attitude here. How was the nominator to know about the mention elsewhere? All they said was that it wasn't mentioned at the target, which was true. Sergecross73 msg me 04:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be retargetted, Waluigi#Mario spin-off games might be a suitable target. Explains in which games it appears and how it is tied to Waluigi. But since Mario Kart courses seem to be inconsistent in redirecting to various Mario Kart game articles or not exisiting at all (like Moo Moo Farm vs. Yoshi Falls, Mario Circuit vs. Delfino Square), I don't mind if we delete. Some discussions at Talk:Mario Kart have raised concerns about adding a list of courses due to WP:GAMECRUFT before. YuniToumei (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

France in 1248

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Graduation toga

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Cyanogen hydride

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nantes University

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

German Film Museum

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 11#German Film Museum

LGBT Living & Weddings

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Second occupation of La Paz

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft retarget

Fur baby

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Socialism in Germany

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7.

Christian Blinkenberg

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Nickelodeon Characters

List of Nickelodeon Characters → List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not saying it has to be deleted, but there is no character list at the article. Can anyone find another target? RanDom 404 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a list-of-lists for this, and it's a plausible enough search term, so I guess retarget to Category:Lists of Nickelodeon television series characters and create List of Nickelodeon characters to match. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list article in the page history already. The article survived an AfD but was subsequently BLARd. Jay 💬 10:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't retarget to a category and create a cross namespace redirect. Gonnym (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the list article without prejudice to a second AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boq

Boq → List of Oz characters (created by Baum)#Boq (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Tin Woodman#The Tin Man in later fiction. Boq is a minor character in the original The Wonderful Wizard of Oz novel; he was later reappropriated into a different character in Wicked, where he plays a substantial role and is combined with the character of the Tin Woodman. Hence, the Wicked character is the primary topic, not the Wizard of Oz character who was barely in the novel. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to BOQ. Perhaps you could modify that disambig page to add the Wicked character (having never seen Wicked, I don't feel qualified to do it). Plant🌱man (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the current target addresses both uses of the character. The proposed target does not. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix could we not add a hat note at the proposed target? Plant🌱man (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one at the current target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Plant🌱man (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix additionally, a google search for “Boq” gives the Wicked character as one of its primary results. Plant🌱man (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the current target should be kept. Two of the three paragraphs are dedicated to Wicked. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that; however, it’s evidently not the primary topic. Additionally, I could see someone typing, e.g. the abbreviation for “Bill of quantities” or “Bank of Queensland” as “boq”; hence, why I’m suggesting to Retarget to the dab page. I do type abbreviations in lowercase sometimes. Plant🌱man (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The initialisms are BOQ (or BoQ), not Boq. They are therefore not a factor in determining a primary topic for Boq. Because it's incorrect, I have no issue giving anyone searching in that fashion an extra click to get to the disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the content there doesn't even belong. List of Oz characters (created by Baum) is about characters in the Oz books who were created by L. Frank Baum. Wicked is an unofficial prequel that was not authorized by the Baum estate and therefore not part of the canonical series; not only that, but the version of Boq in Wicked was created by Gregory Maguire, not Baum. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content there belongs—the scope of this list is Oz characters created by Baum, it's not strictly limited to Baum's novels. Most sections include post-Baum appearances where relevant (eg: Return to Oz, The Muppets' Wizard of Oz). That said, it may be better to restore article given the recent interest in the character thanks to the film(s). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to BOQ. In my searches Bill of quantities is the closest thing to a primary topic, with the Bank of Queensland also prominent in results. Of those results using the "Boq" capitalisation, the Wicked character is the only encyclopaedic result in the first five pages (3 hits, one of which is NSFW fan fiction). Unfortunately I don't know of a case-sensitive general purpose search engine. The dab page should be improved to cover the Wicked character regardless of the outcome of this RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:DIFFCAPS. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly addressed capitalisation in my comment. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware: Of those results using the "Boq" capitalisation, the Wicked character is the only encyclopaedic result in the first five pages. The "Boq" capitalisation is the one being discussed, so you make a clear claim for the Wicked character as the primary topic for the capitalisation in question. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dab page should be improved to cover the Wicked character: Done Plant🌱man (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several options, no consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to dab page then both Oz-ite characters can be listed -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to BOQ as there are several plausible targets in that dab --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tavix per DIFFCAPS, and as the current target addresses the Wicked part better than the nom's proposal. It's certainly a disadvantage having a 3-letter name, for it to be seen more of an abbreviation, however Wikipedia should not be limited by case-insensitive search engines. Jay 💬 15:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Butt (sailing)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 15#Butt (sailing)

Tawnia

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sussexes settle in California

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alex McGarry

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bryce Bonnin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Bryce Bonnin

Redirects to Balitang Bisdak

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

LGB drop the T

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Vatican Press

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Vatican Press

May 2

Flabbiness

Flabbiness → Obesity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Flabby → wiktionary:flabby (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Either both should point to Wiktionary or both should point to an article. Note that there is also the concept of a flabby sheaf which we have content on. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on which target these should go to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget flabbiness to Wiktionary per nom. The term can indicate fleshiness rather than obesity—a non-obese person can be flabby—and it can alternately mean weak or ineffective. Carguychris (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Flabby to an article, most likely where Flabbiness targets or weak delete both. I forgot the policy/essay, but it states that we should not be retargeting redirects to Wiktionary unless they have been repeatedly deleted and recreated, which these have not; one was created in 2006 and the other in 2007. Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, {{Wiktionary hatnote}}s are possible. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 15:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that just like flabby, flab has been a wiktionary redirect since 2017. But we also have Flabby (wine), and a singer who sang "Mambo Italiano". Jay 💬 15:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Sumpter (MP)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Draft:Sandbox 2

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mcds

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Mcds

Madden NFL 26

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Joehio

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Joehio

Mayor of Auburn

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Mayor of Auburn

Thiatetrazole

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Thiatetrazole

Cricket Europe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Cricket Europe

Oxatetrazole

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Oxatetrazole

Waldo's Dollar Mart

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gottlieb Institute

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 15#Gottlieb Institute

Ensues

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Ensues

Addressing

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to Address (disambiguation) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

CUSMA

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

University of Arizona, Tempe

University of Arizona, Tempe → Arizona State University (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
University of Arizona at Tempe → Arizona State University (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

People mix up Arizona's two largest state universities all the time, and this misleading redirect set does not help. Arizona State University is not part of the University of Arizona, though they share a board of regents. I understand why it might look reasonable to create at a forum like AfC, but this is a bad idea (and a very seldom-used one, 66 pageviews in five years). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 10:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should lead somewhere where people can find whichever university it is they are looking for. The targets I've found so far are Arizona#Public universities in Arizona and List of colleges and universities in Arizona, but neither are perfect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this is a common enough misnomer to warrant a redirect. For example, see [23], [24], [25], all of which seem to mean ASU but refer to it as U of A. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is only one public university in Tempe (Arizona State) so I don't think this redirect will cause confusion. TruenoCity (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. University of Arizona ≠ Arizona State University, and respectively, Tucson, Arizona ≠ Tempe, Arizona. Let's not pretend like they are equal. There are adequate hatnotes on both articles already to distinguish each other; these redirects essentially have WP:XY issues with either their wrong university name or wrong city name. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not sure whether these are more likely to resolve confusion or cause it, but are unambiguous incorrect names for the current target. I have tagged the redirects as such. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see the reasons for keeping, but I agree with what Steel1943 explained above. The fact is that University of Arizona is located in Tucson, not Tempe and adding such redirect would be misleading - I think keeping such redirects would reinforce incorrect detail and further contribute to spreading the misnomer. Asteramellus (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misleading. Search results should suffice. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tavix. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell is Steve Jobs

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ghana road accident

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nick Gore

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

President of Vatican City

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of Shen Gong Wu revealed in Season One

List of Shen Gong Wu revealed in Season One → Xiaolin Showdown#Shen Gong Wu (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of Shen Gong Wu revealed in Season Two → Xiaolin Showdown#Shen Gong Wu (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of Shen Gong Wu revealed in Season Three → Xiaolin Showdown#Shen Gong Wu (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Long, implausible redirects that are highly unlikely search terms to an article that does not even have a list of Shen Gong Wus, plus there is already a redirect Shen Gong Wu to the target article, thus all three should be deleted 2603:7000:2600:298D:F9E8:D6DF:BC72:9CC9 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Length is not relevant and on the face of it these seem like perfectly plausible search terms. What matters is whether we have relevant content at the target (if so keep) or elsewhere (if so retarget there), with deletion only being the way forward if we have no relevant content elsewhere. I've looked at the target page and there are lists of characters there and of season plots, but I don't understand the topic enough to know whether those lists are relevant to the search terms though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They were converted to redirects with comment redirecting for merge, but it is unclear if a merge was done, or only the mergefrom tags were removed. Jay 💬 10:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 03:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 17:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the content is actually merged, which it doesn't appear to have been and imo should not be, since it looks like minimally sourced fancruft. As is, there are no lists of Shen Gong Wu ("mystical objects with powers that balance the forces of good and evil") or even any specific ones mentioned at the target. Rusalkii (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the page histories? The pages appear to have been BLARd, and not merge-and-redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Down

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Phoenix Down

U.N.I.

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Water (album, ARTIST NAME)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Time/Space Mage

Time/Space Mage → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Classes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target; while I retargeted Time Mage to Final Fantasy V#Job System, "space mage" does not seem to be mentioned anywhere. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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, ✗plicit 11:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Final Fantasy V#Job System. "Space mage" isn't a different class, at least not according to the article in the page history. I don't have any idea why the article was created with this title, but it's clearly about the same thing. -- asilvering (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 💬 18:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it cannot be referenced, it is likely poorly formatted slang. It is also unmentioned, which ices the cake. Space mage may be created if desired. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Godsy. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (...and the fact that I'm apparently tired of editing this this every 10 years ... once in 2014 and once in 2024...) Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian cargo plane crash

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 8#Ukrainian cargo plane crash

Alaska C-I7 plane crash

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 14#Alaska C-I7 plane crash

Wesołych Świąt

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Short break

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus on whether to restore or delete, and hence restore since deletion requires an explicit consensus. This restore-delete bickering happens over an over in every RfD, using arguments that aren't very specific to the merits of the redirect, and basically never comes to a consensus on which action to take, which is unfortunate, but it's all I have to work with. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roubke

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Roubke

Heil elon

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Active species

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bleeding and Blood Clotting

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 8#Bleeding and Blood Clotting

Organic output

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Xe/xem

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 8#Xe/xem

April 29

Edinburg Baseball Stadium (disambiguation)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete. Wbm4567 (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purgegate

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 15#Purgegate

Knowledge Graph

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 15#Knowledge Graph

Exonucleophagy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Samurai (Final Fantasy)

Samurai (Final Fantasy) → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Classes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ninja (Final Fantasy) → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Classes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not described at target. Somebody familiar with the franchise might know where to look for an alternative, but Special:Search/"samurai" "final fantasy" and Special:Search/"ninja" "final fantasy" give too many – generally incidental – results to be of any use. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 01:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both are redirects from merges (of now deleted content). Thoughts on the history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Unmentioned in the targets. Articles from 2006 are unreferenced in-universe blurbs ... which was okay-is on Wikipedia in 2006, but not anymore. (Yet more redirects I've been editing since 2014 ... and then again in 2024 ... interesting stuff.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gummi Bears-Winnie the Pooh Hour

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Omega Weapon

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Boeing 747 Dreamliner

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Krajíčkova

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Asian Library

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 7#Asian Library

He-Man and the Masters of the Universe (2009 film)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete 2008, WP:NCRET 2009 to Masters of the Universe (2026 film). That is, the discussion did not come to any real consensus on 2009, but the retarget proposal has gone unopposed, so I'm doing that but it should be thought of more as an individual action than the outcome of a deletion discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Male boy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Template:East Midlands Trains stations

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ferrari (upcoming film)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

"Green Line" redirects to IRT Lexington Avenue Line stations

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nurbankgate

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Skyrim 2

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Obama Crimea Giveaway

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mega Man II

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 7#Mega Man II

Environmental topics

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: WP:NCRET to Index of environmental articles

Boko (Final Fantasy)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to chocobo. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima (spell)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 13#Ultima (spell)

Walt Disney Animation shorts and TV

Walt Disney Animation shorts and TV → Disney Television Animation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Where could this even be targeted, if kept? It is not the most likely search term, and Walt Disney Animation is more likely to refer to WDAS than DTA RanDom 404 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly retarget to Walt Disney Animation Studios short films? These shorts are available on Disney+ (i.e. TV). Plant🌱man (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not broke Tiny Particle (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate, this and other recent RFD threads suggest that a Disney animation (disambiguation) WP:LISTOFLISTS page needs to be created and used as a target for all ambiguous Disney animation-related redirects, as there are just too many Wikilists of Disney productions; as I pointed out in another recent RFD, Disney used to routinely blur the line between live action and animation (e.g., Pete's Dragon (1977 film)), so categorization is not always clear-cut. Carguychris (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the redirect is unwieldy to a point it's practically an WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: keep, retarget, dabify, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per steel1943. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Steel1943. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geomancer (Final Fantasy)

Geomancer (Final Fantasy) → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Classes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not described at target, and does not look like we have any alternative to offer our readers. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 01:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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, ✗plicit 11:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we could probably shoehorn in a mention? Geomancer exists in several FF games. -- asilvering (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: still not mentioned at the target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was incorrectly tagged. I just changed it from {{R with history}} to {{R from merge}}. Also, we currently have an incoming link from Final Fantasy III (2006 video game), very minor mention though. Jay 💬 18:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned in target article. Edit history hiding in this redirect from 2006 is unreferenced in-universe text that belongs on Fandom. Time for this to go. (Funny thing though is that I tagged this redirect as a {{R from merge}} in 2014 ... then apparently changed my mind and retagged it as a {{R with history}} in 2024 since the previous section disappeared ... 10 years later. Dang, I got history with this redirect's history...) Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duocorn

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

El mahdi Mohammad Senosi

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 7#El mahdi Mohammad Senosi

Manifold/rewrite

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Office hours

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 7#Office hours

Main Article

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 6#Main Article

Electrism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 6#Electrism

😆

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Star Wars: Tales

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close

Blae

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 6#Blae

April 27

Historic Palestine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Historic Palestine

Intec Digital redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

בע״מ

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Trivina

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Full protected

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wikipedia:TAGS

Wikipedia:TAGS → Wikipedia:File copyright tags (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This shortcut seems confusing considering Wikipedia:Tags exists. Should this be retargeted there? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both should target the same page. Either a dab page, or Wikipedia:Tags (which already has a way loo long list of hatnote entries). Gonnym (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, support. Gonnym (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. We should always be very conservative about retargetting shortcuts, and this has pointed to the same location since 2006 and is linked from hundreds (at least) of good article review templates. Retargetting would be extremely disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both WP:TAGS and WP:TAG to Wikipedia:Tags, agreeing with the nominator. This is a natural and broader target over a niche copyright page. Links can be updated with bot run if necessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both a bot run and leaving the links pointing to the wrong location would be equally and extremely disruptive. New links would also continue to accrue to the wrong targets given 19 years of use. These massively outweigh making one of many ambiguous shortcuts arguably more logical. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You realize we's talking about the shortcut "TAGS" targeting a place called "Tags"? Retargeting it would be a resolution of ambiguity, so using that as part of your argument is questionable. A bot run would fix the links so there wouldn't be any pointing to the wrong location. The new location would be less of a surprise for anyone using the shortcut and a hatnote would catch anyone looking for file copyrights. It's helpful for those generally looking for tags and any "disruption" is minimized. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we were discussing a recently created redirect I would agree with you, but nearly 20 years of entrenched usage (and the massive disruption a bot run would cause by editing the talk page of potentially every (former) Good Article (candidate)) outweighs the benefits by many orders of magnitude. The status quo is not ideal but it is the only way to avoid the disruption. I also disagree that copyright tags are any less of a plausible target than edit tags. The argument about hatnotes applies equally to those looking for the proposed target arriving at the present target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given "assuming they haven't just ignored everything I've said", I have to conclude that you are no longer arguing in good faith so I am disengaging. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am explicitly assuming good faith when it was not clear to me the faith in which you were contributing, but thank you for assuming the opposite of me. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking like we don't move pages all the time and replace the content inside them with other pages. There is no difference between redirects. They aren't some sacred pages. Gonnym (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the extensive use in Good Article assessments, I've left a note at WT:GA about this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra _talk 20:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Tags for consistency. Any other fixes can occur proactively or reactively by others as the basis of redirects is to target the clearest page, and what page is clearer than a character (but not caps) match? Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target. Also, further thoughts on the disruption of the hundreds of GA review templates?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Thryduulf's concern makes a good case. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Retarget to Wikipedia:Tags (*adding: which should be a disambiguation page) and move its contents to Wikipedia:Edit tags (currently a redirect) per WP:TITLEDAB and WP:CONCISE. The proposed dab listings can be culled from the hatnotes presently found on both pages. With the naming issue no longer a factor, I find it very hard to believe that the proposed target (*adding: in its current state) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with its 123 views as opposed to 52 at the current one. This solution should allay both Thryduulf's and nom's concerns. Havradim leaf a message 21:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Havradim: To "...move [Wikipedia:Tags] to Wikipedia:Edit tags...", you'll probably need to start a move request; that move is most likely not going to occur as a result of this RfD discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken (I figured as much). Tags, TAGS and TAG are all equally ambiguous, but this can be taken up after this discussion is concluded. Havradim leaf a message 18:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A related RfD has been opened at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 6#Wikipedia:TAG for Wikipedia:TAG. Steel1943 (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Tags, per Tavix. Comment and here's a reason why redirects ain't that cheap after all... - Nabla (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PHSC

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purple flurp

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Moontube

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

IPhone Excess

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Granum UNRRA displaced persons camp

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ali Javadi

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus on whether to restore or delete, hence restore and send to AfD * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katwe Combined Boxing Club

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10#Katwe Combined Boxing Club

Wubwubwub and Wub wub wub

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Wubwubwub and Wub wub wub

Six Million Germans (Nakam)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Six Million Germans (Nakam)

[a]

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates