Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	58	62	120
TfD	0	1	20	7	28
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	3	1	4
RfD	0	0	0	19	19
AfD	0	0	0	5	5

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

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

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When to delete a redirect

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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

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

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

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

June 12

Arroz

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

Delete per WP:FORRED. Redirect not mentioned in target article, and target subject does not have affinity to the Spanish or Portuguese languages. (Note: This redirect is a {{R with history}} as a former disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as above, this is not a translation dictionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Donald Fump

• Donald Fump → Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Kind of an implausible misspelling, although perhaps some disagree. Donald Trmp and Donald Rump were both deleted for the same reason. I suggest maybe delete? 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 05:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Uyrapuru

• Uyrapuru → Uýra Sodoma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Without a clear connection, this redirect is a possible WP:BLP issue. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.adua.org.br/mobile/frame1.php?pagina=noticia2.php&ID_ARTIGO=3697 She says Uyra stands for Uyrapuru. Ninixed (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, "Not mentioned in target article". Add it to the article, or allow this to be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Criticism of J. K. Rowling

• Criticism of J. K. Rowling → Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too ambiguous. Could redirect to J.K. Rowling#Legacy or J.K. Rowling#Reception. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to J._K._Rowling#Reception. Having a section called "Reception" instead of a section called "Criticism" is reasonable and common (see WP:POVNAMING and WP:CRITICISM). I don't see what would make J.K. Rowling#Legacy a good target. Jruderman (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to J._K._Rowling#Reception seems to be the most appropriate. Agree with the reasons for doing so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

LGBT rights in SA

• LGBTQ rights in SA → LGBTQ rights in South Africa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• LGBT rights in SA → LGBTQ rights in South Africa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

That’s too ambiguous, could refer to Saudi Arabia, South Africa, San Antonio, or Santa Ana, California, among other places. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguate but also move to LGBTQ rights in SA per CONSUB since all the disambiguated articles are prefixed as LGBTQ. Or delete, as unhelpful or unnecessary. Ninixed (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

(This participant added LGBTQ rights in SA with this edit.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. Not an adequate names for a disambiguation pages with 2 separate uses of acronyms with one being clearly ambiguous. Allow search results to provide information by deleting this these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  Updated to "both" since Ninixed added LGBTQ rights in SA to this discussion after my initial comment. Steel1943 (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Take a car wash hippie

• Take a car wash hippie → Cars (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

What?! Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

June 11

KineMaster

• KineMaster → List of video editing software#Proprietary (commercial)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirected to a section that doesn't contain text "KineMaster" was removed by MrOllie. OOCJZ (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Rice in Sri Lanka

• Rice in Sri Lanka → Rice#Sri Lanka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The phrase "Sri Lanka" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving readers searching this term unsatisfied with arriving at the target article. In addition, between the potential targets Rice production in Sri Lanka, Agriculture in Sri Lanka#Rice cultivation in Sri Lanka, and History of rice cultivation#Sri Lanka, it seems unclear which one of these would be the best target for the nominated redirect, causing potential WP:XY problems. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Steel1943: Couldn't we turn this into a dab page? I don't think we need a full discussion here for that. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm somewhat against that since the title sounds more like either a WP:SIA or a WP:DABCONCEPT, both of which would be an inadequate disambiguation page. In my opinion, we should decide on a target, figure out if a WP:SIA is plausible here in a way that doesn't look like a WP:DABCONCEPT (which I believe will be the problem), overwrite the redirect with an article, or delete this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Disambiguation pages for the intersection of two concepts are uncommon. Such a page would effectively be a Wikipedia:Navigation page, and those seem to be on the way out after a recent brief experiment. Jruderman (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Agriculture in Sri Lanka#Rice cultivation in Sri Lanka as the best place for this. We don't want quasi-dab pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Rice production in Sri Lanka or delete. The redirect was created as a redirect to Rice cultivation in Sri Lanka and updated to redirect to Rice#Sri Lanka after that page was merged into Rice. Restoring it to point to the re-created article Rice production in Sri Lanka is the most conservative change. It's a better target than Agriculture in Sri Lanka#Rice cultivation in Sri Lanka (which has a {{main}} pointing to Rice production in Sri Lanka) or History of rice cultivation#Sri Lanka (which is a subtopic that should be linked from Rice production in Sri Lanka). There is a potential ambiguity issue with Sri Lankan cuisine#Rice and curry, which could be handled with a hatnote or see-also link, or taken as a reason to delete the redirect (WP:XY). Jruderman (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk:The Plague

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Buppie

• Buppie → African-American middle class  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion. The target is not a synonym. It may be related, but "Buppie" is not mentioned anywhere, and neither is "yuppie", from which "buppie" is derived. GA-RT-22 (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

2025 England Lions and Lionesses tour of Australia

• 2025 England Lions and Lionesses tour of Australia → 2025 Kangaroo tour of England and France  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Incorrect and misleading redirect, as the link is for a women's rugby league tour that looks not actually to be happening, but the target article is solely about a men's rugby league tour. The two were at one point expected to be at the same time, but that is not the case anymore. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete page: Not fuctional currently as you cant redirect to two pages. Mn1548 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Circleville Herald

• Circleville Herald → Circleville, Ohio  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target page. मल्ल (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The girls are fighting, aren't they

• The girls are fighting, aren't they → Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The girls are fighting, aren't they? → Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Suggesting delete: not mentioned at target, mostly consists of a pre-existing meme phrase. Jruderman (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, possible search term and uttered by a notable person. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Precedent. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  A key difference is that Titanic Five had no prior referent. No argument was presented to that effect, at least. Here we have a famous person quoting an old meme in reference to current events. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unmentioned. A reader looking for context about what they're searching for will find no information at the target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Soft retarget to wikt:the girls are fighting, where this meme is explained. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly retarget to Wikt per Presidentman, if there's more support for that. The meme has a long history and while AOC's usage may appear novel to many, it simply reflects her fluency in meme culture. Declaring the Musk–Trump feud the primary topic is recentism. There's also The Girls Are Fighting which redirects to Alpha Games. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Mr./Mr Trump

• Mr. Trump → Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Mr Trump → Trump (surname)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 12 § Mr. Trump – Retarget to Trump (surname)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23 § Mr. Trump – Retarget to Trump (surname)

One redirects to Donald Trump, the other redirects to Trump (surname). They should both link to the same page (probably Donald Trump, as most people will be searching for his article). 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 05:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW, Trump currently redirects to Donald Trump.—Bagumba (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, in concurrence with the consensus-backed primary topic. BarntToust 18:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  @BarntToust can you clarify please - the nomination seeks to retarget one or both of the two redirects so that they point to the same target, deletion has not been proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  ahem, sorry. In support of both terms linking to Donald Trump because "Trump" is the primary topic by consensus's findings, and these redirects are spin-offs of this term. BarntToust 21:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both. We simply don't need or want "Mr ..." and "Mr. ..." redirects for every eligible article on a male subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Listed the 2016 and 2017 RfDs. Jay 💬 10:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Target Donald Trump given that Trump redirects there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Shhh. Except in unusual cases where someone is specifically well known as Mr. So-and-so (which very much is not the case here), there's no good reason to either create or keep such redirects. They're not useful as either search terms or linking aids. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

June 10

Chargers

• Chargers → Los Angeles Chargers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

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

• Retarget to "Charger" as highly ambiguous -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment The click data doesn't really show lots of readers (being confused) going from Los Angeles Chargers to Charger.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• I have taken out the "Chargers" entries from the Charger disambig, and created a dab draft at the redirect. If this becomes a disambig page, then those entries need to be deleted from the Charger dab, and replaced with a "See also" to the Chargers dab.

  Apart from those entries, there are these other teams that are either have "Chargers" as the nickname in the Infobox, or are referred to in their articles as just "the Chargers", and may be added to the draft:

  • San Diego Chargers (former name of the current target)
  • Oran Park Chargers
  • Oxford Chargers
  • Carolina Chargers
  • Oakleigh Chargers
  • Hobart Chargers
  • Mississauga Chargers
  • Eugene Chargers
  • Joliet Chargers
  • Hillsdale Chargers
  • New Haven Chargers

Others that are not referred to as Chargers, so may not be added to the draft are: Kenosha Chargers, Big Chill Super Chargers, Akari Chargers, Shell Turbo Chargers, and Union Garnet Chargers. Jay 💬 11:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I have taken out the "Chargers" entries from the Charger disambig. I don't see this edit history at Charger. Can you clarify? It would be better to include all those teams at Charger#Sports. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Charger or use the draft dab at Chargers?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Added the others to the dab draft. Jay 💬 07:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to charger; I don't see the need for a separate dab and going to one specific sports team is presumptuous. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted my previous close per discussion with Jay at User_talk:Rusalkii#Chargers_RfD to allow for more time to consider the drafted dab at the redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget' to Charger per nom. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 07:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Charger per nom. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Big Steel

• Big Steel → U.S. Steel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It was created because it was an apparently once a common nickname for U.S. Steel. However, shouldn't this actually be an article about large Steel corporations? I think this redirect should be Blanked to encourage users to create an article about Big Steel. There is already Big Oil, and Big Tech. Surely there should be some sort of article on Big Steel. Right? Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't blank articles without redirect; we do "delete per WP:REDLINK" though. Steel1943 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Drying a wet cell phone in rice

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Long/short grain

• Long grain → Wood grain#Long grain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Short grain → Wood grain#Short grain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neither is mentioned in the target article, leaving the connections between the redirects and the target unclear. (These are section redirects, and neither section is present in the article; content may have been removed.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. My immediate thought was rice, and there is at least a bit of discussion about grain length at Rice as food. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• An apathetic Keep. Both are important terms and should be targets within a section that doesn't currently exist on cutting timber and the resultant shapes, and their strength. But who writes anything any more? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Also all the inbound links are woodworking, and nothing is about cookery. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget. My immediate thought was also rice. Better to retarget to Rice as food. Katiedevi (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment for what it's worth, here's the current situation with similar redirects related to Rice:

• Short grain rice is a redirect that targets Rice
• Long grain rice is a redirect that targets Rice
• Long-grain rice is a redirect that targets Rice#Ecotypes and cultivars

... Since these redirects may be affected by this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Lean keep or consider DAB page. As noted by Andy, all incoming links in article space are in the context of wood grain. Readers would be astonished to end up at Rice but would likely understand landing at Wood grain and may find the article useful even if it doesn't contain these sections. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate this is just as likely to be about rice -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Disambig. About 60-70% of the internal search results relate to rice, with all but one of the rest related to wood (the exception being Grain (magazine)#Short Grain contest, which is not a useful target even for a dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: For those who are voting "disambiguate" ... disambiguate at what title? From what I see, these are both WP:PTMs, and even then, it would not make sense to redirect one towards the other if the "other" is made a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  • They're both adjectives, so make it a set index of things that could be described with the adjective. Or just do an WP:IAR disambiguation page for each instead. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Troy Pierson

• Troy Pierson → Sam Kinison#Death  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Though it's not clear to me which section of WP:BLP is most applicable, I don't think we're in the habit of naming people for crime-related details in other articles, committed before they were even an adult. This person got into a fatal car crash with Sam Kinison, killing the comic. Not otherwise notable, probably shouldn't be named in the article, and doesn't seem like good practice for a redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, at least while present in the article. Where a person is named in the target article then a redirect to that article from their name is normally going to be useful and I don't see any reason for that not being the case here. If you think there are BLP (or other) reasons they shouldn't be named in the article (and I don't have an opinion on that question), then discuss that on the article talk page. If mention is removed, then it can be usefully discussed whether the redirect is appropriate or not (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 18#Karmelo Anthony for many of the relevant arguments). Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• The plan was to nominate it first, since it seems more obvious to me that someone typing the name of this person should not be taken to a section where they're only named in such a context. Rules for redirects aren't something I care about as much as BLP, though, so it's possible the cart is before the horse. I'll go remove it from the article and we can see if anyone objects. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Cramtonism

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

I can find no evidence that this is a synonym; a basic Google search yielded < 10 results, likely due to the existence of this redirect in the first place. Delete. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Acyrologia

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

This is a similar, but distinct, literary device, making this a misleading redirect. Delete per WP:REDYES. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Malapropism lists acyrologia as a synonym and there is at least some support that it is synonymous or that one is a type of the other.[2][3] These aren't the greatest sources, but maybe there should be a discussion at Talk:Malapropism about the definition or whether to add an appropriately sourced discussion of acyrologia to the article. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sleeping dictionary

• Sleeping dictionary → The Sleeping Dictionary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per Wiktionary, a sleeping dictionary is "a sexual partner who also serves as a native informant or language teacher for a person visiting the region from outside". That is a general concept that probably could be explored in a Wikipedia article of its own, either of that title or something broad-concept like travel and sex. As such, I think WP:RETURNTORED applies. A redirect to Wiktionary would also be acceptable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Soft redirect to that Wiktionary entry/weak keep drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 16:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate between wikt:sleeping dictionary, The Sleeping Dictionary, and The Sleeping Dictionary (novel) per WP:PRIMARYRED. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Brexit means breakfast

• Brexit means breakfast → Malapropism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Breakfast means breakfast → Malapropism#Real-life examples  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 31 § Brexit means breakfast – retarget to Malapropism#Real-life examples
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 25 § Brexit means breakfast – keep

Wildly implauslbe way to search for this topic (apparently some British politician said "breakfast" instead of "brexit" once and there was a brief brouhaha over it). And even if someone searched for this like this, they'd find no information about this specific example, as they probably would have wanted. Delete with extreme prejudice. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• As you can see from the previous RfDs that Steel1943 has now added, this redirect previously did make sense, as the phrase was discussed at target. The mention was then removed, but the 2024 RfD saw consensus to keep this despite that. But with respect I can't say I agree. Redirects without mention can be appropriate if their meaning is self-explanatory (e.g. a variant spelling of a name), but this phrase is a reference to something, and the target does not explain what that reference means. That makes it a false promise to our readers. Delete or restore mention. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments in the previous discussion. I actually used the first of these redirects a couple of weeks back to find the target article when I could remember the example but not the name. A mention would be good, but that's not a prerequiste to the redirect being useful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

A2105 road

• A2105 road → A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

non-existent road harrz ^talk 13:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

A2332 road

• A2332 road → A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

non-existent road harrz ^talk 13:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Foldable

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

I suggest retargeting to foldable smartphone (and adding Template:redirects to the target) Stumbling9655 (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• 50/50 keep/delete, but do not retarget. Why? This is inherently vague without a clear target. Either leave it at the dab page as a catch-all for various forms of "fold", or just delete, since even the best matches there are WP:PTMs. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, this is an ambiguous term and redirects to an appropriate disambiguation page. harrz ^talk 13:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep or delete per 35.139.154.158. Steel1943 (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• strong oppose clearly not. Is your foldable chair not foldable or something? Atleast the current target has a selection that includes wiktionary and non-smartphone topics -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Google results for foldable -Wikipedia relate to many things - bags/suitcases, smartphones, chairs, bicycles, wheelchairs, tables and beds all appear on the first two pages with none of them coming close to being the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

B1454 road

• B1454 road → B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

non-existent road harrz ^talk 10:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This one does appear to exist [4], but it's not currently mentioned in the target article. I'd say keep and add mention. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:FAB8:C00:A757:B61E (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

B1463 road

• B1463 road → B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

non-existent road harrz ^talk 10:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

MacKenzie Carpenter

• MacKenzie Carpenter → 2025 in country music#Upcoming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Mackenzie Carpenter → 2025 in country music#Upcoming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Perhaps it ought to - haven't looked into that yet - but this individual does not appear in the linked article. It seems several entries I'd expect to be in that list are omitted, so perhaps there are criteria this one doesn't meet. She has a song which features someone notable, Midland, titled "I Wish You Would", but this has no reason to redirect to this list as it stands. For all I know this individual is notable and should have an article, and nobody has bothered, but I am not experienced in writing country music biographies. mftp dan ^oops 15:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget - Retarget to Valory Music Group. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  As nominator, if that's the label Carpenter is signed to and she's at least mentioned as a member of their roster, I would consider that appropriate if nobody else objects. mftp dan ^oops 13:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: and @MFTP Dan: Please note that Valory Music Group is a redirect, which targets Big Machine Records (which is where the artist is mentioned). CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for not trying the link. mftp dan ^oops 02:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

No worries. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Big Machine Records per my comment above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete in favor of search; there is not enough content anywhere on Wikipedia to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Also bundle Mackenzie Carpenter. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Mackenzie Carpenter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I am open to article creation as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Like this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's some semblance of a start. It's not at all how a BLP should be written, but the bits and pieces are there. What does everyone else think, is this SIGCOV? mftp dan ^oops 23:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

KWFT (AM)

• KWFT (AM) → KXNW  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• KWFT-AM → KXNW  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects appears to be a leftover from the very early days of what is now the KXNW article, which actually started out in 2005 as an article on the old KWFT radio in Texas and was quickly converted to an article on the then-current KWFT TV station in Arkansas (which is what became KXNW) by the redirect creator; a year later, the radio information was removed from the article. (This might probably now be considered a form of article hijacking, but it was 20 years ago and the "wild west" days of Wikipedia.) The radio-related content that was ever pertinent to this redirect was about what is now KTNO (AM) (which was KWFT for decades), but what is now KFCD is another station that had the KWFT call sign for a few years, so this isn't as cut-and-dry as it could have been. Retargeting to KWFT (disambiguation) as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} might not be off the table either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what current policy is for linking to disambiguation pages, but since this call sign had been used by multiple stations, it may make the most sense to point them at KWFT (disambiguation). However, since nothing links to these redirects and they were basically only intended for search use or possibly inclusion in a regional template of old stations, I'm fine with them being deleted. —Mulad (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to KWFT (disambiguation). They're plausible search terms that could refer to multiple topics all of which are listed at a differently-titled page, this is exactly the usecase for redirects to disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Lorde (Ella Yelich-O'Connor)

• Lorde (Ella Yelich-O'Connor) → Lorde  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Extremely unlikely that anyone would search her very well-known name followed by her real name in parentheses Sock (tock talk) 16:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to be a frequent way to refer to her, particularly in New Zealand. See [5], [6], and [7]. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as correct, unambiguous and harmless. Presidentman's findings are icing on the cake. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary. If you search "Lorde" or "Ella Yelich..." you will find her through the other existing redirects. Literally no one would ever search "Lord PARENTHESIS Ella...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. "Lorde" is not ambiguous. This is an unlikely search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  I would suggest that that is incorrect, since Lorde (disambiguation) exists, suggesting that "Lorde" is ambiguous -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right - my apologies. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep Even if the target is the primary topic, a disambiguated redirect can still exist for it, if it is correct. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Ssilvers. This is not how disambiguation is done on WP, and it's an incredibly unlikely search term. The hits in the wild alluded to above are irrelevant, as they're just normal parentheticals to give extra information (like so, and in this case, the singer's full name in addition to her stage name). Someone will search for one, or the other, but not both in such an overly specific fashion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep (changing my mind from above). "Lorde" is indeed ambiguous, and this may be a legitimate way to disambiguate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

June 9

KenTacoHut

• KenTacoHut → Yum! Brands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ken Taco Hut → Yum! Brands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ken Taco Huts → Yum! Brands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• KenTaco Huts → Yum! Brands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• KenTacoHuts → Yum! Brands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. Appears to be a restaurant featuring three of Yum's franchises in one. I think it's a meme? Does not appear to be notable enough to add to the Yum article. Rusalkii (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment These seem to be a thing, or was a thing. Googling "ken taco hut" turns up quite a bit of results. Since this is/was a Yum! triple-franchise outlet, the origin of wanting to make these redirects seems clear. I'm not sure it has to be mentioned in the article, but it seems to be clearly a subtopic, if a very minor one. The main question for me is whether this is a worthwhile search term. Pageviews on these appear to be sparse. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles

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

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

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

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

Delete. Non-MoS pages should never have MoS related redirects (or page names). Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. A WikiProject's style advice is close enough to the MOS that I'm okay with this redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I think it's best we keep a clear differentiation between what is and isn't in the manual of style. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  What differentiation between style guidance in the manual of style, some of which applies to specific topics/articles and style guidance for specific topics/articles elsewhere is important to make? Why is making that distinction important? Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  The distinction is that the manual of style is a formal guideline and hence has a higher degree of consensus behind it than individual WikiProjects' advice pages. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  Some bits of the manual of style are not widely supported by people other than MOS regulars (as evidenced by how controversial capitalisation can get for example) while style advice found in some wikiprojects is uncontroversial. So whether some piece of style advice is found in place A or place B is not a reliable guide to how strong a consensus it enjoys, meaning that enforcing an arbitrary barrier to finding a given bit of guidance based on that seems counterproductive. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, if someone is being misleading about how much buy-in a page has that's on them; realistically speaking I expect this to be helpful for navigation and not misdealing for anyone actually opening the page, which we should do anyway if a guideline we're not familiar with is linked in an argument. Rusalkii (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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) 21:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Tavix DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 09:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The distinction between MOS and advice pages is important, however a redirect that may help some editors remember where this is located seems more helpful than harmful. Editors conflate essays, advice pages, and P&G all the time and that should be dealt with when raised in a discussion. There's no evidence of rampant abuse of this redirect or unique problems here.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Square root of 4

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

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

• Keep Square root of 4 to set a consistent pattern with the articles Square root of 2, Square root of 3, Square root of 5, Square root of 6, Square root of 7. That was the same reason I created Square root of 9 last year, but I acknowledge the argument is weaker there since there is no Square root of 8 article. And if I had seen the 2019 RfD I would probably have supported keeping it for that reason too. And 9 is as far as this will go - I did not create (and would support deleting if someone else created) Square root of 16 Square root of 25 etc. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Also adding Sqrt4 to this for the same reason, I didn't notice it when creating the RfD. I am bad at usernames (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Weak keep Sqrt4 by the same argument: Sqrt2 Sqrt3 Sqrt5 Sqrt6 Sqrt7. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware of those Sqrt redirects. They are clearly not "necessary", yet are among the kinds of things we keep just because someone might possibly invoke them at some point. There are a ton of miscapitalized redirects that we keep around even though they do a lot of actual harm by showing up in the Visual Editor popup that invites people to link them. I'd say if we're keeping objectively harmful redirects, why not keep the potentially useful ones, too? Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as this is potentially useful for our readers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Excuse me what? I have to call bullshit on this one. If someone so badly needs to know what the square roots of 4 or 9 are and can't figure it out some other way, they should go to our article on the square root itself, not to the specific value they type in. This also doesn't really address the "WP isn't a calculator" argument -- why stop here? Why not Square root of 2209 -> 47 (number)? Or 1+(2*3) -> 7? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I explained above why this should stop where it does. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Someone might think theres an article for Square root of 4 and search it. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 16:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all. I was going to write a couple sentences, but they would have been almost identical to the nomination statement. I don't buy the argument that a sequence of titles has to be complete if anything in that sequence is sufficiently different, as is the case here. As a side note, I'd also advocate deletion of all of the "Sqrtn" redirects as malformed and useless (and all recently created). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Question. Is it possible to have articles on the square root of four and square root of nine that are distinct from the numbers 2 and 3? As far as I recall, both positive and negative integers are square roots of the positive integer. BD2412 T 18:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Is it possible to have articles on the square root of four and square root of nine that are distinct from the numbers 2 and 3?" Is it possible? Of course, in the sense that it's also possible to have an article on the cheeto I found in my bathtub this morning. Is it realistic or even a good idea? No. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  This comment either misconstrues the question or, given the "cheeto in the bathtub" attitude, is unserious. Should Square root of 5 and Square root of 7 exist? These appear to be quite notable. We probably should have articles on Square root of 8 and Square root of 10. The only difference with 4 and 9 is that the square roots are whole numbers. BD2412 T 14:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  It was an inane answer to an inane question, but the point I was making was completely serious. "We probably should have articles on Square root of 8 and Square root of 10." No, we probably shouldn't; we probably shouldn't even have articles for 6 and 7 either, but I don't have the stomach to start AFDs on those. "The only difference with 4 and 9 is that the square roots are whole numbers." That's a pretty big goddamn difference, don't you think? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Please note that WP:CIVILITY is required to enjoy the right to edit here. It is part of the terms of service that you agree to abide to every time you click "Publish changes" for an edit. BD2412 T 16:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  ... square root of 10 is apparently blue and points to Square root#Square roots of positive integers. I would have no objection to retargeting these redirects there as well. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all. These redirects are more likely to confuse than clarify. Articles are better served by linking to Square root. Clicking on a link for Square root of 4 but ending up on a page about a different number (2) without an explanation may be disorienting. Brigandeur (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Um, what? How is it disorienting to search for "square root of four" and be correctly told that it is two? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  It is disorienting as a link from an article. Searching for random terms is a different usage. Should redirects be used as context-less repositories of facts, like a Jeopardy bot? For example, I wonder who the current King of England is. If I search for that term, I get redirected to the topic of the Monarchy, not the person currently holding that title. Brigandeur (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Your argument is flawed. The King of England is a temporary position and is therefore subject to change. On the other hand, the square root of any number will remain constant. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. --Plantman (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Whether a topic has a temporal component is not relevant here. I am comparing linking to a concept and linking to a specific instance. The square root of four is both constantly a square root and equal to two. My argument is that in a hypothetical discussion where the square root of four comes up, the relevant topic to link to would be the concept of a square root. Linking instead to two by way of a redirect from "square root of four" comes off as both obfuscatory and condescending. Brigandeur (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep all (and promote Draft:Square root of 4 to mainspace), and add content to the target articles about the phenomenon of their being the square roots of the smallest numbers to have whole number square roots. BD2412 T 14:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Facepalm . 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  The square root of 10 actually appears to be independently notable and mathematically significant. See Warren R. Giordano and David Fuller, "Is the Universe Cheating at Math By Using the Square Root of 10 Instead of Pi?". BD2412 T 16:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Facepalm Facepalm 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Your emojis do not seem to be winning anyone to your point of view. BD2412 T 20:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps not, but it's about all I can muster when someone with over 2 million edits suggests, with a straight face apparently, a blatantly crank physics article hosted on academia.edu as evidence of notability of the square root of 10. You lecture me on civility, and yet you waste other people's time with this stuff. All after asking of the square roots of 4 and 9 could host their own articles separate from our articles on 2 and 3. And then you go on to suggest that a nothing "property" be added to the articles on 4 and 9, which both already mention (the second in passing) that these are square numbers, which is the same thing. Come on. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  You have misread my proposal. I suggested to add something to the target articles (in this discussion, the redirect targets, 2 and 3) indicating that they are, respectively, the square roots of the smallest even and odd numbers to have whole number square roots. BD2412 T 02:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  First, that's simply not true, and second, those articles already say that they're perfect squares, which is the exact same thing as having a whole number square root. And before you proclaim "oho! then redirect them there!", no, for the reasons already stated by me and Brigandeur. I also misread nothing of the sort, you asked, point blank:

  Question. Is it possible to have articles on the square root of four and square root of nine that are distinct from the numbers 2 and 3?

  . You've turned what should be a fairly mundane discussion into a clusterfuck of red herrings and other nonsense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  It turns out that it is possible to have articles on the square root of four and square root of nine, and I'm very pleased that now we are going to have these. BD2412 T 01:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  Your face must be so red by now. BD2412 T 20:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  (working link: https://www.academia.edu/32723079/Is_the_Universe_Cheating_at_Math_By_Using_the_Square_Root_of_10_Instead_of_Pi?sm=b) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Convert Square root of 4 to article, using Draft:Square root of 4. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  Oh give it a rest...your years-long trolling with this is just disruptive, and bordering on ANI-worthy. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  If you think something is ANI-worthy, then you should take it to ANI. BD2412 T 17:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  Some people have no sense of humor. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't care what happens to the redirect but I oppose this draft going anywhere but MFD BugGhost 🦗👻 17:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all along with √4, √9, ... √225. Some redirects from mathematical expressions are useful because they correspond to the reason a number it notable or are faster to type (10^9). Others are useful because they redirect to articles about the expression (e^ipi). These are just calculator results that happen to have an article. Jruderman (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  The chance that someone is going to invoke a redirect with such an obscure character is roughly zero. Yet they're harmless. So why bother? Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  They may be harmless from a reader's perspective, but from an editor's perspective they create the impression that there is a pattern that should be followed and that more such redirects should be created (see "That was the same reason I created Square root of 9" above). Should we bother to to create them, or clean these up and move on? Brigandeur (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I feel as though redirecting these articles will lead to more debate and a domino effect. If "sqrt4" leading to "2" isn't okay for WP, then what making "2^2" redirecting to "4" okay? Why does "sqrt(-1)" redirect to "Imaginary unit"? "10^6" to "1,000,000"? Where does Wikipedia draw the line? Why not have all "derivative of n" articles redirect to 0? It seems a bit contradictory. MontanaMako (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirects are cheap. Square root of 4 is a plausible search term or wikilink, and is unambiguously the same number as 2. It should not be a separate article, but some part of Draft:Square root of 4 could plausibly be merged into a section of 2 and the redirect could point at the section. Inre the nomination's "deleted for similar reasons in a 2019 RfD" it should be noted that there was a nominator urging deletion, one "weak delete", one person who retracted their vote, and one comment; there wasn't enough discussion to draw any meaningful conclusions about interested Wikipedians' general consensus. –jacobolus (t) 03:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Cheap and unambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: A strongly-related new RfD discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 19#Square root of 25. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep square root of 4 and square root of 9 as redirects; delete sqrt4; and do not replace with the draft article. There's no harm in keeping the redirect to avoid a redlink between square root of 3 and square root of 5, though sqrt4 reads more as calculator input than a plausible search term, and any mathematical properties of the square root of 4 can be adequately discussed in the article about 2 or square root. The draft is a WP:COATRACK and WP:CONTENTFORK. ^Complex/_Rational 22:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Do you have any thoughts on what in the draft should be integrated into the article? 2 is surprisingly sparse as is, as an article on one of the most important numbers. BD2412 T 23:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a couple of sentences about squares, root rectangles and trigonometric rectangles are worth merging. But the rest could easily be written about the square root of any integer (e.g., continued fractions, terminating decimal expansions, standard deviations) by merely copying, pasting, and changing the numbers – in other words, nothing special to the number 2. ^Complex/_Rational 01:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

keep the first two, delete the third one as it seems to be a bit of a stretch. I also feel like Square root of 1 shouldn't have been deleted, but that's a different issue. --Plantman (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Not what redirects are for. Unhelpful for readers who may be trying to learn more about the topic. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • To clarify, a reader who might plausibly search for "square root of n" is most likely looking for explanation and instruction on the meaning of the operation and its calculation. They are not served by being blankly redirected to the result without any explanation. The only vaguely related explanation would be found Square root, so that is the only plausibly acceptable target, though barely, so I would favour deletion rather than retargeting. The redirects are also misleading, since -2 and -3 are also the square root of 4 and 9. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    • @Paul 012: Would it change the calculation if there was content at the target articles describing their function as the positive square roots of the redirected numbers? BD2412 T 03:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, useful. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 16:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete the 3rd one tho, implausible. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 16:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Goon H.

• Goon hi → Rangiora High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Goon high → Rangiora High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Goon High → Rangiora High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Goon High school → Rangiora High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Goon High School → Rangiora High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Delete, there is no mention of "Goon" in the target article, and doesn't appear to have ever been. The creator of the target, Ollieinc (talk · contribs), also created all these redirects. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment — It does appear to be a legitimate nickname. I'll leave it to others to determine if it should be added to the article, as I know nothing about schools, much less New Zealand. MWFwiki (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  At any rate, "goon hi" and "goon High school" don't seem to be good redirects; "hi" not being a synonym, and the odd casing of "Goon High school" -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  yeah, agreed. Would support a partial delete... eliminate "goon hi." "Goon High School" is probably fine. MWFwiki (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Partial keep Local here. As ridiculous as it sounds, I have genuinely heard the school referred to as “Goon High” more than the actual name of “Rangiora High”, including by a teacher who used to work there. The nickname is quite prevalent. If there is no other school with that name in the world then I think the redirect is appropriate.
  Regarding “Goon hi” I think that can be deleted, though that spelling may best reflect the spelling capabilities of the average student. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Probably delete. Even if Goon High School is a documented local nickname, it's unlikely that a small high school in New Zealand is the primary topic here, if there is one. My US-based Google search turns up the redirect as the first hit and then a hodge-podge of unrelated pages. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Partial keep Agree with David Palmer that it is a name that the school is commonly referred to. Keep "Goon High" and "Goon High School". The rest can go in my view. Schwede66 21:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment If we decide to keep it we should add a {{R from alternative name}}. I’m leaning towards keep for all of them. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete all, unmentioned at the target. Strong delete of "hi" and the odd casing versions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, I've added a mention to the article using MWFwiki's source. It's also discussed at Rangiora#Toponymy. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Tarrasque

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

This spelling seems to virtually always refer to the D&D monster. Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 20:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. An ngrams search shows essentially no instances of the double-r spelling until about 1988 or so, after it was used in D&D. A section hatnote could be added if desired, but I have no strong opinion on that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Dig! (website)

• Dig! (website) → Warner Music Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Comment if this is kept, hatnotes should be added at Dig! and Digg. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Freedom Flotilla Coalition

• Freedom Flotilla Coalition → Women's Boat to Gaza  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia has at least 3 articles about the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, Women's Boat to Gaza, May 2025 drone attack on Gaza Freedom Flotilla, and June 2025 Gaza Freedom Flotilla. I don't believe Women's Boat to Gaza is the primary topic. This redirect is likely to cause confusion. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - There's another page List of Freedom Flotilla Coalition articles. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - There’s Gaza freedom flotilla (disambiguation) and 2024 Gaza Freedom Flotilla Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Coast Guard News

• Coast Guard News → United States Coast Guard  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading / false-information redirect. This defunct publication has no connection the US Coast Guard other than as the main topic of its former coverage. It was a publication of Bright Mountain Media, whose big disclaimer read: "Neither the United States Coast Guard nor the Department of Homeland Security has officially approved, endorsed, or authorized this website." [8].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment "United States Coast Guard News"[9] is, per the banner at the top of the page, an official website of the US Government and United States Coast Guard News does redirect to United States Coast Guard, and it's not an implausible search term for that. Other than the official news page of the US Coast Guard Academy [10] almost all my search results are for (collections of) news stories about or featuring the USCG (the Daily Mirror features prominently in my results for some reason). Hits on Wikipedia are almost exclusively in citations though, so I'm unsure how useful a search term this is. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Fatin (307261) 2002 MS4

• Fatin (307261) 2002 MS4 → (307261) 2002 MS4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was a duplicate article created in 2016 and quickly redirected. It should be deleted as it isn't a plausible redirect; the word "Fatin" has nothing to do with this object, which was recently officially named Máni. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete. This redirect was made by a user currently blocked for vandalism. To give some context, this redirect was unwittingly made by someone who saw an IP vandal's edit that purported the name was "Fatin". Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The object was never known or named—unofficially or officially—as "Fatin". ArkHyena (they/any) 22:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information

• Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information → Hunter Biden laptop letter#Revocation of security clearances  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This can't possibly be a redirect that anybody is searching for. No article links to this incredibly long (and arguably non-neutral) title. The section it redirects to doesn't even reference this slogan(?). It's unclear what this is for other than a way to pad out the categories it's listed in. Grnrchst (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It's the formal name of the executive order. Similar to the formal name of a bill (legislation). I think it is reasonable to create redirects for formal names of these types of things. I could see someone copy pasting the formal name of this into Google, and I think we'd want it to show up. Perhaps the fix here is to keep the redirect, and edit the formal name into the target article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

If the formal name is edited into the target article, then I'd be happy to withdraw the RfD nomination. I was just taken aback by seeing this long name and it not being in the target article. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Added. Although I think that paragraph might now need some more sentences added to it, to balance out how POV towards the Trump Administration it currently is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: This is the name of the executive order that is the subject of the target article section. It is directly quoted and cited in the target section. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Myceteae and Novem Linguae. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

What tнe⃗ ♯$*! D⃗𝞱 𝓌Σ (k)πow!?

• What tнe⃗ ♯$*! D⃗𝞱 𝓌Σ (k)πow!? → What the Bleep Do We Know!?  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Weird incorrectly formatted redirect left over from a page move from 2006. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EAE7:F9A3:95C1:FDBF (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as this is an implausible mis-styled version of What tнē #$*! D̄ө ωΣ (k)πow!?. The "real" version is something a reader might plausibly copy and paste into the search bar. It strains credulity to think someone would take the time to painstakingly enter the wrong version, and that anyone who might do so would not have access to the normal or stylized renderings to find the article they are looking for. Use of the mis-styled version would obviously be inappropriate in article text and should be readily identifiable as an error. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete implausible typo Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, this is exactly how the cover is styled, with arrows over e and D, not overlines. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Where are you seeing the arrows? I just see a bunch of square boxes Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  There is a higher-resolution version of the image at [11] which clearly shows an arrow above the D and (slightly less clearly) an arrow above the e. If you're seeing square boxes then you are looking at a text rendering but lack the proper font support. As I'm not sure which character set these are from I can't point you in the direction of a font that will solve this unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. For what it's worth, the arrows are at least supposed to render above the correct character, using U+20D7 ⃗ COMBINING RIGHT ARROW ABOVE. However, I find it exceedingly unlikely that anyone is going to go through the immense hassle of rendering all this with unicode trickery, just to enter in the search box. On top of that, there are multiple arbitrary and possibly inconsistent choices in the rest of the title, like using a musical sharp instead of a normal hash (which someone would have to know about WP's technical restriction to even think of), using U+1D7B1 𝞱 MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF BOLD ITALIC SMALL THETA (why bold?), and using a regular "k" instead of U+1D458 𝑘 MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL K. So the claim above that this is "exactly" how the title is styled is objectively wrong. It was at its original title for a couple years, so that at least gets a reasonable pass as leftover from a page move. But the article was only here for a day before being moved again to its current title, so there's no reason to keep this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

List of sexualities

• List of sexual orientations → Sexual orientation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of sexualities → Outline of LGBTQ topics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of sexualities and gender identities → Outline of LGBTQ topics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of gender and sexual identities → Outline of LGBTQ topics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of genders and sexualities → Outline of LGBTQ topics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Keep the first one as is. The current target describes sexual orientations in depth and detail, talking also about various classifications of sexual orientation instead of just one, so I feel like it would be more helpful to a reader. No comment on the rest. --Plantman (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

1) Keep – Agreed with Plantman. 'Outline of human sexuality#Sexual orientation' is a brief section which even uses the MainArticle template to link to Sexual orientation; it'd be nonsensical to link to a section when there's a much more robust main article. Retarget as proposed per Trystan's rationale. After all, this is a list. Still hold on (2) as 'orientation' is just one component of the very broad idea of 'sexuality'.

2) Retarget to Human sexuality. Oppose keep because Outline of LGBTQ topics is comparatively overly broad for such a search. Oppose move to section on sexual orientation because 1) 'Sexuality' combines many more facets than simply orientation and 2) even if it didn't, we have the article 'Sexual orientation'.

3) Delete. Without a very good excuse, there's no reason to have 'List of X and Y' and 'List of Y and X' when we can simply have redirect 'List of X' and 'List of Y'. If someone wants genders, they'll type 'List of gende' and have 'List of genders' show up – likewise for sexualities and for sexual identities. If 'List of genders and sexualities' were an actual article, then sure, but these make zero practical sense. What's worse is that with three items to choose from, we have so many possible permutations. If there's strong consensus against deletion, then Keep, as because 'gender' is along for the ride, 'Outline of human sexuality' fundamentally does nothing for one entire half of the redirect, and additionally, 'sexuality' as mentioned in (2) is much more than orientation.

4) Same as (3) (and again, sexual identity is much more than orientation).

5) Same as (3).

TL;DR: Oppose all of these. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget List of sexual orientations to Outline of human sexuality#Sexual orientation and List of sexualities to Outline of human sexuality per nom. While Sexual orientation has a robust prose discussion of the topic, what it doesn't have is a concise list, which is what the search terms indicate the person is looking for. Delete the rest as improbable and uneccesary search terms per TheTechnician27.--Trystan (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  I just noticed that List of human sexuality topics already exists. What do you think @Plantman @TheTechnician27 @Trystan? LIrala (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think this one is unfortunately way too broad. If a user wants a "List of cars", they probably don't want a list that includes Cars (film), car controls, Fast & Furious, British Touring Car Championship, and speed limit – literally every topic strongly related to cars. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Lean keep List of sexual orientations and delete others. Note List of sexual orientations was retargeted to Sexual orientation per June 2022 discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual orientations. I think leaving that or retargeting to Outline of human sexuality#Sexual orientation are both reasonable options. I agree the others are implausible, and it appears none of these are used in article space. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

2019 Coahuila Challenger 604 Crash

• 2019 Coahuila Challenger 604 Crash → 2019 Coahuila Bombardier Challenger crash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2019 Coahuila Bombardier Challenger 604 crash → 2019 Coahuila Bombardier Challenger crash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The crash actually involved a Bombardier Challenger 601, so these redirects are inaccurate. Delete. Mr slav999 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep 2019 Coahuila Challenger 604 Crash, article was at this location for two years and it could break incoming links. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 01:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Miércoles

• Miércoles → Wednesday  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Viernes → Friday#"Friday" in other languages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sábado → Saturday  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sabado → Saturday  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

All names of weekdays in Spanish, fails WP:FORRED. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 21:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Such redirects exist for other languages too (I checked a few for German and French), and variously point to the corresponding day of the week article (or a section of which discussing other languages), but there's also potential discussion at various sections of Names of the days of the week. There's also some inconsistency. For example, Dimanche is a newspaper with a hatnote to WP:ONEOTHER thing, and no dab page including the weekday. I'm inclined to say that these sorts of redirects should be kept since we do have specific discussion of them, but there's probably some room to make everything more consistent here, with targets, and possibly better disambiguation. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• 'Retarget Sabado (with or without accent) to Names of days of the week. The other redirects are at least mentioned in their targets, so could either be kept or repointed there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget all to Names of days of the week#Romance languages, where they are specifically mentioned. I agree with I am bad at usernames that the current targets fail WP:FORRED. Duckmather (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget all to Names of days of the week#Romance languages per Duckmather. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe

• CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe → Disparate impact  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was a redirect to Disparate impact, the subject the case in question was supposed to be about. However that target has absolutely nothing about the case - nor should it, as the case didn't happen. I therefore restored the original article and prodded it, but the article creator re-redirected it without making any comment or any addition to the target regarding it. Therefore this is a redirect that is purposeless and should be deleted. My PROD text: Case that was not heard/was withdrawn before hearing. Was previously redirected to a topic related to the case, but was not covered there at all. Likely should not exist altogether, therefore.. Prod2 by Bearian: Settled out of court, this has no precedential value. It would likely confuse a lay person. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. We don't have lingering redirects for cases that may have gone to SCOTUS. lethargilistic (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Restore and send to AfD as a contested PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is a bit backwards as to how a PROD normally works because the prodder restored the article specifically to prod it. It was reverted back to the status quo, which in this case is a redirect, not an article. The author and only significant contributor of the article was the one who both originally redirected it back in 2021 and just now, so it's clear that no one at this point is in favor of the original article still existing in that form. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Restore this version to work with as an article. Even though the case before the Supreme Court was withdrawn, this was a notable case in the Ninth Circuit, styled as Doe v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. BD2412 T 22:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

COASTER

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

This was originally created as a left-behind redirect to Coaster (rail service), a route stylized in all caps; it was then retargeted to Coaster. I don't want to undo that unilaterally, but the NCTD COASTER is the only entry on the dab stylized in all caps. I think it should probably point back there? Not sure what standard practice is on that question, though, so just bringing it here for attention :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment the logo for The Coaster shows "The COASTER" ;; the boxart on Coaster (video game) shows "COASTER" -- so it is not the only use. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  lots of orgs use all caps text in their logo, but the San Diego COASTER is actually capitalized by the operating agency in running prose, which those publications aren't. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Keep it as is, it will cover logo stylizations properly by pointing to the disambiguation page. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Stinko

• Stinko → Lake Washington  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Stinko (slang) → Alcohol intoxication  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Stinko was originally created as a redirect to Alcohol intoxication with the edit summary slang term referring to alcohol intoxication/drunkenness. It was subsequently retargeted to Lake Washington with the rationale that it's mentioned there. However, the mention is noting that the October 5, 1963 issue of the Post Intelligencer referred to the lake as "Lake Stinko", which seems awfully trivial. Stinko (slang) still redirects to Alcohol intoxication, but the term isn't mentioned there currently. Should it? -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• In my google results the closest thing to a primary topic is mentions (in the use–mention distinction sense) of the slang term, which would suggest a soft redirect to wikt:stinko. However "closest thing to a primary topic" is not the same as "the primary topic" as there are uses of the slag term, the names of multiple characters and various other things that don't come close to being primary (or even notable in at least most cases, although characters by this name are mentioned at G.I. Carmen, Lloyd in Space and True and the Rainbow Kingdom). One topic that was not present in my search results was Lake Washington so that target is definitely wrong. In Wikipedia search results, the meaning Wiktionary gives as secondary ("of poor quality", defined elsewhere as the stronger "awful" and "abysmal") seems to be more common so alcohol intoxication as a target (even if it were mentioned) isn't the greatest either. On balance I think soft redirect to Wiktionary is probably best, but this preference is weak. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete in favour of search results which links to wikt in the sidebar. No objection to soft redirect to wikt either though. ⇌ Synpath 12:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to wikctionary, delete, or something else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia isn’t Urban Dictionary. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both. It appears there are several plausible meanings but none are highly probable and not clearly more so than the others. As Synpath points out, readers are likely best served by search results which turn up a few mentions in articles as well as Wiktionary, Wikiquote, and other results in the sidebar. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Dr. Dr.

• Dr. Dr. → Doctor Doctor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Retarget per nom and add a hatnote back to the disambiguation page. There are presently non-notable artists and songs by this title, if they become notable in future this can be reevaluated at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and add to the disambiguation page, both double doctorates and medical doctors (a doctor doctor, a real doctor, a medical doctor) -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • "Dr. Dr., title of a person with a double doctorate" is there already. Medical doctors aren't titled "Dr. Dr." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    • But they are sometimes informally referred to that way, when distinguishing between PhDs and MDs -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Either bundle Dr Dr with this, or apply the same outcome to it when this RfD is closed. Jay 💬 14:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

ABDUL RAHIM AYOUBI

• ABDUL RAHIM AYOUBI → Abdul Rahim Ayoubi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No use in all caps. I will note it was discussed previously here and was closed as keep. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep No harm and completely unambiguous. I wouldn't necessarily create this redirect, but I don't see an issue with its existence now that it does. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 13:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  I looked more into the page history and this was the original title it was at, so I think that is an even stronger argument for keep. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 13:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep it is spelled properly, so it is pointing at the right location -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. The move was done 3 minutes after creation, so that's not a valid excuse. Just delete useless redirects and be done with it. This isn't helping anyone and its existence just wastes the time of editors that look after redirects, which is harm. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Redirects exist for the readers, not the redirect wikignomes. ALLCAPS and all-miniscule are very commonly found out in the wild, where people don't particularly take care to capitalize properly, or prefer one style or another; or whose system defaults to one or the other style, ignoring capitalizations. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  But this isn't reasonably helpful for readers. All caps isn't something that's used normally. And the kicker is, if you enter an all-caps (or any random mixture of casing) title in the normal search box, it already takes you to a matching page if there is one! There's absolutely no need for the redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Redirects do, indeed, exist for the readers. The thing is...this would be more worth keeping if it was misspelled, instead of just being all caps. In that case, it would indicate it was a plausible misspelling, having happened at least once. In this case, if you type the name into the 'search' box, it pops up at the "correct" title regardless of caps; most people won't be typing it into the address bar, and those who do will (almost certainly) be "properly" capitalizing it. Basically, this is a completely pointless redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

June 8

YTV (TV channel)

• YTV (TV channel) → YTV (Canadian TV channel)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be a remnant of an old article move. There are many TV channels named "YTV" which have articles on Wikipedia; retarget to dabpage YTV. 162 etc. (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to the dab at YTV per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Retarget Per nom Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Ghost of the Goon

• Ghost of the Goon → Dodge Challenger (2008)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Related to previously-speedied WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME incident (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide_of_Nautica_Malone, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Goonicide_(Nautica_Malone). -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Unibomb

• Unibomb → Kane (wrestler)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

retarget to Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, where Unabomb and Unabom already redirect to. The current target was known as "Unabomb" and has the redirect Unabomb (wrestler). The typo "Unibomb" is much more likely to refer to UNABOM, the famous anti-tech U.S. terrorist bomber, that the pro-wrestler. A cursory websearch does not turn up wrestler Kane/Glen Jacobs as a result for "Unibomb". -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or Retarget to cryptocurrency. Unibomb is the name of a cryptocurrency. People may be searching the term to find out more about it. Thus, retargeting to Ted Kaczynski could be confusing. Katiedevi (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Cryptocurrency is a bad target, since this is unmentioned there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ted Kaczynski per nom - phonetically very similar and plausible typo for Unabomber. Unabomber derives from University and Airline Bomber, and Uni is often short for University. Reasonable redirect target. BugGhost 🦗👻 21:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Ted Kaczynski per nom. Unibomb(er) is a common misspelling, certainly plausible, probably due to phonetic similarity with the extremely common prefix uni-. The obscure crypto coin is a less likely search term than the Unabomb typo. I don't know how reliable this is but apparently Unibomb is the 41,474th ranked cryptocurrency by market cap.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Ted Kaczynski, plausible misspelling. 162 etc. (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per everyone else. The cryptocurrency doesn't have an article, as far as I'm aware, and the fake wrestler's nickname (spelt "una" rather than "uni") is derived from the much more significant Kaczynski. Nyttend (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

References

International EMMY Awars

• International EMMY Awars → Emmy Awards  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect from implausible typo or misnomer, created back in 2007 so it no longer really qualifies under WP:R3. I have corrected the only article that was using it, Lorena Berdún. It appears that the word "Awars" came from the Spanish Wikipedia's version of that article, which did not get properly translated to "Awards" when it was transwikied over here to the English Wikipedia. And it just appears that the editor who created the redirect (who has not edited since February 2025) merely clicked on the red link without noticing the error. I do not think that is enough justification to keep the redirect. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Between "EMMY" being in all caps for no apparent reason, and a missing letter in "Awars", this becomes extraordinarily implausible. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Why would someone put "EMMY" all caps and then forgot the letter d? DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 03:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for the missing "d" only. The name of the awards are stylised in all capitals in the logo so using that capitalisation to search is completely plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Factor gear

• Factor gear → The O'Reilly Factor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, a Google search brings up unrelated results. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Not used in article space and no reason to think it would/could/should be. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 20:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Edison Research

• Edison Research → National Election Pool  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I suggest deletion but open to other suggestions. This redirect is used 14 times in article space: In half (7) it refers to US elections/polling which is appropriate for the redirect; in 4 it refers to podcast or radio listenership data; in 2 articles it is referenced in relationship to elections in Georgia (country) and in 1 the reference is for elections in Venezuela. There's probably enough for a dedicated article, and a red link may inspire its creation. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm unsure whether they are notable (a few minutes searching didn't find any in-depth coverage of the organisation, as opposed to specific research they have carried out, but I don't want to say it doesn't exist) but the current target is definitely wrong per the nomination. The topic areas that were most prominent in my search results were podcast listening figures and elections in Georgia (country). Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Member I Told You

• Member I Told You → Big Brother (British TV series) series 9  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, no clear relationship. Most Google hits are just people saying this or lyrics from a song that we don't have an article on. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Enwiki has nothing on this subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Not used anywhere in article space; no evidence of meaningful or particular relationship to the target. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 17:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 20:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Influencer Smurf

• Influencer Smurf → Smurfs (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Meme about a smurf from the trailer of this movie, not mentioned in the target page. Possibly merits a mention (see e.g. [12] [13]), in which case the redirect should be kept, but I believe the character was replaced for the actual movie. Rusalkii (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of The Smurfs characters as {{R from list entry}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

PC-80

• PC-80 → PC-8000 series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

Just like how PC-88 is short for PC-8801 and PC-98 is short for PC-9801, it makes sense for PC-80 to be short for PC-8001. JumpmanMario2K6 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It definitely makes sense, I wouldn't blink if this was in fact in common usage, but as far as I can tell it in fact is not. Rusalkii (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't find evidence either. Also delete PC80 - an equally new redirect created by the same user. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The Doctors (series 1)

• The Doctors (series 1) → List of Medics (Polish TV series) episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Retarget to Doctor#Series as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Doctors series 1 as I don't see the ambiguity. Nothing else at Doctor#Series seems to have something called "series 1". -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which Doctors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Re Tavix: The Doctors (2000 TV series), The Doctors (1963 TV series), The Doctors (1969 TV series) and The Doctors (talk show) at least all have multiple series/seasons ("series" is always a plausible search term for "season" and vice versa). This is a plausible search term for the first series/season for all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you show evidence of usage of "series 1" for any of those shows? If yes, add a hatnote. If no, don't add one. So long as Doctors series 1 is at the base title, it is the de facto primary topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at both suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Googling "The Doctors series 1" the top three results are for the 2020 TV series, The Doctors (South Korean TV series), Doctor Who: The Doctors, and a book series by Louise Bay (both of which might be notable) also appear on the first page. Searching for "The Doctors" "Series 1" Doctors (2000 TV series) is the top hit, with the 2020 TV series and the talk show also making an appearance on the first page. All the evidence I can see points to there being no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

If anything, this is solid evidence that Google results should not be used to determine primary topic. The first three things you list are a series that only has a single season and a couple of things that don't have articles. None of those things are useful for the question at hand. Instead of regurgitating, can you try analyzing these results? How is "series" used in this context? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

In all cases "series" is used in the plain English sense. It is not our job to say that people using "series 1" in relation to a TV programme that didn't have a series 2 is wrong, it is our job to enable people to find the content they are looking for (not the content we think they should be looking for). It is very clear that people using the search term are not looking for a single topic, but multiple different ones. I have analysed all the information available, and it all points to the same conclusion: there is no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Saying "plain English" isn't helpful because 'series' has multiple uses in (plain) English. In television, series can be synonymous with the American English usage of season or it can be synonymous with program. I'm asking for your evidence because I do not believe you have analyzed your regurgitation of Google results to filter for the correct context. Better evidence would be linking to the specific results that uses "The Doctors series 1" to refer to each series in question. I also disagree with your assertion that Google results can be used to deduce what someone would be searching for in Wikipedia. Google's algorithm prioritizes giving a searcher a variety of different results; this is so a searcher doesn't have to scroll through a bunch of similar results to find a minority topic. This is not compatible with Wikipedia's preference to use primary topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I've presented all my evidence and explained to you my methodology and reasoning. It's now up to you to actually provide some evidence that there is actually a primary topic, rather than just repeatedly asserting I'm wrong without backing that up. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not have the burden of proof, I cannot provide evidence of absence. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Doctor#Series No clear primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Annie Knight

• Annie Knight → List of British supercentenarians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article and it isn't even clear which of the six Annies on the page this refers to. I also suggest that this Annie Knight is slightly more notable. Launchballer 08:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Based on the target page history, it looks like Knight's age has been surpassed, and she is no longer listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete No longer applicable Rklingmann (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipe

• Wikipe → Moe anthropomorphism#Computers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely target. I've never heard of "Wikipe-tans" being called "Wikipe(s)". Maybe this should be retargeted to Wikipedia, similar to Wikipedi. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 03:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. If there is an appropriate target, this isn't it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep since "-tan" is a suffix from Japanese similar to -chan/-san/-sama, so the term stripped of its honorific suffix would seem to be a variant for a redirect.Wikipetan/Wikipe/Wikipe-tan would therefore exist. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• delete as vague. how can we know which letters are missing? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 15:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per the IP, which explains how people familiar with the subject of the article can know which letters are missing. "how can we know" is bad reasoning after someone explains, and the first delete vote is basically "this is a bad redirect", which shouldn't count once someone provides an explanation. Nyttend (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I understand the IP, but I don't buy it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep (as creator): For context, this redirect came from WP:AFC/R. Per above, stripping the honorific “tan” is grounds for a “short name” redirect. I see a valid argument for retargetting to Wikipedia as well. The debate really should be where this redirect should target, and I see a better argument for leaving it alone. I struggle to see where this meets any of the WP:R#DELETE criteria. Garsh (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

June 7

Bruhat

• Bruhat → Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are also François Bruhat and Georges Bruhat. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• SIA drafted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• The draft by Shhhnotsoloud looks good. Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat isn't very commonly known as Bruhat. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

First fire

• First fire → Furnace#First fire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Exists from a previous PROD but the target is now a DAB - and the phrase doesn't appear in any of the articles Ivey (talk - contribs) 16:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Assuming the PRODed content was accurate (it was unreferenced but plausible, although mostly how-to) then this is a specific term in relation to furnaces (google suggests it isn't limited to any one type). My first thought was "origin of fire", searching that phrase led me to The Origin of Fire, which is a 1902 Finnish cantata and I would be very surprised to land there after using this search term! Control of fire by early humans is closer to what I was thinking of but I'm not certain that's close enough? It wouldn't help people who are looking for the usage in relation to furnaces, but it is linked as "earliest fire" on Template:Human timeline and it is the primary topic when I google "first fire" -Wikipedia when I exclude partial title matches of (probably non-notable) businesses and histories of fire brigades. Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Another thought I just had was when earth's atmosphere could first support (sustained) fire (I vaguely recall a PBS Eons or SciShow episode about this). Google results for my vague query string suggest this was the result of the Great Oxidation Event but that article does not include the word "fire" and nor does Neoproterozoic oxygenation event linked in the hatnote. I haven't been able to think what we would title an article about this topic, and my vague searches are just leading me to articles about the (far) future - the exact opposite of what I'm looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Fossil record of fire would be a decent article for that other thought. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed it would, thank you. Looking at this with (slightly) more awake eyes I'm thinking the best option here is either a set index/disambig or a redirect to Control of fire by early humans with hatnotes to Fossil record of fire and something related to the furnace/kiln sense if we have any relevant content. I'm about to add a hatnote from the former to the latter based on the History of fire redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 15:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Let's stop trying to guess what the very few using this multiply-ambiguous phrase might want. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete highly ambiguous -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree it’s highly ambiguous and we are just guessing with no indication readers are likely to use this term for any particular article on the site. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

East coast of Scotland

• East coast of Scotland → Scotland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - not very helpful. I rather expected an article on the east coast of Scotland. Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 15:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Geography of Scotland#Coastline which contains the most information about the east coast I've found. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget. I agree with Thryduulf's redirect. Perhaps Geography of Scotland#Main Points is a close second option. Katiedevi (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Retarget Per Thryduulf Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Chart

• Template:Chart → Template:Tree chart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Subpages added June 8th:

• Template:Chart/doc → Template:Tree chart/doc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Chart/end → Template:Tree chart/end  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Chart/end/doc → Template:Tree chart/end/doc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Chart/sandbox → Template:Tree chart/sandbox  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Chart/start → Template:Tree chart/start  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Chart/start/doc → Template:Tree chart/start/doc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Chart/start/sandbox → Template:Tree chart/start/sandbox  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Chart/testcases → Template:Tree chart/testcases  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete and move Template:ChartDisplay in its place. See Template talk:ChartDisplay#Parameter case and Wikipedia:Bot requests#Rename all usages of Chart to TreeChart. This will require a bot to replace uses of the redirect before deleting it. With mw:Extension:Chart, it makes more sense to have the template at {{Chart}}. Currently the redirect accounts for about 10% of the uses of {{Tree chart}} (900/9900). Qwerfjkltalk 11:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. No objections here. --Yodin^T 14:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: just make sure you update all pages using the redirect before making this change. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. – SD0001 (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment. feel free to ping me if/when this RFD results in a need for bot-assisted cleanup. Primefac (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• I've added the subpages as well. I haven't tagged /start and /end to avoid disrupting articles. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete since it doesn't make sense to use the generic name for a template that is a specific type of chart. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Wrong forum. This is clearly a move request. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  See discussion on which form to use here: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Rename_all_usages_of_Chart_to_TreeChart GalStar (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Psynapse

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

I apologize if this is the wrong venue. The Norwegian pro-psychedelic group Emmasofia has changed it's name to Psynapse. I can't move the article to "Psynapse" because it's occupied by this redirect. What's the proper way to handle this? Prezbo (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prezbo: The article needs to be moved to Psynapse (organization), since the subject isn't the primary topic, and this redirect should be left alone (since it appears to be a significant R with history). CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what defines a primary topic, but I would argue that the organization is more important than the comic book character. Prezbo (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• I have a hard time believing the comic book character is primary over the organization. At best, neither is, but I'd lean toward the org being primary. In either of those cases, the current redirect can be moved without leaving a redirect to a disambiguated title, and then the org can either be moved to the base title, or a dab page can be created at the base title. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Move Emmasofia to Psynapse, and put a hatnote there to List of Marvel Comics characters: P#Psynapse, consistent with Psynapse (comics). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Richie Sunak

• Richie Sunak → Rishi Sunak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Uncommon typo, unlikely to be used A1Cafel (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep My web searches indicate this typo is fairly common. I'd argue it's a plausible phonetic spelling as well. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep possible misspelling and also likely a deliberate misspelling referring to his wealth. Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 15:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - phonetically very similar, plausible spelling mistake. Redirect gets a few hits a month and is going to the right place - should be kept BugGhost 🦗👻 16:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep likely phonetic misspelling that is being used per Bugghost -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. The redirect does get a few hits but it doesn't conform to the stipulated list on WP: POFR. Web searches indicate that the name 'Richie' isn't typically used by media outlets for Rishi Sunak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiedevi (talk • contribs) 20:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Katiedevi: Seems more likely that a vandal created this redirect. This remark is entirely uncalled for. Please retract it. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  I apologise, I did not mean to cause offence. Removed. Katiedevi (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Plausible misspelling with evidence that is helps readers. Redirects are cheap. The creating editor appears quite active on UK politics pages; no reason to suspect vandalism.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep Per arguments above Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Referendum on EU membership

• Referendum on EU membership → Brexit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Clearly not referred to Brexit, most likely the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Referendums related to the European Union Several countries have had these sorts of referendums, not just the UK, so this phrase is ambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per Presidentman. Doesn't need discussion, simple error. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per above BugGhost 🦗👻 16:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Retarget To Referendums related to the European Union per above Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Retarget To Referendums related to the European Union per Presidentman. "Brexit" is Not primary topic for "Referendum on EU membership". 103.111.102.118 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

June 6

Earl Sweatshirt's third studio album

• Earl Sweatshirt's third studio album → Some Rap Songs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Placeholder name for then-untitled album. Has long been released and known by a name. Roast (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep WP:CHEAP and accurate. Someone might have forgotten the name; this redirect is pretty harmless. Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 01:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Agree, keep. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 17:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:COSTLY and mostly useless. A reader generally wouldn't (and shouldn't) expect "X's nth studio album" to be the way to find it. Looking at the page history, we see a WP:CRYSTAL ball article, which was PRODded and then redirected a couple times...this has approximately zero keep value. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Cremastra. Plausible and unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per 35... This is a bit like those pesky (unreleased...) redirects: they have no utilty shortly after the release. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per the IP. (Also, WP:CHEAP doesn't provide any validation for why a redirect should be kept or deleted ... it just states that we shouldn't concern ourselves with the server space that redirects use. Just FYI ... since I stopped linking that shortcut when I realized this myself. 😂) Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep Per Cremastra and WP:Cheap Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Earl Sweatshirt's 2nd studio album

• Earl Sweatshirt's 2nd studio album → I Don't Like Shit, I Don't Go Outside  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Placeholder name for then-untitled album. Has long been released and known by a name. Roast (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:COSTLY and mostly useless. A reader generally wouldn't (and shouldn't) expect "X's nth studio album" to be the way to find it. It was an unreferenced stub for a few days before being redirected, and there's no value in keeping it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, plausible per Cremastra's comments at #Earl Sweatshirt's third studio album and unambiguous, making this WP:CHEAP. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  ...Does anyone actually read what WP:CHEAP is about? Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per 35... This is a bit like those pesky (unreleased...) redirects: they have no utilty shortly after the release. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Jay-Z's twelfth studio album

• Jay-Z's twelfth studio album → Magna Carta Holy Grail  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Placeholder name for then-untitled album. Has long been released and known by a name. Roast (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:COSTLY and mostly useless. A reader generally wouldn't (and shouldn't) expect "X's nth studio album" to be the way to find it. This one's especially unlikely given that "twelfth" is spelled out, and that none of the other previous 11 albums have such redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep a plausible (per #Earl Sweatshirt's third studio album) and unambiguous search term, making this a WP:CHEAP redirect. Deletion would inconvenience readers without bringing any benefits. Other unambiguous redirects of the form "artist's nth studio album" should be created where relevant for the same reasons as this should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per 35... This is a bit like those pesky (unreleased...) redirects: they have no utilty shortly after the release. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep Per Thryduulf Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Todd Smith (singer)

• Todd Smith (singer) → Selah (group)#Todd Smith  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previously a standalone article and recently merged per talkpage consensus. Todd Smith (musician) is an unrelated article. Given that he is a singer, and has individual notability, it would be better to have Todd Smith (singer) retargeted to Todd Smith (musician). A hatnote can be placed at the latter article to direct readers who may be seeking the singer of Selah. 162 etc. (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Todd Smith (musician) and change the hatnote there to {{for|another musician|Selah (group)#Todd Smith}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Retarget Per Shhhnotsoloud and agree with hatnote Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Request edit/sandbox/request

• Template:Request edit/sandbox/request → Template:Edit COI/request/sandbox  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No appropriate target, the primary page redirects to Template:Edit protected of which no such subpage exists. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Robots in the Sky

• Robots in the Sky → People in Planes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Robots In The Sky → People in Planes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

[14] Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I propose to retarget to Transformers: Robots in Disguise unless anybody has any objections or can prove me otherwise why it shouldn’t redirect there. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep, the reason for the current redirect is that People in Planes includes the text "Robots in the Sky" whereas no pages listed on the disambiguation do. Mishearing the words "robots in the skies" doesn't warrant a redirect based off a Reddit with limited interactions, especially as these redirects are the singular version of that. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Misguided nomination. We don't remove redirects for valid alternative names just because someone anecdotally misheard lyrics as a child. The only concievably acceptable course of action, if you think the terms are likely to be confused, would be to add {{redirect-distinguish|Robots in the Sky|Transformers: Robots in Disguise (disambiguation)}} as a hatnote to the current target, but even that is stretching it. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Agreed with Paul_012. I understand the reference but it is quite a stretch to associate this with Transformers when there is an actual article about a band with this as its alternate name. It's not just a mishearing but a variant of the mishearing, and without the word "Transformers". — brighterorange (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Noah Parker

• Noah Parker → Atomic Betty#Noah Parker  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Noah Parker (disambiguation) → Atomic Betty#Noah Parker  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This character isn't explicitly mentioned here or at List of Atomic Betty episodes. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Noah Parker (disambiguation) per G8, as target no longer extsts. The double-redirect bots need to be programmed to flag these instead of blindly retargeting. No opinion on the plain term for now. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Noah Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- per decision Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Betty (character) to delete "Noah Parker" -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • There is no speedy deletion criterion for that. G4 does not cover redirects created in place of deleted articles, as they can not be substantially identical to the deleted pages. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Entertainment complex

• Entertainment complex → Family entertainment center  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Vague term that doesn't seem to have a commonly understood meaning. Google searches return the Civilization VI game element as the top results. Places whose name include the term seem to be a mix of varied uses, including indoor malls with cinemas, bowling alleys, etc.; integrated resorts with casinos; sports and leisure centres; and some others. The only definition I could find was from The Complete Real Estate Encyclopedia via thefreedictionary.com, which says an entertainment complex is "A shopping center that features theaters, restaurants, amusements,and related retail stores". The Wikipedia article for home entertainment center claims "entertainment complex" as a synonym, but I find that highly questionable. There don't seem to be good discrete targets that could be listed in a disambiguation page, so suggest deletion. Paul_012 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging Jothefiredragon, who first raised the issue at Talk:Family entertainment center. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• While I really want to state a specific comment. I really don't know what to say about this particular redirect.🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 09:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • redirect to Integrated Entertainment Business Bill as Reuters does use the term with this exact capitalization. “Thai lawmakers will begin deliberating a draft law for casinos and entertainment complexes next month”🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    • I would oppose retargeting to the Thai use, as it's over-specific. Entertainment complex (Thailand) could be redirected there instead. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

      @Paul 012 Wouldn't it be awkward that Entertainment complex (Thailand) becomes a redirect with a target but Entertainment complex page doesn't exist at all? 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 14:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

      Maybe; it's an imperfect scenario. At the very least, Entertainment Complex Bill should redirect to the draft law as it's bolded as a synonym in the first sentence (I'll go ahead and do so), so maybe the (Thailand) one doesn't need to be created. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• delete too vague Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. A complex is usually either multiple buildings or a building with multiple rooms. An entertainment complex would be one where those buildings/rooms provide some kind of entertainment, which is captured in Family entertainment center. I get that the use of 'entertainment complex' in Integrated Entertainment Business Bill is not as family friendly as Family entertainment center but this simply points to the fact that perhaps a new article is needed to capture the non-family friendly aspects of an entertainment complex. It does not mean that the redirect is redundant or misleading.
  I agree with Paul that redirecting to the Thai use is over-specific. Katiedevi (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as vague. Could just as well refer to Multiplex, Amusement park, and probably some other things, none of which are close enough to point to. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

SoulStice

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

This recent redirect by Cat-paw-v1 (talk · contribs) created this problem. This particular capitalization doesn't ever refer to the band this redirect now targets. FMSky (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit: Requesting close. I'm going to re-nominate at AFD.FMSky (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Revert and restore article. Improper BLAR. The discussion over the merits of the article can take place at AfD if needed. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Restore PROD with a new timer. I know that's unusual, but this is just one of a whole slew of such invalid PROD -> BLARs made by this user, and this one seems like a pretty blatant waste of AFD time. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Would also support this. I didn't check the user's contribs, but if this continues then some form of sanction is probably warranted. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

    In the future, I will think very hard before making any new redirects. (This is Cat) 67.188.75.153 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

University (Scandinavia)

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

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

• Delete per nom. We don't have any articles for which this would be a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to University college (Scandinavia). Worgisbor (congregate) 17:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to University college (Scandinavia); better target. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 07:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, whilst university colleges are usually distinct from universities University college (Scandinavia) is pretty much dedicated to explaining the differences and similarities between 'university' and 'university college' in the Scandinavian context, making this a very suitable retarget. Katiedevi (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. University colleges are a different thing, so not an appropriate target. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • It seems this was created to avoid a red link at Oslo and Akershus University College, which had been added without explanation by an IP in Special:Diff/879955703. I've reverted the change, so it's now properly orphaned. I stand by my !vote to delete, given its origin as a result of disruptive editing. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Nicholas Logan

• Nicholas Logan → Organ Trail (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Michael Abbott Jr. → Organ Trail (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Olivia Grace Applegate → Organ Trail (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

Blank, so that people are encouraged to contribute to the article. Otherwise I would also be okay with delete. Easternsahara (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, I'm new to RfD, so I'm not sure what blanking entails (what is being blanked?), but it sounds like something that I would also find agreeable. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are unsure what it means, how would you find it agreeable? Sorry, very strange response imho.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Specifically the "so that people are encouraged to contribute to the article", which is in general something I find agreeable. I would like to learn more about what exactly it means in this case, but if that is the result then I find it agreeable. I agree it does sound strange now that I reread it. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - "There is no information on any of these actors in the article" - Except there is. Absent their own page, a redirect is perfectly fine as they are associated as actors in the film. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, that was hyperbolic when it shouldn't have been. Yes, it does have information on those three actors, specifically the names of the characters they played, and for two of them a mention that they were included in the cast of the film. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Since it would not qualify under that criteria, are you going to withdraw the nomination at this point? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not intend to rely on that specific criterion, and I would like for other editors to weigh in with their own judgement. I also felt at the time that "virtually no information" included as little information as simply stating the name of a character an actor played, although I would again appreciate hearing from other editors about what is "virtually no information". IndigoManedWolf (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hearing from other editors is fine. But, what is your contention for why it needs deleted if it would not qualify under the initial criteria you cited? Those reviewing would need to know why you feel it needs deleted (e.g., the specific guideline it violates). --CNMall41 (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, I know I owe you a proper response as you are the one who created the redirects but I'm not able to give one right now. I will try in the morning. For now I will say that (in addition to the criterion I listed) as a reader, the redirect for Nicholas Logan felt jarring, and I would think similarly of the other two. I did not nominate Lukas Jann since, unlike the others, it looked like this is arguably the work he is most known for. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, very strange response. Is what it is but I would advise not nominating anything for deletion unless you have proper rationale. It can become disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, you did not say "virtually no information" in your nonimation, you stated "no information." Just pointing out the contradiction. If they qualify for standalone articles, then create them. We don't delete redirects just because a page has not yet been created. I am confused all around about the rationale of the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget Nicholas Logan to Nick Logan; Delete the others as there isn't enough substance to warrant a redirect there, and in favor of search which shows other passing mentions with a similar lack of substance. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all to allow search to do its work and encourage article creation if warranted. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:RFD#D10. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Square root of 25

• Square root of 25 → 5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Square root of 16 → 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

• Nuke from orbit...and people wonder why we cite WP:PANDORA 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Cheap and unambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CHEAP is not a reason for keeping...it's a counterargument against complaints about burdens on server resources, which no one has made. On the other hand, these are ambiguous, because while they could redirect to the value, they could just as reasonably redirect to Square root § Square roots of positive integers. And as I said in the other RFD, why stop here? Why not have Square root of 2209 -> 47 (number)? Why not 47-((2^2)*7) -> 19 (number)? Surely that's unambiguous and cheap, right? The search utility is not a calculator. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  These are not ambiguous, as the "square root of 25" is only ever "5." The same goes for "square root of 16" and "4." Anything else is mathmatically impossible and incorrect. I would have no objection to creating similar redirects for whole integers. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  But there's no encyclopedic information about "the square root of 16" at the "4" article, while the other article I mentioned has encyclopedic content about the overall concept of square roots of positive integers, so is a more appropriate encyclopedic target. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a calculator. To pretend otherwise is a misuse of the search feature.

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

  Not so, because nonzero numbers have two square roots. -4 is also a square root of 16, for example. In the biz, we say that 4 is the principal square root. All that being said, this is still pretty damned useless as a redirect. But anyway, between that and the ambiguity, it should be deleted. Would you support a bot run to make "Square root of n" redirects for every article on integers we have. If someone did it by hand, would you support keeping them all anyway? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  Why shouldn't 4 say somewhere that 4 is, in fact, the square root of 16? BD2412 T 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Personally I have no problem with redirecting Square root of 2209 to 47, though it seems kind of pointless. We get diminishing returns here, and I wouldn't personally create these past about the square roots of 9 or 16. But if you feel like making some bigger ones, knock yourself out. The other example of "47-((2^2)*7)" is utterly worthless; we don't need to turn Wikipedia's redirect engine into a full-featured calculator or make a redirect for every possible mathematical expression. –jacobolus (t) 18:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning keep. I can take or leave these, but I agree with Presidentman's point. Phrases like "Square root of 25" exist in the real world, and they will only ever mean one thing, so it does no harm to have them point there. Wikipedia is well-stocked with redirects to titles from much longer formulations (e.g., th ungainly Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor and HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay both redirect to Charles III). BD2412 T 19:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as all of accurate, unambiguous and harmless. Deletion will not bring any benefits to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, optionally redirecting to a section where 5's property of being the square root of 25 is explicitly discussed, if there is one. Redirects are cheap and in this kind of case completely harmless. It's a huge waste of time discussing these. –jacobolus (t) 18:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete WP:POINTy creations based on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_14#Square_root_of_9. There my argument for keeping doesn't apply, so this is arbitrary math just for the sake of math. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • That is the main reason why me "keep" vote is a weak one. BD2412 T 19:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep harmless, cheap, and each of them has 35 or more pageviews in the last month, suggesting that it's somewhat useful. --Plantman (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

each of them has 35 or more pageviews in the last month—that's exactly since the start of this RfD, on the same date as their creation, so that tells us absolutely nothing. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Those square roots resulting in natural numbers (or integers in general) are synonymous. It is preferable to delete them all, unless there are some specific events based on history, as in square root of 2. If someone wants to keep those, better find something to make them interesting. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete not obvious synonyms, indeed, they aren't synonyms, since there are two square roots to any positive real number. The target articles have no coverage on being roots of other numbers. WP:NOTDIC lookup for a value. Perhaps someone should create a list of square roots of positive integers if they want such things to target something useful. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Not what redirects are for. Unhelpful for readers who may be trying to learn more about the topic. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • To clarify, a reader who might plausibly search for "square root of 25" is most likely looking for explanation and instruction on the meaning of the operation and its calculation. They are not served by being blankly redirected to 5 without any explanation. The only explanation of this is in the caption of the second image in Square root, so that is the only plausibly acceptable target, though barely, so I would favour deletion rather than retargeting. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Also, these redirects are misleading because -5 and -4 are also square roots of 25 and 16. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Usually I would agree with the point that Plantman makes about page views providing a good indication about whether a redirect is useful, in line with WP:RFD#KEEP, but in this case it's quite clear that the page views have only been generated once this RfD was nominated. Anyone searching for the square root of 25 could easily also search for 5 with the help of a calculator so this redirect seems frivolous. Katiedevi (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Plantman DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 17:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete "Square root of 25" is not another name for 5. I don't see the utility of redirects that perform calculation; what criteria would we use to exclude infinitely more such calculations? An article that wants to link to 5 or the square root should just do so. It is also potentially ambiguous without saying "positive square root." — brighterorange (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• I understand both sides of this argument. They're both unnecessary redirects, but they both point to unambigously the correct article. I personally would say that Square root is the better target here, as it mentions both root 16 and root 25 in the opening paragraph and as the first illustrative diagram respectively, and give more context for the wider topic. I don't encourage anyone to make more of these redirects but I don't think these specific examples are bad enough to delete. If the retarget to square root suggestion doesn't get traction then I'd lean keep. BugGhost 🦗👻 21:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Judge Bridlegoose

• Judge Bridlegoose → Pantagruel (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Weak retarget to Gargantua and Pantagruel#The Third Book. Based on s:The Third Book, Bridlegoose is a character in the novel, so it may be helpful to the casual reader. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• Delete Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. I expressly disagree with Sdrqaz's logic above; I see redirects from unmentioned fictional characters as a form of inherently confusing fancruft. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Either revert broken bot edit and properly fix the double redirect to Gargantua and Pantagruel, to restore the original intended target (this should have been done before bringing it to RfD), or delete for lack of mention. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There's been a murder

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguate per Thryduulf's findings. I'm unfamiliar with the series so perhaps I just don't know how closely associated the phrase is with it, but it reads as much too vague to me to be a reference to just one thing, especially when that thing's article doesn't mention the phrase verbatim. I do see it in multiple headlines discussing the series ([15][16][17]) so I imagine a mention could be added. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete These uses seem quite marginal. I'm skeptical such a disambiguation page would be any more useful than search results. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per BDD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per QuietHere. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 23:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Non-British readers need to say it with a Scottish accent (see [18]). It's a popular catchphrase, evidenced by QuietHere's citations. If you want you can have a disambiguation page, but as Thryduulf implies, Taggart is the primary topic I'd say. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as there are many newspaper sources about Taggart that make use of the phrase, on account of the association of the phrase and the television show being so well established in the UK at least. This is expained well in the Observer in 2007 [19] and also covered in the Telegraph in 2008 [20]. This was still the case by the time the show reached its 35th anniversary [21]. The actor Alex Norton was in the show 2001-2010 and his autobiography uses a variation of this There's been a life! [22]. I'm surprised that Taggart article doesn't have many inline references currently- I'll attend to this when able. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm in Australia. When I run a Google search, the first eight results are a card game (2x), a book, the IMDB page for a satirical film, the card game, a different game, a card game, and a song. If this redirected anywhere, I'd expect it to go somewhere like Murder mystery (a redirect to Crime fiction), not some TV show article that happens to quote it. This isn't some long-ish quote that appears only in a single context (unlike, say, One small step for a man), but something that makes sense in a vast number of contexts. Nyttend (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ... but we don't have articles for those other things. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Earl of Inchequin: restoration of honours, manors, lands and tenements in Ireland.

• Earl of Inchequin: restoration of honours, manors, lands and tenements in Ireland. → Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of Inchiquin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Created as a redirect to the current target two years ago, but I can't see why. This sounds like a quotation of a title, but the only appearance of tenements in the article is the title of an Act of Parliament: An Act for restoring unto Murrough, alias Morgan, Earl of Insiquin, all his Honours, Manors, Lands, and Tenements, in Ireland, whereof he was in Possession on the 23th of October, 1641, or at any Time since. Since this is significantly different from the original title, I don't think it's plausible enough to retain. As well, the concluding full stop is unlikely to be included, so it's even less plausible. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Previously linked from List of acts of the Parliament of England from 1660 (Special:Permalink/1143701340). Link now points to Earl of Inchequin Restoration Act 1660. I've tagged the nominated redirect as R avoided double redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete It's a partial title match as the nominator notes, and "Inchiquin" is misspelled to boot. I don't see how this is a plausible search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, unlikely Search term. "Inchequin" is an archaic spelling, though, so I created Earl of Inchequin. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. As long as Earl of Inchequin Restoration Act 1660 is a valid redirect to this article, then this is a valid avoided double redirect, as another title of that act. A version without the terminal period should also be created. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

User:JPHestel

• User:JPHestel → User:AlphaBeta135  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This user page should not redirect to my user page as I do not own (and did not create) this account. Identical cases occurred in the following user pages: User:ExtendedConfirmed, User:Central Mass Array, and User:Rovalskia. AlphaBeta135talk 02:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• ExtendedConfirmed deleted under criterion U2. We often retain redirects for renamed users, but most of those people have used their accounts for non-trivial purposes, whilst all four of these accounts put together have just seven edits, six of which involve redirecting their userpages to you in some manner. A single edit to List of closed railway lines in Japan really isn't enough to make me believe that this is a good-faith, useful account whose renaming should be retained. All of the others should be deleted slowly, since it's preposterous to redirect User:A to User:B if the accounts aren't really related. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• All of these user pages were originally intentionally redirected by the account owners to one another, and ultimately to User:AlphaBetaGamma. If they are valid alternative accounts of AlphaBetaGamma, then revert broken bot edits and restore redirects to User:AlphaBetaGamma. Otherwise, speedy delete under G3 as bad-faith vandalism. They got redirected to AlphaBeta135's user page as a result of what I assume was an April Fools' joke when AlphaBetaGamma redirected his user page to AlphaBeta135's for a day, and the bots picked up on that. I would also make use of the trout button on AlphaBetaGamma's user page for the poorly thought out joke. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  First of all, I apologize to AlphaBeta135 for this nonsense.

  I don't even remember what I was trying to do by randomly creating an account for nothing (The redirect to this account was in fear that the accounts would be treated as a bad sock), and I don't understand how I manage to do the stupidest moves - not just limited to Wikipedia - literally anywhere on the internet every once in a while. I forgot about the accounts when I did the redirect thing on April 1, so I didn't realize the unintentional harm and disruption this would cause.

  Thank god I was notified of this earlier, because I've never successfully appealed a ban/block anywhere on the internet before, since apparently I'm too much of a failure to be considered constructive anywhere or be trusted, even in real life. I'm sure people won't believe what I say over my wrongdoings, but I really didn't mean to cause harm to Wikipedia by doing that. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  No one wants to block you, AlphaBetaGamma; Paul_012 just wasn't sure whether the accounts actually belonged to you. Would you like the userpages redirected back to your main user page, or is there something else you'd like to do with them (like adding Template:User alternative account)? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  • It's not a big deal. This is just the sort of silly mistake that trouting is for. Since that's cleared up, the obvious outcome would be to revert the bots and restore the redirects to AlphaBetaGamma's talk page (unless requested otherwise). --Paul_012 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocklog

• Wikipedia:Blocklog → Special:Log/block  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to a special page, therefore the redirect doesn't actually work (it's more like a soft redirect). I don't know if converting into a soft redirect using {{Soft redirect}}, or retarget to something like Help:Log, which describes this process. Or even retarget to the historical page Wikipedia:Historical archive/Logs/Block log, to match WP:Block log. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 02:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Technical comment If everyone thinks the current target is good, i.e. we want people searching for "WP:Blocklog" to end up at the block log special page, the technical setup shouldn't be a reason to do anything except replace the current coding with the proper {{Soft redirect}} coding. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Convert to soft redirect. This has existed since 2004, so I'd avoid messing too much with it. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Convert to a soft redirect per above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Historical archive/Logs/Block log (as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Wikipedia:Block log), which contains links to the current block log and also the various historical block logs from prior to 23 December 2004. I don't see a reason why the spaced and unspaced titles should lead to different targets. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Kim Hye-kyung

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close.

Wikipedia:MODS

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

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

Comment could also be targeted to WP:Modifications. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I've never heard "mods" as short for "modifications", only "moderators". --Plantman (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Never heard of downloading a mod for a game? Or see What is body mod. Or see Garry's Mod. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, tbh I don't really play video games. But I also don't see how any of the listed uses of "mod" are related to Wikipedia policy. I hear the term "discord mods" or "reddit mods" a lot more, and people are more likely to look for "Wikipedia:MODS" with that latter sense of the word in mind. --Plantman (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s fine. You don’t have to agree with me, I was just trying to explain my point of view. --Plantman (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate between the these topics, and WP:Bureaucrats as well -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Mods" as in moderators strikes me as the most nautral by far, "mods" as in modifications (video game or otherwise) seems unnatural in this context. My inclination would be to point to Moderators and maybe hatnote Modifications; a dab page seems excessive for a project shortcut with very small number of incoming links. We could add the crats to the Moderators disambig page as well, and then that'll cover all the topics suggested by the IP. Rusalkii (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, modifications would just be as likely, as you'd want to know what mods (modifications, software modules, addons, extensions) Wikipedia is running on MediaWiki, to figure out what functions are available. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Moderators which is a list of things that could be called "moderators". IMO, in the context of Wikipedia, "mods" as in "moderators" is a more plausible target, but a hatnote to WP:Modifications would still be useful. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Moderators with a hatnote to Wikipedia:Modifications. Malinaccier (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: retarget to Wikipedia:Moderators or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Moderators and add hatnote per above. That disambiguation page also lists failed proposals of Wikipedia moderators, which WP:MOD leads to one of them (2016 proposal). Also, should we bundle WP:MOD into this nomination? Justjourney (talk | contribs) 03:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Moderators per others above. Apparently this had been raised way back in 2009 where it was already agreed to be misleading. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: there are no actual uses of this redirect. There's the discussion about the redirect referred to by Paul_012, and there's a typo on Category talk:Concertos by Arthur Sullivan where the intent was to point to the manual of style. All other references are related to this deletion discussion. If there are no extant uses since its creation in 2007, I don't see a need to redirect it to a disambiguation page. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

ISO 3166-2:UNK

• ISO 3166-2:UNK → XK (user assigned code)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

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

• Comment this is almost certainly not a proper code as such, but a placeholder entry for when the proper value is UNKnown. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• UNK identifies Kosovo residents to whom travel documents were issued by the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK).

Bagyblazha (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Reese River Hot Springs

• Reese River Hot Springs → Reese River  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ruby Valley Hot Springs → Ruby Valley, Nevada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

@Rusalkii: I found some information on both of them when looking on google, but I'm not sure if the sources I found are reliable enough to merit inclusion of these terms in the article. E.g. this source for Reese River Hot Springs and Ruby Valley Hot Springs. I feel like the second one could be included, but I'm not 100% sure on either of them (especially the first one). I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, since you're obviously much more experienced with these types of things than I am. Thanks, --Plantman (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

First source looks like a blog-like site and not great for this. Second source is ... eh? I probably wouldn't add it personally but I wouldn't remove it if it was added. Rusalkii (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the first one warrants inclusion. I found another source for #2 though... what do you think? --Plantman (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to ping: @Rusalkii --Plantman (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks user-generated (see [23]), I'd say I prefer the first source. Rusalkii (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Shoot, you're right. I should have looked into it more; that was my fault! --Plantman (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete the first one, retarget the second one to Ruby Valley as I've added some content there about it. Special:Diff/1292630298 --Plantman (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: do either merit a mention?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

• Welcome to Wikipedia → Help:Getting started  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 15 § Welcome to Wikipedia – retarget to Wikipedia:Welcome

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

• Keep I'm often skeptical of cross-namespace redirects, but this one seems harmless and natural enough. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Per Pppery Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep; helpful. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The problem with cross-namespace redirects is generally that they're confusing (you want an article but reach a project page), especially for people who wanted something unrelated to a Wikipedia project page, but if you enter this page, you're obviously wanting something about Wikipedia itself, and you get exactly what you asked for. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 15#Welcome to Wikipedia closed with a consensus to retarget this from Wikipedia:Introduction (now Help:Introduction) to Wikipedia:Welcome, which is now a redirect to Help:Getting started. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete wrong namespace to create such a redirect. Try at WP:Welcome to Wikipedia instead. Not useful for the readership, per the low viewcount. Not an appropriate use of articlespace. Anyone making a bluelink with such, would know not to use articlespace, as an experienced user/editor. Anyone not knowning, woulding enter this anyways. if kept retarget to Main Page, the welcome portal for Wikipedia -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with all that the cross-namespace is not a concern. However, the target, which is for editors, is not appropriate either. Retarget to Help:Introduction which is for all users of Wikipedia, readers and editors, or someone who wants to start navigating, exploring, collecting information. Jay 💬 02:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed new target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Struck in favour of TheTechnician below. Jay 💬 08:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

  Below the editing links on Help:Introduction, I saw Talk Pages, Navigating Wikipedia, and Manual of Style, and thought it is a good mix of editing and reading. I agree that Wikipedia:About is better. I have struck the earlier suggestion. Jay 💬 08:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Wikipedia:About per above. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 03:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Wikipedia:About. Not a very plausible search term, but it still has a lot of incoming links from people using it in talk page messages to new users. Granted, most of them are from the very early days and it would be no huge loss if some links went red on 20-year-old user talk messages, but it's enough to sway me toward keeping it. And the new suggested target does seem better. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: Pinging Pppery, Servite et contribuere, J947, Nyttend and Thryduulf to check if the retarget suggestion changes their !vote. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, useful. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 17:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak preference for my earlier vote. Help:Getting started and Wikipedia:About are both good targets, but I prefer the help page primarily because Wikipedia:Welcome to Wikipedia targets it. If — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Use "WP".

Edard Socceryg (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Did you read the discussion above? This is for people who are unfamiliar with the concept of namespaces. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Aspro Mavro

• Aspro Mavro → Eurovision Song Contest 1987#Participating countries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Aspro-Mavro → Eurovision Song Contest 1987#Participating countries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Aspro mavro → Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 1987  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

same song; targets should be synced Duckmather (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget all to Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 1987 Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget all to Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 1987 Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Apopse As Vrethoume

• Apopse As Vrethoume → Eurovision Song Contest 1989#Participating countries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Apopse as vrethoume → Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 1989  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Apopse as vrethume → Eurovision Song Contest 1989#Participating countries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Apopse As Vrethume → Eurovision Song Contest 1989#Participating countries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

same song, targets should be synced Duckmather (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget all to Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 1989 Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget all to Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 1989 Thepharoah17 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Anna Mari-Elena

• Anna Mari-Elena → Eurovision Song Contest 1984#Participating countries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Anna Maria Lena → Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 1984  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

same song, targets should be synced Duckmather (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 1984 Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 1984 Thepharoah17 (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

All To You

• All To You → Eurovision Song Contest 2000#Participating countries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• All to You → Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2000  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

same song, targets should be synced Duckmather (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2000 Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2000 Thepharoah17 (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Thepharoah17 and Sims2aholic8: Is it ok if I boldly retarget all the rest of the Eurovision Song Contest song redirects to the "[country] in the Eurovision Song Contest [year]" articles? There are a lot of them in Category:Avoided double redirects to be updated, but sending too many to WP:RfD can be costly, so I'm just doing these few as test cases to set a precedent. Duckmather (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ya sure go ahead. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Duckmather: I support this. I had retargeted the redirect with the page history when I saw that those articles had been created, which wasn't true when I redirected the songs a few years ago, but I had forgotten to check for any potential parallel redirects that also needed to be retargeted, so apologies for that and for creating a subsequent mess! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Gooner

• Gooner → Goon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gooners → Arsenal F.C. supporters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gooning → Edging (sexual practice)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Goons → Goon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure whether there is a primary topic for these terms or not. There's masturbation, Arsenal FC fans, henchmen, and several other possible meanings. I thought about retargeting all of them to Goon (a disambiguation page), but then I started having second thoughts, and also my edit on Gooners was reverted by Golem08, so here's an RfD instead. My opinion is still to weak retarget all of them to Goon but I am open to other opinions. Duckmather (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Arsenal F.C. supporters That is the main term for it (and if anything should be the main article title under commonname but I can accept consistency with similar articles). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • The C of E, did you mean to !vote for just Gooner, or also the other nominated redirects as well? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    • @Paul 012: Gooner and Gooners to Arsenal supporters, yes. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

      "Gooner" as a synonym for soccer fans may be common in England, but I assure you that the sexual meaning is much more common elsewhere. Unlikely to be the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Goons. Plural-to-singular is nearly always better than plural-to-anythingelse. Exceptions exist, e.g. Queens (geography) doesn't go to Queen (monarch), or Gods (polytheism) doesn't go to God (monotheism), or Indies (geography) doesn't go to Indie (disambiguation for heaps of things, most non-geographical). However, it seems very unlikely that "goons" has a meaning unrelated to the plural of "goon" — to me, it evokes a Mafia boss sending a group of thugs, any of which would be "a goon". Retargeting it to people who barrack for a specific sporting club seems very unhelpful. No opinion on anything else. Nyttend (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• In three parts:
  • Gooner(s) seems ambiguous between Arsenal supporters and those who engage in gooning (masturbation). But, based on Google and Google News results, I'm tentatively convinced that Arsenal supporters are the more common usage, and for only two targets a hatnote is preferable to redirecting to a DAB where many senses won't apply. Weak unify Gooner(s) at Arsenal F.C. supporters with hatnote to Edging (sexual practice), second choice retarget to DAB.
  • Keep Gooning. The only other sense of that as a gerund is gooning (kidnapping). That sense used to be the primary landing page, but I disambiguated it and then found that 86% of clicks were going to the masturbation sense, so I retargeted there. I'd need to see strong evidence that anything else is called "gooning" nearly as often as that is to support a retarget/DAB.
  • Keep Goons per Nyttend.
• -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Gooners and retarget Gooner to Arsenal F.C. supporters for consistency as primary topic, although a hatnote would certainly be useful to avoid confusion. Goons and gooning seem fine to me. Golem08 (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Goons, Gooners, and Gooning, retarget Gooner to Arsenal F.C. supporters with hatnote Primary targets. Worgisbor (congregate) 19:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Have both Gooner and Gooners unified at Arsenal F.C. supporters with a hatnote. Keep Gooning. No opinion on Goons. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• You should consider that the English Wikipedia is actually an "international version" of Wikipedia. These links should not end in a football team article. This does not make sense at all! Besides, Arsenal is not Barcelona or Real Madrid (much more coverage). I mean they are not a big deal outside the country. Edard Socceryg (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Arsenal are not as internationally famous as Barcelona or Real Madrid, but few clubs are – there are probably only a handful of clubs in the world in any sport which reach that level of international fame. That's not a compelling reason not to redirect to the article if that is the best target – and like Tamzin I think it probably is. Do you have any evidence that some other sense of gooner/gooners would be a more appropriate target? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• I dont know about the other ones but I keep the 3rd one since I think its the primary topic and I was looking for Edging (sexual practice) when I searched "gooning" and eventually came to this. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep "Goons" pointing to "Goon" this is certainly *NOT* Arsenal and will never be Arsenal. There are so many uses, and only soccer fans will ever be related to a single particular Aresnal usage. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate "Gooning" there being Gooning (sexual practice) and Gooning (kidnapping); and acting like a goon (thug). -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget all to Goon. People can find the correct article they're looking for there. A "gooner" or "gooners" can be a slang term for someone with a sexual fetish (wiktionary). I had to look that up myself, which led to here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

June 5

ImmigrationToFinland

• ImmigrationToFinland → Immigration to Finland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Useless redirect. Implausible typo. Was page’s original title. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep as it's unambiguous, and this is also attested (though poorly so, and not always with this exact capitalization) on "immigrationtofinland" google search. Duckmather (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Target page was at this title for less than a day. Since that day occurred in 2009, this redirect is not old enough to be a valid {{R from CamelCase}}. Steel1943 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep {{R from camel case}} for a redirect created before 2010 per WP:CAMEL, where before 2010, such redirects were still occassionally created (though most stopped in 2005) -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CAMEL has only two years mentioned in it: 2001 & 2002. It's rather unclear how the "...redirect created before 2010 per WP:CAMEL..." stance can be validated or how the arbitrary year "2010" was discovered or cited. Heck, Template:R from CamelCase/doc hints that the cutoff for valid {{R from CamelCase}} redirects ended in 2003: "In 2003, efforts were begun to support the Wikimedia Foundation's goal of increasing access and availability of Wikipedia articles in printed versions. Mainspace redirects from old CamelCase titles are not suitable for a printed version." Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The Apopka Chief

• The Apopka Chief → Apopka, Florida#External links  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"The Apopka Chief" is the town newspaper which is in fact linked in the external links section. My instinctive reaction is that pointing to an external links section is obviously incorrect, but I can see the argument that this is in fact helpful. I'm not sure what to make of this redirect, thoughts? Rusalkii (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete If we do that why don’t we just redirect to its website? Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to List of newspapers in Florida#Daily and weekly newspapers (currently published), where it is mentioned with a link to the town's article, as a {{R to list entry}}. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In addition, no other such redirects target "List of newspapers in Florida", leaving me to make the same argument I made at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 4#Moldorm: "the subject of this redirect has affinity to [Apopka, Florida], meaning readers looking up this term probably are not trying to locate an article about [newspapers in Florida]." Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to list where it is mentioned, which also links to Apopka -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Bindzsisztán

• Bindzsisztán → Majka (rapper)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I believe this is a satirical reference to a fictional corrupt country mentioned in one of Majka's songs (though I am running the source through Google translate, which isn't always great with non-Indo-European languages). Not mentioned in target, a and confusing without a mention. Rusalkii (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• delete no mention in target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Bindzsisztán is a common Hungarian phrase which stems from a Majka song. It can be useful for Hungarians or anyone interested in Hungarian music or politics. I am even willing to write about Bindzsisztán in the Majka article if the problem is that it isn't mentioned in the target article. Crocusfleur (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. I added a section to the article discussing the song, mentioning "Bindzsisztán". Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Masahiro Nakai v. Fuji TV

• Masahiro Nakai v. Fuji TV → Fuji Television sexual harassment scandal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't find any usage of his phrase anywhere, and it isn't a natural way to refer to it given that the scandal here appears to be Fuji TV covering up Nakai's actions. To me, this redirect strongly implies a lawsuit which does not appear to have happened. Rusalkii (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• delete not useful if there’s no lawsuit. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Cars 2006

• Cars 2006 → Cars (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too ambiguous. Delete Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• At minimum this is ambiguous between Cars (film) and Cars (video game), for which Cars (franchise) is a better target than a dab page. I wondered about a list 2006 car models, but we don't seem to have one. We do have Category:Cars introduced in 2006 but apparently no equivalent list (and nothing about the search term indicates the searcher is wanting only cars introduced in a given year). Further, this is the only title we have starting "Cars 20" and there are none starting "Cars 19" so it's clearly not an established pattern. I'm presently torn between retargetting to Cars (franchise) as ambiguous between only a small number of things we have suitable targets for, and deletion as being too ambiguous when considering possible meanings we don't have articles for too. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak delete since the redirect in this formation could be confused with attempting to find models of cars for 2006. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree it's too unclear what someone would be intending to look for. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Shrek song

• Shrek song → All Star (song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Way too ambiguous. Delete Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
retarget to List of songs featured in Shrek after learning of that page's existence Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm more partial to "Holding Out for a Hero" myself. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  ...There's the type of page I was looking for, but didn't find earlier: retarget to List of songs featured in Shrek. Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of songs featured in Shrek. It's admittedly not an article in the greatest shape, but it feels like an appropriate alternative to deletion. Leafy46 (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Israel protests on university campuses in the United States

• Anti-Israel protests on university campuses in the United States → Gaza war protests in the United States#Universities  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Delete Would anyone ever type this? Catboy69 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Disambig. This is a plausible search term for multiple targets so we should disambiguate, not leave the reader hunting through search results (which may be several clicks/taps away) that may or may not contain the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Disambig per Thryduulf. This is a plausible search term, given that most of the protests regarding the Gaza War are anti-Israel. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Retarget to just Gaza war protests in the United States rather than Gaza war protests in the United States#Universities specifically. The latter is a subsection of the "Responses" section, and is in fact specifically about the responses to the protests and not the protests themselves, so is definitely unsuitable. The protests themselves are covered geographically, with no single subsection that covers universities, so there's no obvious better subsection target. I'm not sure 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses and 2025 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses are helpful disambiguation options since they're essentially sub-articles of Gaza war protests in the United States - in other words, everything in them is more generally covered there, and I think if people were looking for year-specific details they'd include a year. But if there are any articles that substantially cover anti-Israel campus protests that weren't in the context of the Gaza War, e.g. any prior to 2023, I'd support disambiguating with those. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Could you elaborate on why WP:CSD G5 might apply here? -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Because the user who created the redirect is a blocked sockpuppet. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate to cover the current target and the other articles mentioned by the nominator. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Filmi music

• Filmi music → Filmi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Filmi song → Filmi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Filmi Songs → Hindi film music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

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

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

• Retarget Filmi Songs to Filmi, Keep Filmi song and Filmi music targeted as they are. I agree that there seems to be an issue with Filmi's coverage being limited to India while articles like Filmi qawwali making it clear that "filmi" is not in fact India-specific. But I think it's clear the same concept is being described and this is just an issue of inadequate coverage in Filmi. I don't see the need for a DAB. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several variants suggested here, thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Vichy water

• Vichy water → Mineral water  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Remove, Vichy Catalán is the most cogent redirect. Katiedevi (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete There are enough examples of this being used generically to refer to a type of mineral water, e.g. [24], that I'm not really a fan of redirecting to Vichy Catalán. But it's clearly not covered in mineral water even if it should be. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I added Vichy Water Park to Vichy (disambiguation). Jay 💬 10:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget to Vichy Catalán or the disambig page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Dry heat

• Dry heat → Dry heat sterilization  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target does not seem to be anywhere close to a primary topic; searches are showing a mixture of cooking food (which is close to the target but not the same), natural climates in deserts, and some other stuff. There's also Dry Heat (manga) (where Dry Heat currently redirects which it shouldn't per WP:MISPLACED), and some other minor uses. Either disambiguate or delete in favor of search. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate for the sterilisation and the manga, and include any relevant articles about cooking and climate. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Stubify. I hate to argue for content creation being the outcome, but what is really needed here is a broad concept article describing what dry heat is and summarizing its applications. Normally, I'd argue for deletion to encourage article creation, but that would leave Dry Heat as the default topic for all searches, which is unsatisfactory. A disambiguation page may be an acceptable intermediate solution but there doesn't seem to be a great selection of articles that would broadly capture the various uses. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Just Do It (film)

• Just Do It (film) → Melissa McCarthy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cousin Irv from Mars → Melissa McCarthy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Cousin Irv from Mars (film) → Melissa McCarthy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention on target page or Google search results. Looks like a movie that went into production hell. Delete. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC) Actually I did find this: [25]. Ya looks like they went into production hell. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Wokepedia

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

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 28 § Wokepedia – retarget to Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship

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

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

• Comment: There are secondary sources that mention the "wokepedia" moniker explicitly (e.g. [27][28]) so it would be easy to justify adding a sentence to Views of Elon Musk#Science and technology#Wikipedia and retargeting there. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Views of Elon Musk#Science and technology#Wikipedia, the "wokipedia" tweet is quoted there and "wokepedia" is a reasonable misrembering. Rusalkii (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• The "properly" spelled Wokipedia also redirects to Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Partisanship, and can be bundled here. Also listed the RfD from last year. Jay 💬 10:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per Rusalkii. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment What about Wookieepedia, Wiccapedia, and Wicapedia? Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Wookieepedia is the only one of those that I could see this maybe being a typo for. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with BDD, this is definitely not a plausible typo or misspelling of the Wiccapedia or Wicapedia. It's not totally implausible as a mispelling of Wookieepedia, but I don't think it's close enough to merit a redirect or dab entry. I might feel differently were it Wokiepedia, Wokeepedia, Wukepedia or something like that (note I'm not encouraging the creation of these) but the redirect we have is much closer to Wokipedia so I see that as the more likely intended destination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, can you clarify on the more likely intended destination? Wokipedia is a redirect itself, so are you suggesting its destination (which is the current target)? Jay 💬 05:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Earthen Vessel

• Earthen Vessel → Reformed Baptists#Strict Baptists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "Earthen" does not appear anywhere on the target page (let alone the target section) leaving the connection unclear, nor did it appear in the version that was current when the redirect was created in 2010. In 2009 an article at this title about a Christian instrumentalist band (formed that year in Alaska) was correctly speedily deleted under A7, and google results for "Earthen Vessel" band are about a 1970s "Jesus rock" band from the midwest, which suggest that it isn't nonsense but I'm non-the-wiser about what the meaning is. All the uses I've found on Wikipedia are about earthenware, which is what I expected when I saw it in the list of titles (when researching Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 4#Earthen) and I recommend retargetting there (as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Earthen pot). Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't remember what I was thinking of when I created this, but vaguely remember going through articles for Baptist sects at one time, so I assume that I created it from some text that has since been deleted. I've got no particular background in Baptist history or culture beyond going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole a couple of years ago.

However looking up Google and this is the first hit I get for "Earthern Vessel" Baptist

https://www.baptists.net/history/category/strict-baptist-magazines/earthen-vessel/

JASpencer (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to something pottery-related, either earthenware or something better if someone can think of it. This is probably a reference to 2 Corinthians 4:7 in the King James Version (see King James Only movement, which is strong in Baptist-ism), but in a broader context it's not at all a good redirect. Nyttend (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete at this capitalisation, which infers a proper name. Earthen vessel is red. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Performative feminism

• Performative feminism → Performative activism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Any type of feminism could be performative, depending on the context. I wouldn't retarget to any of those places. The current target is more germane. But while it does mention a protest that could be characterized as feminist, it doesn't use the term, leading to the danger that a reader searching the term could be looking for more specific information than we could deliver. If we can't at least fit in a mention of feminism there, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to deletion. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

CTGP Revolution

• CTGP Revolution → Wiimmfi#CTGP Revolution  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Section at target is deleted (none of the sources were reliable and independent, just fansites), brand new redirect to brand new target serves no purpose. Fram (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. No mention at GameSpy to where the original target now redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Taking a load off

• Taking a load off → Wiktionary:taking a load off  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete this soft redirect. There are no internal links, and very little information in the wiktionary. So this seems to be a kind of bypass. Викидим (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget: Looking at its history, it's a REALLY old redirect to defecation that recently got changed to a soft redirect instead. So, retarget to defecation since no one objected to it in like a decade. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 10:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Random (inflections of, no less) idiomatic expressions shouldn't have Wikt redirects. Moreover, what the hell? It means to relax or sit down. The very old redirect was probably just vandalism. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or {{wiktionary redirect}} If I'm going to be honest, I think "Taking a load off" should just use be a {{wiktionary redirect}} template. Wiktionary has a page, but Wikipedia isn't the place for words or phrases. Delete also seems okay. SeaDragon1 (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Wiktionary or delete. Certainly do not restore "defecation" as the idiom clearly more commonly means "to relax/unburden". Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Why redirect it to our article about an online dictionary? If I looked for this phrase, I'd be almost as surprised to find it redirected to something about defecation. Nyttend (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody is suggesting retargetting this to the Wiktionary article, rather they are suggesting soft-redirect to Wikionary's entry wikt:take a load off, which defines the idiom. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: FYI, you may be the only one suggesting the redirect target Wiktionary:take a load off. (Pointing this out since I don't know if you realized Wiktionary:taking a load off exists.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Either are OK, but "take a load off" is more useful as you have to click through to that from "taking a load off" to get any information. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  I understand what you mean ... but Wikipedia is not equipped to regularly follow activity which occurs on Wikimedia sister projects (with the strong exception of Wikidata). That, and Wiktionary:taking a load off includes an explanation that it is the gerund form of Wiktionary:take a load off and even has it linked to help readers navigate to it. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Soft redirect to wikt:take a load off. Where the idiom is explained. The defecation meaning can be added there if it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion (I haven't looked). Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I have fixed the appearance of the nomination: The nomination originally stated that the nominated redirect targeted Wiktionary (an article) when it actually targets Wiktionary:taking a load off (a Wiktionary page). Steel1943 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose "retarget to Wiktionary:take a load off". The nominated redirect currently targets Wiktionary:taking a load off, which is a name/title match. (Otherwise, I have no opinion in this.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep this soft redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Coffe

• Coffe → Jean-Pierre Coffe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is this more a misspelling of coffee, or a last name? Stumbling9655 (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Coffee as a plausible misspelling. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I've changed my mind… keep but with a hatnote to Coffee (which I've just added now). CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Coffee and add a hatnote there linking to Jean-Pierre Coffe. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per CycloneYoris. Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep it is the literal spelling of the current target, instead of a misspelling. The current target already has a hatnote for the misspelling -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and tag {{R from surname}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate between Jean-Pierre Coffe, Paul Coffe, and Coffee. Searching Wikipedia for other uses shows several articles where 'coffe' is used to mean coffee... -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

K.u:K. Armee

• K.u:K. Armee → Common Army  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

It is indeed a typo - it should be visible in the edit history. If this article needs to be deleted, then by all means, go ahead. I just figured it could be useful if someone else made the same spelling mistake I did while typing it in ;) CadiaStands42 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep Seems plausible enough to be useful to me. Note that on German keyboards, . and : are on the same key. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment is this ever spelled KüK Armee or similar? If so, the umlaut is being spelled using ASCII-formatted text -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Unclear why 'u' gets special preference for the typo, and not the first and second 'k', unless of course if we get an answer to IP65's question. Jay 💬 05:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Sulphur bath

• Sulphur bath → Mineral water  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Delete - Not related - WP:R#DELETE "The redirect makes no sense" Asteramellus (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The article did sort of obliquely refer to sulfur baths until this edit by User:Livven. I'm not entirely sure about that edit - a lot of cited material cited to journals and CDC articles was removed as "unnecessary and misleading information" - but I don't think this would have been a very useful redirect even to the old version. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Unrelated to the deletion discussion, but I do want to clarify the reason behind my edit: the previous content would be as if the Multivitamin article had a section "Positive effects of multivitamins" that listed all the vitamins and their positive effects. Which may sound reasonable on the surface, but if you actually look at the article and check research on multivitamins you'll find that evidence for positive effects from multivitamin intake is weak, because most people already get enough from their regular diet.

  So even though vitamins in general are needed for health, a "Positive effects of multivitamins" section would be quite misleading, as it implies positive effects from a specific product (multivitamins) that don't exist. It would also be unnecessary, because the articles for individual vitamins presumably already contain information on their respective positive effects.

  The same logic applies to the Mineral water article. Certainly some of the minerals will have positive effects (which the previous content did have citations for), but that doesn't mean mineral water itself has positive effects, because the amounts are negligible compared to other dietary sources (e.g. calcium) and are often not be higher than tap water in the first place. So the "Positive effects of mineral water" section which I deleted was indeed misleading, and also unnecessary considering that articles for individual minerals already exist. Livven (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Balneotherapy which is a target better than Mineral spring, target of Sulphur spring. Jay 💬 10:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Safe for drinking water

• Safe for drinking water → Drinking water  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Keep. This is just water that is safe for drinking, i.e. drinking water. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that the scope of 'for' in a sentence can be ambiguous at times, however, redirecting Safe for drinking water to something like water bottle, which is what seems to have been suggested, seems odd. Personally, I don't think the 'for' is confusing in this case, however, if necessary, I'd prefer that the redirect is removed altogether rather than redirecting to another article. Katiedevi (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. As a redirect to drinking water, it's a mistyping of the phrase safe-for-drinking water (with hyphens), which is itself rare. The phrase "safe for drinking water" (with spaces) is more commonly used as an adjective phrase for a property of some pipes or bottles, analogous to food-grade. To the extent that the redirect helps with words-in-title searches intending to find drinking water, a new redirect from water that is safe to drink would be more natural. Jruderman (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, only because this a newly created redirect. We don't need an ambiguous term, when the unambiguous redirect with the same words but with hyphens per Jruderman could be created. Jay 💬 06:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Infused [Ww]ater

• Infused water → Infusion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Infused Water → Drinking water  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

Note, Infused water has a WP:BLAR'ed article hiding in its history, potentially a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Most of the Google results for "Infused water" are references to fruit/herb-infused water, which we don't have a page on at the moment. So it would be unhelpful for the vast majority of people familiar with the term "infused water". --Plantman (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Infused water wasn't BLARed, it was redirected due to the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infused water in 2017. Pinging the still-active participants @Bon courage, City of Silver, MjolnirPants, Roxy the dog, Bonadea, JzG, and Bearian:. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, I can't see the deleted content but as I recall it was complete bollocks and nothing was merged. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  It's still in the history of the redirect, and you are correct, it's bollocks. Just ad-copy language extolling the benefits of drinking it. Nothing useful to merge, really. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I recall this, even though my !vote was rather succinct.

  The capital W page was created, then moved over a redirect to the lowercase w page. The lowercase w was, at some point, a redirect to Drinking water, so a bot came along and fixed the double redirect by changing the capital W's target to the drinking water article. Later, the lowercase w's redirect was removed and it was written up as an article extolling the virtues of drinking fruit and vegatable-infused water. That's where that prior AfD came into play. That resulted in the lowercase w being blanked and redirected to Infusion.

  And now here we are.

  I'm going to be bold and change the capital W's redirect target. If this discussion forms a contrary consensus, feel free to revert me and implement it. 16:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  ...Which I have reverted per the hidden note generated by the {{Rfd}} template that states not to do that. If synching needs to occur, that can be performed at the conclusion of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  ...Yep, that's an AfD. Read through the edit history too quickly. (But ... it is still technically a WP:BLAR since nothing was merged...) Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Smerge - as I write years ago, a few sentences are all they need. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget Infused Water to Infusion (aka the current status quo as of MjolnirPants's boldness). Infusion covers infused water, Drinking water does not. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Infused Water which at that capitalisation infers a proper name such as a brand name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Desalination membrane

• Desalination membrane → Reverse osmosis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

Keep - reverse osmosis relies heavily on membranes, and the section #Desalination does mention membranes quite a bit. While it doesn't outright say "desalination membrane" (except in the references) it does talk about membranes in the context of desalination a lot. --Plantman (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Switching to weak keep, more in favour of retargetting. See below. --Plantman (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that, but the same claim could apparently be made regarding membranes for the whole concept of Desalination in general; Reverse osmosis, Membrane distillation, and Desalination all make reference to using "membranes". Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Steel1943 I feel like either Reverse osmosis or Desalination is the best place for this to point to. I'm slightly leaning towards Desalination now, because it provides an overview of all the different uses of membranes in desalination process. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it as it is (pointing to RO) if there was a consensus to do so. --Plantman (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

RO/DI

• RO/DI → Reverse osmosis#Aquariums  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

Keep The RO/DI combo is explicitly discussed in that article ("An effective combination of both RO and deionization is popular among reef aquarium keepers...") but not in Purified water#Deionization. And from discussions like [29] and [30], I get the impression that RO/DI water is considered a sort of subcategory of RO water, so even the parts of that section that don't explicitly address it might still be of interest to someone searching "RO/DI." -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as first choice, or unrefine as second choice. If aquariums are the context for this redirect, then shouldn't Marine aquarium, which has multiple mentions, be the more appropriate (but surprising) target? Water purification would have been the best, but even there RO and DI are separate sections, and not mentioned together. Jay 💬 05:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Miley cryus

• Miley cryus → Miley Cyrus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 22 § Miley cryus – keep

Useless redirect. Swapping the y and the r completely change how you say the word. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Perhaps an attempt at a pejorative name. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as a typo. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 08:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Mdewman6. Not plausible enough, and likely created as a pejorative name. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Quick internet search returns only earnest typos but no obvious pejorative uses. Brigandeur (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Random typos have no WP:AFFINITY to their target and should be neither created nor kept without some case-specific reason. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. An easy typo is reasonable, as is a non-capitalised version, but the two together don't seem sufficiently plausible. Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep adjacent character transpositions are a very common category of typo ; and entering it as all lower case (As this is, since Wikipedia does not distinguish for the leading-M between M and m) is a style some people use all the time -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for 2 errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Brigandeur - not a pejorative, unless someone explains how it is. Urban Dictionary's definition compares her with Britney Spears, which is fine, for that website. Lowercase is not an issue either, per IP65. This common typo exists within article content as well, (and I haven't fixed it yet), in List of Miley Cyrus live performances and Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too. Jay 💬 06:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  Also listed the 2013 RfD. Jay 💬 06:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Miley yrus

• Miley yrus → Miley Cyrus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 22 § Miley yrus – keep

Unlikely misspelling. Missing the first letter of a word makes it less likely then say if it misses the u for example. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We should not have redirects for missing letters of titles with no particular affinity over other missing letters. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep single character omissions are a very likely category of typo -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Mdewman6. I have listed the 2013 RfD, where it was kept at the time as part of a bulk nomination, but there was an opinion that Miley yrus is not a good redirect. Jay 💬 06:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Miley Cyprus

• Miley Cyprus → Miley Cyrus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 22 § Miley Cyprus – keep

Implausible misspelling. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The artist is not a tree country. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

My bad, that would be Cypress. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, very unlikely misspelling. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 08:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete she is not a country. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure? -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete highly implausible Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment is this an auto-correct error formatted redirect? -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  I dont know. If anyone here uses autocorrect try this. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 15:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, plausible error. Examples include [31] [32] [33]. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Penes

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

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 6 § Penes – retarget to Penis

Not a likely misspelling. Although that's how you say "penis" in Spanish, this is not the Spanish Wikipedia. This could also redirect to somewhere else. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as it is bolded in the lede as a related term. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as a standard {{R from plural}}. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless there's a very good reason, we should never delete plurals. Nyttend (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: valid plural, see the Latin and English section on Wiktionary. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - yes it is ambiguous, which is why we have Penes (disambiguation), that lists the current target as the primary topic. I have also listed the 2019 RfD. Jay 💬 07:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Defackating

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mi País, Mi Orguyo

• Mi País, Mi Orguyo → Coat of arms of Curaçao  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the motto on the short-lived winning selection before it was invalidated for copyright reasons, likely too specific to need a redirect, Alexander vee (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep But we discuss that redesign and the associated phrase. I'd keep and refine the target to Coat of arms of Curaçao#Replacement attempt. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Michael Gainer

• Michael Gainer → Buffalo ReUse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Bringing this here for discussion as reasonable minds disagree on whether it's an appropriate redirect. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gainer and User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Just_so_you_know. While I don't think the G4 applied and as such declined it, I am neutral as to the redirect's existence. Star Mississippi 02:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete and SALT this is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the consensus decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gainer. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't believe it's hurting anything. TheNewMinistry (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Not a policy-based reason to keep. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There is zero need for a Michael Gainer/Buffalo Reuse page that is constantly being written as a campaign ad for the founder rather than a history of the group. 2600:1017:B14D:558D:657D:8104:BB30:937C (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Currently my mind is split on this. The first thing, G4 would have not suffice since the page's been recreated as a redirect as opposed to the article. I have seen pages of (co)founders being redirected to the respective companies/organizations. Second, I read that AfD multiple times and, while I am getting the impression that it is a first step towards recreating as an article, circumventing the consensus, I do not see a reason not to delete the redirect as per previous precedent, but I unfortunately have to fall into the Weak keep camp in the meanwhile. I might reconsider if strong arguments were brought later. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Buffalo Reuse had no real relevance on the national scale and has been inactive for a decade. There is zero need for a Wikipedia page beyond Mr Gainer writing fluff about him and publishing it on Wikipedia during an election cycle in which he is seeking office. It’s political nonsense. 2600:1017:B14D:558D:657D:8104:BB30:937C (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Buffalo ReUse and the work we do and have done has relevance on a national scale.

  Buffalo ReUse has been continuously active as a non-profit corporation, with all the registrations required, since approximately March of 2007. It's active today.

  Michael Gainer is not the source of either of these pages. I'm scratching my head about how it's "fluff" and promotes Gainer's campaign, when the article includes negative statements about him. That makes no sense.

  We, board members and founders of Buffalo ReUse, do not care whether either of these articles exist. They do nothing to advance our mission. We have many other ways to do that, online and offline.

  Perhaps when the Buffalo Mayoral campaign is over, we can revisit whether a Wikipedia page is a good idea. Kevin Hayes (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Don't speedy delete. G4 is only for reposts, which this obviously isn't. As well, when an article is deleted on notability grounds, it's quite common (and never fundamentally problematic) to see the title recreated as a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Please consider deleting the Buffalo Reuse page. The information is not accurate and is an attempt at making another page for Michael Gainer 2600:1017:B14D:558D:657D:8104:BB30:937C (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No redirect, and the Buffalo Reuse page needs to be removed as well. Someone from Mr Gainers political team is editing it constantly to make it seem like Mr Gainer has a higher profile than he does. He’s trying to seek political office at the moment. 2600:1017:B14D:558D:657D:8104:BB30:937C (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Neither Gainer nor anyone from his political team created it. I edited the "Dissolved 2022" line at Buffalo ReUse page because that's an unequivocally false statement. Nobody else associated with Gainer is editing the page.

As I mentioned above and at the other page, Buffalo ReUse does not care whether we have a page at Wikipedia. Present or not present, it makes no difference. Kevin Hayes (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Prakriti

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

June 4

Baby Lives Matter

• Baby Lives Matter → Anti-abortion movements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Pro-freedom → Abortion-rights movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

First subject is incredibly provocative, while the second one definitely has more uses than just abortion rights and needs a retargeting, though I'm not going to determine a target myself. Redirecter has had multiple RfD noms taken here already. Nathannah • 📮 22:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete second one
  Weak keep first one but add "{{R from non-neutral name}}" template Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep the first one (you can add {{R from non-neutral name}}); delete or retarget second one. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 01:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Baby lives matter, that's unambiguous. Delete (or disambig Pro-freedom), in the context of contemporary US politics the current target might be primary, but outside that context it is highly ambiguous - there are even US political sources from 2021 using it with a different meaning, and that ignores the meanings related to meanings like pro-Hong Kong independence from China, pro-Brexit, anti-vaccine, anti-big government, pro-laissez-faire capitalism, etc that appeared high in my google results. I don't object to disambiguation, I'm just sceptical that one could be made that wasn't completely unwieldy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopedia (iPhone application)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chip Whitley

• Chip Whitley → Conan O'Brien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• The talk page comment by Ardric47 asked to look at the beginning of the target article, and the redirect creator agreed. This was 7-9 July 2005, and I don't find anything on Chip Whitley at the target around this time. Whereas in October 2005, Chip Whitley was merged to the target under the O’Brien's style section. The unsourced content, even if not fake, needn't be kept as it's minor, and may have been recentism for that time. Jay 💬 19:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

More history: The entire "Comedy and mannerisms" section (which included Chip Whitley) was moved from Conan O'Brien to Late Night with Conan O'Brien in 2006. In 2007, a vandal 207.160.40.253, removed 4 sections from Late Night with Conan O'Brien in 4 edits within one minute. Three of those were reverted immediately by three different editors, but the fourth and largest vandalism of 20,098 bytes, that included Chip Whitley, was missed by all editors. The removed content was unsourced though, so we cannot just bring it back. Jay 💬 19:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches Seems to be a long-running gag from Conan, including a sketch on his TBS show where he used the alias on Tinder, so it's definitely a plausible (though very insider) redirect. Nathannah • 📮 00:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Traveler-oriented business

• Traveler-oriented business → Travel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Leaning delete for no good target. I wouldn't expect to find articles about modes of transport from this search term, but rather an article about the business sector aimed at travellers and tourists/tourism - travel agencies, tour operators, tourist information centres, Corporate travel management, that sort of thing. However we don't have an article on that I can find tourism sector is a redlink for example (Tourism sector in Iran is the only similar title to exist, but that's obviously not a suitable target here). Businesses provided services to the travelling communities (e.g. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people (UK)), but I'd be very surprised if that was the primary topic but would definitely merit a hatnote or dab entry if we have an article. I support disambiguation in principle but I'm not sure it would be viable since I've failed to find articles that match the scope of pretty much everything I've thought of this could refer to. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Travel agency per nom. Similar redirects to travel agency are Travel company, Travel services, and Travel consolidators. Jay 💬 19:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  At least the first two of those are also refer to much broader concepts than just travel agencies and so should be deleted alongside this one if we have no suitably broad target. The third redirect is a term I'm not familiar with and haven't investigated so no comment on that now. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Thryduulf. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Thryduulf. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Cinnamon soil

• Cinnamon soil → Soil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "cinnamon" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. However, the redirect's creator did post a comment on Talk:Cinnamon soil that hints the subject may possibly have WP:REDLINK potential. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and tag as {{R with possibilities}}. If it wasn't for this RfD, you could have written the article first. Duckmather (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  ...This vote reads like a "delete per WP:REDLINK". Steel1943 (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Steel1943: No, keeping and tagging is a perfectly valid alternative to deletion. Duckmather (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete and allow Search to find the one mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete redirects without mention at target of this style are unhelpful and confusing, even if they do have possibilities. Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

High/Low phosphorus and titanium

• High phosphorus and titanium → Soil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Low phosphorus and titanium → Soil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Given that the word "titanium" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, it is unclear by the target article what these redirects are meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

My searches mostly gave me medical conditions, nutritional information, and geology. The geological term is the closest to "soil" but they seem to refer to types of rocks ([34], [35]. There's actually passing mention of both terms here, but I'm not convinced that's a very useful target, so I'm inclined to support deletion. Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 21:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Earthen

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

Seems as though this redirect could also refer to Land. Not sure if deletion or disambiguation is the best way to go, but I'm leaning towards delete. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Almost all the uses on google are as an adjective, the names of non-notable companies, or in relation to a race in World of Warcraft: The War Within. The race is mentioned multiple times at our article on the video game, but not in a way that could anchor a redirect, all other uses I've found are as adjectives (Earthen floor, Earthen dam, Earthen plaster, etc). Retarget to Earth structure and a hatnote to Earthenware (where Earthen pot redirects) or Soft redirect to Wiktionary. I don't think a disasmbiguation is viable, given that almost(?) all the entries will be partial title matches. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Given the vagueness here, it's unclear what exactly a reader is looking for here. I'm inclined to retarget to earth structure or soft redirect to wikt per Thryduulf. I don't think the hatnote is necessary, as earthen > earthenware seems like an unlikely search intention, however a hatnote could be placed at earth structure pointing to the wiktionary entry. Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 21:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

FC Rapperswil-Jona (women)

• FC Rapperswil-Jona (women) → FC Rapperswil-Jona  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Delete per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – Is a valid redirect. Svartner (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Without any information on the women's team at the target, this redirect is not helpful. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Asie Mineure

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Dance drama

• Dance drama → Wuju  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

I see quite a few results for "dance drama" on this site, so I'm inclined to suggest a DAB or something similar. Seems like a reasonable enough search term that I could believe leading to the current target (given it's a direct translation of the name) or a number of other options, so some sort of list would make the most sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Only reason I didn't DAB at creation was that we didn't seem to have any articles on the other genres of dance drama. Since WP:DAB requires at least two valid target articles, I went the redirect route. If we do have articles on these other forms of dance drama, a DAB definitely makes more sense.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Laterthanyouthink, QuietHere, what articles should this be disambiguated with? Rusalkii (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  For a start, mudra, Saang, Rabinal Achí, and Khamba Thoibi Jagoi all have redirects with pointing toward them which contain "dance drama". That makes at least five options, though that was limited to just pages with "dance drama" in the title so there may be even more past that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  The one I came across that led me to find the redirect was Kakkarissi Natakam, but there are a lot of other forms of performance that use dance drama, especially Indian ones (see Dance in India), like Kuchipudi, Bhagavata Mela, etc., and there are Indonesian and Balinese ones Wayang wong and Gambuh, and others. Dance drama is a very generic term though. I'm wondering if it should target the section Dance#Theatrical, which could be expanded to include the term, mentioning some prominent examples, and also refer to Folk dance, many of which incorporate dance drama. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe leaving as a redirect, but targeting that section to provide an overview? It might be too difficult and onerous to try to list all the possible types of dance drama on a DAB, actually. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Also Kathakali and perhaps Musicals too. The articles mentioned in this discussion don't really make a disambiguation page, but could rather be a List of dance drama forms or something such. Or a WP:BCA. Delete per WP:REDLINK. Jay 💬 06:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Monopoly: The Card Game

• Monopoly: The Card Game → Monopoly (game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

Relevant policies, guidelines, and revisions that I forgot to link to:

• WP:PRODUCT
• WP:NOR
• The revision of the redirected article before I decided to redirect it (I initially proposed the deletion, but withdrew it and chose to redirect it instead.)
• Revision of the target article with the unreliably sourced mention of the topic before I removed it

1isall (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to History of Monopoly, where it is mentioned. If sources are discovered in the future, the article can be restored from this version, which will be easier to do than if the edit history is deleted. Pinging User:Cunard to see if more sources can be found at this time. BOZ (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for that recommendation, BOZ. However, in the article History of Monopoly, the only mention of Monopoly: The Card Game appears in the section History of Monopoly#Localizations, licenses, and spin-offs as a single, passing reference. It's not substantive and lacks a citation. I believe the redirect would therefore be unsuitable for retargeting there. 1isall (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: These are the only sources I can find:
  1. "Harvard Business Review article". Harvard Business Review. Vol. 80. 2001. p. 54. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via Google Books.

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

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

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

  Cunard (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

  I don't think the sources are enough to verify content like the official rules of the game. 1isall (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  We would probably need a primary source like the instructions to do so. 1isall (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  So, what's the result of this discussion? 1isall (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think the redirect is valid, and a brief mention of the game can be restored to the article, based on the sources found above. I'll also note that Monopoly Deal, for example, mentioned there, is a card game (and so are few others). So the very generic term used here can be also plausibly used for other games mentioned there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Vasaria

• Vasaria → The Ghost of Frankenstein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Visaria → The Ghost of Frankenstein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of what this is in the stated article it links to. Seems to potentially be a village from this film, but isn't even mentioned in the plot and is relatively unimportant to the work. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. This was originally titled "Visaria" (sources indicate both spellings are used but "Vasaria" is the more common), and I've added that redirect to this nomination, and under that name it is briefly mentioned at the target but only in passing. Vasaria is mentioned at Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man#Plot, but only in passing and indeed it is linked there clearly indicating that isn't a good target. There was previously an article here, the original author (Jrm2007) declined a prod (nominated by Fabrictramp) in 2007, this was followed by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visaria which formed a consensus to redirect (ping Scope creep as the only other contributor there still active). Postcard Cathy recreated the article in 2015, Piotrus prodded that in 2020 and then restored the redirect per the AfD outcome when the prod was correctly procedurally declined (by Explicit). "Visari" also gets an unrelated passing mention at Trouble Magnet (although I'm not immediately convinced of that book's notability). All in all, whether the Frankenstein location is notable or not we don't have any useful content about it so deletion is the only viable option. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Visaria is mentioned in the plot summary there, and is perfectly fine as a redirect. If Vasaria is a common variant, it's fine to retain it (although it should be mentioned in the article, maybe as a note on naming of this entity). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Its such a small part of the plot and narrative that is barely warrants such a hatnote. This isn't like Freedonia which has more detailed information or fictional elements like Unobtainium that are used constantly. 12:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Light Quadricycle (L6e European vehicle gategory)

• Light Quadricycle (L6e European vehicle gategory) → Quadricycle (EU vehicle classification)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was created as an article in 2018 but was redirected within three hours. Because of the typo "gategory" this should be deleted; I've moved the redirected article to the correct spelling so the page history only has the move, RFD, and update to fix the double redirect. Peter James (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Community government

• Community government → List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories#Tlicho community governments  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target doesn't explain what a community government is, and the term likely has a broader scope beyond the context of a specific Canadian territory. It could also refer to one of the community governments of Belgium, for example. Perhaps this could be converted into a dab page or retargeted to a more defining location. 9ninety (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or disambig per nom. Government of the Community of Madrid implies this is not an implausible search term for the Spanish community administrations and Local government in Australia#Types of local government includes "community government" in the list of styles used in that country. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate to make it easier to find the relevant articles. Peter James (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or disamb or turn into own page. Per the above. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete!

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Witch Boy

• The Witch Boy → List of Netflix original films (since 2025)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would like this redirect deleted because there have been no updates on the film since its official announcement in 2021, and it has been removed from the target article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.209.40.250 (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe redirect to Klarion the Witch Boy for now? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Fayçal Amine Abourrass

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Thinking Rabbit games

• List of Thinking Rabbit games → Sokoban#Games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to a section of a BLARed page without significant notability; current target is unplausible. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Stacy Liu

• Stacy Liu → List of The Dumping Ground characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

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

Delete per nom. Not helpful for someone looking for info on this actress. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-BLAR history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Jordan Bautista

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Buppie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 11#Buppie

Chris Simpson (musician)

• Chris Simpson (musician) → Magna Carta (band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirects to the band of the English musician Chris Simpson. However, Chris Simpson is also the name of a notable American musician, the lead singer of Mineral (band). Google Trends shows that Mineral is more commonly searched than Magna Carta worldwide. This redirect creates confusion for users seeking information on the American musician. I propose either eliminating this redirect or creating separate redirects for "Chris Simpson (American musician)" and "Chris Simpson (English musician)". Dotdh15 (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

At the very least, the target needs a hatnote, which I have added. Also you forgot the tfd template, and I added that too. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

References

• Retarget to Christopher Simpson as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Chris Simpson (English musician) and Chris Simpson (British musician) created, but Chris Simpson (American musician) not created as there isn't a single target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

DOGE

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Trautman Hook

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

June 3

Ofo

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Imam Reza

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

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

• Probably another name of the subject, which is made clearer at Imam Reza shrine. The redirect earlier targeted Ali al-Raza which was the earlier title of the target. Similar redirects exist like:
  • Imamreza
  • Imam Musa Reza
  • Imam raza
  • Imam Riza
  • Imam ali al-raza
  • Imam ali al-riza
  • Imam ali al-reza
• Jay 💬 11:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• Delete If all RfD can do is speculate then I'd rather not. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Reza or al-Reza are names he is definitely known by; for example, Encyclopedia Iranica uses the Reza spelling instead of Rida. The only possible ambiguity I see is with Imam Reza shrine, but I feel like we should be targeting the person here instead. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WIKIMONKEY

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draftspace redirects

• Draft:I've played these games before! → Squid Game season 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Draft:Lobotomy Dash → Geometry Dash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Draft:Superman 'Starman' → Starman (song)#Social Media  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 7 § Various draftspace redirects – No consensus

Delete, because the mainspace redirects I've played these games before!, Lobotomy Dash, and Superman 'Starman' were deleted. These redirects might be eligible for deletion under G8, but I'm not really sure, so I nominated them here. Xoontor (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note these were all discussed as part of the broader batch nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 7#Various draftspace redirects which ended in no consensus just over a week ago. Given that they attracted "keep" !votes there they are not eligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: Thanks for the note. While the redirects were part of a recent discussion, WP:SPEEDY does allow for exceptions. Specifically, it states: As an exception to the norm that a page surviving its most recent deletion discussion means that it should not be speedily deleted, the following criteria apply also to those pages, with or without any specified limitations: [...] § G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page. I just wasn't sure if G8 applies here, because the pages the redirects point to are currently not deleted. Xoontor (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  If a redirect points to a page that exists it is not eligible for G8 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm thinking it may be time to discuss WP:G8 to include {{R avoided double redirect}}s whose redirect target has been deleted, such as these. WT:CSD may have something soon... but then again, may wait a bit for more precedence such as what may happen here in this discussion. (Also, WP:G8 can be argued to supersede RFD consensus, given G8's purpose, but I'm not going to push that stance any further than mentioning it.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  My main thinking is that not every avoided double redirect should be deleted just because their parent (is there a better word for that?) has. In cases where the only difference is the presence of a diacritic, yes (e.g. if Foo was deleted then Fóo should almost always be deleted too), the reverse probably more often than not but it could be that while Fóo is a bad redirect Fòo isn't and so Foo should be marked as an avoided double redirect of the latter rather than deleted. In cases where the difference is a rephrasing then it's going to be highly context-dependent whether both should be deleted for the same reason. I've actually just had an idea related to this, but it's broader than this one discussion so see WT:RFD shortly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Agreed, since these are no longer valid {{R avoided double redirect}}s, these are theoretical WP:G8 candidates. Steel1943 (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete all, and would support G8 covering redirects of this type. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget Draft:I've played these games before! to a soft redirect to the Wikiquote page on Lee_Jung-jae, other notable quotes have been soft redirected to Wikiquote (see for example That's my purse! I don't know you!). Sangjiinhwa (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: The Wikiquote page does not include the quote "I've played these games before!" anywhere. Xoontor (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Tooth (paste)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mr./Mr Trump

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 11#Mr./Mr Trump

2001 Nepal Murders

• 2001 Nepal Murders → Nepalese royal massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Royal massacre of 2001 → Nepalese royal massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2001 Nepalese massacre → Nepalese royal massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2001 Royal Family massacre → Nepalese royal massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2001royal family massacre → Nepalese royal massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think this redirect is accurate even if it is the main murder in Nepal in 2001. The same user also created about 7 other redirects, some of which I will also nominated for deletion. Moritoriko (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Can I bundle these all together somehow? Moritoriko (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but AFAIK you have to do it manually and can't use twinkle. You have to use the multi=yes template shown at Wikipedia:RFD#How_to_list_a_redirect_for_discussion. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 15:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Moritoriko: To bundle them all together, you can also use the User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD script, if you install it to your common.js. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 01:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This comment is specifically for 2001royal family massacre:

Page name isn't even properly formatted in addition to previous page issues Moritoriko (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

- Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I have merged these discussions together, but had to do a minor bit of comment refactoring to allow it to make sense (which goes against WP:TPO, so having to do a bit of WP:IAR to make this work). @Moritoriko and I am bad at usernames: Feel free to yell at me for whatever issues my refactoring caused (though I'm hoping there are no issues). Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Bless you for this, I will only yell nice things at you. <3 Moritoriko (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete the incorrectly spaced redirect, that's not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Royal massacre of 2001, 2001 Nepalese massacre, and 2001 Royal Family massacre - there were no other notable massacres in Nepal or of royals anywhere in the world in that year. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

    Okay, maybe keep 2001 Nepalese massacre but the others not mentioning nepal I still think delete. Moritoriko (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Weak keep 2001 Nepal Murders as primary topic, but add a hatnote. I'd normally suggest a hatnote to a list article, but as Category:2001 murders in Nepal includes only one article unrelated to the massacre of the royal family (Manbahadur Tamang) no such list exists so the hatnote should point either to the category or to the sole unrelated article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep all except the incorrectly spaced one. They seem reasonably direct. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete 2001royal family massacre, 2001 Nepal Murders. Keep rest. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)