Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RGUIDE)
"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 Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 0 64 64
TfD 0 0 1 12 13
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 1 16 17
RfD 0 0 0 8 8
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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 "Banana". (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 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. 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

July 30

[edit]

Bettina Anderson

[edit]

No mention Isla🏳️‍⚧ 11:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarianism in the United States

[edit]

This redirect does not seem appropriate to me as it is potentially misleading. To my understanding, fascism and totalitarianism are not the same thing, as totalitarianism is a broader system of governance which can take many forms (not necessarily fascist). To imply all totalitarianism in the U.S. must be fascist, seems to unintentionally push a point of view. Golem08 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Cowgirls

[edit]

Disputed redirect between Dallas Cowboys and Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Every couple of months had edit warring over target. Either retarget to the Cheerleaders or delete altogether since it feels like an unfunny vandalism nickname for the NFL team. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In–transit mixer

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

Inverted C

[edit]

This refers to some letter. The sound at the target is denoted by the Open O in the IPA; however, Claudian letters#Antisigma (Ↄ) might be closer since it is actually based on the letter C (though Unicode calls it "reversed" rather than "inverted", which is reflected in the font rendering in the article showing a reflected rather than rotated letter). 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:MILRANK

[edit]

There is no consensus per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Military ranks. Absolutiva 00:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military ranks are not honorific prefixes. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Zip Buy Now, Pay Later 250

[edit]

I think the redirect is to be deleted as the race was renamed to the target and the redirect is currently being unused. MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Jenkins

[edit]

The only Jim of note, Jim Jenkins (footballer), should be moved here. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

[edit]

Iacovos Hadjiconstantinou

[edit]

Outcome of AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iacovos Hadjiconstantinou. Would be better to redirect to Cyprus at the 2016 Summer Olympics where he is actually mentioned. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid 5

[edit]

I'm not finding any reputable references labeling the target subject as a "5" in the series. With the fact that List of Metroid media does not make it clear what a "Metroid 5" is supposed to represent, plus the fact that Metroid 4 has been deleted multiple times, these redirects should go as well. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid IV

[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 15#Metroid 4, and the fact that Metroid 4 has been recreated so many times that the title had to be creation-protected. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I”m not sure how to properly source this but the in game intro specifically called it Metroid 4.--67.70.101.124 (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha the Buck-Toothed Lady

[edit]

Remnant of move vandalism Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G3 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:4C69:C37B:7B39:31AD (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panzerschokolade

[edit]

Nominating on behalf of N2e, the target makes no mention of the redirect. Looks to have been an urban legend that the chocolate contained methamphetamines, looking at this blog(?) post from The Skeptic. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from original creator of redirect: I can't even remember creating this! I'm guessing that I read something about it 13 years ago, and looked it up, and created the redirect as it didn't exist. I can't remember what source I had for the information, although I note that in 2013, Spiegel International mentioned it in their article "The German Granddaddy of Crystal Meth" (Fabienne Hurst (30 May 2013). "The German Granddaddy of Crystal Meth". Spiegel International. Retrieved 23 July 2025.). If there is no evidence that this is anything other than an urban legend, I would be happy for it to be deleted. Alternatively, perhaps a mention of the urban legend could be included in the target article? PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Kiwi Motorcycle Rally

[edit]

I don't think it makes much sense to redirect Cold Kiwi Motorcycle Rally to the page for a geological feature when the rally itself has nothing to do with that feature apart from the location. I would further note that the redirect itself points a section of the Volcanic Plateau article that does not exist; the rally is discussed in a single paragraph in that article (and one sentence in the Horopito, New Zealand article).

If this must be kept as a redirect then I believe it should be retargetted to Horopito, New Zealand, the specific locality where it takes place. I would also have no objections to just removing this redirect.

What does the community think? :D Groot42 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the claim that the Rally continues to be held in Horopito is false; the 2025 one is apparently being held in Waiouru and regardless the source only says that the 2014 one was in Horopito. I edited that page accordingly.
I still think there needs to be a better target than a non-existent section of a page about an area which the page itself says is over 100 km wide. Groot42 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: I've notified the target of this RFD. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page had a section target until February this year. I have replaced it with an anchor. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RESULT

[edit]

Too ambiguous; same reason MOS:RESULT was deleted   Jalapeño   (u t g) 09:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Saying "MOS:RESULT was deleted" without explaining the context is somewhat misleading. What happened with it was its creator, SMcCandlish, created MOS:RESULT and then about a minute later, moved it without redirect to MOS:MILRESULT. In addition, if anything, in the "Wikipedia:" and "MOS:" namespaces, "ambiguous" is better served with a disambiguation page (provided the redirect is not too old and frequently linked). Steel1943 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RESULT is definitely too ambiguous, and we should not be redirecting unclear WP:-namespace shortcuts to MoS sections. It would be better to make an internal disambiguation page, including MOS:MILRESULT and various other pages that have "result[s]" in their name or which tally the results of processes or catalogue common results of recurrent debates, and whatever else someone might be looking for when they take a stab at "WP:RESULT". Send WP:RESULTS to same place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Help:Searching#Search results page to match WP:RESULTS. -- Tavix (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to close an old log date (actually BDD closed it already).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clicky-clack keyboard

[edit]

Doesn't seem all that useful, kind of ambiguous, as this could definitely be referred to as Mechanical keyboard. This should be either deleted or retargeted to that article. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 38

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

Interstate 38 is unnecessary since I-38 does not exist at all. 2600:1700:6180:6290:4D4C:8D6E:BFE:81E6 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise attack

[edit]

This was linked on the Iran–Israel war page but it’s only mentioned once in the entire page of the target and Google search results don’t indicate that this is the right target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T:UAA

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

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

Very unused redirect to the Usernames for Administrator Attention template, Template:UAA. It can be reached by typing in TM:UAA, without needing a replica page existing in mainspace with an unideal cross-namespace redirect. No valuable incoming links. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T:R from

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

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

It has been argued in previous discussions that the purpose of such a redirect is to make it easy to navigate to Template:R from. Since the advent of the TM: alias, TM:R from is a short, suitable way to navigate to this template, by using an alias that works for all templates. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiste Liosan

[edit]

Delete. A fictional fantasy race, not mentioned in the target article or elsewhere in Wikipedia. Was an unreferenced stub article in 2006 until it was redirected. Mika1h (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths from the 2019–21 coronavirus outbreak

[edit]

Is there a better target or should these just be deleted? Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another target that would be appropriate? I would be very surprised. It was presumably given this title during 2021, when it was thought unlikely that there would be further deaths. I'd be very surprised if anyone is using this redirect, but can't imagine it is pointing to the wrong page. Kevin McE (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic IS Covid-19, so this is the correct target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Jruderman; slightly better target, plus the new target already has a hatnote to the old target for those who wanted the list. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or re-target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death due to COVID-19

[edit]

Is there a better target or should it be deleted? Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or re-target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help:IPA for Hokkien

[edit]

The prefix "Help:IPA for" is generally understood to be the predecessor to the current prefix "Help:IPA/" prior to 2017. As such, this redirect leading to a template can be a bit misleading. So I suggest re-targeting this redirect to Help:IPA/Taiwanese Hokkien, which as User:Lovewhatyoudo noted here, can also largely represent the sounds used by speakers of Hokkien in Mainland China and Southeast Asia. S Y T · 三葉草 16:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian locomotive class WAG-00

[edit]

This was originally created for an unnamed locomotive class. Later locomotive class was announced and page moved to Indian locomotive class WAG D-9. So this redirect is useless and i see no motive to keep it. ––kemel49(connect)(contri) 16:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auftakt für Brighton

[edit]

Appears to have been a related television programme produced by the German public broadcaster ARD ahead of the Eurovision Song Contest 1974, however there is no mention of this on the target article, nor on any other related articles. As a German phrase it is also unlikely to be a useful search team to retain as a redirect. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UK Rampage

[edit]

Both pages were redirected because they lacked "in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG". This creates a new problem where the target article makes no mention of the events. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 15:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WWF European Rampage should probably simply be deleted, as none of the sourcing actually refers to event(s) of this name.Onel5969 TT me 01:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan.

[edit]

Nominating per WP:UNNATURAL, having a period at the end is an unlikely typo. We've had many discussions for other terms with a period (including countries as well), here are some:

All of these discussions resulted in deletion of the respective redirects. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India.

[edit]

Nominating per WP:UNNATURAL, having a period at the end is an unlikely typo. We've had many discussions for other terms with a period (including countries as well), here are some:

All of these discussions resulted in deletion of the respective redirects. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electric superior

[edit]

Not mentioned in target, I'm not too sure what it is referring to. TruenoCity (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brock's two favorite women

[edit]

Not mentioned in target or anywhere onwiki. Thepharoah17 (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't these two characters be mentioned in the characters section of Pokémon (TV series) as they are reoccurring? (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy rainfall warning

[edit]

I couldn't find any information about the linkage between the redirect and the target after performing a Google search. The target is just a watch product of flash floods in the United States, which are likely to be caused by heavy rains, but not always. Also, heavy rainfall warnings exist in many parts of the worlds outside of the United States. Sun8908 Talk 08:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Demon's Game - Episode 1

[edit]

Not present in list, seemingly not notable enough for any entries in other video game lists. ScalarFactor (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All who served the revolution have plowed the sea

[edit]

This is not the quote that appears at the target. The only mention of "plows in the sea" appears in an image caption without a source. Many quotes are listed at the target, but none of them seem in desperate need of a redirect on Wikipedia to accommodate. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Find The Computer Room!

[edit]

Unhelpful soft redirect. The only thing this soft redirect does, is state that "the quote exists" at Wikiquote without providing a source at the target. Unlikely to be intentionally typed, no substantial information is provided to readers, and unnatural capitalization. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

America is ungovernable

[edit]

A Wikipedia search should send readers to an encyclopedia article, if we have one available. This phrase is mentioned in the beginning of History of Ecuador (1830–1860). Typically I would boldly make this change, but this target was selected by User:TartarTorte due to not being mentioned at Simón Bolívar, so I'm bringing it here. It was good to move it away from Bolívar's page, but there are only a handful of Wikiquote redirects (~20-30) in existence, and I think it would be good to get a good idea about when, why, and how to create and maintain such soft redirects, without turning Wikipedia into a Wikiquote search engine. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of misquotations

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

When readers search on Wikipedia, we should provide readers with a Wikipedia result if we can. People wanting to read a list of misquotations on Wikiquote, would search for this on Wikiquote. Currently, Misquotation has a list of ways that a misquotation can occur, in various syntaxes and with various punctuation differences. This seems to me like a suitable, encyclopedic location for this encyclopedic search term. While Wikiquote might have a lot more examples of misquotations, Wikipedia should not take people to a list of indiscriminate information when people search the encyclopedia. Wikiquote pages are usually linked in the see also sections, when it is applicable; the same could be done here, presumably. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a reasonable example of a soft redirects that aids in pulling our project and sister projects closer together. It also discourages creating such a list locally (it was actually deleted once; WP:SOFTSIS). That aside, we do cover topics such as List of film misquotes (meaning this is not so far off-base from something we might cover in some form potentially, though unlikely in such a broad form). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Godsy. drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ choose only one... 05:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Highway 59 (India), old numbering)

[edit]

Error in disambiguating, given 1 "(" and 2 ")", but not eligible for WP:X3. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just got Luigi'd

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

No such quote at the target; no "Luigi" section exists on Wikiquote. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote, this is not what people would search to read the Wikiquote page for The Super Mario Bros movie. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where's That Damn Fourth Chaos Emerald?

[edit]

Covered adequately by the more appropriately cased 'Where's that damn fourth Chaos Emerald?' (see old discussion), a very borderline instance of appropriateness in and of itself. We certainly do not need both (given specifically the special case that they are both soft redirects to a sister site). Please refrain from nominating and merging the other one into this discussion; intentionally considering this separate (the other one can have its day down the line if it is to be so). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that it goes to the Wikiquote section, thank you for letting me know. I've amended my phrasing. I still find the redirect to be pointless. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lviv rabbis

[edit]

Not mentioned in article Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. This is not a useful redirect because the page does not contain a list of rabbis. The pre-BLAR article should be restored so that the page can be assessed on its merits as an (unreferenced) list of rabbis, and a decision can be made at AfD. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

[edit]

For publicists publicizing the client's work

[edit]

Implausible cross-namespace redirect, not linked anywhere except for Wikipedia:Odd links/report (when I made this RfD), receives an average of 3 views per month. Don't think this is necessary at all ApexParagon (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only should it be added, but I have actually done it. Thanks 2A0E. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thuringia portal

[edit]

Another implausible cross-namespace redirect. Someone who knows what a "portal" is on Wikipedia probably is aware of what namespaces are, and it's also unlikely someone who doesn't know what namespaces are would ever be looking for this portal. This redirect is not linked anywhere, and also has received a whopping 44 total views in the 10 years since page views started being tracked (average of 4 views per year). Seems like a clear indication that it's not a plausible redirect. ApexParagon (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Northern Mariana Islands national under-23 football team

[edit]

Not mentioned at target Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourmula 50

[edit]

misspelling of "Formula 50", so delete I think? Duckmather (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Thought this might be a branding thing, but couldn't find anything. Formula is not a hard word to spell, and I don't think anyone would say it like "four". Doesn't seem necessary. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have history as an article from 2009-2012, although it still seems to have been called "Formula 50" even back then. Returning to neutral on this one, although restoring and taking it to AfD would be suitable in my eyes. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Death

[edit]

another very vague term, maybe retarget to Death? Duckmather (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The General Public

[edit]

This is a very vague term. It could refer to Public (which seems like the most likely target), so I suggest retargeting it. On the other hand, maybe WP:DIFFCAPS applies? Duckmather (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nien

[edit]

The member is not that popular and she wouldnt be the primary topic for Nien. Theres also no dab page for Nien. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 17:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nien appears to be part of the given name for the TripleS singer. Several sources give her birth name as Hsu Nien Tzu (variously transliterated) [4][5] The "Nien" character in her given name is 念 (Niàn), which is not the same character, 年 (Nián), used at Nian (surname) and Nian. It's true that "Nien" is an alternative transliteration of 年 but it refers to a completely different name in this case. There may eventually need to be a Nian/Nien page for the non-年 usage but in the meantime red links and search function will better serve readers. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Nian per Voorts. -- Tavix (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 4th relist, still no consensus, status quo opposed so may need a WP:BARTENDER unless consensus becomes clearer...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bo J

[edit]

This is the target's middle name followed by first initial. I can't find a source stating he goes by this, and all hits are for other people. Rusalkii (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luring

[edit]

None of the subjects listed in the target disambiguation page represent verb-like subjects; all of the subjects are nouns. This means that redirecting the present participle form of "lure" to the disambiguation page is misleading since the redirect represents no alternative forms of any of the subjects listed at the disambiguation page. Delete unless a proper target is found. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per wikt:Lure, which is linked on this disambig page, the three verb definitions of "lure" are "to attract fish with a lure", "to recall a hawk with a lure", and "to attract by temptation, appeal, or guile". If the pages on bait (luring substance), fishing lure, or lure (falconry), all three of which are linked here, are not enough, the link to Wiktionary should suffice. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the conventional use of the verb matches these. I had a look at what this redirect replaces - this search output, and it seems there's three topics of aggressive mimicry that are not properly documented here: caudal luring, lingual luring, acoustical luring. We could add these in the existing list, or we could split this out into a separate disambiguation list, and have the two of them link to one another. --Joy (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to add to the existing list in my book. No sense making a separate disambig page when those who search for "lure" may be interested in aggressive mimicry as well. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communism in Cuba

[edit]

Updating effectively. 169.255.57.58 (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No we shouldn't, "Communism in Cuba" is not ambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Derrick Goze

[edit]

Delete, not mentioned at target. Fram (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disney International Operations

[edit]

Listed this here for discussion since there is no definitive target to point this to. I'm calling for deletion to encourage article creation for this title. What do you think? Intrisit (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be no good target for this. SirPenguin25Talk 11:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajyal - Arab Division of HaShomer HaTzair

[edit]

Moved to a correct disambiguator. The old disambiguator page which is now a redirect should be removed as it doesn't follow disambiguator guidelines. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ștefan Szönyi

[edit]

Delete. I see no reason why we should have redirects to Wikidata items. Either something is notable and can have an article here (and until then should be a redlink), or it isn't and then we shouldn't circumvent this by linking to a different wiki. Fram (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Soft redirects to sister projects are sometimes useful, but I can't think of a case where a soft redirect to a Wikidata entry would fall into that category. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The template currently used on this redirect is supposed to be used for soft redirects to elsewhere than happen to be connected to Wikidata (and I might support deleting it), not for redirects to Wikidata. Was previously a redirect to István Szőnyi but not mentioned there either. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Los jibbities

[edit]

Appears to be a niche term (internet meme?) with no WP:SIGCOV (I can't find any coverage, actually). Not mentioned in the target article. Very unlikely to be searched, less alone with the expectation of landing up in the target article, LGBTQ people. jolielover♥talk 13:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for context, I created this redirect after publishing the Wiktionary entry seen here. I understand if it may be too niche for a redirect. Juwan (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dinowars

[edit]

Retarget to Dino Wars (disambiguation). The article was merged to Rod Espinosa#Bibliography per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinowars. A disambiguation page has been created that didn't exist at the time of the AfD. I think it's better to redirect this to the disambiguation page since there is another title match for "Dinowars". It's also very similar to the other terms titled "Dino Wars". Mika1h (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea: move Dinowars to Dinowars (comics). So then Dinowars (comics) redirects to Rod Espinosa#Bibliography and Dinowars redirects to Dino Wars (disambiguation). --Mika1h (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings Department (Hong Kong)

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

Bracket City

[edit]

It's an online word game from The Atlantic, but there's no mention at the target article. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saguine

[edit]

Seems to have been created in 2004 as a typo for "Sanguine" in the context of submarines in the 1960s, but a Google Books search doesn't show any such usage, and sanguine has always been fairly ambiguous anyway. Joy (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

[edit]

Andreotti-Norguet fourmula

[edit]

I would call this an implausible typo, but it isn't recent at all so not CSD R3. Zero hits from a google search of this typo, so external rot seems unlikely. --Bumpf said this! ooh clicky clicky! [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 23:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Note: I added the second listed entry to the nomination. It's the same, except for a dash instead of a hyphen. The first was automatically created by a bot for hyphen/dash reasons. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, G6, the latter was unambiguously created in error, moved away from an implausible error immediately after creation, and the former was just an automatic bot creation to match the latter. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per 35. drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ choose only one... 13:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheMaxChannel528-24-created titles

[edit]

Listed these titles for discussion as they are/were created by a blocked sockmaster/sockpuppet (TheMaxChannel528-24). Such a shame these could not be G5 deleted. Intrisit (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)".[reply]

Viacom International Media Networks (Africa)

[edit]

Listed this for discussion as I see no use at time in retaining this title! Still worth it? Intrisit (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles

[edit]

These should point to the same place. Both are the results of two prior RfDs with incompatible outcomes (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Good articles on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 20#Good articles). Which is it? * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!vote

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. The current situation, while the result of an RfD, amounts to an attempted compromise that just splits the baby; either this bit of wikijargon deserves a cross-namespace redirect or it doesn't and should be deleted; in no other situation would we redirect to a mainspace target that merely provides vague hints of this sort. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or retarget to match WP:!VOTE. I agree with Pppery. The information at Negation is not enough to understand this term, because !vote as used on Wikipedia doesn't just mean "not a vote", but rather reflects a bit of philosophical history of how our decision-making works. The current target is so unhelpful in clarifying this term that someone has added a hatnote there, resulting in a silly situation where everyone following this redirect to the current target is best served by immediately clicking on the hatnote. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither the arcane programming term nor Wikipedia's own internal jargon deserves this unhelpful and confusing redirect. Bishonen | tålk 21:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. User:Pppery, the target article says, “For example, the phrase !voting means ‘not voting’”. Also, editors in this thread might find a link to the previous RfD useful: link. Regarding the hatnote at the target, it should remain regardless of this redirect, and I don’t see anyone here arguing otherwise. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That example in the article is both unsourced and misleading; the way !vote is actually used (at least in Wikipedia discussions) means something more specific than just "not voting". The text not voting in the article is wikilinked and leads to the Abstention article; that's definitely not what !vote means around here. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to match WP:!VOTE. Otherwise keep. The current target article clearly explains what the prefix “!” means in ordinary language, and gives the well-sourced example of !clue which means clueless. It’s very difficult to search for words that have the “!” prefix, because search engines ignore the exclamation mark even if the whole term is surrounded by quote marks, but I found this source which correctly defines !vote. Anyway, the main thing is, that people who encounter “!vote” should be able to put it in the Wikipedia search box to find out what it means. I don’t much care how this is achieved, but it should be achieved one way or the other. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gummint

[edit]

Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pages get around 10 monthly page views on average, with lows in the 1-pageview-in-a-month range and peaks as high as 20-30... with Gubmint specifically having a huge spike to 131 pageviews in April 2024 alone. These redirects ARE being used by SOMEONE. Yes, Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary-- that means that we don't have unsourced definitions of slang words. That does NOT mean that we should avoid making redirects from actively-used slang words to the correct article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redirects are in use and the targets are not controversial. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ choose only one... 06:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on this, but noting that the recent and similar Feral gummint → Federal government of the United States RFD ended with a deletion. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that "Feral" would've had an outsized influence on my own decision if I were to vote on that one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep. The only thing that these terms have in common with the target, is that they start with a "g" and end with a "nt". This is not a likely typo of the word government. Government does not contain a "b", nor a "u", nor an "i". Plausible that this could be referring to gumming (off by one letter), gummite (off by two letters), even Gummi T (off by one letter). There are several options, and I would suggest deletion for this vague term that isn't covered at the target. In absence of deletion, I would weakly support a wiktionary redirect to wikt:gubmint and wikt:gummint respectively, which mentions these terms and link back to government. Someone dropping the "o", the "v", the "r", the "n", and both of the "e"s from the word government, while adding a "u", a "b" or an extra "m", and an "i", is not looking for a basic article on the government. That's 8 or 9 modifications too many; at best we account for one as an accident. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of us are suggesting this is an R from typo; this is instead an R from alternative spelling (namely, a spelling based on a regional dialect). People aren't accidentally typing this in; they're typing it this way on purpose, and the fact that wiktionary entries for both exist prove that. WP:RTYPO doesn't apply here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this was merely a misspelling, then it wouldn't have to be mentioned. If the baseline is that searchers are typing this in on purpose, we should give them content that is as directly related to their search term as we can. We don't have any material about the intentional search term of "gummint" on Wikipedia. At best we have Wiktionary. If we are treating this as an intentional search term, then we must give readers an intentional result, or a mention to substantiate the search, because these are vastly different from the target definition and WP:RASTONISHing in a vacuum for anyone who isn't an insider. I.e. someone who misspelled the word "gumming" or "Gummi T" would have zero clue why the ended up at a page about the government, as nothing at the page for government would be able to educate them, or provide the slightest context about dialects that spell the word differently. There is no obvious distinction to readers why gummint -> government (with 8 variation from search term) over gummint -> gumming (1 variation from search term); the "dialect" version is insanely obscure, if it's even a real thing outside of a hypercasual urbandictionary setting. Adding a mention of "gummint" to the page for government would also be a pointless tangent on said page, so a Wiktionary redirect would satisfy those searchers at a minimum (but honestly we probably don't need to have any type of redirect for the lurches of urbandictionary to account for random citation-needed dialects that specify the spelling "gummint" instead of "government").
Post-research: We don't need lazy spellings for situations where "this word contains a possibly negative connotation, so people use less syllables for it to show disdain" dialect (wikt:gubmint corroborates). People search Wikipedia by typing in the name of the topic, not by typing in their disdain-version with less letters because they don't like the government so they're calling it the gummint instead. Wiktionary provides the bare minimum context for this eye variant at wikt:gummint, but I don't think we even need to hold reader's hands that far, because wiktionary will pop up with a regular Wikipedia search regardless. But it's better than stranding readers on a page with zero of the above context as the current target does. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kænugarðr

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

Not necessary to have an Icelandic redirects for Kyiv, since Icelandic is not a common language in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an Old Norse name (see this for more information) so I think the redirect is useful for early medieval contexts. Mellk (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Adding in a previous RfD which bundled this nomination. Results for this particular entry was keep, with justification "Keep Kænugarðr as an alternative spelling or a plausible misspelling of Koenugarðr, which according to the Ukrainian article is what the city was known as in the sagas." as said by Uanfala — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 22:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert vandalism

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

The target page doesn't explain "reverting" vandalism very well in terms of cleaning it (as far as I can see in that article). I suggest retargeting to Wiki#Controlling changes or Wiki#Security because this can cover different wikis. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 02:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if appropriate retarget isn't found:The concept of "reverting vandalism" is not unique to wikis, nor is it unique to the online space in general; perhaps the exact phrasing of 'reverting' vandalism instead of 'removing' it would be a hint as to it being specifically vandalism on a website, but that still doesn't specifically point us to wikis-- website defacement is a real thing, and the process of undoing that would in fact be considered "reverting vandalism".
That said, we can't stay here. The 2009 RFD on this redirect mentioned that the Vandalism article briefly discusses the removal of vandalism, and that was sufficient for retargeting there; unfortunately, as Justjourney notes, the 2025 version of the Vandalism article doesn't, or at least does so so briefly that anyone actually looking for specifically the removal of vandalism would be ill-served to be redirected here. (Notwithstanding the fact that this redirect isn't refined in any way, so instead of being taken to a section specifically about removal of vandalism, the reader is instead taken to the very top of a long article that, at first blush, isn't what they asked for.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chlodwig

[edit]

I'm open to keeping the status quo, redirecting to Clovis (given name), or other alternatives. I was at Luigi, followed the link to Chlodwig and was "astonished" to read the opening line of Louis (given name) which contains the very similar name Chlodowig which is a piped link to Clovis (given name), and wondered why these don't point to the same place. Louis may, indeed, be the better target but it's not obvious to me. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC) EDIT: I have specified a preference below. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or Retarget to Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. There is absolutely no reason to have redirects created from every ancient form of every given name; that's just absurd. That's why we have the "Search" function (in addition to the "Go" function) in the search field, to locate all instances of the term, not just the one Neelix happened to turn his obsessive and nonsensical brain to. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My hesitation is that it is used in two articles where it is linked with reference to the name, and none in reference to this or any other individual named Chlodwig. A Google search turns up a variety of references, including to the fellow you linked and to Clovis I aka, apparently, Chlodwig. I take your point about not creating redirects for every variant of a name that has ever been attested, but where a redirect is used in article space in this way, I'm inclined to keep or redirect to a more appropriate given name, but not retarget to a specific individual that no editor has linked mononymously this way. A DAB page would be better than this. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Note that I previously notified Talk:Louis (given name), Talk:Luigi, Talk:Lewis (given name), Talk:Lewis (given name) and several editors who have contributed to Chlodwig. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget – definitely to either Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst or Clovis I. They should both probably have Template:Distinguish to each other in that case however. Ike Lek (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Clovis I, as the two most likely targets. A number of Frankish royal names have no standardized spelling, but are found in numerous forms, and this is one of them. It needs to redirect either to Louis or possibly to Clovis, as they are the same name. Presumably the link at Louis goes to "Clovis (given name)" because otherwise it would be a recursive link and uninformative; the same word can certainly link to different places depending on context, and in that case anyone clicking on it would be looking for historical information. Without that distinction, "Louis" makes as much sense—perhaps more, because the redirect is a spelling variation. Strongly oppose redirecting to "Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst", as an extremely improbable search target for the bare name. Most English speakers will be familiar with the name "Louis", many with Clovis I, very few with this German prince. That redirect would certainly astonish many readers. P Aculeius (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Chlodwig is not mentioned anywhere prominently or in bold in Clovis I. (It's buried deep in the body text and one has to use Control+F to even find it.) Therefore, I struggle to understand why that article is being promoted as a superior retarget. Softlavender (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because most uses of it (under any spelling) encountered by readers are likely to be references to the Frankish king. Though there were other notable persons—including notable Franks—by this name, as well as partial title matches (such as the above-mentioned German noble, and the Clovis culture of North America and their characteristic spearheads), Clovis I sweeps the field among persons whose names are likely to be rendered simply as "Clodowig", "Chlodowig" "Clodwig", "Chlodwig", etc. P Aculeius (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A condition for redirects is that the term be featured prominently, preferably in bold, in the target article, so there is no puzzlement from the reader as to why they ended up on that page when they were searching for something entirely and noticeably different. Since Clovis I still fails in that regard, I continue to oppose redirecting to that article. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no such condition. Many thousands of morphological variants lead to the topics they're variants of without being "featured prominently" in the articles they target. In fact it would be absurd if persons (or things) whose names were spelled, though infrequently, in numerous ways had to feature each variation "prominently, preferably in bold". It's more common to have a subsection listing variant names, or simply to place a footnote in the lead. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    P, in my opinion you don't sound very familiar with redirects or the conditions and rationales involved. "Chlodwig" or some variation of it would need to be mentioned in the lead, preferably the lead sentence, for the redirect to make sense to anyone typing in the term and clicking on what comes up. Generally people who type in a term are looking for someone by that very name, hence Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. Most people can't remember the tongue-twisting rest of the name and so would simply type in "Chlodwig".

    "Chlodwig" and "Clovis" are not even spelling variants of each other, and differ too much to be understood by an unexplained redirect. If there are still people who want "Clovis" to be considered as a target, then in my opinion the only solution is Chlodwig (disambiguation), which would, quite obviously, list Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst (and any other wiki titles with "Chlodwig" in them) first, and could then list or mention Clovis and/or various Clovises. Softlavender (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Though I poo-pooed the idea below, Chlodwig (disambiguation) is preferable to redirecting to Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. "Chlodwig" used alone for Clovis I is well attested, even if this is not his most common name, and that is the far more popular page, and readers following links about the history of the name won't be helped much by the German prince article. I would quibble about which "Chlowig" to list first on the page, but such content questions could be dealt with on the DAB talk page itself. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, "Chlodwig" even shows up in some dictionaries defined as Clovis I.[6][7] I am leaning towards Clovis (given name) as the best redirect. This is consistent with the two uses in articles currently, pointing to the origin of other names, and would lead readers to Clovis I and all the other Chlodwigs and Clovises. Clovis I could be mentioned in the lead or otherwise made more prominent there if there is concern that enough readers are looking for this individual (he is, of course, listed already). A new Chlodwig (disambiguation) Chlodwig DAB page (not that anyone has suggested this) page seems may be extraneous and would mostly point to and duplicate entries from Clovis (given name). WikiNav[8][9] shows a fair bit of traffic between Clovis (given name), Louis (given name), and the related names. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Clovis (given name) or DAB. The given name article already contains the etymology and lists individuals called "Chlodwig". Readers clicking Chlodwig from one of the other given name articles or entering the search term after seeing the name in reference to Clovis I will be confused and potentially mislead if they land at the article for the relatively obscure German prince. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB per my draft. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts where might we find this draft? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At Chlodwig. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've added Clovis I. The entry could be qualified with "(Old) German name for…" but this seemed redundant. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the entry for Clovis is redundant since the first sentence links to the given name page. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Clovis I is the only individual who is routinely attested as "Chlodwig" mononymously in reliable sources, including standard dictionaries[10][11][12] and the reference work I cited on the draft DAB. It's a disservice to readers to obscure this. I would prefer to lead with something like "Chlodwig is the German name for Clovis I, first king of the Franks…" and then list the two lesser-known nobles and Clovis (given name), but I won't die on that hill. Perhaps listing "Other people named Clovis (given name)" as the last bullet and reworking the opening sentence would be better. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed it. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Compare de:Chlodwig. The overlap between Clovis, Chlodwig, Louis, Lewis, Ludwig, Ludovicus drives me nuts but the solution is a project-wide shift in how we handle given names and that is not on the table here. Srnec (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Clovis (given name) per nom as primary topic per voorts' drafted dab. Do the same for Chlodowig. Copy the drafted dab at Chlodwig (disambiguation). Jay 💬 12:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A reader searching for "Chlodwig" (I presume this is already a small population) would likely be looking for someone with that name or information about that name. I find it unlikely someone would search Wikipedia using that name and expect or hope to end up at a page that disambiguates the name "Clovis". In any event, the first sentence of Chlodwig links directly to Clovis (given name). If we were to go your route, it should be at Chlodwig (given name). voorts (talk/contributions) 15:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Remove the two Chlodwigs from Clovis (given name). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarityfiend, there is no Chlodwig (given name) page. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: It's there on the same page under the redirect. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender & @P Aculeius: are you okay with the DAB I drafted? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a dab page. I see that you have edited the redirect page. I have removed a statement from it that did not match the citation. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: yes, drafts are routinely placed on the redirect page during RfD discussions. Do you maintain your earlier !vote? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly prefer that new text to any retargeting to a completely different name. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, not if the only persons listed are two obscure nineteenth-century aristocrats. Since this is a mere spelling variation of Chlodowig, Hluodwig, etc. it should probably list other Frankish kings or nobles who might be found under this spelling (no matter which spelling is the most frequent), or redirect to A) the most important article under any of them (Clovis I) or B) whichever spelling is used as a disambiguation page for the majority of them (such as "Clovis (given name)" or "Louis (given name)"). Otherwise we have a fractured disambiguation tree where each spelling variation is a separate list, disambiguation page, or redirect, even though there is no sharp distinction between them, and readers might use any of the spellings to search for various persons. The present version misleadingly suggests that the said nineteenth century aristocrats are the only notable persons who might be searched for under this spelling. P Aculeius (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European area

[edit]

This is ambiguous. Not all European states are in the EEA so I think it should be deleted. JuniperChill (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mixy (TV programming block)

[edit]

An AFD on this title resulted in a merge into its current target indicated about an Australian children's comedy TV series which has no bearing on it whatsoever apart from a few mentions. So, I'm listing it here for a discussion, thoughts? Worth still keeping this? Intrisit (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a suitable target that mentions the Mixy TV programming block, in the absence of a Mixy article. (Mixy for some reason is a redirect to a rabbit disease!) The AfD outcome of retarget was proper, but the merge that happened dumped all content into the #After_the_Ferals section, while ideally only a few sentences were worthy of merge. I have now removed most of it, and comments are welcome. Jay 💬 04:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the comments at the AfD had suggested the merge to the red-linked Children's television in Australia, but there was a Children's programming on ABC Television available at the time too, which was not suggested. It now is little more than a stub, and not a target that can take contain entire details of a TV programming block. Without enhancing the article to list all programming blocks, a mention of Mixy would be undue. Jay 💬 04:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did you vote keep since it has no definitive target to target this one to? Even the target itself indicated has no info on this, how much more even keeping this redirect any longer? It's only such a shame that a history merge into the target is impossible under parallel histories, otherwise I wouldn't have listed this over here! Intrisit (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowroot biscuit

[edit]

there is also an australian biscuit called a "milk arrowroot biscuit" that, based off my research, looks to be different from uraro User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a Canadian arrowroot biscuit, made by Christie (Nabisco). Definitely not the same as either the Filipino cookies or the Australian ones, although I suspect the Canadian and Australian ones share a common British heritage. I'm shocked that we don't have an article on them.--Srleffler (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted by Srleffler, Uraro is a Filipino traditional cookie and not all Arrowroot biscuits are Uraro - so, I feel it is misleading given that other countries also have "commercial" arrowroot biscuits - might make sense to keep just Arrowroot biscuits (currently a redirect to Arrowroot) and develop it as article to include details such as the ones Srleffler mentioned and delete Arrowroot biscuit. Asteramellus (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still not clear on what to do with these redirects. This may need a WP:BARTENDER, but I do not feel like taking up that task at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avant Prarie, Texas

[edit]

Its misspelled. Even if spelled correctly, it probably wouldn’t receive views. Roast (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: “any views” is hyperbolic, but it still gets next to nothing (2 in past 90 days). Roast (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muƹawiya

[edit]

I cannot find this usage anywhere else on the internet, though it's possible google is failing me due to the weird character. I don't believe ƹ and ' are reasonably interchangeable in this manner, though I am not a linguist and will gladly be corrected by someone who knows this area better than me. Rusalkii (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the article on ƹ implies that it was most commonly used in the 1940s-1980s, a period of time underrepresented on the internet so a lack of uses known to Google is not definitive. The Arabic letter (Ayin#Arabic ʿayn) it is/was used to transcribe does appear in the Arabic name for the target given in the infobox ("معاوية"), so it is not impossible this is an old transliteration - however I am not an Arabic speaker or familiar with the target topic area at all, so I'm not really qualified to speak to its plausibility. I'll see if I can find an appropriate WikiProject to alert to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Weak Keep I'm not an expert on Arabic so IDK if this usage is likely to ever get searched for, but from from a linguistic perspective ƹ and ' do seem to both represent the same sound, a voiced pharyngeal fricative. Both are used to transliterate the Arabic ع‎. So the redirect seems plausible. Redirects are cheap, but do we normally redirect phonetic transcriptions to their articles? -- LWG talk 15:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean delete. We normally redirect transliterations, transcriptions, and alternative forms where an all-ASCII variant points to the correct version with diacritics or other "special characters" (Beyonce → Beyoncé) or for official or widely used schemes likely to be encountered by readers (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn → Pinyin). Here we have an unusual character ⟨ƹ⟩ that requires special keyboard entry and a transcription we can't find attested anywhere outside of this redirect. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my above comments. Google not knowing about it is not the same thing as it not being attested anywhere, especially as the most likely places for it to have been used are among the least likely places for Google to have indexed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments along with LWG's and the listing comment by Rusalkii are why I'm only lean/weak delete and why I waited several days to weigh in, to see if more support for this transcription would materialize. I should have addressed this directly. It doesn't quite pass my threshold for plausibility/utility, even if I can rationalize a use case, but I'm open to it. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Redirect Creator. Tiny Particle (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tail wing

[edit]

These should point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of these referred to as tail "wing"? Also, aren't canard and delta wing tailless? Jay 💬 10:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are both technically tailless, but it requires some technical knowledge to realize that "tail" refers to the empennage, and not simply to the rear of the aircraft. I've had someone ask me what to call an airplane "with the big wing at the tail", pointing to a canard. Carguychris (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be the tail fin? Is "tail wing" only a colloquial usage, or are there sources that phrase it in this way? Both Empennage and Tailplane don't mention a "tail wing". Jay 💬 05:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 15 July 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) 18:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nile Canal

[edit]

This isn’t a correct redirect. Even googling “Nile Canal” brings up something up totally different. The previous edit to this page actually said to bring it to RFD so here I am. Therefore, I say Delete. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or convert to a disambiguation page: The Suez Canal is not connected to the Nile, so it's clearly unhelpful to redirect there. The "predecessors", which is to say the ancient/medieval canals between the Nile and the Red Sea, are covered in two articles already: Canal of the Pharaohs and Khalij (Cairo). Neither of them is really known as the "Nile Canal" to my knowledge, which is why I think deleting as too vague is fine, otherwise a DAB that links to both those articles (and any other articles that might be reasonably relevant) is also fine. R Prazeres (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does someone want to draft a DAB?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if redirecting this to a List of canals in Egypt page that includes all the waterways listed above might be the way to go? If there are or were any canals on the Nile upstream of Egypt then they can be linked in a hatnote? Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • dabify per above drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ choose only one... 11:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • dabify Sorry to throw a late and possibly inappropriate spanner into the works, but it is my understanding that there was an ancient canal between the Tigris and Euphrates, extant in the 11th or 12th century, that was referred to as the Nile Canal. It's mentioned in a story 'The Lion of Tiberias' (1933) by Robert E. Howard thus: "The great canal men called the Nile, that connected the Euphrates with the distant Tigris, was choked with bodies of the tribesmen, . . . ." While Howard wrote much fantasy, his historical fiction was usually grounded in good background research.
    I actually found this discussion while looking for more information about said canal, which the story suggests was near Hilla (and thus the site of Babylon), so from the article Nahr Isa would likely have been one of the three more southerly canals called Nahr Sarsar, Nahr Malik, and Nahr Kutha. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So which entries would you disambiguate this with? Hillah mentions a Nile City. Are you suggesting the Hilla Canal was the Nile Canal? There is no "Nile" at Nahr Isa. Readers who know Nile is in Egypt will be confused to end up near Baghdad if there is no explanation. Jay 💬 06:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone draft a disambiguation page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish genocide (19th–20th century)

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish genocide; the concerns there do not appear to have been addressed by adding a timestamp. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Turkish genocide (1820–1920) and Genocide of Turkish people from the same creator, might be worth bundling? 86.23.87.130 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added those. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also listed Turkish massacre. Maybe all of these should be considered together. Bogazicili (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no reliable sources that will actually claim there was a genocide of Turks happening for over a century. This is fringe historical negationism, generally only claimed by deniers of the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocides. Claiming that Turks were the real victims of genocide is a form of Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocide denial (see Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum), as thus doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Therefore, these titles are not appropriate, as they were titled by a Wikipedia user last month, not by credible historians. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the Turkish genocide AFD, it was recreated as a redirect, and remained as such for 2 years, having been edited by 7 editors with 4 different targets. It was deleted (I would say incorrectly) by the AfD closer Sandstein as a G4. Another redirect Turkey genocide created in 2017 still stands. Jay 💬 05:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts on Thryduulf's suggestion now that Turkish massacre has closed as disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genocide_of_Turkish_people is specific and cannot be retargeted to the massacre dab which is for by and of Turks. From the List_of_massacres_of_Turkish_ people, only the Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction (the current target) includes genocide, so that can be a keep.
From the List_of_massacres_in_Turkey, it is mostly the WW1 ones perpetrated by the Young Turks that are seen as genocide (Greek, Assyrian, Armenian, Yazidi). So overall, the massacre dab is too broad a target for any Turkish genocide redirects, and a Turkish genocide can be made a dab similar to the massacre dab (of and by). Turkey_genocide (not bundled here) can be retargeted to the new dab.
On the timestamped redirects, the period of 1820-1920 is mentioned by multiple sources and the infobox of the current target, so I'm Ok with that timestamp. Not so much with 19th–20th century, because WW1 that comes under 20th century, makes the title vague, and it may be deleted. Jay 💬 14:38, 20 July 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) 18:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Whispy Woods names and unhelpful lists

[edit]

Originally thought this was a one and done when I nominated Yggy Woods' redirect earlier, turns out there were a lot more. While the character Whispy Woods seems to have a use on-wiki, a bunch of his variations from when the character list was redirected just are not mentioned anywhere else and seem like particularly minor characters. Additionally, now with the character list gone, many of the older redirects for old character lists merged into the one just redirected are now unhelpful, since the new target does not discuss "Kirby enemies" or bosses as a group. All in all, these are not useful redirects, and should probably be deleted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Twin Woods to Kirby Super Star and Flowery Woods to Kirby Triple Deluxe since both are characters mostly limited to their respective game, Keep Kirby series enemies and Kirby series bosses while merging some of the information from the old character list into the Kirby (series) article and Delete the rest since they appear to be incorrect/strange name variations. Computerfan0 (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Computerfan0 Twin Woods and Flowery Woods are both unmentioned at the targets and are rather minor characters in the grand scheme of the game. I also feel that even with merging the two redirects are inaccurate; the characters section is not discussing bosses or enemies, and the only ones that would have the coverage to be discussed are minimal and not a good reflection of what a reader would be looking for with that redirect. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yggy Woods

[edit]

A minor character not mentioned anywhere else on the encyclopedia following the character list being redirected. Doesn't seem to be particularly useful as a redirect as a result. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Kirby Star Allies, since the character appeared only in that game. Computerfan0 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Computerfan0 this character is unmentioned at that article and also a minor character in the game overall. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Origin-Revolving Hero

[edit]

What seems to be an alternate name for the character Galacta Knight. Seems to be very obscure, and no source I can find uses it. Given the character list is gone now, this name doesn't seem particularly helpful as a target for finding the character. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the character page should have been deleted in the first place, but even if it had stayed having a redirect from an obscure nickname/title seems pointless. Computerfan0 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xiling Society of the Seal Art

[edit]

Odd and potentially confusing redirect since it could imply art made by seals rather than art of seals. Page was at this title for not even a full month over a decade ago. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dovber Schneersohn

[edit]

I'm not sure what's going on here. @Altenmann: redirected this to a given name page without explanation, but the previous target of Dovber Schneuri seems more appropriate ("Schneuri adopted the family name of "Schneuri," after his father, but succeeding generations changed it to "Schneersohn," or "Schneerson.") Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very simple. (1) There are multiple Dovbers Shneersons; (2) not to say that right now I deleted the phrase about "succeeding generations" unreferenced for 4 years. One should know better than to redirect to unreferenced statements. (3) And as a final stroke, I am not sure how you concluded that Dovber Shneuri was known as DOvber shneerson, because the "succeeding generations" took the name Schneersohn for themselves, not for him. --Altenmann >talk 15:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Dovber

[edit]

"Shalom Dovber" or "Sholom Dovber" appears to be (although I'm not an expert) a given name and a middle name. There seem to be two articles about people with this combination of names: Sholom Lipskar to which Sholom Dovber Lipskar redirects; and Sholom Dovber Schneersohn. Sholom Dovber does not exist, and I think it's better to delete this and allow Search to work unfettered. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec's

[edit]

The "'s" seems unnecessary and unlikely to be used A1Cafel (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gymnophthalmoidea

[edit]

This page was never supposed to be created. I created Gymnophthalmoidea and forgot to redirect it to Lacertoidea, and a page mover moved it to draftspace. Now it has to be deleted. Jako96 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free grocery store

[edit]

The redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target. Potentially a misnomer. Beeps beeps (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: I notified the target of this RFD. Thepharoah17 (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The Pratt Free Market in Baltimore calls itself a "free grocery store". I'm not certain how a free grocery store is distinct from a food bank. A cursory internet search shows that the term is used elsewhere to describe locations in Nashville, Minnesota, Atlanta, California, Florida, etc. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 232,000 results for "free grocery store" on Google (in quotes), 19,400,000 for "food bank" and 12,200,000 for "food pantry". I think that makes it an obscure synonym.
    If "free grocery store" is a non-obscure synonym for "food bank", then Food bank should be updated to include the term. Beeps beeps (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add mention. I wouldn't say it's an obscure synonym, given it's in active use by these organizations to describe themselves-- with a very important caveat, in that from my understanding, "free grocery stores" differ from traditional food banks/pantries by allowing those who use their services to pick out their food themselves like in an actual grocery store, rather than getting pre-selected pre-rationed parcels of food i.e. a traditional food bank/food pantry. That sort of thing ABSOLUTELY deserves a mention in the main article on food banks, and heck-- we already have some sources to use, Bohemian Baltimore furnished us with suitable news articles two replies up.
    I'd say that a synonym is only obscure enough to NOT warrant a redirect, if there's little to no chance that anyone would actually type it in-- and someone encountering, for example, Pratt Free Market, or The Grocery Spot, or The Store, or any of these other 'free grocery stores' would absolutely want to pop the term into Wikipedia to find out more. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no mention of this term at this time. Someone who types in the words "grocery" and "store" would be inclined to end up at a section of grocery store, which would be my preference if content were to exist (although I'm fine with letting it go altogether). At grocery store, it could be discussed that "grocery stores that are free, are food banks, etc. From there, could link to food bank, or other examples when a grocery store might be free, without being a food bank (if that is the case, unsure). At the end of the day, "free grocery store" has no words in common with "food bank" so I'm currently inclined to delete and let the search results handle it. If someone wants to add material about the marketing terms for food banks being "free grocery stores", whenever they want to do that, there is WP:NORUSH, and then the redirect can be substantiated with content at that point. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention yet at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon/Bulbasaur

[edit]

These seem to be leftovers from erroneous article creations. They have no use and can be deleted. Manifestation (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

מאָסקװע

[edit]

Nominating per WP:FORRED. This is the Yiddish language word for Moscow, but Moscow's name is not of Yiddish origin. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There are many cities in Eastern Europe with Yiddish names such as Lviv. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Lviv says "Lviv was also a major centre of Jewish culture, in particular as a centre of the Yiddish language, and was the home of the world's first Yiddish-language daily newspaper, the Lemberger Togblat, established in 1904." That shows a strong connection between Lviv and Yiddish and justifies a redirect from Lviv's Yiddish name (also mentioned in the article). Unless a similar connection is demonstrated for Moscow, this redirect should be deleted. Toadspike [Talk] 18:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne J

[edit]

Ambiguous redirect, could also refer to Dwayne Jarrett, Dwayne Joseph, etc. I have already nominated another redirect for similar reasons, see below. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
retarget per Thryduulf. drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ choose only one... 16:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igloo Inc.

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Even the prior spam-ridden version of the target that I reverted didn't discuss this with enough substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 62

[edit]

no mentions of a "rule 62" in the target article, though there is a Rule 62 (album). 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:6311:CAC1:2EA3:44E4 (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China era

[edit]

Most commonly refers Republic of China (1912–1949) (in the context of Chinese history) and History of Taiwan (1945–present) (in the context of Taiwanese history). Haven't seen this exact wording refer to the calendar. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main Character Syndrome

[edit]

No mention of subject at target article. Seemingly coined term. Jalen Barks (Woof) 03:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PMoI

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

DYRG

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

No longer mentioned at target after May 14 redirect AfD closure and May 5 restore RfD closure. Delete enough article creation per WP:REDYES. 49.151.187.185 (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strobelight (song)

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move Strobelight (Kimberley Locke song) to Strobelight (song)

July 26

[edit]

Template:Alpha

[edit]

Unused, unclear redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the page history it's supposed to be shorthand for Alphabetize. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trollpasta

[edit]

The assertion that Trollpasta is notable is false. There isn't an abundance of reliable sources talking about the subject in depth. All previous attempts to add "trollpasta" to the article have only cited Know Your Meme, a group of random forum posts, and the Trollpasta Wiki, all of which are WP:UGC. No reliable sources talk about the subject and it is unlikely to reasonably be talked about in the article. To add, fame ≠ notable. 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wheaton's Law

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, and the alternate letter-case form Wheaton's law was deleted after this discussion. This one should probably be deleted too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Lithium

[edit]

This is the name of company and should not redirect to a geological formation. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the company receives a passing mention in that section. Perhaps WP:RETURNTORED applies? — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 02:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks. However I deleted the mention as it was not encyclopedic material. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Standard Lithium is a moderate size Canadian resource extraction company, and is traded on the NYSE. The redirect was added to what appeared, at the time, as the best WP:RETURNTORED redirect for it. The fact that the company name was deleted from one article as part of a editing discussion that is ongoing on the Smackover Formation article is temporary, and is in active discussion on the article Talk page. The company name is currently not in the article simply 'cause that is not the most important matter under discussion, and the other matter of explicating an important new lithium resource extraction exploration & development project is more important than whether the company name is mentioned (for now at least.) N2e (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Synod of Rome (313)

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: moot.

Future SA20 years

[edit]

Nothing about 2027 or 2028 season mentioned at SA20 article. We've cleaned up hundreds of these "future season" links to pages with no information about the events previously. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nomination isn't technically correct - the target article contains the sourced sentence In January 2025, Cricket South Africa announced the windows for the competition for 2026, 2027, and 2028. which means that we can be reasonably certain that these seasons will happen, however there isn't any other information in the article (not even what the announced windows are), so anyone using these redirects will not be helped. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page histories of the articles?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let Them Eat Ice Cream

[edit]

"Let Them Eat Ice Cream" is a book written by Margaret Minster and published in 1982 A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothern Irish

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

South-African

[edit]

There is already a dabpage titled South African, which lists all uses of this term. I suggest a Retarget there. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soul of Asia

[edit]

Ambiguous, soul of Asia varies in different people/country A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flander's fields

[edit]

I suggest redirecting this to Flanders Fields, which is a closer match and has a hatnote to the poem anyway. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 02:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

[edit]

1956 Hungarian counter-revolution

[edit]

Accidentally sent to AFD by WeaponizingArchitecture (talk · contribs) so I'm putting it at RFD. Their rationale is "No credible outlet or institution refers to the 1956 Revolution as such, and the redirect was added by a self-proclaimed Marxist-leninist, blatant POV redirect." Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Courtesy ping to @Spiderone who participated in the AfD. Warudo (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kovcszaln6 and WP:RNEUTRAL. Nom's rationale is not strong enough to justify WP:R#D3, especially in the face of (yes, non-neutral) sources using the term and the number of pageviews the redirect gets. Warudo (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suck a dick

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

Not useful, and self promotional for the original editor of the redirect. As per WP:RDEL "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' and "The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam" in this case, for the original editor / creator Nayyn (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

close already deleted. drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ choose only one... 09:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry DrinksOrCoffee I've just reverted your close. Can someone explain what happened here? This redirect looks correct to me, the nom statement is baffling (not sure how it could be seen as self promo or spam or as a very obscure synonym), and the redirect got deleted while it was meant to be under discussion at RFD? What happened? Could anyone with deletion goggles give some insight? Either way, Keep (recreate?) as a harmless redirect from a common phrase to the correct article. (Pinging nom Nayyn) BugGhost 🦗👻 23:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Page was deleted by asilvering-(Mass deletion of pages added by Kjjj6uhhhhh - more disruptive redirect creation). — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 02:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I completely forgot non-admins could still see deletion logs. Looks like it was nuked about an hour after this RFD was created. Pinging asilvering BugGhost 🦗👻 06:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bugghost, it took me some work to understand what "self promotional" meant here but I think I get it. The context is that the creator, who from behaviour I assume is a middle schooler, has spent most of their time on Wikipedia creating or requesting dozens of redirects on topics that middle schoolers think are edgy and funny, like various sex acts, names for genitalia, and the n-word. See their extensive user talk page for examples and various attempts by admins to tell them to cut it out. If any of you think any of these redirects are genuinely useful, they can be recreated. My personal opinion on the matter is that no one should do that, because we should not feed the trolls and because these redirects are stupid. No one's needed a redirect from "suck a dick" to "fellatio" in 25 years. We don't need it now either. -- asilvering (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarity on this one. I appreciate why the redirects made by this user got nuked, but seeing as this one (and Suck a cock below) got listed at RFD I think they should have remained at a deletion discussion rather than deleted outside of it. Regardless of who made the redirects, even if it was a vandal who also made unhelpful redirects, if it was listed at RFD it should stick around until we get a consensus. Maybe wp:nuke should be updated to avoid deleting things that are already listed at deletion discussions? Either way, in my view, the "the website has survived without this for x years so we don't need it now" argument is techincally applicable to all new articles/redirects, so without further reasoning it's not enough to justify deletion. It's worth noting that suck dick, sucking dick and dick sucking are already existing non-controversial redirects to fellatio, and suck a dick is not really an outlier. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Asilvering. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/recreate as per BugGhost. I now understand why these were considered spam specifically, as prior (on 'Suck a cock') I hadn't seen the other redirects (though as a note for user:Nayyn maybe it'd be a good idea to bundle them together and specify "hey, the reason I'm doing this is because these are spam", so we don't spend energy trying to figure out how these are somehow self promotional, next time?)
    That said, I'd like to still point out that this is a common colloquial English term for the act of fellatio ('cock' and 'dick' themselves both being colloquial terms for penis), which means it still fails WP:RDEL's "novel/obscure synonym" test (er, passes??? okay so what it does is evade WP:RDEL). Also, given these are recently created I'm not sure we have data on how much they would be searched, so I don't know if asilvering's "we haven't needed these redirects for 25 years" argument actually holds water? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The view logs when I submitted them were less than 5 views over the past 30 days, so I didn't think it readers were finding them useful... Nayyn (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suck a cock

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

Not useful, and self promotional for the original editor of the redirect. As per WP:RDEL "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' and "The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam" for the original editor / creator Nayyn (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Booty (sexual slang)

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

Sucking butt

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete as G3 by ERcheck

A Main Page

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

Affect of ice age in uk

[edit]

Grammatically incorrect, incorrectly capitalized, not mentioned in target. This technically was an article for a few weeks back in 2005, but the only content was The last ice age covered the top 90% of the UK making the Scotland a lowland area. The UK started to tilt back up after the ice age, and is still tilting now. --84.9.149.167 22:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Bob. No offense to Bob the IP, but that's not worth sending through AfD. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EspN

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

Cabrera system

[edit]

I cannot find any evidence that this term is used for the Hexaxial reference system in English (though in German this is called the "Cabrerakreis"). Instead, it seems to only be used as the name of an alternative display order for EKG leads [15][16]. The article originally claimed that the hexaxial system is "better known as" the Cabrera system, but as this was unsupported by the source cited and I couldn't find any other evidence of that being true, I removed it. [17]

Eventually I would like to create an article at this title on the EKG display format, but as I am currently busy with other stuff, the erroneous redirect not mentioned at the target article is best deleted for now. If someone creates that article during this RfD, then the RfD can of course be closed as moot. Toadspike [Talk] 17:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more reading; it seems the "Cabrera system" can be used to refer to a hexaxial "circle", but it specifically means the circle with aVR reversed (-aVR) and not the "classical" circle with aVR positive. This is closely related to the EKG display format. I'm still not 100% I've got this down correctly, though, so I'll notify WPMED of this discussion to see if anyone can help. Toadspike [Talk] 17:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Affects of the 2020 Nashville tornado outbreak on Super Tuesday

[edit]

Implausible .... I guess not typo, but word? Suspect redirect creator meant to have this at Effects of the 2020 Nashville tornado outbreak on Super Tuesday. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 17:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ratshack

[edit]

No mention in target. Online mentions are for a reverb machine for music, itself unnotable. If a misspelling, unlikely for user to type, because how do you get rat from radio? Roast (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Storming

[edit]

This redirect, created many years ago without an explanation, isn't actually mentioned as such at the destination page which is about the weather, and it obfuscates the search which shows how this word is more typically used. Joy (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with hatnote. wikt:storm indicates that as a verb, 'storm' can be used either to indicate actual meteorological events (or compare things to it)-- in which case the current target is correct and is probably the primary target-- or, to indicate an assault on a military objective-- in which case redirection to an appropriate military strategy article might be a good idea. With two potential targets, disambiguation is the word-- and with one being the clear primary target, we should use a hatnote to disambiguate, rather than a dedicated disambiguation page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann I filed this after this edit happened.
We can't have disambiguation between a meaning that is documented and a meaning that is not. If we try to follow the breadcrumbs from assault to get to storming, it ends at military tactics, which mentions assault but doesn't mention storming. So a prerequisite to what you're saying is documenting storming in an article like that. I didn't want to propose a solution that would force volunteers to do more work, rather, just use what we already have.
I see no evidence that this form of this verb is primarily used for meteorological events.
With regard to hatnotes, the storm article already has two, so adding a third one for a meaning that doesn't really match the primary topic for the base term would add more visual clutter for all the other readers who did not look up this present participle.
JFTR, if storming was squashed with storm (disambiguation), it would be part of a genuinely huge list, most of which is unrelated to "storming". If we point readers to wikt:storming, it doesn't explain this meaning. wikt:storm does, but on a page where the reader has to scroll down a lot to get to that (six pages (PgDn) on my big desktop screen; on mobile, they have to tap the English heading, and then engage in manual scrolling (no PgDn there) for about seven screen-fulls to get to that meaning :)
--Joy (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I... what. Why exactly was that line deleted??? I'd honestly think restoring that line and finding a place to link it to would be the best route forward?? Idk anymore aaaaa 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if someone would find some nice reliable source to explain the use of storming as such in an article, that would provide for a WP:DABMENTION. --Joy (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cube root of 2

[edit]

Doubling the cube is a problem involving the cube root of 2, I don't think it's appropriate to redirect the cube root of 2 to the problem. Maybe Cube root is more appropriate? —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 13:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean keep, but definitely do not retarget. The current target at least has some specific information about the cube root of 2, whose nonconstrucibility is the key to the impossibility of doubling the cube. But the general page on cube roots doesn't, and is no more appropriate a target than it is for "cube root of 592". Even deletion would be preferable to retargeting, but I think this one is okay to leave due to the mention at the target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 35.139.154.158. Duckmather (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Tatran Oravské Veselé

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, as they don't play in a high enough league to meet inclusion criteria for List of football clubs in Slovakia article. So redirecting there is the wrong outcome. Only sensibke outcomes are mention them at Oravské Veselé and redirect there instead, or delete the redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New London, Canada

[edit]

Incorrect as there’s New London, Prince Edward Island Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it's incorrect. I've lived in southern Ontario my entire life and London Ontario has never been known as "New London". New London appears on the map as a hamlet in PEI, and includes the birthplace of L.M.Montgomery. That having been said, the redirect should probably just be deleted. PKT(alk) 12:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Searching Google for the exact phrase produces a mix of collations (e.g. "our new London, Ontario store") and actual uses (e.g. "souvenir from New London Ontario"). It's an incorrect name, but it is unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and PKT. My search results are all for use in running text or some "New London, Ontario" where title case is used. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in Baja

[edit]

Too ambiguous as that could refer to Same-sex marriage in Baja California Sur or other places called Baja Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's What Makes the Jukebox Play

[edit]

Ambiguous as there is also an older song originally recorded by Jimmy Work, and also recorded by Moe Bandy, and Anita Carter. Not appropriate for a disambiguation per WP:SONGDAB as neither song has an article of its own. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 13:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: I don't see how SONGDAB applies here. The closest part I can find is about primary topics for partially-disambiguated titles, not the decision of whether to create a disambiguation page. Could you elaborate, please? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But even then, where should it be retargeted when the song itself doesn't have an article? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect could be turned into a disambiguation page. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasulo

[edit]

This should be a disambiguation page which links to Antonio Tomasulo, Dan Tomasulo, Frank P. Tomasulo, Robert Tomasulo, Tomasulo's algorithm and perhaps even Steve Tomasula. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the algorithm would ever solely be known as "Tomasulo" so we can make this a surname index. I went ahead and drafted one, but I did keep a link to the algorithm as a nod to the status quo. -- Tavix (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oozora Subaru

[edit]

A procedural nomination on behalf of User:Beansy who blanked the redirect. Here's their rationale, copied from Talk:Oozora Subaru: I'm sorry but the redirects on the Hololive talent pages have been ridiculous for several years now. Subaru was the seventh most viewed vtuber of 2024 per https://note.com/vstats/n/n602111052618, and the #5 most watched female streamer of any kind per https://streamscharts.com/news/top-female-streamers-2024, and she's a 5 year veteran now. The original reason for sealing off most of the Hololive pages was because the industry was too new, and that no longer carries weight. I'm removing the redirect so someone can make her Wikipedia page without being obstructed. Warudo (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. I am also of the opinion that most Holomems should have articles at this point. Warudo (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would honestly remove all of the Hololive redirects at this point. I think you could probably make a notability case for anyone on the whole Hololive roster. Possibly the Holostars roster as well, but I'll let someone else make a case for that. If they're getting regular promotional deals with things like McDonald's, if the have half of the world's top ten most watched female streamers annually, if even HoloEN, one of the secondary branches, managed to sell out Radio City Music Hall in NYC in minutes, if they have the largest marketshare by watched hours of a multibillion dollar industry and are publicly listed on the Nikkei with a market valuation of close to $1 billion, if their YouTube pages have combined page views in the tens of billions (Houshou Marine alone has well over 1 billion page views), I think they meet notability criteria as a whole. Even their talent debuts, which are kind of rare these days, tend to be really big deals within the vtuber space. I mean off-the-cuff I think you could set a notability threshold of needing 250,000 or 500,000 followers or something first, but it's still long outdated that the redirects are even still there in my opinion. Beansy (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and above 👑 KingBegger · 💬 · ⚔️ 03:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Active weather modification projects

[edit]

Delete. General redirects shouldn't point to country-specific targets. Fram (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cloud seeding projects during 2025

[edit]

Delete. A general title should not point to a country specific article. Cloud seeding happens in many countries. Fram (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and severe weather during 2020

[edit]

Delete. A general redirect shouldn't point to a country-specific article. Fram (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above arguments. Original redirect isn't country-specific but the target is, making it ambiguous. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Gilou

[edit]

Deletion. Misleading redirect. This redirect is unhelpful for this director and makes it more difficult to locate the director in articles via the search engine. Plus, the target page contains virtually no information on the subject.

The redirect is to a generic list of all 2000's comedy films not specific enough to this director. Would be better as a redlink to encourage the creation of a page for this director. In summation, this redirect should be deleted. SquawkGuard (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albuquerque: THE MOVIE

[edit]

Delete. Originally an article, deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albuquerque: THE MOVIE. The content was later added to the current target, but I removed it as it was sourced to primary sources and lacks all notability. The brandnew redirect thus points to an article without info about it. Fram (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lodestone Games

[edit]

No longer mentioned at target after redirect AfD closure. Delete per WP:RDELETE condition 10. 49.151.187.185 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avunculus

[edit]

This soft-redirect to Wikitionary should be deleted to restore this to red-link condition. This is not a "DICDEF" subject, like "pleasant" or "obnoxious", or even "avuncular" for that matter; it's an extinct animal taxon, which makes it an encyclopedia subject that either needs an article or a redirect to a section at a higher taxon's article in which this lower taxon is covered in sufficient encyclopedic detail. Having a redirect to a dictionary definition stating it is an extinct taxon under some other, higher-level taxon (plus irrelevant information on avunculus in other languages) is pointless, since the articles from which this is a link generally already provide the same taxonomic-relationship information, and our reader here is looking for more detail not a repeat of the same detail. The editors working on filling in our red-link gaps in extinct taxa are not even going to know to work on this one, since here it appears as a blue-link because of the pointless cross-project redirect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: wikt:avunculus doesn't actually stat[e] it is an extinct taxon, or anything at all besides the Latin word for an uncle or great-uncle. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blargh. I must've been looking at the wrong page/tab"s mention of the term and forgot which said what. Okay, so the cross-site redir is even more inappropriate to have than I thought it was and will be downright confusing to many readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Muzaffar Khan Park

[edit]

Target says that "Fayyaz Park Muzaffargarh [...] is the only park in the city", though there is an unannotated mention at List_of_places_in_Muzaffargarh#Parks_and_Gardens. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Islam/Sub article: Alleged intolerance of Islam to criticism

[edit]

No reason for these subpage redirects Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In 2006, Criticism of Islam/Alleged intolerance of Islam to criticism was moved to Criticism of Islam/Sub article: Alleged intolerance of Islam to criticism: [20]. Essentially, the redirect "Criticism of Islam/Sub article: Alleged intolerance of Islam to criticism" may be an old revision of the target page, so I tagged it with {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City school kapco capter

[edit]

Target does not seem to mention any school. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

[edit]

Revolutions per hour

[edit]

I can see the connection but this is a vague phrase that I do not expect anyone to use to end up on the page for hertz (among other things, it is traditionally measured per second, not per hour, and in cycles, not in revolutions). Rusalkii (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Revolutions per minute BugGhost 🦗👻 22:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We might as well make redirects for "per day", "per fortnight", yadda yadda. This isn't mentioned at the target, nor does it need to be, because it's not a unit that's typically used. If anything, Rotational speed would probably be better, but if there's that much "enh" room in picking a target, it's generally better to just delete. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is suggesting making new redirects, so that line of reasoning is irrelevant - see User:Bugghost/essays/Keeping isn't creating. No opposition to retargeting to Rotational speed. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By sanctioning the creation of this redirect, you are implicitly granting license for others to create other, similar redirects. This is particularly the case if you don't distinguish what makes this redirect stand out as deserving of existence as opposed to those other potential ones. See WP:PANDORA. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PANDORA is actively misleading nonsense (at best) that harmfully contradicts WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:CRYSTAL and (frequently) WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We judge redirects based on their own merits, not the merits of something that doesn't exist but which might (or might not) be similar, see WP:NOTPANDORA. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, your essay is misleading nonsense, and you haven't offered any suggestion that there are any merits to this redirect. That it was absent for decades, in fact, suggests that people were finding what they were looking for just fine without it. Indeed, we now have three separate potential targets, which also suggests that this isn't likely to ultimately help people. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "my" essay, and it isn't nonsense - unlike PANDORA it reflects core policies, guidelines and conventions. You'll find I did offer comments on this redirect below, but that wasn't the point of this comment (which was simply to point out your argument didn't address this redirect). You have now actually commented on this redirect (thank you), but you don't need to be so aggressive about it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Bugghost. Someone using this search term will find the target unsurprising and useful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is plausibly going to be searching for this and why? And people should be surprised if a unit they search for takes them to a page about a different unit with the search term unmentioned. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a very similar unit, which could easily be confused. For example, in motoring speed is normally measured per hour (mph, km/h), but engine revs are measured per minute (rpm). It's not implausible that someone could mistakenly think it was "revolutions per hour". BugGhost 🦗👻 19:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you think that's actually a likely scenario and benefits anyone, I have some swampland in Florida for sale. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    35, I don't mind you having a different interpretation about what should or shouldn't be a redirect, but these meaningless snide responses are just kind of annoying. I've explained why I think it's a plausible scenario, and your response is just "no it's not", and employing a cliche to imply that I am stupid. I'm sure you have a real policy-backed reason for why you disagree with me - I would have preferred to read that, rather than this nothing-burger response. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no encyclopedic content about the unit "revolutions per hour", and in the exceedingly unlikely scenario that someone wants to look up such an unusual unit, they'll find nothing about it at any of the proposed targets. It's no more or less similar a unit than Angstrom is to light-year. You wouldn't expect either of those to redirect to the other, or to Length in general. Your contorted conjecture about how someone might arrive at this mistakenly really stretches the limits of credulity, and I don't think you should expect anything but a snide retort when you try to pass it off with a straight face. And even if someone did this, it fails a basic WP:XY check -- someone making this mistake should expect "revolutions per minute" no more than they should expect "miles/kilometers per hour". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1 lightyear is about 1026 angstroms. They have completely different purposes, values and names - this is not a fair comparison. 1 rpm = 60 revolutions per hour, and they have very similiar names and purposes. I genuinely find it astonishing that you think it literally inconceivable that someone could confuse the two. Did you know that there are people who think the phrase is "it's a doggy dog world"? Keep in mind that we are making a learning resource for people who want to gain knowledge, not just a gathering place for people who already have that knowledge. BugGhost 🦗👻 10:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or, if retargeted, Refine to #Examples at Revolutions per minute#Examples. Admittedly I don't really care strongly about this one. I think "hour" is a much more plausible search than fortnight or year, so hopefully people don't get carried away and make those crazy-unlikely versions. It's pretty astonishing to search for a unit of measurement, only to end up at a page that doesn't say anything about that unit of measurement. I concur with IP 35 that encyclopedic content is a must to substantiate a redirect, as a general case. I think "hour" instead of "minute" is a bit more forgivable though, because there are examples on the page that measure in /h instead of /m; that is the only way this is passable, from my perspective.
The super easy solution to these types of situations, is to add a line at wherever this page targets, like they have at Cycles per day. Maybe even a citation (hours and minutes are highly related topics true (moreso than fortnights and years), but not the same). Revolutions per second, Cycles per second, revolutions per day, and cycles per day can all logically target the same page, because content exists that covers those topics and no reader is guessing why they are there. Revolutions per hour is a total guess that leaves readers largely unsatisfied. They might think the redirect targeted the wrong place. Usually a red link indicates that we don't have any content on the encyclopedia for a topic. And it is true that in this case we don't have any content on the encyclopedia for this topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone provides evidence that this unit is actually used in reliable sources, at least occasionally. The cycles per day example mentioned above is pertinent. This unit is apparently used occasionally, e.g. a quick search brings up this 2017 paper, and it is mentioned in its target article cycles per second. If there are reliable sources using revolutions per hour, they will show us in which context it's used, and based on this we can decide whether the target should be revolutions per minute, Hertz, or some other page, and we can then mention the unit in the target article. But if there are no such sources, we should delete the redirect. We shouldn't create redirects for units that are never actually used. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My whole existence is flawed

[edit]

Lyric from this song, not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Oreore

[edit]

Te Oreore is rural locality located outside of Masterton, redirecting to the Masterton article (where it is not mentioned, nor should it really be because it isn't part of Masterton) isn't useful for readers. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, "Te Oreore" is mentioned in Masterton#Marae, and an alternative spelling of "Te Ore Ore" is used earlier in the article as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed that claim as it is unreferenced and does not appear to have any non-circular source to support it. The marae in question is located in Te Oreore and not Masterton, regardless people looking for Te Oreore would be looking for the locality and not the marae. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment every mention of "Te Oreore" on Wikipedia that I can find that clearly relates to something geographical is referring to a marae and Masterton#Marae is very clearly the most useful target we have for that. Homebush, Masterton#Demographics begins "Homebush-Te Ore Ore statistical area" but that's the only use of the term on that page. There are multiple mentions of a place called "Te Ore Ore", all but one of them describing it as "near Masterton" (e.g. Pāora Te Potangaroa) the other using the less precise "Te Ore Ore, Wairarapa". I'm not sure what the best outcome here is, but if it is something other than delete then Te Ore Ore should be created as a redirect to the same target and one should be categorised as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of the other. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those mentions were made in an automated/semi-automated fashion based on a spreadsheet. So I am removing them from the other articles. I have kept and changed the entry at Masterton with a source that supports its inclusion in the article in question and have created Te Ore Ore marae as a redirect. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vatinoxan

[edit]

Created after a page move. Not a useful target for someone wishing to learn about vatinoxan. There is no page/list on a2 adrenergic receptor antagonists. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The original page was moved and hour or two after creation, so I can accept that this redirect was essentially created in error. The redirect is linked in TM:Adrenergic receptor modulators incorrectly as an agonist when it is an antagonist. As long as this is a redirect it should probably be removed from the navbox. As a heads up, α2-adrenoreceptor antagonists are found under alpha blockers, though there is no mention of this compound there.
This redirect sees daily use (380 clicks this year) and should be expanded into an article. My cursory searches show there is plenty of material to generate an article as well. ⇌ Synpath 12:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is exactly what WP:RETURNTORED is about. ⇌ Synpath 18:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have enough material to write a few sentence stub currently. Vatinoxan is pretty novel (in terms of widespread adoption) so the more in-depth sources on it are a bit lacking compared to the other a2 antagonists like atipamezole or yohimbine. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Computer audio

[edit]

I'm not sure this redirect is as helpful as the previous list of articles [22]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. My gut says this should be an article. Both of the previous dab entries were bad: "Computer music" is about something more specific. "Sound card" is about a piece of hardware that computers use to emit an audio signal, but there's far more to computer audio on the software side. The new target, "Digital audio", is also bad. It's more about the low-level signal aspect of how digital audio is represented and processed, etc. Maybe a case of WP:RETURNTORED? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak restore. I agree with the nom that the dab page was better than the redirect, it was helpful for readers even though it wasn't a good dab page according to the rigid style rules for such pages - it's exactly the sort of page (plausible search term for multiple topics that aren't actually this) that the still-born navpages concept was intended to be, maybe calling it a set index would prevent future good-faith attempts to fix what isn't broken? I do agree with the IP that not everything was covered but expanding the page to include them (MIDI and speech synthesis maybe should be there too) is I think preferable to deletion. 01:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ice hockey in North America

[edit]

I'm not sure the soft redirect to Wikivoyage is as helpful as the previous list of articles, see [23] Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2027 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification – CONMEBOL table

[edit]

No uses of this redirect of any significance; unlikely to be a useful search term as all transclusions now use the new name. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Future North American winters

[edit]

No reason for these redirects to exist yet, as nothing can be written about these topics for over a year. No reason to redirect subjects covering "North America" to an article covering "United States": Canada exists, as do 21 other sovereign states in North America. These redirects are not useful until the events of the winters have begun to take place or have reliably-sourced predictions, at which point an article can be created. PamD 15:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retreat, Hell No!

[edit]

Not what Williams said ("Retreat, hell"). Also, (miscapitalized) quotes generally don't merit redirects, and this isn't the exception. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless portal

[edit]

Doesn’t look like the right target Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Captive portal maybe? 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the retarget suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korean civilization

[edit]

Not sure where this should point to. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

André da Silva

[edit]

André Domingos (André Domingos da Silva) is not the only person who could reasonable be the target of article under name André da Silva, as André da Silva Gomes and Luís André da Silva also exist, and are close/partial name matches too. Thus better to change the redirect to target André Silva as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FC Urziceni

[edit]

Merge with FC Unirea Urziceni. Same club. DuncanKeane05061967 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gogonele

[edit]

This is the Romanian word for green tomatoes, but the target section does no longer exist and "gogonele" is no longer mentioned in the article at all. Is there a better target for this? ArthananWarcraft (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination (between things)

[edit]

I came up with this less-than-perfect page title a few years ago. The title only existed for a month while the move discussion was ongoing. Nothing links to this old redirect (except for a few links on Talk:Discrimination (information), but the content there remains perfectly intelligible if these links turn red). Since it became a redirect, it has received about 1.6 page views per month. It's unlikely that anyone will search for this page title. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

[edit]

Coronavirus pandemic deaths

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

Deaths from coronavirus

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

Astro Premier League 2

[edit]

Astro Premier League is mentioned, but not Astro Premier League 2. Rusalkii (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep, plausible search term. drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ choose only one... 11:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Para Leg

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Toady Bicarbonate

[edit]

This was originally a redirect to There's more than one way to do it, which was merged to Perl in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/There's more than one way to do it (2023). A bot fixed the double redirect, so it is not mentioned at its target ("Tim Toady" is, but not "Bicarbonate"). Toadspike [Talk] 19:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the old There's more than one way to do it article stood for an addition to the TMTOWTDI acronym that "Tim Toady" comes from-- "Tim Toady Bicarbonate" is from "TIMTOWTDIBSCINABTE", for "There's more than one way to do it, but sometimes consistency is not a bad thing either". This extended acronym is definitely still related to Perl-- and thus there's absolutely nowhere else on the wiki that this should be retargeted to-- but it's definitely not worthy to be added to the Perl article itself, as the single source given in the old There's more than one way to do it article is to... the comments section on a blog post, where someone uses the acronym and explains it, rather than the blog post itself. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apocryphal

[edit]

Apocryphal is simply an adjective meaning likely untrue. It's a completely different concept from books that were rejected from the Bible Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titles with potentially unclear "(section)" disambiguator

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

Abril Coleções

[edit]

I think this is a redirect from an editor to their publishing house? Not mentioned in target? The target provides zero context so this is an actively unhelpful redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Canadians

[edit]

No mention in target Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain to preserve the page history and talk page; there is potential for recreating as an article. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If decision is to delete, please ping me so I can move it to my userspace instead. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI all topics that the article did cover are in the target article with much better sources. To achieve a more neutral text we folded the info into the narrative overall (apparent if anyone actually reads the original and target article) as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If working on draft- target page has the better sources. Moxy🍁 07:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wasserman

[edit]

Doesn't fit either Jacob Wassermann or it's target Jakob Wassermann. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jacob Wasserman also a common transliteration for the sportsperson, or just a typo that might occur one day? gidonb (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karaganda Zoo.

[edit]

Old typo (period at the end) fixed today Викидим (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far Eastern American

[edit]

Well, now that Eastern Americans has been deleted, Far Eastern American should also be deleted. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk · contribs) 06:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is no such phrase in use in the real world, so nobody would type this into search. Викидим (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Effrey jepstein

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

NBA rivalry redirects

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

Bacium

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

Bacteria A2Z

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

Inverted C

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 30#Inverted C

DJ-Nate

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

DJVI

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Unrelated uses exist at German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan for a ship callsign and at DjVu for an element of the file format. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a history dive! The section that contained references to DJ-Nate and DJVI is NOT the Music section that currently exists; these redirects were created to reference a Music section that was deleted in July of 2023 for being completely uncited. The current Music section was added in April of this year, and as noted does not contain reference to either artist.
Prior to all of that, though, the DJVI redirect had two stints of being an attempt at an article; the first time was a short unformatted paragraph, the second time was as a fully formatted article. Unfortunately, neither had sources and they were then reverted back to the redirect-- the latter fully-formatted but unsourced version after a mere 30 minutes. If you guys wanna restore this version, go right ahead. (No prejudice to sending it directly to AfD, of course.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I went to notify the users who made the DJVI article and who reverted it respectively; the latter is a WP:dead Wikipedian and the former is... someone who doesn't have a user page or talk page (somehow???) and whose only footprint on Wikipedia at all ever-- no block, no other edits, nothing-- was making this article that got reverted by someone else within 30 minutes. What. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:MILRANK

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 30#MOS:MILRANK

AN/CPS-5

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

July 22

[edit]

2025 Zip Buy Now, Pay Later 250

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 30#2025 Zip Buy Now, Pay Later 250

Jim Jenkins

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 30#Jim Jenkins

Alt TikTok

[edit]

Delete unless a suitable target can be found, possibly Alt girl. The article section "Alt TikTok" was deleted from TikTok along with a lot of other content in March 2023. A proposal was made at WP:RMTR to move Alt girl to Alt TikTok but the nominator agreed with my assessment that the scope of Alt girl is much narrower than "Alt TikTok" (permalink). A separate Alt TikTok article may be written at some point. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aradicus77 has now cut and paste the contents of Alt girl to Alt TikTok. Pinging @Myceteae. As above so below 23:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, did I have to wait to move it? I made a similar post about shitgaze few days ago, and they told me to just move it to the page. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a previous discussion it was also highlighted that I should incorporate the information lost from when it was deleted from TikTok and then mix in information from Alt Girl, which I did. I didn't just paste the alt girl page there. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, copy-and-paste moves are to be avoided, as this messes up the attribution history. If a page needs to be moved, you should use the move page feature, or use Wikipedia:requested moves. It seems like this needs more discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Revert alt girl and Alt TikTok to where they were prior at the VERY least. This needs far more discussion before such measures are used. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but at the same time what has to be discussed? Alt girl does not have as many sources as Alt TikTok, it shouldn't have been an article. So I made the move, which works far better as "Alt TikTok" played parts in developments like hyperpop. Unless you want both articles to exist on their own? But still redundant since its the same sources. Aradicus77 (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the conversion to an article for Alt TikTok per WP:EDRED and brief prior discussion at RMTR. I didn't realize Aradicus77 would get to work on this so quickly, otherwise I would not have brought this to RFD. It would have been better to preserve the history, for attribution among other reasons, via merger or some other procedure. I do think the question of whether Alt girl should be restored to its prior version is unclear and should have more discussion. Alt girl is now a redirect to Alt TikTok#Alt fashion; the "Alt fashion" section has been renamed "Alt subculture" so the redirect is broken. "Alt girl" is now not mentioned at all in the body of Alt TikTok. At this point I lean towards keep Alt TikTok article and revert Alt girl article to its prior state, although the redirect from Alt girl to Alt TikTok does somewhat help preserve the page history. I'm not sure what the best path forward is. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo bull

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

Zagreb shooting

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

Detained indefinitely

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

Reega

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

Cold Kiwi Motorcycle Rally

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29#Cold Kiwi Motorcycle Rally

Template:Relist

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

The Chinese in America (disambiguation)

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

WazirX

[edit]

It is now being debated whether this article needs to be redirected to 2024 WazirX hack or Binance#India. I believe this subject deserves its own article, while 2024 WazirX hack can be merged to main WazirX. Merging would only be possible only when the article is restored. That said, I would support restoring this article. Koshuri (あ!) 07:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, coming across this article: How North Korea Cheated Its Way to Crypto Billions
More than $6 billion from heists highlights the sophistication of cyber operations funneling cash to Kim Jong Un’s nuclear program... in The Wall Street Journal, I was wondering if your p.o.v. should be revised. thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay and Lunamann or retarget to 2024 WazirX hack. A three-year-old AfD should not preempt discussion of a better target. Neither the article nor the subject 2024 WazirX hack existed in 2022. If WazirX is primarily notable for the 2024 hack then this set up is appropriate, analogous a BLP1E situation (I understand that BLPs, appropriately, have special considerations). If WazirX now warrants is own article, retargeting for now does not prevent editors from working on an acceptable draft. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Football teams redirect to association

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

False dichotomy'

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

Surprise attack

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29#Surprise attack

Panzerschokolade

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29#Panzerschokolade

History from below

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Help:IPA for Hokkien

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29#Help:IPA for Hokkien

2026 NCAA Division I men's lacrosse tournament

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

2025–26 Buffalo Bulls men's basketball team

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

Ludobot

[edit]

Previously a stub (A ludobot is a type of artificial human companion: an entertainment robot, from Latin ludo (play) and bot (robot).) that was redirected to entertainment robot in 2017, the term isn't used in that article, wasn't used in it at the time of the redirect creation, and I can't find any sources that use it. It reads like an original coinage by the user who first created the ludobot article in 2003. Belbury (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one the earlier pages from Wikipedia and was an article for close to 15 years, contributed by more than 20 editors. Do not delete at RfD, can be taken to AfD. Jay 💬 07:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Weinroth

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

Lionsgate

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

Point to new Lionsgate DAB page (edited). I have drafted one at User:Myceteae/lionsgate. There are several entities currently or formerly called "Lionsgate". This was the subject of an RM at Lionsgate Studios (May 20), an RFD by User:Intrisit closed as 'keep' with no prejudice to revisiting owing to some confusion in the discussion (June 12), and a subsequent RM at Lionsgate Films (July 3). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tell that to 204.111.137.20, who reverted similar edits like this with the statement to list such titles here. At least that happened to the Universal Studios title (see its history) To repeat my reply to Natg 19, he/she, Onel5969 and Rodw, the most prominent WP:DPL "addressers" apart from you, retargeted the "Lionsgate" link to Lionsgate Studios in the Barbie (media franchise) page and other pages over the past year, when in reality, it was supposed to rather be targeted at the pre-2024 Lionsgate (now Starz Entertainment). That's where my grudge is. Also, what, 5 entries for the "Lionsgate" title in the larger "Lions Gate" DAB page? Seriously, the "Lionsgate" title needs its own DAB page. Intrisit (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we did this wrongly, you can let us know. But you don't need to double post this and make a big fuss over it. To be honest, fixing this dab has been a big mess, as it is difficult to decide whether to point to the successor company (Lionsgate Studios), the film studio (Lionsgate Films), or the "historical" brand that spun off Lionsgate (Starz Entertainment); and everyone is just doing their best at deciding the correct link to use. Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although Myceteae, this is way too soon after my errant nomination just over a month ago. Like I stated already, I was waiting at least 3 months later (around November) to make a new proper RfD nomination before this one. Intrisit (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With two RMs and an RFD (closed as no prejudice to re-stating the request) in as less than 2 months, the topic is ripe for a more definitive consensus. That is also why I agree with you, and disagree with Nardog, that discussion is required for what would obviously have been a controversial change. The inherent ambiguity of "Lionsgate" and the number of articles involved obscure the history and I fear we will have endless "Lionsgate" RMs at a half-dozen different pages until this points somewhere more definitive than Lions Gate. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is your draft dab page better than just pointing at Lions Gate? It is still just a disambiguation page. I would agree with SilviaASH and Skynxnex to point to one of the articles (Lionsgate Films or Lionsgate Studios), but it seems like there is no clear target that is the PT. Natg 19 (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lionsgate is a specific search term that's narrower than Lions Gate but does not have a single, unique referent. The various Lionsgates are quite popular and are collectively the most common destinations from the current Lions Gate DAB as shown by Pageviews,[31][32] WikiNav,[33] and Massiews.[34] Lionsgate doesn't have a primary topic, as demonstrated by the big mess of multiple move and redirect discussions. If it did have a PT, Lionsgate would be a good candidate for an article title per WP:SMALLDIFFERENCES. Giving it a unique DAB page (or WP:Set index article, even) might answer the recurring question "Why don't we have a page called Lionsgate?" and stop the RMs for a while or at least centralize the discussion and history moving forward, and also save readers a little time. Thus, I see it as a service to both readers and editors. Ultimately, while I think a unique DAB has merit, I'm more invested in trying to settle this and consolidate the discussion than I am in this particular outcome. A firm decision to retain the status quo or point to Lions Gate#Entertainment instead (for now) is fine. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as is, I think. Not totally opposed to refining to include #Entertainment, but there is a slight problem with this. Additional entries that omit the space are found outside the Entertainment section. Namely Lionsgate Newark Studios under Lions Gate#Places and Liongate Capital Management and Lionsgate Academy under Lions Gate#Other uses. These sections are both underneath #Entertainment, so in theory, you could still locate them with relative ease, but including a section as the target would imply one could find everything in that section. I suppose a separate "Lionsgate" dab might resolve this, but it just seems unnecessary. -2pou (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but that's also the case for Star TV and Star Channel (I spun out the entries of the former bearing the latter's name with that of the latter); which Jay aptly put it as the only benefit being to to avoid the unrelated clutter in the Lions Gate dab. Look at it this way; should the "Lionsgate" title end up being DABbed or configured/refactored as an SIA, the "Lionsgate Academy" and "Lionsgate Newark Studios" article titles could be incubated in it, regardless of whether they are related or unrelated to the entertainment-related "Lionsgate" titles should they be listed there alongside it. The Liongate Capital Management article you cited even has the "Liongate" title redirect to it since 2 November 2008 with little to no controversy up until now and can be or has already been incubated in the "Lions Gate" DAB page. My initial errant RfD nomination was premised on this rationale and aiming for either DABbing or setindexifying the Lionsgate title, because InfiniteNexus's RM and Diana0134's RM to get "Lionsgate Studios" and "Lionsgate Films" titles respectively to take that title really deserves an RfD outcome, whether this one or the next. Of course I can understand the sentiments here here to just refactor this title to "Lions Gate#Entertainment" and this isn't the first and most definitely won't be the last title to go through such a conundrum, but with the aforementioned similar instance of "Star TV" and "Star Channel", it's to eliminate confusion and as Jay cited again unrelated clutter. To re-iterate one of Myceteae's comments, I fear we will have endless "Lionsgate" RMs [and RfDs] at a half-dozen different pages until this points somewhere more definitive than "Lions Gate". I feel for this as well!! Intrisit (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igbo myhtology

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

Tuesday, September 11, 2001

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

Pope Leo XVI

[edit]

Implausible Roman numeral. He is not the sixteenth, just the fourteenth. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as R from typo. As per WP:RTYPO plausible typographical errors can be kept, and a transposition of two characters that are right next to each other in the title fits the bill IMO. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Hektor (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear case of a plausible WP:RTYPO ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 13:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to reasons above, Roman numerals confuse a lot of people. They are easily misremembered and a true typo may be less likely to be noticed than something like '12' instead of '21'. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, currently !voting in vain as this is trending towards being kept, but I'm not persuaded by the RTYPO rationale. Super Bowl LXVI is never gonna be a typo of Super Bowl LXIV, because they refer to two different topics; this situation is truly the equivalent of saying that 14 is a typo of 16. We're not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, so we don't and shouldn't have number-transposition typo redirects for sequential search terms. Accommodating for these and similar titles are likely to be far more confusing than they are helpful, and create more questions than answers for people who are unlucky enough to stumble onto them. Nobody is going to see the RCATs, they're just going to see the page they end up at, and ask themselves "so pope leo is the 16th also? I searched for the 16th Leo, and got here, but what happened to the 15th leo?" Number swaps change the meaning of the search term entirely. People might've meant to type in Pope Leo XI, or Pope Leo VI, which are one letter away. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes. This is not a typo, it is erroneous numbering. Jay 💬 14:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes. SpartanMazda (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not clear that most people typing this would be looking for this target. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brock's two favorite women

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29#Brock's two favorite women

People who died of coronavirus

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

July 21

[edit]

Death due to COVID-19

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29#Death due to COVID-19

Deaths from the 2019–21 coronavirus outbreak

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29#Deaths from the 2019–21 coronavirus outbreak

List of Lviv rabbis

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29#List of Lviv rabbis

Tiste Liosan

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29#Tiste Liosan

Northern Mariana Islands national under-23 football team

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 28#Northern Mariana Islands national under-23 football team

”Iceman” King Parsons

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

“Namibia exception”

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

Walmart opioids scandal

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

Walmart Opioids Scandal

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

HODL

[edit]

Now that all the mentions of this are gone from the target (although I don't know if they've ever been there?), how about redirect to wiktionary? Stumbling9655 (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Hodl to Hödl as per Shhhnotsoloud, tag as R to diacritic. It's plausible that someone could type in Hodl while meaning for Hödl; not everyone has access to the keys that would allow someone to type an ö character. On the flipside, Delete HODL as per WP:RETURNTORED. Vgbyp may be right in that there's enough info to make a full article for this topic; in that case, we need to delete the redirect, so that someone in the future will be alerted that we don't have information on the topic, rather than pipe it to Wiktionary. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy (Wikipedia article)

[edit]

WP does not host articles about its articles. This article has been moved to reflect its actual topic, and there should not be a redirect suggesting something else. (See Talk:Wikipedia_philosophy_phenomenon#WP:GNG_etc for discussion.) Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add on, there's also an argument to be made based on WP:RFD#KEEP 1: The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 06:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Steel1943 that the disambiguator does not describe the target. If a redirect is to be made with a disambiguator, it ought to at least be accurate. --Bsherr (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel. The target is about a "phenomenon". It is not an article about an article. "Philosophy (Wikipedia phenomenon)" is a slightly better redirect that solves the confusing aspect. Philosophy (the article) is also a Wikipedia article so the disambiguator of "Wikipedia article" would be accurate to our general reader base. We ought to meet people at their expectations for redirects without requiring logical leaps. If someone sees "Philosophy" and "Philosophy (Wikipedia article)" as two separate options in a search bar, that would likely confuse 98% of people who didn't know what to expect the first time. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with Utopes' explanation. -- Tavix (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maracaibo Basin tegu lizard,

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

Dallas Cowgirls

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 30#Dallas Cowgirls

Totalitarianism in the United States

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 30#Totalitarianism in the United States

Thuringia portal

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 28#Thuringia portal

For publicists publicizing the client's work

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 28#For publicists publicizing the client's work

His trial

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

David Freyne

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

Ajyal - Arab Division of HaShomer HaTzair

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 28#Ajyal - Arab Division of HaShomer HaTzair

may from the pokeymans

[edit]

since the list of pokémon anime characters' afd discussion was closed as redirect, something should probably be done regarding those redirects. may is one of the main characters and ash's resident female companion in the seasons of the anime that take place in hoenn (advanced, advanced challenge, advanced battle, battle frontier), where she's mentioned... but she's only actually there because she's the objectively better playable character in the hoenn games (ruby and sapphire, and then their sister game and remakes), so what should be done? consarn (grave) (obituary) 16:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally, three notes:
  • the second redirect has history, but as is customary for those pokémon character redirects, it was just fancruft. not worth worrying about
  • i'll boldly use the results of this rfd for the other female protags shamelessly reused in the anime who don't have their own articles (dawn, uh... oh wow, it's just dawn)
  • i want smelly socks mailed to whoever came up with the hoenn seasons' english titles for the sheer amount of people who ended up believing that "gba" stands for "game boy advanced"
consarn (grave) (obituary) 16:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What about Haruka (Pokémon)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"haruka" is just her japanese name, so there's no need to worry over it consarn (grave) (obituary) 14:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Haruka refers to the same character(s) that May (Pokémon) et al are referring to-- brunette girl wearing a red shirt, white miniskirt, and red bandanna who's either the daughter of Gym Leader Norman or Professor Birch. Thus, it suffers from the same WP:XY issues that all the rest suffer from, and needs disambiguation at the same place we're putting the rest. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking aloud here, it seems like consensus is heading towards disambiguating it (which per WP:INCOMPDAB would kick it over to May (disambiguation) which in turn would send it to May (given name)#Fictional characters because the name has been split off). Haruka (Pokémon) makes sense targeting eg Pokémon (TV series)#Characters where the Japanese name is included. But does it make sense in a disambiguation-type entry? If so, should her Japanese name be included? -- Tavix (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes; anyone looking for information on the character Haruka should be taken to May (given name)#Fictional characters. As for including the name Haruka there, it should be fairly simple to write it in a way that smoothly includes the Japanese name, yes. Working off of the disambig Thepharoah17 drafted (but admittedly putting it in my own words), here's an example:
--
May (Haruka in Japanese); the given name of:
-- 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Queen

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

러시아

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

Pope peter

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

Five-by-five

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

Draft:Jason Richey

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

2025–26 Auburn Tigers men's basketball team

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1303262824#The_guiding_principles_of_RfD"