Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFDHOWTO)
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For the reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Feb Mar Apr May Total
CfD 0 0 0 121 121
TfD 0 0 1 6 7
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 1 27 28
RfD 0 0 0 17 17
AfD 0 0 0 51 51

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 to delete a redirect 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

[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD

[edit]
Shortcut
  • 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 to delete a redirect

[edit]

Shortcuts

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

[edit]
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
  11. 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

[edit]
Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes

[edit]
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

[edit]
Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If 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.

Current list

[edit]
Shortcuts

May 29

[edit]

Short description

[edit]

Unneeded WP:XNR, delete. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 01:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Numerals

[edit]

Need consistency on these single-digit "numeral" redirects. It is odd that some of them point to dab pages, and others to the number itself. "Zero" redirects to the number 0. Interestingly, ten is the title for the "10" disambiguation page, not "ten (disambiguation) or "10 (disambiguation)". Additionally, numbers above 10 (11, 12, etc) are disambiguation pages, and the numbers are titled as 11 (number), 12 (number), etc. Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All redirects in the 11-19 range redirect to the DAB page, and most redirects above 19 redirect to the number. For redirects 21 and above (except 30, 40, etc.), both the hyphenated form (twenty-two) and the unhyphenated form (twenty two) need to be changed. Part of the section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers/Archive 6#Historical years again also covers this topic, but it's from 2013 and somewhat outdated. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 01:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

[edit]

How big is wikipedia

[edit]

Unlikely cross-namespace redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oronzo Bacci

[edit]

Just moved a page that was unexplainably created under the wrong title over 8 years ago. The guy’s name was only Orazio and keeping Oronzo is confusing. Delete. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V-Cube 10

[edit]

Several iterations of the V-Cube mentioned in the target, but not the 10. Rusalkii (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K.u:K. Armee

[edit]

While commonly called the "k.u.k Armee" I believe this format, with the ":", is a typo, as even the edit summary creating it says "K.u.K Armee", and if not is very unlikely. I'd R3 it but it's too old for that. Rusalkii (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Israel protests on university campuses in the United States

[edit]

Unnecessary freakishly long redirect that could refer to Gaza war protests in the United States, 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, or 2025 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses. Also WP:CSD G5 could apply here. Delete. Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would anyone ever type this? Catboy69 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Cross-namespace redirect; very low view counts. MouseCursor or a keyboard? 08:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed new target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:About which is "a general introduction for visitors to Wikipedia" (which also immediately links aspiring contributors to a guide in case that's what they want). Current target Help:Getting started dumps newcomers into a page specifically for aspiring contributors. Jay is correct about this but is deeply mistaken about Help:Introduction. Among Help:Introduction's first words are: "This page takes you through a set of tutorials aimed at complete newcomers who wish to contribute." Pinging Pppery, Servite et contribuere, J947, Nyttend, and Thryduulf to see if they may support a retarget, as I think "should this redirect exist?" has been resolved but that "is this the right target?" was never adequately explored. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page

[edit]

This is extremely off. "The WIkipedia page" could mean anything. It could be about any Wikipedia page, not just the WIkipedia page for Wikipedia. I could just as easily see this linking to, for example, the main page. Feel free to disagree here, as I am not 100% sure about this, and if you have a good argument I'd like to hear it. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Liu

[edit]

Stacy Liu is an actress who has appeared in many British TV series. If she is not notable, so be it, but a redirect to an article about just one of her appearances, which mentions her only in passing, is not helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, might be better to add her to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red instead of redirecting to this list. Katiedevi (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand Faces

[edit]

Retarget. The book titled The Hero with a Thousand Faces seems more likely to be searched than the song. I found this redirect by trying to find the book and only remembering the "thousand faces" part. Number of edits, watchers, and page views seems to support the book as being the more relevant redirect. There is another redirect Thousand Faces (song) to take care of the song. closhund/talk/ 06:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when I edited the redirect page, it said there was an error. I don't know what the error is, I just tried to follow the instructions at WP:RFDHOWTO closhund/talk/ 07:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filmi music

[edit]

Filmi appears to be music in Indian cinema in general, whereas Hindi film music is only one part of Indian cinema. Filmi devotional songs too talks only about Hindi songs. Filmi qawwali includes Pakistan and Bangladesh as well, while Filmi pop appears to be Pakistan-specific. Apart from the redirects needing to be consistent, should we also make one of these a disambiguation page, in case Filmi is not seen as the WP:BCA umbrella topic? Jay 💬 10:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the nom's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Filmi music and Filmi song
• Remove Filmi songs since you rightly point out that 'Filmi' refers to Indian cinema in general. I'm not sure a disambiguation page is necessary. It may be more useful to update the pages you have mentioned to be more inclusive, but I am open to discussion. Katiedevi (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All India Council for Technical Education (India)

[edit]

Seems like a very unlikely search term, with the repeated "India" at the end. And if you type it in you get the correct link anyway long before you reach the end of the string. Fram (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible search term मल्ल (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unambiguous and harmless Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons as Servite et contribuere. SirPenguin25 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the second "India" seems redundant and frankly unnecessary. This isn't going to help any reader. --Plantman (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Servite et contribuere. There needs to be some active reason to delete redirects that are both accurate and harmless. Neither "redundant" nor "unnecessary" are ever reasons to delete a redirect on their own, and certainly not redirects that are accurate and harmless. That leaves only plausibility and when multiple people assert a redirect is plausible then it normally is (see WP:R#KEEP point 5]]). Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Body", "Cosmetic", "Personal care" treatment

[edit]

Each of these redirects are not mentioned in the target article, as well as their target section not existing. In addition, there's no clear connection between the redirect and the target without the word "spa" in the redirects, meaning these "treatments" may involve a subject not directly related to spa, such as massage. Steel1943 (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Body treatment is a {{R with history}}, and the other nominated redirects targeted Body treatment when it was an article between February 2006 and October 2009. (For what it's worth, I oppose Personal care treatment targeting Body treatment for any reason ... in case the discussion takes such a path.) Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy water

[edit]

Not mention the target article. Third-party search results for this phrase are mixed between a potential subtopic of the target article's subject and Vichy Catalán. Steel1943 (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sulphur bath

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contamination of drinking water

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Safe for drinking water

[edit]

The use of the word "for" in this nominated redirect makes it an unlikely redirect in reference to its target. The wording of this redirect makes it seem as though a reader would be looking for a concept such as a container that can be used for safe storage of drinking water, and such information seems to not be in the target article currently. Steel1943 (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infused [Ww]ater

[edit]

These redirects should either have their targets synched or should both be deleted. I have no strong stance either way ... but am defaulting to weak delete if by chance there is no participation since I'm not certain these phrases can describe any specific subject. Steel1943 (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Infused water has a WP:BLAR'ed article hiding in its history, potentially a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the Google results for "Infused water" are references to fruit/herb-infused water, which we don't have a page on at the moment. So it would be unhelpful for the vast majority of people familiar with the term "infused water". --Plantman (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wall pressure

[edit]

Not mentioned in this specific manner in the target article, leaving it unclear if the target article is the intended article. Though Osmotic pressure#Applications makes mention of a concept related to "cell wall", per third party search engines, seems this phrase has a connection to two potential, and possibly, distinct topics: One related to biology (which is probably where the connection to "cell wall" comes into play), and one related to fluid dynamics. Steel1943 (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desalination membrane

[edit]

Not mentioned in the body of the target article in this specific manner, thus making it unclear why readers would be redirected to the current target article when searching this term. I was originally going to WP:BOLDly retarget this redirect to Membrane distillation, but after reviewing that article, I'm not convinced that that article and the nominated redirect represent the same subject, especially considering that Desalination is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reverse osmosis relies heavily on membranes, and the section #Desalination does mention membranes quite a bit. While it doesn't outright say "desalination membrane" (except in the references) it does talk about membranes in the context of desalination a lot. --Plantman (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to weak keep, more in favour of retargetting. See below. --Plantman (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that, but the same claim could apparently be made regarding membranes for the whole concept of Desalination in general; Reverse osmosis, Membrane distillation, and Desalination all make reference to using "membranes". Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 I feel like either Reverse osmosis or Desalination is the best place for this to point to. I'm slightly leaning towards Desalination now, because it provides an overview of all the different uses of membranes in desalination process. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it as it is (pointing to RO) if there was a consensus to do so. --Plantman (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RO/DI

[edit]

Seems to be a WP:XY in the context which it is used. "RO" represents the nominated redirect's target ... but apparently, "DI" stands for Deionization, which is a redirect towards Purified water#Deionization, and thus apparently a separate subject. In addition, in the target article, the current target section and Reverse osmosis#Water and wastewater purification both mention deionization. With all this being said, and the fact this redirect is a mishmash of acronyms, probably best to delete this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Water

[edit]

Seems ambiguous. The phrase is not mentioned in the target article's text, and water that is portable doesn't necessarily have to be in bottles (could be in a box, a can, etc.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Packaged drinking water

[edit]

WP:XY, could also refer to Canned water. Steel1943 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While that does make sense in theory, the vast majority of Google search results point to bottled water. --Plantman (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"War on tap water" and "War against water"

[edit]

Neither one of these redirects are mentioned in the target article (specifically, the word "war" is nowhere in the target article), leaving it unclear what subject these redirects are meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. 'Nuff said. --Plantman (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both these feel like slogans used by anti-bottled water campaign(er)s but we don't have a single section on that cause (relevant information spread through the article), they aren't mentioned and don't seem to be particularly notable so there isn't a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit and vegetable juices

[edit]

WP:XY since Fruit juice is an incoming redirect to the nominated redirect's target page, but Vegetable juice is a standalone article. Even more peculiar is that Vegetable juice is linked nowhere in the nominated redirect's target article. Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexualities

[edit]

I believe that Outline of human sexuality#Sexual orientation is a better target for orientations in specifically, and Outline of human sexuality for the rest. LIrala (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first one as is. The current target describes sexual orientations in depth and detail, talking also about various classifications of sexual orientation instead of just one, so I feel like it would be more helpful to a reader. No comment on the rest. --Plantman (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Keep – Agreed with Plantman. 'Outline of human sexuality#Sexual orientation' is a brief section which even uses the MainArticle template to link to Sexual orientation; it'd be nonsensical to link to a section when there's a much more robust main article. Retarget as proposed per Trystan's rationale. After all, this is a list. Still hold on (2) as 'orientation' is just one component of the very broad idea of 'sexuality'.
2) Retarget to Human sexuality. Oppose keep because Outline of LGBTQ topics is comparatively overly broad for such a search. Oppose move to section on sexual orientation because 1) 'Sexuality' combines many more facets than simply orientation and 2) even if it didn't, we have the article 'Sexual orientation'.
3) Delete. Without a very good excuse, there's no reason to have 'List of X and Y' and 'List of Y and X' when we can simply have redirect 'List of X' and 'List of Y'. If someone wants genders, they'll type 'List of gende' and have 'List of genders' show up – likewise for sexualities and for sexual identities. If 'List of genders and sexualities' were an actual article, then sure, but these make zero practical sense. What's worse is that with three items to choose from, we have so many possible permutations. If there's strong consensus against deletion, then Keep, as because 'gender' is along for the ride, 'Outline of human sexuality' fundamentally does nothing for one entire half of the redirect, and additionally, 'sexuality' as mentioned in (2) is much more than orientation.
4) Same as (3) (and again, sexual identity is much more than orientation).
5) Same as (3).
TL;DR: Oppose all of these. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MN

[edit]

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]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In lieu of a no-consensus close, let's try one more time. Keep as is, retarget to WikiProject Minnesota, or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

[edit]

Previous consensus against having redirects like these be XNRs, but should they target Citation#Styles? My preference is still deletion. Cremastra (u — c) 01:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

[edit]

Dig! (website)

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Probably too specific to be added. Rusalkii (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced DC Motors

[edit]

Ambiguous term. Maybe DC motor is a better target, but this is an unlikely search term. TruenoCity (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ol-class tanker (1916)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

University (Scandinavia)

[edit]

This used to target to List of universities and colleges in Sweden, which is too specific. The current target, on the other hand, is uselessly broad and doesn't even discuss Scandinavia. Rusalkii (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Vincent Oyler

[edit]

I cannot find any sources more reliable than Google Finance (which I think relies partially on Wikipedia) for the full middle name Vincent. I'd normally not nominate a redirect that was the title for a nontrivial amount of time (one month) but this is a BLP issue even as just a redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Pradillo Rugby player

[edit]

Unnatural and unnecessary disambiguation. Was at this title for two minutes right after creation. Rusalkii (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: implausible search term. मल्ल (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Influencer Smurf

[edit]

Meme about a smurf from the trailer of this movie, not mentioned in the target page. Possibly merits a mention (see e.g. [1] [2]), in which case the redirect should be kept, but I believe the character was replaced for the actual movie. Rusalkii (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reese River Hot Springs

[edit]

No hot springs are mentioned in the target; misleading redirect for anyone looking for information on them. Rusalkii (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii: I found some information on both of them when looking on google, but I'm not sure if the sources I found are reliable enough to merit inclusion of these terms in the article. E.g. this source for Reese River Hot Springs and Ruby Valley Hot Springs. I feel like the second one could be included, but I'm not 100% sure on either of them (especially the first one). I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, since you're obviously much more experienced with these types of things than I am. Thanks, --Plantman (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First source looks like a blog-like site and not great for this. Second source is ... eh? I probably wouldn't add it personally but I wouldn't remove it if it was added. Rusalkii (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think the first one warrants inclusion. I found another source for #2 though... what do you think? --Plantman (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping: @Rusalkii --Plantman (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks user-generated (see [3]), I'd say I prefer the first source. Rusalkii (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, you're right. I should have looked into it more; that was my fault! --Plantman (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first one, retarget the second one to Ruby Valley as I've added some content there about it. Special:Diff/1292630298 --Plantman (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning rust

[edit]

Nickname for a hard drive not mentioned in target. We have wikt:spinning rust, I'm ambivalent between retargetting there and deletion. Rusalkii (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary, as I feel like that would be more helpful to a reader looking for the definition of "Spinning rust". --Plantman (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Plantman. It's the sort of thing someone unfamiliar with the jocular term would look up here, but we don't have anything useful, particularly as anyone hearing the term without explanation is much more likely than average to be familiar with hard disk drives. Wiktionary does have relevant content though so we should be helpful and point readers to it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JustServe

[edit]

Platform by the LDS Church for finding local volunteer opportunities. Not mentioned in target, and the connection is not clear without googling. Rusalkii (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aspen mayoral election

[edit]

Actively confusing - it gets quite a few hits, but the target page has no content at all on the election, and in fact only mentions the mayor to say that "an elected council of four members and the mayor supervise the city's operations". It is possible that content should be added, but as is this is misleading to readers.

Redirected after an expired PROD. Pinging User:Cat-paw-v1 who redirected it and User:Yoblyblob who PRODed it. Rusalkii (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PC-80

[edit]

I can't find evidence that this was referred to as the PC-80 (as opposed to 8000). Lots of hits in lot of places for lots of things, including several different computing devices, a gun, a solubilizer, camera, etc etc. Onwiki we have Heron Cars#PC 80 (note lack of dash) and an entry at List of carbines. I don't think either of these make great targets, I think I'd prefer deletion given the distinct lack of primary topic for a rather vague term, but the carbine seems better than the current target. Rusalkii (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just like how PC-88 is short for PC-8801 and PC-98 is short for PC-9801, it makes sense for PC-80 to be short for PC-8001. JumpmanMario2K6 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely makes sense, I wouldn't blink if this was in fact in common usage, but as far as I can tell it in fact is not. Rusalkii (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SNDL

[edit]

I believe this is meant to be an initialism for "Store now, decrypt later". Initialism isn't mentioned in the target. We have several mentions of other SNDLs onwiki at Communist Party of Finland (youth wing), Left Alliance (Finland)/Women's Democratic Action Centre /Uusi Nainen (women's wing), Nordfjordeid (airport code), and 1989 United States Navy order of battle (Standard Navy Distribution List). These are all brief enough mentions I don't think they merit a dab, though. Primary topic by google hits by far is the ticker for a company we don't have a page for, though a very quick skim through sources pulls up a couple marginal ones such that I could imagine it is in fact notable (it seems to have been a bit of a meme stock). Rusalkii (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robo Rampage

[edit]

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. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Enix150: Did you find any evidence of notability? Note that the former article was unreferenced so the WP:BURDEN is on those who wish to restore to provide citation(s) to support the material. -- Tavix (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Plantman (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Trend 3

[edit]

The Trend is not mentioned at the target. This is a real phone model put out by Samsung but I can't figure out the relationship with the Core Plus from either the article or a search. Rusalkii (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 3166-2:UNK

[edit]

Not mentioned in target, which is about ISO 3166-1 codes. ISO 3166-2 is for subdivisions, and no subdivisions are discussed in the target. I can't find reference to this code anywhere at all, though Google my just be failing me with the weird formatting. Rusalkii (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no UN code in 3166-1, so UNK is not a valid 3166-2 code. Delete. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian democrati union

[edit]

Delete. I don't think that this is a plausible misspelling, as it has both incorrect capitalization and a spelling error. Also, this redirect had some history, which was carried over after I moved the redirect to Christian Democrati Union. Xoontor (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title isn't capitalized and it is spelled incorrectly. Floating Orb (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
Legend of 14 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Xoontor should Christian Democrati Union be listed here as well? “Democrati” seems to be an unlikely typo to me. And as far as I can tell, the only history at that redirect, before you edited it, is basically a WP:BLAR. --Plantman (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantman: I'm not entirely sure if it should be listed here. The redirect seems unlikely to be needed, but it's not completely without value either. I'm neutral on whether it should exist, but we might need to keep it for attribution purposes – I think some content was merged from Christian Democrati Union to Christian Democratic Union of Germany in this edit. Xoontor (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I guess that’s fair then. I wouldn’t have caught it myself lol. --Plantman (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry the 8x8

[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. This was redirected at AFD in 2009. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparently a bass speaker cabinet by the company. But as the nomination said, it isn’t mentioned in the target. I also feel like it’s not all that notable to be included in the article, especially since a “products” section is meant to be a summary of a company’s products, not a list of every single one of them. --Plantman (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The E

[edit]

Delete. E (disambiguation) lists no topics plausibly referred to as "the E." GilaMonster536 (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thryduulf. Transportation services are often referred to with “the” before them. --Plantman (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U+205E

[edit]

U+205D is mentioned in the article, but E is not. To understand the connection between the redirect target and the redirect I had to google it separately, which rather defeats the point. Rusalkii (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Rare typo. Azuredivay (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, sorry — I've meant to add some stuff to the page that would mention this U+205E ⁞ VERTICAL FOUR DOTS (not just U+205D ⁝ TRICOLON) on the page, since we have a source that mentions it as a word divider. I've just been putting it off.
Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this to the page now. Later, I'll add more based on this source, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
I don't care either way about this redirect (I'm not sure what the reason is for having Category:Redirects from Unicode codes at all, honestly), but if that was the problem, I hope this helps! Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI in businss

[edit]

Delete: misspelling of the target article name. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a highly implausible typo. --Plantman (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Logan

[edit]

I would like to discuss deleting these three redirects. These three actors have other works that (at a glance) they are equally as known for (or even more so) as they are for Organ Trail (film). There is no information on any of these actors in the article, and they could be standalone articles, so I think this counts as WP:RFD#D10, but please correct my understanding if I am mistaken. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blank, so that people are encouraged to contribute to the article. Otherwise I would also be okay with delete. Easternsahara (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I'm new to RfD, so I'm not sure what blanking entails (what is being blanked?), but it sounds like something that I would also find agreeable. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unsure what it means, how would you find it agreeable? Sorry, very strange response imho.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the "so that people are encouraged to contribute to the article", which is in general something I find agreeable. I would like to learn more about what exactly it means in this case, but if that is the result then I find it agreeable. I agree it does sound strange now that I reread it. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "There is no information on any of these actors in the article" - Except there is. Absent their own page, a redirect is perfectly fine as they are associated as actors in the film. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, that was hyperbolic when it shouldn't have been. Yes, it does have information on those three actors, specifically the names of the characters they played, and for two of them a mention that they were included in the cast of the film. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. Since it would not qualify under that criteria, are you going to withdraw the nomination at this point? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not intend to rely on that specific criterion, and I would like for other editors to weigh in with their own judgement. I also felt at the time that "virtually no information" included as little information as simply stating the name of a character an actor played, although I would again appreciate hearing from other editors about what is "virtually no information". IndigoManedWolf (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing from other editors is fine. But, what is your contention for why it needs deleted if it would not qualify under the initial criteria you cited? Those reviewing would need to know why you feel it needs deleted (e.g., the specific guideline it violates). --CNMall41 (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I know I owe you a proper response as you are the one who created the redirects but I'm not able to give one right now. I will try in the morning. For now I will say that (in addition to the criterion I listed) as a reader, the redirect for Nicholas Logan felt jarring, and I would think similarly of the other two. I did not nominate Lukas Jann since, unlike the others, it looked like this is arguably the work he is most known for. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, very strange response. Is what it is but I would advise not nominating anything for deletion unless you have proper rationale. It can become disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you did not say "virtually no information" in your nonimation, you stated "no information." Just pointing out the contradiction. If they qualify for standalone articles, then create them. We don't delete redirects just because a page has not yet been created. I am confused all around about the rationale of the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starburst (cocktail)

[edit]

Vodka Red Bull doesn't meantion the word "Starburst" in it at all. A quick google search doesn't show many results besides TikTok and the like. The redirect isn't linked from any other pages and is used a few times a week at maximum.

I propose deleting this redirect unless a source can be found to support it, in which case it'd be best to add the information to the Vodka Red Bull page and keep the redirect. FireDragons52 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Plantman (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google finds lots of recipes for cocktails named starburst containing a variety of ingredients. None on the first page contained red bull and only about half included vodka, so the the current target is definitely wrong - especially without a mention. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MODS

[edit]

I feel like this is better off being retargetted to Wikipedia:Moderators, as "mods" is short for "moderators" and in any case, Wikipedia admins are not mods. --Plantman (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of 14 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard "mods" as short for "modifications", only "moderators". --Plantman (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of downloading a mod for a game? Or see What is body mod. Or see Garry's Mod. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, tbh I don't really play video games. But I also don't see how any of the listed uses of "mod" are related to Wikipedia policy. I hear the term "discord mods" or "reddit mods" a lot more, and people are more likely to look for "Wikipedia:MODS" with that latter sense of the word in mind. --Plantman (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine. You don’t have to agree with me, I was just trying to explain my point of view. --Plantman (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the these topics, and WP:Bureaucrats as well -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mods" as in moderators strikes me as the most nautral by far, "mods" as in modifications (video game or otherwise) seems unnatural in this context. My inclination would be to point to Moderators and maybe hatnote Modifications; a dab page seems excessive for a project shortcut with very small number of incoming links. We could add the crats to the Moderators disambig page as well, and then that'll cover all the topics suggested by the IP. Rusalkii (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft talk:E-Laws

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily deleted by User:Explicit. (WP:G7)

Draft:E-Laws

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily deleted by User:Explicit. (WP:G7)

Square root of 25

[edit]

The purpose of redirects isn't to be a calculator. Readers shouldn't expect this redirect to exist, especially since Square root of 24 etc. do not. Other than the bare fact that 5 squared is 25, a reader directed to the article 5 finds no content having any specific relevance to 5 qua the square root of 25, only content consisting of miscellaneous unrelated facts. Indeed a reader would find more information of actual relevance at 25 (number). See also the current RFD for Square root of 4 and Square root of 9. The redirects for square root of 16 and 25 were newly created. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nuke from orbit...and people wonder why we cite WP:PANDORA 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cheap and unambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CHEAP is not a reason for keeping...it's a counterargument against complaints about burdens on server resources, which no one has made. On the other hand, these are ambiguous, because while they could redirect to the value, they could just as reasonably redirect to Square root § Square roots of positive integers. And as I said in the other RFD, why stop here? Why not have Square root of 2209 -> 47 (number)? Why not 47-((2^2)*7) -> 19 (number)? Surely that's unambiguous and cheap, right? The search utility is not a calculator. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not ambiguous, as the "square root of 25" is only ever "5." The same goes for "square root of 16" and "4." Anything else is mathmatically impossible and incorrect. I would have no objection to creating similar redirects for whole integers. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But there's no encyclopedic information about "the square root of 16" at the "4" article, while the other article I mentioned has encyclopedic content about the overall concept of square roots of positive integers, so is a more appropriate encyclopedic target. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a calculator. To pretend otherwise is a misuse of the search feature.

    ... the "square root of 25" is only ever "5." The same goes for "square root of 16" and "4." Anything else is mathmatically impossible and incorrect.

    Not so, because nonzero numbers have two square roots. -4 is also a square root of 16, for example. In the biz, we say that 4 is the principal square root. All that being said, this is still pretty damned useless as a redirect. But anyway, between that and the ambiguity, it should be deleted. Would you support a bot run to make "Square root of n" redirects for every article on integers we have. If someone did it by hand, would you support keeping them all anyway? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why shouldn't 4 say somewhere that 4 is, in fact, the square root of 16? BD2412 T 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I have no problem with redirecting Square root of 2209 to 47, though it seems kind of pointless. We get diminishing returns here, and I wouldn't personally create these past about the square roots of 9 or 16. But if you feel like making some bigger ones, knock yourself out. The other example of "47-((2^2)*7)" is utterly worthless; we don't need to turn Wikipedia's redirect engine into a full-featured calculator or make a redirect for every possible mathematical expression. –jacobolus (t) 18:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. I can take or leave these, but I agree with Presidentman's point. Phrases like "Square root of 25" exist in the real world, and they will only ever mean one thing, so it does no harm to have them point there. Wikipedia is well-stocked with redirects to titles from much longer formulations (e.g., th ungainly Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor and HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay both redirect to Charles III). BD2412 T 19:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as all of accurate, unambiguous and harmless. Deletion will not bring any benefits to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, optionally redirecting to a section where 5's property of being the square root of 25 is explicitly discussed, if there is one. Redirects are cheap and in this kind of case completely harmless. It's a huge waste of time discussing these. –jacobolus (t) 18:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POINTy creations based on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_14#Square_root_of_9. There my argument for keeping doesn't apply, so this is arbitrary math just for the sake of math. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless, cheap, and each of them has 35 or more pageviews in the last month, suggesting that it's somewhat useful. --Plantman (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those square roots resulting in natural numbers (or integers in general) are synonymous. It is preferable to delete them all, unless there are some specific events based on history, as in square root of 2. If someone wants to keep those, better find something to make them interesting. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo 128

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I have never seen the console referred to as such, and the article doesn't state anything about the console being 128-bit other than "The Dolphin platform is reputed to be king of the hill in terms of graphics and video performance with 128-bit architecture." which must be describing the platform itself rather than the console. Also the redirect got only one view in the past 30 days as of writing this. 1033Forest (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess it's probably about Super_Mario_128#GameCube_demo, which is what comes up when I google "Nintendo 128".
    Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this very old nickname comes from being the successor to the N64 (Nintendo 64); where each generation of console doubled the bit count, 8-bit NES, 16-bit SNES, 64-bit N64, its successor got nicknamed Nintendo 128. That generation of console was nicknamed the 64-bit generation (as the N64 sat in the 32-bit generation...) ... similar very old nicknames coming from the prior generation's console names include Seag 64 for the DreamCast because the Sega32X existed on the Genesis platform... Atari 10400 for the successor console, being the Jaguar... PSY for the PS2, since the PlayStation(1) was called the PSX originally.. the Xbox Two (for Xbox 360, or the Xbox Series XY), the Xbox 720 (for Xbox One)... etc. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmentioned, plain and simple. As far as a reader is concerned, this could just as easily be an internal code name, a popular name, or something some editor made up. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew wickham

[edit]

Should be deleted. Subject is not mentioned in the target article. WWGB (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

[edit]

KIPP: Lead College Prep Charter School

[edit]

Not mentioned at target Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:20, 19 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 23:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Performative feminism

[edit]

I initially thought Mainstream feminism was a good target, but it's a redirect. It's often used to refer to White feminism or Imperial feminism instead too. Is the current target any better? Vivb1 (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First American Pope

[edit]

Pope Leo XIV has been commonly referred to in media as the First American Pope. While Pope Francis - whose page "First American Pope" currently redirects to - was obviously the first pope from the Americas, Pope Leo XIV is equally obviously the first from the United States, making "First American Pope" somewhat ambiguous. Hence, I propose that "First American Pope" be made a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. FiveInParticular (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to American pope, which is a disambiguation. Vivb1 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect in particular is using American to mean Pan-American. Vivb1 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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]
Delete. Non-MoS pages should never have MoS related redirects (or page names). Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A WikiProject's style advice is close enough to the MOS that I'm okay with this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it's best we keep a clear differentiation between what is and isn't in the manual of style. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What differentiation between style guidance in the manual of style, some of which applies to specific topics/articles and style guidance for specific topics/articles elsewhere is important to make? Why is making that distinction important? Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The distinction is that the manual of style is a formal guideline and hence has a higher degree of consensus behind it than individual WikiProjects' advice pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some bits of the manual of style are not widely supported by people other than MOS regulars (as evidenced by how controversial capitalisation can get for example) while style advice found in some wikiprojects is uncontroversial. So whether some piece of style advice is found in place A or place B is not a reliable guide to how strong a consensus it enjoys, meaning that enforcing an arbitrary barrier to finding a given bit of guidance based on that seems counterproductive. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if someone is being misleading about how much buy-in a page has that's on them; realistically speaking I expect this to be helpful for navigation and not misdealing for anyone actually opening the page, which we should do anyway if a guideline we're not familiar with is linked in an argument. Rusalkii (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle Liuzza

[edit]

It is unclear why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acie Kirby

[edit]

Appears to be a nickname or alternative spelling, used in the Scorsese movie, of real person Asa Kirby, who already has a redirect page to an article on the Osage murders; as is, there is a redirect for a character Acie and a separate one for a real person Asa Doprendek (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FC Rapperswil-Jona (women)

[edit]

Better as a redlink to encourage page creation, target currently has nothing on the women's team Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sdhgdf

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Dr. Dr.

[edit]

I think it is more likely that searchers are looking for a double doctorate described at Doctor (title) than they are any of the other entries at the disambiguation page Doctor Doctor. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:06, 17 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, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctors (series 1)

[edit]

This is ambiguous and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which Doctors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show evidence of usage of "series 1" for any of those shows? If yes, add a hatnote. If no, don't add one. So long as Doctors series 1 is at the base title, it is the de facto primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting, Fishing and Animals in ancient egypt

[edit]
Just tagged as such. Jay 💬 13:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the "below nomination" was the kept Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_17#Hunting, Fishing and Animals in Ancient Egypt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Square root of 4

[edit]

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]

Comment: A strongly-related new RfD discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 19#Square root of 25. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep square root of 4 and square root of 9 as redirects; delete sqrt4; and do not replace with the draft article. There's no harm in keeping the redirect to avoid a redlink between square root of 3 and square root of 5, though sqrt4 reads more as calculator input than a plausible search term, and any mathematical properties of the square root of 4 can be adequately discussed in the article about 2 or square root. The draft is a WP:COATRACK and WP:CONTENTFORK. Complex/Rational 22:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational: Do you have any thoughts on what in the draft should be integrated into the article? 2 is surprisingly sparse as is, as an article on one of the most important numbers. BD2412 T 23:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a couple of sentences about squares, root rectangles and trigonometric rectangles are worth merging. But the rest could easily be written about the square root of any integer (e.g., continued fractions, terminating decimal expansions, standard deviations) by merely copying, pasting, and changing the numbers – in other words, nothing special to the number 2. Complex/Rational 01:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep the first two, delete the third one as it seems to be a bit of a stretch. I also feel like Square root of 1 shouldn't have been deleted, but that's a different issue. --Plantman (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DXYK

[edit]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Europe

[edit]

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]

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 ICC Europe and have other page ending in (disambiguation). Cricket is the second most popular sport in the world, and someone searching Cricket Europe is probably searching for the sport. Unlikely the insect Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1957-58 Australia rugby union tour of the Britain Isles, Ireland and France

[edit]

Delete. The error "Britain Isles" is implausible. This was created by a pagemove, but not a longstanding one — in 2009 someone moved 1957-58 Australia rugby union tour of Britain, Ireland and France to this title, and it was reverted just two days later. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From a misspelling Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Bridlegoose

[edit]

Enwiki has no mention at all of "Judge Bridlegoose". The current target is not suitable, even if the current proposed deletion is declined. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The target has been deleted. Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

[edit]

Criticism of Dunkin' Donuts

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn.

Buds (Surf Curse album)

[edit]

Article failed notability and reputable sources; instead of deletion was redirected causing misleading links Fredlesaltique (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've played these games before!

[edit]

The phrase isn't mentioned at the target article and there isn't another article which would be suitable for retargeting. Suonii180 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the redirect to something else where it is mentioned which I also put in the article, It was Squid Game season 2 to Squid Game season 2#Episodes. Rafael Gauden R. Maglalang (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned at episode 3 "001" if you can not find it. Rafael Gauden R. Maglalang (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--a rather random insertion in a plot summary doesn't make it content so relevant that it would even need a redirect. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trallalero-tralalà 2607:FEA8:3360:7600:DB2B:94F5:F6A9:C8D2 (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shish

[edit]

The lowercase makes the target surprising. Since there isn't much information on shish at skewer (the article is too broad), I think that retargeting to shish kebab (page view comparison) would provide the most information and be the most intuitive for readers. Alternatives include swapping with Shish (disambiguation). Sdrqaz (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wokepedia

[edit]

"Wokepedia" or "Wokipedia" is not mentioned in the target article. The only thing I know is one of Elon Musk's posts (i.e. tweets) on X [twitter] joking about giving financial compensation if the Wikimedia foundation changes wikipedia to wokepedia (but my statement is completely unsourced and will need searching). Chuterix (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something like this: [4] GoldRomean (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterzoet

[edit]

Is redirecting for a less relevant topic. Most of the links are relating to the venue, not the album. Dutch language has no article for the album, but an article for the venue. Should at best be disambiguated, but I would suggest deleting. Fazzo29 (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly contribute to nl:wiki and am therefore not familiar with the policies or conventions of en:wiki. But I agree with @Fazzo29 that it doesn't seem logical to redirect 'Bitterzoet' to Eefje de Visser (a Dutch artist who has an album + title song named Bitterzoet). The Dutch Wikipedia article Bitterzoet is a disambiguation page which lists 7 meanings, four of which have their own article on nl:wiki. Michzondag (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Automatic lubricating cup

[edit]

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]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple targets have been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khattar (surname) (disambiguation)

[edit]

This redirect performs no useful function. The target is a surname SIA and does not require a WP:INTDAB redirect.WP:G14 declined by @Pppery: with edit summary "A surname article is a page that "perform[s] disambiguation-like functions (such as set index articles or lists)." IMO so G14 doesn't apply. Probably should be deleted at RfD". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: implausible redirect. मल्ल (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta separatism and annexationism

[edit]

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. DankJae 22:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Thryduulf Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:XY. Users are better served by the existing links of Alberta annexationism and Alberta separatism. मल्ल (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't XY when the first sentence of the target article notes that the subject of the article is both separatism and annexationism. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a murder

[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor or a keyboard? 08:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampyrellidium

[edit]

Wrong redirect. Vampyrellidium is a genus of probably-nuclearid, mentioned as "not to be confused with the cercozoan Vampyrella" in https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6792443/. Artoria2e5 🌉 07:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subst:Unsigned IP

[edit]

I'm not even sure how you would use this template shortcut? I guess Template:Subst:Unsigned IP works, but the "normal" way you would display this would be {{subst:unsigned IP}}, which works regardless of this shortcut's existence. I think this can be deleted due to its dubious utility and potential for confusion about what the subst: prefix means. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think anyone would choose to write {{subst:subst:Unsigned IP}}. Besides, it looks like a double redirect; Template:Unsigned IP redirects to Template:Unsigned. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 06:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and Also delete Template:Subst:Unsigned: As far as I can tell, the user who created these was correctly using {{subst:Unsigned}} and {{subst:Unsigned IP}}, but using edit summaries that attempted to link Template:subst:Unsigned and Template:subst:Unsigned IP (ref). But then, immediately after creating the redirects, they switched to just using {{Unsigned}} and {{Unsigned IP}} (e.g. Special:Diff/1199770620). Anomie⚔ 13:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with deleting TM:Subst:Unsigned; added to nomination. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NEWSCIENTIST

[edit]

This redirect used to lead to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#New Scientist. The target section has since been deleted, and now it only links to the top of the page, which is not very helpful. The New Scientist section either needs to be restored, or the redirect deleted. Since I don't know why New Scientist was removed from the list of perennial sources, I am unsure of what my opinion on this would be. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 04:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The RSP entry was removed two years ago.[7] If a new entry is added then the redirect can be recreated, but it's redundant at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asie Mineure

[edit]

I don't think Anatolia is especially French. Delete per WP:FORRED. Duckmather (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also known as Asia Minor and Asie Mineure is the French translation. So keep as unambiguous and harmless Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McDermott

[edit]

The disambiguation page was previously proposed for deletion. Probably best to discuss the redirect first to see if we actually agree with it in the first place. Also, I know he was the partner of Olivia Newton-John which is the main factor of his notability, but I still think I discussion is best to determine whether to Keep or Dabify and move Patrick McDermott (disambiguation) to Patrick McDermott without a disambiguation Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dance drama

[edit]

There are many types of dance drama, not just wuju. This is misleading. Either delete, retarget, or possibly a DAB? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see quite a few results for "dance drama" on this site, so I'm inclined to suggest a DAB or something similar. Seems like a reasonable enough search term that I could believe leading to the current target (given it's a direct translation of the name) or a number of other options, so some sort of list would make the most sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only reason I didn't DAB at creation was that we didn't seem to have any articles on the other genres of dance drama. Since WP:DAB requires at least two valid target articles, I went the redirect route. If we do have articles on these other forms of dance drama, a DAB definitely makes more sense.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly: The Card Game

[edit]

I originally redirected this to Monopoly (game) because it failed notability guidelines for products and services, and was filled with original research. The target article used to have some substantive coverage of the topic, but I removed it because it was unreliably sourced. Therefore, this redirect serves no navigational purpose and should be deleted. (There is now only a trivial mention on the target page, though, and some disambiguation pages still have it listed.) 1isall (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant policies, guidelines, and revisions that I forgot to link to:
1isall (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: These are the only sources I can find:
      1. "Harvard Business Review article". Harvard Business Review. Vol. 80. 2001. p. 54. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via Google Books.

        The source notes: "It’s very tough to make a game that can satisfy both those who prefer casual games of luck and those who prefer to use their heads. In 1999, my company developed Monopoly: The Card Game with the aim of providing the emotional high points of the original game but in much less time. Given Monopoly’s wide appeal, we knew we had to design a game that kids could find fun to play but that adults could also approach with sophisticated reasoning and decision making. I think we succeeded, despite having such a tough act to follow."

      2. Beaumon-Clay, Tina (2001-02-11). "Monopoly now a card game". Montgomery Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-05-26. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "I called our friends at Hasbro, maker of Monopoly in (almost) all its incarna-tions, and found that Monopoly The Card Game has been licensed to a company called Winning Moves. It's just as you've described. The object is to be the first player to accumulate $10,000."

      Cunard (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, thank you for taking a look @Cunard. I don't think that's enough to restore the article at this time, but I do feel the content should be retained in some form (under the redirect, most likely) in case more sources are found in the future. BOZ (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better Go Home

[edit]

Song does not appear to exist. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any sourcing on the existence of this song. Maybe a hoax? मल्ल (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

[edit]

Prashant Sharma

[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jam doughnuts

[edit]

I attempted nominating this for speedy deletion but it was declined. I do not feel it is necessary to have a redirect from the draft namespace, especially since the non-draft namespace version of this redirect exists and also redirects the same way. It is incredibly improbable someone would ever keyword the draft namespace to find information on a topic—the casual reader doesn’t even realize Wikipedia is more than article space. The draft was also originally created by a troll who was blocked indefinitely, before another user changed it into a redirect. Thebirdlover (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diplonemea

[edit]

According to the redirect, Diplonemea is monotypic, but according to the new Discoba classification template, it isn't, for it also contains Hemistasidae and Eupelagonemidae. I would especially like turning the page into an article, for this taxon, according to the aforementioned template, is not monotypic. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Road travel

[edit]

Since the target article is specifically for traveling on roads via cars and other automobiles, this redirect targeting the current article can be seen as potentially misleading. Roads can also be traveled on by walking, bicycles, and other beans types of non-motorized vehicles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change target to Road Transport per Thryduulf Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gender pronouns

[edit]

Retarget to Personal_pronoun#Gender, where preferred gender pronouns is already hatnoted. --MikutoH talk! 17:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Whitley

[edit]

Did a google search, and Conan O'Brien wasn't mentioned for Chip Whitley searches. Appears to be fake. It is in page history of him having to do something with the actor. Don't know if the actor is notable enough or whether this redirect is legit or is fake. The user that created this also created a fake one called Dora The Ex-Toader. I think either Delete as one option, second option would be Draftify and crate article on actor or another one would be Keep. I am honestly neutral and I should let people who know about this and what it means debate and argue. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traveler-oriented business

[edit]

Seems to be ambiguous to a point where there is no adequate target for this redirect. Some examples of targets this redirect could refer are Travel agency and almost any article about a subject that assists travelers (air, bus, train, etc.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete for no good target. I wouldn't expect to find articles about modes of transport from this search term, but rather an article about the business sector aimed at travellers and tourists/tourism - travel agencies, tour operators, tourist information centres, Corporate travel management, that sort of thing. However we don't have an article on that I can find tourism sector is a redlink for example (Tourism sector in Iran is the only similar title to exist, but that's obviously not a suitable target here). Businesses provided services to the travelling communities (e.g. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people (UK)), but I'd be very surprised if that was the primary topic but would definitely merit a hatnote or dab entry if we have an article. I support disambiguation in principle but I'm not sure it would be viable since I've failed to find articles that match the scope of pretty much everything I've thought of this could refer to. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 90 floating bridges (disambiguation)

[edit]

This redirect performs no useful function. The target "Interstate 90 floating bridges" (plural) is not ambiguous. The target is a simple list and does not require a WP:INTDAB redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Häme (disambiguation)

[edit]

This redirect serves no useful purpose. The target is not a disambiguation page (and so does not need a WP:INTDAB redirect to it), and does not otherwise list articles that might be titled "Häme" (because Häme is not ambiguous). Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make into a new disambiguation page. Häme and Tavastia (historical province) are about the same topic (there is a merge discussion), but there is also Häme Province, Häme (constituency) and Häme Region (present-day Kanta-Häme, but known as Häme before 1998). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lobotomy Dash

[edit]

Delete, because it is not mentioned in the target article. Xoontor (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while unmentioned. There is a lot of material about this on google searches (it seems to be some sort of meme/derivative of Geometry Dash) so while I haven't investigated the reliability or depth of sourcing, I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of content about it was added somewhere at some point. However unless and until that happens the redirect is not misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superman 'Starman'

[edit]

Delete per WP:UNNATURAL (Titles with punctuation, obscure errors, additions, or removals that have no specific affinity to one title over any other: e.g. being in quotations). Xoontor (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visnapuu (disambiguation)

[edit]

after renaming, now misleading Estopedist1 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visnapuu (disambiguation) just to be deleted, and then everything OK--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San diego crash

[edit]

Delete. Created by a blocked user; the wording in the title is too ambiguous to identify any single target, dab page, or category. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:B3B1:93FA:7153:FC17 (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Dab would need to be created at San Diego crash, and there's no real point in keeping a miscapitalized redirect to there if it doesn't already exist. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll Be Alright, Kid (Chapter 2)

[edit]

Found no news coverage of this release, and it is not mentioned at the target or at Alex Warren. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knick Knack Paddy Whack

[edit]

I used the first of these to look up information about the nursery rhyme and was surprised to arrive at an episode listing for a show I've never heard of. Following the (not particularly prominent) link to the article I wanted I found that multiple other spellings (indeed all the variations I've found) link directly there. While the term I used is the exact title of the episode, I don't see evidence of it being the primary topic and it being the only one going to a different target also feels wrong. I propose to regarget Knick Knack Paddy Whack to This Old Man to match the others. Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. Cremastra (u — c) 03:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. There's already a hatnote to the TV episode at This Old Man -- Ϫ 06:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn ricecup

[edit]

I guess it's supposed to be a mishearing of the name, but it just seems like an unfunny joke. Putting it in quotes on Google returns no results. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely misspelling/search term. Some Google results came up for "Marilyn rice cup", but not nearly enough to be convincing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

[edit]

Leybach

[edit]

Ambiguous term, no evidence that the current target is primary topic. It is after all the historic name for the Ljubljanica river. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was initially inclined to agree and recommend disambiguation, since the bar for a surname redirecting to an individual should be high, and the composer is not especially well known. However, there are only two topics involved, and looking beyond the two articles themselves, every current use refers to the composer. Thus, I recommend keeping and adding {{redirect|Leybach|the river|Ljubljanica}} as a hatnote on the composer's article. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To amend Public Law 93-435 with respect to the Northern Mariana Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa (S. 256; 113th Congress)

[edit]

Delete. Egregiously long title. Nobody's going to enter the long title and then follow it up with (S. 256; 113th Congress); the long title is sufficiently unambiguous. Because this was bot-created as a redirect to an alternate form of the title (which I'm nominating separately), there's no reason to be concerned about deleting any history. Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Thryduulf Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next Canadian federal election

[edit]

Since 2025 is no longer the next election and we have no article on polling for the actual next election, this redirect is misleading and should be deleted. Cremastra (u — c) 22:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dora the Ex-Toader

[edit]

Appears to be a fake nickname/vandalism that's been uncaught since 2009 Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: not a thing. Cremastra (u — c) 22:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Total vandalism name that is completely fake Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Webi Ughasate

[edit]

Is there such a thing? Doug Weller talk 19:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chargers

[edit]

Of all sports teams with redirects that may refer to something else, I would question this one the most. The top of the Los Angeles Chargers article says "Chargers redirect here. For other uses see Charger (disambiguation) not Chargers (disambiguation)" and Charger (disambiguation) is a redirect to Chargers. Chargers could also refer to the Deccan Chargers, the Gold Coast Chargers, and outside of sports; Battery Chargers. I would suggest changing target to Charger. Note that 49ers currently redirects to 49er and they are a way more notable team. I might still consider discussing the redirect (Even if this one is kept) just to see whether people think change should happen considering the discussion was 10 years ago). Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Charger per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Football Cardinals

[edit]

Football Cardinals is actually used in St. Louis and the Baseball team was the Primary Topic. When in St. Louis, the team was commonly referred to as the "Football Cardinals" to avoid confusion with the Baseball team. And "Football Cardinals" is mentioned on the article St. Louis Cardinals (NFL). Change target to St. Louis Cardinals (NFL) and leave redirect note at top of article. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this moniker is never used when discussing the post-move Arizona team. 162 etc. (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse shampoo

[edit]

Delete, horses are not mentioned in the target article. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subcompact

[edit]

Make dab; see also Subcompact crossover SUV and Subcompact executive car. 162 etc. (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Oil

[edit]

It was never known as "Texas Oil". I have just created an article titled Oil in Texas which I am working on and am going to consider inviting other editors to work on and might even consider splitting content from other articles and move the content to Oil in Texas. Oil in Texas is notable enough for a stand alone article and might even collaborate with other editors to move content from Energy in Texas to Oil in Texas. Back to this redirect, I think for now it is best to change target to Oil in Texas. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A-League

[edit]

Not the only league called A-League anymore. I would say to either change target to Australian Professional Leagues or to Dabify or maybe less likely create and article or merge the articles A-League Men and A-League Women and call the article A-Leagues (It would require removing the existing redirect of A-Leagues. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It never was the only league known as the A-League (we had American Professional Soccer League and USL First Division). The question is primary topic or not. Anyways, I'd suggest redirecting A-League to A-League (disambiguation). --SuperJew (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot there was already a DAB page. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the dabpage would move to A-League in order to avoid unnecessary disambiguation in the title. Is this really a WP:NOPRIMARY situation though? 162 etc. (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese invasion of Taiwan

[edit]

Notable topic on its own; the term is not mentioned in the target article. PS. Found a better redirect target: Cross-strait_relations#Possibility_of_a_Chinese_invasion. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 06:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change Target to Cross-strait_relations#Possibility_of_a_Chinese_invasion Per nominator Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is purely speculative and amounts to WP:CRYSTAL China has not invaded Taiwan. A redirect to a very speculative sounding sub-section of a different article is compounding the issue, not making it better. Simonm223 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually disagree. It has been widely reported by the media of a possibility. This is not a case of an editor publishing their own speculations. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's like suggesting we don't need World War IV (and World War III :P) Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 15:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hanyangprofessor2 Good point, but a Chinese invasion of Taiwan only needs one state to invade one state. WW3 would need the almost whole world involved. WW4 would have to wait for WW3 to end and possibly even at least 20 years after that war to end. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere No comparison is ideal, true. See some related discussion here. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 07:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a more cogent comparison would be United States Invasion of China which is an hypothetical future event that *might* happen. Certainly plenty of American war-hawks want it. But, because WP:CRYSTAL is policy, it's a red-link. Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapose bottom

[edit]

Also an implausible typo (and typos in templatespace are generally deleted much more aggressively). C.f. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 20#Template:Collapsoe bottom. Duckmather (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue India cover models

[edit]

Delete all redirects, unnecessary and implausible search terms. Jayediting (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CHEAP, does not seem implausible. 162 etc. (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per 162 etc. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Men Gone Their Own Way

[edit]

Implausible search term, only used in a handful of self-published sources that I could find, i.e. a novel or very obscure synonym per WP:RDELETE —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems a fairly basic and straightforward derivation from the original title. This is nowhere near novel because gone and going are obviously related. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PARAKANYAA Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an implausible search term that is only used by self-published sources is not something likely to have any utility for readers. Simonm223 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

[edit]

Bishara Bahbah

[edit]

Subject of redirect is largely unrelated to the target, causing confusion. The subject is only mentioned twice in two sentences of the target. Liu1126 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

消博会

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Red-green flag

[edit]

Ambiguous, there are many red-green flags. Rrjmrrr (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, fair enough. Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Morocco, could have this name too. Arguably, Pridnestrovie and Mauritania could have it too. Looks like unless I'm missing someone the rest are green-red (the reverse of this title). Maybe someone can make a convincing argument; like for example Belarus is probably the one people would look for if they wanted a "red-green flag" (which doesn't seem very stable... maybe when used it turns out to be better than expected?)? Until then, redirect. Whoops. wikipedia-kxeon  mailbox ... 21:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of flags by color combination#Red, green Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dri

[edit]

Apparently "a redirect from a page name in one of the Tibetan languages", this is not mentioned at the target, and is ambiguous with Dr.I Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:DPROCESS

[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Tavix Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7 Grand Dad

[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that 7 Grand Dad WAS originally mentioned in the article until the section was removed in April 2025. See this diff ApexParagon (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hottest

[edit]

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]

Nominator stance clarification: Unless it is determined that "Hottest" is the proper name for something (media, book, etc.), to clarify my stance and make it specific, delete or weak retarget to Wiktionary:hottest. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Adamcová

[edit]

The person's last name on the target page before marriage was "Adámková" not Adamcová. FromCzech (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as R from maiden name and R from misspelling. Adamcová is a common Czech surname that is spelt similarly to Adámková. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee

[edit]

Delete. The wrongly non-capitalised "committee" makes this an implausible redirect. What are the chances that you'll get everything else right but miss the capitalisation on the last word? If you're already so familiar with this committee that you remember all the words, you're going to know that "Committee" is always capitalised when used with the other words. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plausible enough to have a committee named "Commerce, Science, and Transportation", or to shorten the official name by just keeping the last four words. Of the top 20 Google hits, one (opensecrets) uses the lowercase form in the visible snippet. Jruderman (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Persia

[edit]

This redirect has been changed several times. I think History of Iran is the natural target. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bibhutipattnayak

[edit]

I don't think I've seen a CNR from userspace to mainspace before, but this feels potentially misleading (if innocent). It looks like Bibhutipattnayak created a draft in their userpage (not a sandbox or subpage) then moved the draft to mainspace. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to move my draft to mainspace, but I now realize I should have used the Draft namespace or a sandbox first. I'm happy to move it back if needed. Please advise on best practices going forward. Bibhutipattnayak (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bibhutipattnayak: This discussion is not about the draft, but about the redirect left behind when you moved it. There is no need to move the page again. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Bibhutipattnayak (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CNRs from user subpages to mainspace are not uncommon and entirely unproblematic, however main userpages should not redirect to anywhere outside user or user talk space. Unless the user concerned explicitly wishes it deleted the best action is to convert to a soft redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either convert to a soft redirect or simply blank the page. ApexParagon (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidental Unit Citation

[edit]

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 per below; didn't know that disamb page existed Ca talk to me! 03:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

[edit]

Moronism

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Asian Library

[edit]

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]

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]
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]
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) 19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrism

[edit]

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]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syriacs

[edit]

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 [9] 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 an 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft disambiguation page has been written on the nominated redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Postgaardida

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Kunal Singh Rathore

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore without prejudice to AfD

Boq

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Springfield Missouri Temple

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

All India Council for Technical Education (India)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 28#All India Council for Technical Education (India)

Thousand Faces

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 28#Thousand Faces

FedEx Express Flight 3609

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:CC-SA-3.0

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

May 20

[edit]

Wikipedia:LOSSOFEDITINGPRIVILAGES

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Software Group

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Advanced DC Motors

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 27#Advanced DC Motors

German Film Museum

[edit]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target Deutsches Filminstitut.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filmi music

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 28#Filmi music

Citation templates

[edit]
No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Xbox Series X

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: de-refine

Linguistic elaboration

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

A GLOSSARY of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor IN ALL COUNTRIES AND IN ALL TIMES

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep

Zldksn flqmtm

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:Collapsoe bottom

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

May 18

[edit]

Flabbiness

[edit]

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. 1234qwer1234qwer4 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]
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]
  • Delete I think Steel1943 is referring to the documentation at {{Wiktionary redirect}}. It's strict, laying out four criteria that need to be met. In my experience, these are frequently ignored, or one criterion is held to be good enough. I wish we wouldn't do that, or at least update the documentation to reflect actual practice.
The rub seems to be in the "Readers search for it on Wikipedia." How much? Most editors would probably agree that a single view isn't enough. "Flabbiness" doesn't meet this bar, with less than a view per day in the linked period; "flabby", with 40 views, still has a weak case IMO.
We could disambiguate Flabby, but it would be a weak one, pointing only to list entries. Flabbiness could go to the wine list entry, as the singer would not be referred to as such. I would prefer to delete both. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The existence of Flabby (wine), mentioned by Jay, with no other titles of articles or redirects known as "Flabby" existing on Wikipedia means that per WP:PRECISE, deleting Flabby without also deleting Flabby (wine) is problematic. In other words, deletion of Flabby may not be an option that makes sense, and its alternative to deletion would have to be "retarget to where Flabby (wine) targets", which is currently Wine tasting descriptors#D–H. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Might be better to retarget both to Wine tasting descriptors#D–H, then. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget - Retarget both to Obesity with a hatnote to Wine tasting descriptors. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1927-28 Waratahs tour of the Britain Isles, France and Canada

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

1957-58 Australia rugby union tour of the Britain Isles, Ireland and France

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 26#1957-58 Australia rugby union tour of the Britain Isles, Ireland and France

Goa, Daman and Diu (India)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep

Doktors

[edit]

This redirect, supposedly from a drug trade name, has no mention at the target. Doktor isn't a suitable target. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create account

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily deleted

Yes symbol

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Homily to Popiełuszko

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mega Man II

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Karmelo Anthony

[edit]

Requesting deletion. Title subject is a teen charged with (but not yet tried for, much less convicted of) murder. The name is kept out of the body of the target page following discussion, due to WP:BLPCRIME reasons (the discussion was split, reaching a WP:NOCONSENSUS closure that kept the name out of the article.) This redirect is being used to put a name we're excluding right at the top of the article; the person redirected there will not find the text explaining what this name has to do with the subject. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (copying and pasting my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karmelo Anthony (2nd nomination), which is happening concurrently with this RfD...): The previous redirect discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18 § Karmelo Anthony) was closed with If the discussion there results in a consensus to exclude the subject's name, this redirect should then be deleted. The RfC found "no consensus to include the name of the suspect and no consensus to exclude it". Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Please delete redirect, where the closing admin said the inclusion or non-inclusion of the redirect or, indeed the determination of what constituted the stable version of the article, is outside the scope of the RfC.
    All that background information aside, the redirect should be kept, because as I said at the previous RfD, readers who type "Karmelo Anthony" in the search bar already know his name; they are just looking for information about his case and the incident he was involved in (in which he is a central figure), and the redirect assists readers with that. Besides, his name appears at least 20 times in the References section, so deleting this redirect would not be helpful or beneficial to our readers in any way. Some1 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it disambiguates with Carmelo Anthony, this redirect is putting the name at the top, before the article, which is different than buried down in the references. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The hatnote and the redirect are both separate issues. The hatnote can be removed from the article while still keeping the redirect. Some1 (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not separate issues, they are linked; as long as we keep this redirect, folks will hold that we need the hatnote because people may be looking for Carmelo. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we keep this redirect, editors can always start an RfC and ask if there should be a hatnote or not. Some1 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As the closer of the previous RfD, I can confirm that speedy deletion would not have been authorized by my closure. I specifically authorized speedy deletion in the event of a consensus to exclude and there was no such consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The procedural history here is a ridiculous tangle (I'm inclined to agree that no speedy deletion is warranted), but on the merits its not mentioned at the target and hence the redirect is inappropriate. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No real good answer. The name is a plausible search term. But redirecting it to an article that does not have it mentioned (per the lack of consensus to include, thus default to exclusion per BLP) will lead to only one conclusion for readers - that the name that was redirected was the name of the accused. And what Some1 doesn't consider above is if someone gets a link from a friend to this redirect, not having any idea who it is. They will come to the only one possible conclusion as well. So it really should ideally not be redirecting to this page. I would be okay (but not happy) about IAR ignoring the "mentioned at target" for this case since it is a plausible search term.. but only if there's a consensus to ignore the concerns about "naming by proxy" when there is no consensus to include the accused's name.
    On the other hand, redirecting it to Carmelo Anthony isn't super great either because then someone looking for the current target article would be sent to a basketball player that they don't have any interest in. So I guess that my !vote here would be to just delete it? If people want to get to the basketball player, they can spell the name right - not to mention that the Wikipedia search bar is not that bad that if they type in the name spelled with a K and it's a redlink, it'll almost certainly show them the basketball player they're looking for. That leaves the issue of people looking for this article and not finding it - to which there is no good answer that I see. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If Friend A sends Friends B this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmelo_Anthony (which, if the redirect is kept, unlikely since it redirects to Killing of Austin Metcalf and they would have to manually click the link to get to the non-redirect page), (and if the redirect is kept) it means that Friend A already knows who Karmelo Anthony is and it is likely they'll tell Friend B who that person is before sending them the link (e.g. "Did you hear about Karmelo Anthony? Here's a link to the Wikipedia article where you can read more about what's happening to him", etc.). I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Some1 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure either - hence why I bolded "no real good answer" and was wishy over !voting to delete it. I've thought about how to respond to your point, which is correct/true, but the difference is we can't control what happens outside of Wikipedia, we can just control whether we further it or not. Our BLP policies are intentionally significantly more strict than even most news organizations have. I'd be surprised if most people were sending links through messaging apps/texts/etc and were including a whole backstory other than a short backstory, if even that. But then again, below it was pointed out that it's getting 4000 hits a month... And that's why I'm very weakly leaning towards deleting it. Sorry if my flipflopping/wishy-washy views aren't that helpful to others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I also support removing the hatnote. I don't think this is necessarily the right forum for that (should probably be on the talkpage) but if the redirect is deleted the hatnote should be deleted too. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not just a plausible search term, but has in fact received 4000 hits over the past month. There is no consensus that a BLP violation is involved. The hatnote is a different issue, and need not affect this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Delete name of person who was arrested when they were a minor, and has not been tried nor convicted. Gerson Fuentes had his name suppressed until after he was convicted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karmelo Anthony (2nd nomination) as a procedural close, which has already had some participation regarding the existence of this redirect. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 23:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a frequently used search term and as a result, not having it will just result in someone searching elsewhere and getting less balanced content. I don't see anything new from the previous discussion about the WP:BLP aspect in the last few days and procedurally, keeping the redirect while not having the name in the article is, I believe, consistent with those closes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not mentioned in the target article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument that the name is mentioned, because it appears in sourcing mark-up is very weak -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We are required to retain such mentions in markup where we otherwise reject textual inclusion (see Village Pump RfC link below). JFHJr (㊟) 03:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem to be another notch in making BLPCRIME pointless if consenus can be to remove the name, but because it appears in cite titles a redirect and hatnote containing the name can be forced on the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my !vote at the AFD. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this should have never been recreated per WP:BLPUNDEL, and per my comment in the AFD. Also noting that per WP:BLPUNDEL and WP:BIODEL no consensus defaults to removal. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Pppery, and Symphony. The WP:BURDEN of consensus for inclusion has not been met. JFHJr (㊟) 21:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ironically, despite the exclusion the subject is still mentioned 21 times (by my count) at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He's mentioned 21 times in sourcing markup. He is mentioned zero times textually. JFHJr (㊟) 22:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that distinction is important. His name is still very easy to find for those looking for it there. -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with JFHJr. WP:BLP is not at all concerned with sophistry. His name was removed from the article for a reason. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But for those into nuance, I recommend: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Archive 202#RfC: Exclusion of a person's name following consensus. The use of an otherwise excluded name is unrestricted in sourcing. A distinction is in fact made between content and sources. JFHJr (㊟) 04:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone using the redirect can search the article, find any one of those sources that use the name, and confirm it. Therefore it's still a good redirect so long as those sources remain in use. -- Tavix (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one significant (maybe not over 50%, but still significant) reason that my comment above was prefaced with "no real good answer" - because I can see the redirect remaining for that reason. But I still am not specifically arguing to keep it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good answer for me! -- Tavix (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per most above, particularly Some1 and CoffeeCrumbs. I still think that excluding the name from the article was the wrong decision for precisely these sorts of reasons. Anthony's name and association with this case is not a private matter at this point (in large part due to the actions of him and his family) so people will be looking for information about him and the case. It is far better, including from a BLP-perspective, that they are taken to a neutral encyclopaedia article than alternatives elsewhere (or newly created biography at this title) and presenting them with a page saying we haven't got any content is incorrect as search results (which may take several clicks/taps to reach) will confirm. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As with Kyle Rittenhouse, the subject has been propelled to the status of public figure by the nature of his alleged crime and its aftermath – hence why the redirect regularly receives hundreds of daily views. Wikipedia is not censored and the utility of the site is diminished if we opt to omit basic, undisputed facts that are widely and repeatedly reported by reputable, subtantial media outlets. WP:BLPCRIME should not have different interpretations depending on the race of the alleged perpetrator. I T B F 📢 14:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His name is already in about 20 of the citations and people know his name when they search for that name. Dresq — Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is not mentioned in the article, so there should not be a redirect. Sources don't count, only actual content. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this redirect passes a lot of policy tests and should be kept. It is useful for helping people come to the main article WP:R#KEEP. The name is used by multiple reliable sources WP:V. This is the preferred method for dealing with someone who is notable for only one event WP:BLP1E. It explicitly deals with the issue of introducing material into the article WP:BLPCRIME. Other high profile cases have or had personal name redirects like this, by removing this redirect it creates inconsistency without any policy reason. If we remove this redirect we create a POV issue where as reliable sources report on this it would appear that we are trying to deliberately remove it. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no reason under WP:POFR to include Karmelo Anthony as a redirect. We should also be extra cautious, since he is a minor and not a public figure. MrTaxes (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove hatnote unless/until the name is re-added to the target article. It is fundamentally silly to jump through verbal hoops in the article to avoid naming the accused, only to have the name right up at the top in a hatnote. I think (and said so in the RfC) that not naming the suspect is incorrect here but this is clearly even less correct. I am usually strongly opposed to redirects without a mention but I could see this being an exception, so I am dithering about what should in fact be done about the redirect. If we insist that the hatnote must be kept if the redirect is then I suppose delete. Redirecting to the basketball player is obviously absurd and EASTEREGGish and I strongly oppose that. Rusalkii (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC
  • Keep It's a plausible search term, that already shows up 20 times on the page, albeit in the titles of the sources quoted on the page. Avoids confusion with the basketball player. Count3D (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xe/xem

[edit]

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]

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]
  • Presumably only Xem is suitable for disambiguation. What should happen with the others? (Also, what is an album code? I don't think that's suitable for inclusion on a potential disambiguation page, but we can sort that out later.) --BDD (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per BDD's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate Xem, retarget the others to Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns#Table of standard and non-standard third-person singular pronouns per nom. ApexParagon (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican Press

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Wubwubwub and Wub wub wub

[edit]

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]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Sudan sever crisis

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Judge Bridlegoose

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 26#Judge Bridlegoose

Data structure (blockchain)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

"Ausf. A"

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Dry humping

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep This does not bar creating an article

Adhab

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Ramuh

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

There's been a murder

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 25#There's been a murder

Imam Reza

[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor or a keyboard? 08:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 28#Welcome to Wikipedia

Northern Districts

[edit]

Could also refer to the Women's team or a team in Adelaide. Also not to be confused with the Northern District Cricket Club that plays at Mark Taylor Oval in Waitara, New South Wales. I am thinking to Dabify. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Districts

[edit]

Ambiguous and almost certainly not primary topic. Could refer to places or sports teams. Probably best to Dabify. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

MAHA

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

New pope

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect has pointed to Pope Benedict XVI and papal conclave at various points. I pointed it to The New Pope earlier this year and think that that is the more intuitive target; pointing it to the new pope after every conclave doesn't seem sustainable (when does a new pope lose his newness?). The old RfD was before the TV show was released. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shish

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 25#Shish

May 17

[edit]

Main Article

[edit]
No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

El mahdi Mohammad Senosi

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Romantic and gender minorities

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Dr. Dr.

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 26#Dr. Dr.

The Doctors (series 1)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 26#The Doctors (series 1)

Sir richard

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Master/slave relationship

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sir Thomas

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

"Union of England, Scotland and Ireland"

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

He Hillston Spectator and Mount Hope, Willanthry, Cudgellico, Booligal, Euabalong, Ivanhoe, Mossgiel, Gunbar and Lachlan River Advertiser

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hunting, Fishing and Animals in ancient egypt

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 26#Hunting, Fishing and Animals in ancient egypt

Hunting, Fishing and Animals in Ancient Egypt

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Myung Jae-nam

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Travel Promotion, Enhancement, and Modernization Act of 2014 Act (H.R. 4450; 113th Congress)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Travel Promotion, Enhancement, and Modernization Act of 2014 Act

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Brace (hunting)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Mouth Noise

[edit]

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]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are oh so many things that can be called sound of the mouth, but there apparently is no established term (the most used meaning found by me on Google Scholar are apparently - in addition to already mentioned audio recording one - in the in the speech recognition, cf. "signal starts with mouth noise", communication signals unknown to the recipient ("Mouth noise: Tourist makes noise (whistle, kissing noises, shouts) ...") and in playing the wind instruments, "infantile, 'mouth-noise' source of his brass arrangement"). IMHO the only alternative to deletion is to make a random and thus useless WP:disambiguation to things like Breathing ("audible breathing or other kind of mouth noise"), Speech recognition, etc. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not like the disambiguation alternative. Викидим (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per comments of nominator Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have changed my vote from Delete to retarget Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Side Hustle#ep22 per Thryduulf Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania mayoral election

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Publican

[edit]
No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Alloromanticism

[edit]

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

In case this is retargeted, Alloromantic should be as well. 1234qwer1234qwer4 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Romantic Orientation? Or to Aromanticism?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta separatism and annexationism

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 25#Alberta separatism and annexationism

May 15

[edit]

Samurai (Final Fantasy)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Robo Rampage

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 27#Robo Rampage

The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection (Taylor's Version)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Delta Flight 4813

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Marcus Strokes

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6, WP:CSD#G7 and WP:CSD#A10.

The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stoop up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6.

Balitang Amianan

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy keep.

Tactics, techniques, and procedures

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Solar, Anomalous, and Magnetospheric Particle Explorer

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Subcompact

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Subcompact

Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 22#Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee

Second prize in a beauty contest

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Monopoly here and now limited edition 2005

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Butt (sailing)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Gottlieb Institute

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Purgegate

[edit]

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]

(Original author) keep This term was widely used at the time, and a Google search now for '"purgegate" us attorneys' produces many results. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] 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

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: leave it to RM

Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

May 7

[edit]

Dorothy of Oz (manhwa)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Module:Citation

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

St. Sebastiao

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine

[edit]

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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete the ones singled out by Steel1943 and no consensus on the others

Office hours

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 16#Office hours

El mahdi Mohammad Senosi

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 17#El mahdi Mohammad Senosi

Mega Man II

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 18#Mega Man II

Varian Carty

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Presidental

[edit]

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

Pope John XXIV

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

San Diego, United States

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep
[edit]

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

Enemies list

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Stupid dog

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Sexual Anomalies

[edit]

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

Theory of Gender Neutrality

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Needs of the Many

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus default to disambiguate. This seems to be a clear instance of In some cases, such as when editors are suggesting multiple retargeting options, it may be best to close the discussion as "no consensus, disambiguate" with the disambiguation page listing the various options as applicable. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuanshuo era

[edit]
No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Falsterbo Horse Show

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Moot now an article

Moving contact lubricant

[edit]

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

Automatic lubricating cup

[edit]

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

River House Records

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Asian Library

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 21#Asian Library

Bianca de Vera

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1292814132#How_to_list_a_redirect_for_discussion"