Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For the reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 66 0 66
TfD 0 0 30 0 30
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 1 12 0 13
RfD 0 0 4 0 4
AfD 0 0 2 0 2

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

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

Current and past redirects for discussion (RfD) discussions

[edit]

Current discussions

[edit]

Redirects that have been nominated for discussion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

Old discussions

[edit]

After 7 days, RfDs nominations that have finished their discussion period are eligible to be closed following the deletion process.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When to delete a redirect

[edit]

Shortcuts

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

[edit]
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Banana". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
  11. If the redirect ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page or a page performing a disambiguation-like function (such as a set index of articles). Speedy deletion criterion G14 may apply.

Reasons for not deleting

[edit]
Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimategate → 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 rumorBarack 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 "AttorneygateAttorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

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

Closing notes

[edit]
Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

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

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

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If it is an inline template, use |showontransclusion=tiny instead.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

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

Current list

[edit]
Shortcuts

November 3

[edit]

Free-f+all

[edit]

What's up with the "+" in the middle of the word? Per the edit history, this title seems to exist due to reverted page move vandalism. Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proton acceptor

[edit]

Maybe should be aligned with Proton donatorProton donator. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy retarget to Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory per nom as that is a better target. I don't think this is necessarily controversial, so if there are no objections this can potentially be closed early.

Ohio Sea Grant

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, making it unclear what this redirect refers to or what content we have about this subject. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inshallah (2020 film)

[edit]

I can't determine why this redirects here, and I can't find such a film. Delete the first for being confusing because of no mention; delete second for the same, plus bad formatting. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the following is the most recent page revision with any applicable content: [1] ... and it's hiding under User:Mr. Smart LION/sandbox/Inshallah (2020 film)User:Mr. Smart LION/sandbox/Inshallah (2020 film). Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Hull

[edit]

I'm inclined to delete. This was created as a redirect to Sutton-on-Hull in July and then retargeted by the creator yesterday. Per Fandom, Sutton Hull is an animator on Battle for Dream Island. They are not mentioned in the article nor anywhere on en-wiki. When I search sutton hull without quotes I mostly get results for Sutton-on-Hull but it does not appear this place is ever called "Sutton Hull". With quotes, "sutton hull", the fandom page for the the animator is one of the top result but otherwise a surprising number of hits are for a (probably non-notable) student in Utah and other people who happen to be named Sutton Hull. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Katzrockso (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Would have a comma if used locally i.e. Sutton, Hull, to clarify which Sutton is intended. Keith D (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beefy die

[edit]

An unofficial joke name for the show that is not mentioned at target. I am RedoStone (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 20:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 20:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable nickname, unlikely people would search for it Thegoofhere (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'MINE CRAFT' redirects

[edit]

The space in particular seems really implausible. I would understand MINECRAFT as that's how the logo's stylized, but nowhen in MC's history has the logo ever been stylized with a space - not even in the Alpha releases, where the logo looked more like it was crafted using cobblestone blocks. Even though Amazon listings have occasionally used "Mine Craft" to try to get around copyright, I couldn't find a single usage of "MINE CRAFT" anywhere.
The second redirect is even LESS plausible than the first, as if you'd wanted to know about their music you'd most likely already know how to properly spell Minecraft. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP;NOTNEWS

[edit]

This is a project shortcut, created as a typo redirect. There is a guideline at WP:SCNAMES for how shortcuts have to be formatted so I'd argue that changing the shortcut naming conventions, or such exceptions would require consensus there. I have to agree, this typo happens, but I don't think it would be a good Idea to create redirects for every shortcut with semicolons. Squawk7700 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dictation test

[edit]

Retarget to Dictation (exercise). The current redirect doesn't seem like it would be what a user searching for "Dictation test" would want to see. (This is also a WP:RWP.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just a generic username (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree with retargeting. As someone who speaks Australian English, the first thing I think of when I hear "dictation test" is the immigration policy of Australia, since every child in this country learns about the dictation test of the White Australia Policy during third grade of primary school. Not everyone who uses Wikipedia uses American English or British English, and while you claim that it "doesn't seem like it would be what a user... would want to see", that is not what a typical Google search seems to corroborate, the top 50 results all relate to Australian immigration policy. Unless you can provide ample evidence that a "dictation test" is a commonly used synonym for a dictation exercise, I am in favour of keeping the redirect, or at the very least, converting it to a disambiguation page. --benlisquareT•C•E 13:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in case my geolocation is skewing the Google search results, I've conducted a fair test: here is a Google search from my Australian IP address (4 out of 4 top results relate to Australian immigration policy), here is a Google search from a United States VPN exit node with cookies cleared (2 out of 4 top results relate to Australian immigration policy), and here is a Google search from a United Kingdom VPN exit node with cookies cleared (2 out of 4 top results relate to Australian immigration policy). While it's not 4/4 like it was without the VPN, one certainly can't make the argument that the usage is completely absent when searching from the US or Britain. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Benlisquare: Thank you for the information. However, I have used four different search engines and only Google has a search result for the Australian immigration test, and Bing has a search suggestion for "dictation test australia". [2](Google), [3](DuckDuckGo),[4](Bing), and [5](Startpage). To ensure fairness, screenshots were taken by zooming out to the minimum zoom allowed, and taking a screenshot.
    Thus, I conclude that our google searches aren't enough to determine this since they contradict each other.
    So I searched Google Ngram ([6]), and the correlation between the two terms seem to be not insignificant, but not decisive either, looking purely at the recent usage. Any ideas on what else might help determine this, or whether there is a flaw in my reasoning?
    Also, please note that while Australian English's use of "dictation test" to refer to what the redirect currently points to is significant, it's probably more important to focus on how the majority of English speakers use it, and your comment appears to overemphasise the Australian usage of the term. (I checked Google Trends ([7]) and it looks like Australia accounts for 1/3 of the global usage.) But that aside, thank you for the useful information.
    Just a generic username (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 13:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tonsillitis secondary syphilis

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target nor at Tonsillitis. This appears to be a rare manifestation of syphilis and a rare cause of tonsillitis and therefore likely WP:UNDUE for inclusion at either target. Per the edit summary, this was created as part of a WP:DERM initiative to create articles or redirects for every single entry at List of skin conditions and every rare disease mentioned in a well regarded dermatology textbook. Lacking suitable content, this should be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 01:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a real thing[8][9] and the existing redirect does a good job of getting any interested reader to the most relevant article. The fact that it is {{not mentioned}} is unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a synonym of "syphilis" so the language cited at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is irrelevant. Anyone searching this already knows it has something to do with syphilis and sending them to a 6,000 word article that doesn't describe the condition isn't helpful. It's more considerate of readers' time to identify that the topic is not covered. They might then go to a search engine where they will find several case reports in a matter of second, as we both did while looking into this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 13:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this surprises some Wikipedia editors, as we're generally quite literate, but the fact is that not everyone who sees that name (e.g., on a medical report) will actually know that it's the 'syphilis' part of the name that matters instead of the 'tonsiliitis' part, especially when it's obvious that it's your throat that hurts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers with low literacy/health literacy are even less well served by this redirect. When someone searches for a specific complication of syphilis, we should not send them to a page that does not address it at all. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 14:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 13:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wood, as a medium

[edit]

created in place of an article, for... some reason. as it currently is, there's no article here. i would just refine to #uses or something, but that comma is definitely too implausible to warrant its existence consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; orphan redirect that no one is going to search for. I2Overcome talk 21:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IAP

[edit]

In the incoming links, there's numerous references to "Ignore all precedent" instead of the Infobox Australian place. This acronym needs to be disambiguated at the very least.

I would have disambiguated it now that I noticed it, but as it happens, there was previously a TfD for it, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Wikipedia:IAP, where no consensus had been reached. --Joy (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Retarget to Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent and create WP:IAUP for Template:Infobox Australian place. I2Overcome talk 21:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfur mineral

[edit]

"Sulfur mineral" could refer to any mineral that contains sulfur, many of which are not sulfides (such as the sulfates). This redirect is unnecessary and could lead to confusion. I2Overcome talk 05:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sulfur. "Sulfur mineral" often refers to S0 and readers may search for mineral sulfides, sulfates, etc. using this terminology. No objection to deletion if there ends up being more support for that. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atemporality

[edit]

Redirect to dab page from a semantic synonym. The only thing on Wikipedia that this theoretically could point to is User:Skomorokh/Atemporality. I'd have published that draft, but I have doubts about notability. Failing that, this redirect amounts to an implicit WP:DICDEF. Paradoctor (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Lindsay Recreation Center

[edit]

Not mentioned on the target page. Gilbert Lindsay Community Center is mentioned, but unlikely to be used in either case. – {{u|hekatlys}} WOOF 03:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check out its actual name on its website:[10] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elifnur Demir

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234, consider bundling these into a single nomination since they all have the same deletion rationale. At least for the next batch, if there are more coming. Thanks for your attention to cleaning up these unhelpful redirects. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Nissen

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nistha Shrestha

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Quarcoo

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christel Rei Fuentespina

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajvi Parab

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

[edit]
[edit]

Irish Legal News is not mentioned in the article about Scottish Legal News. They are apparently sister publications (see here), but it is not clear to what degree they are actually connected. So the redirect is confusing and it should be deleted. Aŭstriano (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whte House Ballroom

[edit]

Deletion (spelling error) 2601:703:201:3840:8092:EA53:ED3F:9E54 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an uncommon typo to be made, and there is no reason to keep it. This possibly could have even gone under R3, but I understand why it was not, as it lies on the edge of what is acceptable under R3 and what is not. DRWiki1102 (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big gene

[edit]

Originally merged into the target, this is no longer mentioned. "Big Gene" also appears to be a name of Gene Deal, as well as some character mentioned at List of Rolie Polie Olie episodes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find no sources that support the (personally unverifiable) book citation. Though there is apparently a gene known as BIG[11][12] for which we do not have an article. ⇌ Synpath 18:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". Redirects should not be deleted if the connection to the subject is obvious to most people, or if the redirect is correct but not appropriate for inclusion in the article, such as {{R from brand name}}. . There are licensing/copyvio problems with deleting this; very few {{R from merge}} pages should be deleted. We could make it a WP:DAB page to Gene Deal and the other pages, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider the newly suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no article on Gene Deal. The only other plausible redirect is to titin which is also largest known human gene encoding a protein, but I cannot find any support for this description for titin. Boghog (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Redirect to Dystrophin after reading Jay's comments above. Titin is a much larger protein than Dystrophin but Dystrophin is the much larger gene due to the enormous introns it contains. It comprises a remarkable 0.1% of base pairs of the human genome! Also the Dystrophin gene has been explicitly referred to the big gene in the scientific literature:
  • PMID 26295289 – discusses its “giant size” and intronic expansion as a defining feature of the big gene problem in Duchenne Dystrophy research.
  • PMID 26140716 - introduce the phrase “big gene therapy” for therapeutic approaches developed specifically for DMD.
  • PMID 33602943 - uses the phrase “big gene challenge” when discussing AAV capacity limits: “Dystrophin represents the prototypical big gene for which delivery remains the main hurdle for gene therapy.
  • PMID 38713520 - s DMD as “the big gene problem in AAV‑mediated therapy,” describing the full‑length dystrophin cDNA (~14 kb) as “too large for viral packaging” and thus the archetype of big‑gene therapeutics. Boghog (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gene#Size now contains a list of the longest genes. DMD (~2.4 Mb) is the longest, but there are a few others (CNTNAP2 (~2.3 Mb) and CSMD1 (~2.0 Mb)) that are almost as long. Boghog (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on voorts' new dab draft?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol siege redirects

[edit]

These terms by themselves are too vague to exclusively refer to the January 6 attack, whether if it's the primary topic or not. I believe these should be Retargeted to Timeline of violent incidents at the United States Capitol as similarly vague terms, Capitol attack and Capitol raid already redirect there. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well given how non-specific they are, those sound like they should be retargeted to disambiguation pages because there are definitely more examples throughout history of capitols being taken over ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? Or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep insurrection, riot, coup, and storming as these terms have been used in sources and that January 6 is the only violent incident at the Capitol that could qualify for a coup status - it is the redirect target from 2021 United States coup. Delete the others. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 16:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut (Tears for Fears song))

[edit]

Found this double end parentheses error in the new pages feed. Bypassed R3 since the page is nearly six months old, and thus seems to not qualify as "recently created" based on the CSD definition footnote. Seems implausible, so delete. Left guide (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin Time: The Random Card Game.

[edit]

Unneeded period at the end. Seems to have either been created in error, or as a temporary maintenance spot by a user without the page mover right. Either way, delete. We already have Muffin Time: The Random Card GameMuffin Time: The Random Card Game (without period). Left guide (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magistral (1982 film)

[edit]

Magistral is a 1983 film. Both redirects were created from page moves. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 22:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm unclear on the history. Was there a discrepancy in sources about the year of release or was 1982 simply an error? Are there sources that have called the movie Highway in English? I want to make sure I'm not missing a good reason why these titles were used in the first place. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 19:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clarification on Myceteae's questions and points would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ issues

[edit]

These redirects were all mass created for the recently created LGBTQ issue, the content of which was subsequently merged into LGBTQ people post AfD/DRV/Merge talk page discussion.
These redirects may wrongly imply that LGBTQ people are "an issue" with the redirects pointing to LGBTQ people, so they should be deleted as unlikely search terms. I have moved the LGBTQ issue to Issues affecting LGBTQ people which is a more appropriate title for the redirect that needs to remain due to its history needing to continue existing for attribution purposes of the merged content. Raladic (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep LGBTQ issue. The nominator's undiscussed move of the LGBTQ issue redirect (without leaving a redirect) has been undone. This is an exceptionally plausible search term. Keep the rest as well. Also plausible. The stated concern the redirect may wrongly imply that LGBTQ people are "an issue" is not not a reason to delete. The likelihood that someone will type in LGBTQ issue thinking "fixing the problem of all these LGBTQ people existing in the society" is pretty much zero, and even if someone does that, LGBTQ people is still a relevant topic for that user. The "X issue" title of the former (now merged) LGBTQ issue article was modelled after Social issue. There are other "X issue" redirects, such as Gender issue.—Alalch E. — Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhh, this framing device is covered at fairly great lengths in history in school, at least in Europe.
    Framing like this has long historic problematic use. Famously there was the "Jewish question", "The Negro problem", "The woman question", The Indian removal (also referred to as the "Indian problem"), "Abortion issue".
    The framing device of "GroupXTopicX Issue/Problem/Question" is historically as old as day, and we have some articles as I just listed that discuss these historic events in context. And while sometimes some historically negative terms have been reclaimed by groups (e.g. queer having been reclaimed by many people in the LGBTQ community from its prior use as a pejorative slur directed at them), many have not, and this framing device is not one that I've seen reclaimed in any contexts I'm aware of.
    So, your redirects now present LGBTQ, gay, lesbian, bisexual people as being a similar such issue linguistically. This is very problematic as such framing has historically been typically used in extremely negatively way, in many cases with the intent and acts of murdering/eradicating groups of people.
    Yes, we have WP:RNEUTRAL, but we also have WP:offensive material and do not allow WP:GRATUITOUS usage in all cases, this terminology is one such cases.
    If there was an article that would discuss such historic events where people have used the phrase as a propaganda mechanism and we document those atrocities, that's a different thing, but redirecting a phrase that has historically been used as a linguistic device in connection with considering the word before "issue/problem/question" to make group "the problem" does have an extremely offensive connotation.
    This is different to if the redirects you had created were called "LGBTQ people's issues", "Gay men's issues", "Bisexual people's issues", "Lesbian women's issues", like say Women's issues - this makes it clear that there are issues affecting a group - hence my move of the LGBTQ issue to Issues affecting LGBTQ people as that meant we have a redirect from a plausible neutral term.
    So, I must assume you accidentally left the English possessive apostrophe s to title them to be issues affecting this population. So, we can either move all of these to "Issues affecting GroupX" like I did for the one that we can't delete because attribution history, or we delete them, but redirecting them as they currently are, is extremely problematic without the target discussing them (like say if a historian were to liken some of the current events to historic events and points out some dictators or the like's use of the phrase in connection to it). Raladic (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • while i'll disagree with the nom's rationale that it implies they're the issue, delete all except the first one as vague anyway. there are a few issues involving them, sure, but maybe a few too many, since it goes beyond what issues involving lgbtq people currently has, so people looking for more specific topics under those vague titles will want more specific stuff. weak retarget the first one to match with lgbtq issues, but if taken to rfd again, i'd support deletion outright consarn (grave) (obituary) 11:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of all of these, I think LGBTQ issues is the most likely to be a search term. As a redirect, the question isn't whether it is neutral, as non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. I think the most likely interpretation would be something like "topics being debated or discussed related to LGBTQ people", so the appropriate target is our broad concept article covering all topics related to LGBTQ people. If the others are kept, there is no reason to redirect to LGBTQ people rather than the more specific subject article (e.g., Lesbian issue to Lesbian).--Trystan (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    oh right yeah there's also different definitions of "issue" that could apply here, i forgot about that consarn (grave) (obituary) 13:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Lesbian issue & Lesbian issues → Lesbian; Retarget Bisexual issue & Bisexual issues → Bisexuality; Keep LGBTQ issues, Gay issue, & Gay issues. These are all plausible enough and while I agree they do not make good article or dab page titles, the corresponding articles broadly cover 'issues' facing each group. Since Gay people is not an article but is a redirect to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, keep 'gay' with 'LGBTQ'. Gay men and Lesbian are each too narrow. Better to redirect this to the broader topic that is inclusive of all gay identities as an {{R from subtopic}}. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Myceteae Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 06:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "X issues" is ambiguous between "issues of X" and "issues with X". Very different things. Paradoctor (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom's move without redirect was a misuse of page mover rights per WP:PMRC, and thanks to Alalch for reverting it. The singular ones may be deleted as recently created, and not used / will not be used, for linking. The plural ones may be kept, or retargeted per Myceteae. If there are articles for the other preposition titles related to "issue" per Paradoctor, they may be disambiguated, but nom has not listed any such articles. Jay 💬 14:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with deleting the singular forms per Jay's suggestion if there is more consensus there. I still argue for retargeting/keeping the plurals per my earlier statement. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 16:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - I have no problem with "X Issue" being a redirect, if it's really something people search for and it redirects to useful content, but I have a hard time believing it's needed. "LGBTQ" is one of those terms that keeps changing to be more inclusive, so it's usefulness as a search term is pretty thin. I reviewed the original "LGBTQ Issues" article as well, and would delete it, it just seems like a non-notable alternative term. I'm really not finding anything using these terms to suggest they are widely used. Denaar (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these terms are common and widely used. LGBTQ being a term that might change does not remove the usefulness of redirects that include the term. —Alalch E. 08:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete the singular "issue" titles for the same reason that Jewish question does not redirect to Jews. Undecided on the plural "issues" titles. I guess they could be refined to point at the more appropriate articles but I see so little value in them that I question whether to keep them at all. Leaning towards weak delete on those but definitely refine them if not deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6-7

[edit]

The meme is not the primary topic here so these should be Retargeted to the 67 dabpage. Also, the first one is malplaced since the base title redirects to a title with a disambiguator. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as none of the other entries in the disamb page are pronounced "six seven" nor are rendered as "6-7". Ca talk to me! 04:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed the rap group, which is also pronounced "six-seven". ArthananWarcraft (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. In that case, I'd support redirecting Six seven to 6-7 (meme) with a WP:hatnote for now (as it is WP:PTOPIC) and revisiting the redirect once the meme's popularity fades. Ca talk to me! 08:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close now that this has changed venues (to RM): Talk:6-7 (meme)#Requested move 12 October 2025. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or wait until RM concludes but if this is still an issue after the RM closes it may be simpler to start a new RFD if needed. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget: as the requested move has indicated, "6-7" is a less common name for the meme compared to "6-7", but of course "67" cannot redirect to the meme. There is also the issue of the rap group, as mentioned above, so I would support retargeting six seven to the dabpage. Somepinkdude (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave current target (or move 6-7 (meme) to 6-7): There's no obvious reason for someone to spell other kinds of "67" in one of these weird ways. If readers come here trying to figure out WTF some unusual expression means we should take them to the answer they're looking for. Someone aiming for the dab page can click the hatnote. –jacobolus (t) 03:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The RM discussion at Talk:6-7 (meme) has been closed as "not moved". Per closing editor User:CommunityNotesContributor, "the yet to be closed RfD that predates this discussion is likely a better source of consensus or lack of as to whether this article is considered primary or not." I'll note once again that 6-7 redirecting to 6-7 (meme) is unnecessary disambiguation. Most commenters in this RFD appear to agree that the meme is the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to specify (given that I didn't) this is about 6-7 as primary redirect, not primary topic, and that being a primary redirect doesn't necessarily negate opposition to a move to primary topic either. Anyway, if this redirect is kept as is, I think an RM to assess consensus as primary topic would be more than fair enough thereafter. I imagine it'd have more support than the previous RM at least, if it remains the primary redirect that is. Regards, CNC (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation I agree that pure numbers is vague enough to need to point to a more general diambiguation ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudafed

[edit]

On Wikipedia, Sudafed is a redirect to Pseudoephedrine, despite the fact that if you go into a drug store in the United States and you find pills on the shelf that are sold under the Sudafed brand name, they will definitely not contain that drug. The drug they will contain instead is something else that has been shown to be ineffective for the purpose that it is primarily purchased for, so the current redirect seems actively misleading and thus not good from a health information perspective. Historically, "Sudafed" was a brand name used for pills containing pseudoephedrine, but that drug has been the subject of legal restrictions in the United States for about 20 years that include prohibiting its availability directly on store shelves and special identification and information tracking requirements for purchases. To get around the legal requirements, the Sudafed brand name is being used for a different (ineffective) drug. Although the brand name continues to also be used for pseudoephedrine, the product that is readily available on store shelves is not that one. If you send someone who doesn't know this to the store to buy "Sudafed", they will probably return with the other medication, because that's what they will find on the shelves and they will not know there is something else available if they make a special request for it at the pharmacy counter. (I happen to know this from personal experience.) To make matters worse, the generic name of the other drug – phenylephrine – also looks similar to pseudoephedrine at first glance. The redirect's edit history shows there have been differing opinions about what the redirect's target should be. An alternative target is Cold medicine#Brands. The claim of effectiveness of the other drug was withdrawn by the FDA in 2007 and its ineffectiveness was confirmed by an FDA panel in 2023. Even if the other drug was not ineffective, leading people to information about the wrong drug is undesirable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Pseudoephedrine#Brand names, where it is listed. It's a reasonable search term that some readers will likely use. I appreciate the complex issues raised in the nomination statement, but those things should be addressed through content at the target page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree, since that just exacerbates the problem. At least in the United States, this is primarily not a pseudoephedrine brand name, and that article contains none of this information – and it would probably be inappropriate if it did contain much about it, because such a discussion would be off-topic for a list of pseudoephedrine brand names. I think Cold medicine#Brands may be a better target, because that does not imply the use of a particular chemical ingredient, although colds are not the only reason someone might seek a decongestant. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to making the target Cold medicines, instead, but the fact remains that Sudafed is currently listed at the target I recommended, where it says: "Sudafed Decongestant (made by McNeil Consumer Healthcare) — contains 60 mg of pseudoephedrine hydrochloride. Not to be confused with Sudafed PE, which contains phenylephrine". The solution to "the problem" would be a brief clarification/correction/update at the target. If kept brief, it would not be off-topic. As noted by other editors below, another alternative, and perhaps the best one, is to recreate a full article on Sudafed. But, whatever the decision is about that, readers will potentially use this search term, so simply deleting it would be suboptimal. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Two thoughts:
    • We shouldn't write articles about worldwide brands/products as if the US were the most important frame of reference.
    • The original, pseudoephedrine-only Sudafed is available behind the counter in the US, complete with the brand-name box. Your local pharmacy probably even has signs up next to the cold medicine shelves that tells you how to get the real stuff.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a US-only phenomenon, as has been pointed out repeatedly. Some editors appear unaware of which active ingredient are sold under the Sudafed brand and the restrictions on OTC PSE in their own countries, which speaks to the problem. But even if this were primarily an US problem, why would we dismiss that as a source of ambiguity? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a similar situation with Tylenol, which had a prior RfD and is the subject of a current RM. Cold medicine#Brands may be the best option here. I'm not how to assess the notability of an OTC drug brand for having its own article. A lot of these companies don't have SIGCOV but are extremely well-known and offer a range of products with different ingredients, making the brand name ambiguous. (Note that Sudafed PE redirects to phenylephrine, which is appropriate since the 'PE' is specific to this active ingredient.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myceteae (talk • contribs) 22:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's worth noting that the medicine sold as "Sudafed" in the UK does contain pseudoephedrine[13] so deletion on the grounds that it doesn't in the US doesn't represent a worldwide view. That doesn't necessarily mean the current target is best, but things are more complex than the nominator presents. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I made any claim that the situation in the U.S. is the same outside of it, but the U.S. is a major market of this brand, and I believe it has been this way for decades. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to their website Sudafed markets a range of PSE and PE containing products in the UK. This was also the situation described in the article as of 2018. I can't speak to the situation on the ground in the UK but this is similar to the situation in the US. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is incorrect to say that "the medicine sold as "Sudafed" in the UK does contain pseudoephedrine" – some of it does, but some of it does not. The link provided above shows that pseudoephedrine is sometimes branded as Sudafed, but it does not show that all Sudafed in the UK is pseudoephedrine. Here is a link to some Sudafed for sale in the UK (and another link to a similar one). It does not contain pseudoephedrine. Here is another link to another different Sudafed for sale in the UK. It also does not contain pseudoephedrine. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We had a substantial article at the title, Sudafed, until 2016, when it appears to have been rather summarily redirected. It seems obvious to me that with the tortured history of products sold under the brand name, we should have an article at this title. BD2412 T 23:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore 2018 version. It can then be updated to reflect the brand's current state. The section on regulations can be condensed and point readers to Pseudoephedrine#Legal status for more information. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that the US is the only country where sudafed does not contain pseudoephedrine, it doesn’t make sense to change the target when the name is still largely associated with the current target. people searching for sudafed are probably looking for the page on PSE. However i do think it would make sense to add a note that the US version does not have PSE. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to their websites, Sudafed markets PE products in the UK and Australia as well. These products have various names but the boxes all have SUDAFED emblazoned on them in big letters. The old Sudafed article and the current PSE article describe similar situations in all these countries, where one cannot just walk in and grab a box of PSE off the shelf as easily as one could in the 90s. In the US, you can also still get Sudafed branded PSE products from the pharmacist. Does the average reader know that Sudafed and Sudafed Blocked Nose are different? Or that SUDAFED SINUS CONGESTION and SUDAFEDPE SINUS CONGESTION are different? Tough to say. If the old article is restored, there can be further discussion about whether it should live at Sudafed (brand) and whether there is a primary topic for Sudafed. A separate article would provide a prominent place to point people to. I think pointing to a brief description of Sudafed products at Cold medicine#Brands is another reasonable solution, if the brand doesn't warrant its own article. Another option is for Sudafed to be a dab page. This is the current situation with Tylenol though the RM discussion is moving towards pointing this to the brand, rather than the active ingredient most associated with Tylenol, which I find somewhat baffling. Zantac is a dab page, reflecting a change in active ingredient. My sense is that "Sudafed" is still more associated with PSE than any other single ingredient but that public understanding of the situation is poor. The name most accurately describes a brand that markets a variety of products in different countries. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The PE variant is also sold in New Zealand. In some places, there's also something called SUDAFEDOM with oxymetazoline as the active ingredient, although in New Zealand it appears the "OM" letters are omitted. Even in the US, the "OM" part is not included in the product title on Amazon. There are also no suffix letters on another Sudafed with xylometazoline as the active ingredient offered in New Zealand. The United States, UK, Australia, and New Zealand seems to cover a big percentage of the readers of the English Wikipedia. New Zealand seems to have similar restrictions on the availability of pseudoephedrine as in the US. Searching one particular NZ vendor's site for "Sudafed" yields this; none of the 12 products listed in the top section of that page contain pseudoephedrine. Hidden down at the bottom, marked "In Store only" are two that contain it (and one that doesn't). All with no real explanation of the differences. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In the US, the brand name Sudafed contains pseudoephedrine and the brand name Sudafed PE contains phenylephrine. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll wager that the average person thinks that SUDAFEDPE is "Sudafed". If you look at the packaging, you'll see that the "PE" is in a very small font with a different color that is styled as a superscript. The letters of PE seem to be less than half the height of the word "SUDAFED" on most of the packages. Also, as mentioned above, "Sudafed" without the "PE" is not available on store shelves, so anyone looking for Sudafed is only going to find SUDAFEDPE or some other non-pseudoephedrine Sudafed unless they already know enough to ask whether there's something else hidden somewhere. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is some "Sudafed" (without "PE" or any other suffixed or superscripted letters except ®) that doesn't contain pseudoephedrine and doesn't contain phenylephrine either. And here is another one with yet a fourth active ingredient (with no suffix). Those two are in New Zealand. Please see another comment from me above that shows some offerings in the UK. One difference in the UK seems to be that instead of being called SUDAFEDPE there, the phenylephrine pills in the UK seem to just be called SUDAFED without the PE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sudafed is pseudoephedrine in the UK.[1][2][3][4] --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Links are provided above that show that some of the "Sudafed" in the UK is not pseudoephedrine.[5][6][7] —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Sudafed Decongestant Liquid SmPC". emc. 30 May 2025. Retrieved 11 October 2025.
  2. ^ "Sudafed Decongestant Tablets SmPC". emc. 30 May 2025. Retrieved 11 October 2025.
  3. ^ https://mhraproducts4853.blob.core.windows.net/docs/c26ae44cc87ec5c6244d1756d0352bc584ad31a0
  4. ^ https://mhraproducts4853.blob.core.windows.net/docs/fe4a9711abc0c4ea0cdfcea820a2bc7353afcb2f
  5. ^ https://www.expresschemist.co.uk/Sudafed-Sinus-and-Pain-Capsules.html
  6. ^ https://www.expresschemist.co.uk/sudafed-sinus-max-strength-capsules-16.html
  7. ^ https://www.expresschemist.co.uk/product_2288_sudafed-decongestant-nasal-spray-15ml.html

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Retarget to Pseudoephedrine#Brand names - It is clear that the brand has fostered some confusion in marketing phenylephrine under confusingly similar names, and that is unhelpful. But we need to start from the perspective of an information seeking reader. If they type in Sudafed now they land on the page for the drug the brand was named for, but additionally they see a hat note prominently alerting them to the existence of Sudafed PE, containing a different drug. The brand names section suggested by BarrelProof contains the same information. Absent a specific page about Sudafed, this is the best presentation of the information. I don't think we should restore a largely unsourced page on the brand, but there is nothing preventing someone rewriting that and boldly restoring the article. That is, re-creation is certainly allowed. Before that could happen, secondary sources need to be located. The above discussion finds plenty of evidence that this brand is marketed in a somewhat misleading manner, but we don't make articles from original research. If there are secondary sources talking about the brand, an article can be re-created. Otherwise we are in WP:NOPAGE territory, and the article this points to is the best one to maintain the information that best meets the reader's information need. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The Tylenol RM recently closed as consensus to make the brand the primary topic, rather than disambiguate or make the active ingredient the primary topic. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree that it is quite slimy of them to sell pills that don't do anything to an unwitting public, on the basis that nobody will read past the brand name, or that nobody will understand the brand name means nothing and the INN is what you actually need to read. We should not aid them in this snake-oil. Probably, there should just be an article called "Sudafed" in its own right, which clearly covers the distinction here. There are lots of brand names that refer to multiple things, e.g. "Tylenol" (paracetamol) and "Tylenol #3" (paracetamol and codeine). But it's fairly uncommon that a company will start using a brand name to refer to products with entirely different drugs and not the original one (inb4 "Coca-Cola"). I am against there existing a redirect which, essentially, lies to the reader about what's in a pill. jp×g🗯️ 20:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cold medicine#Brands for the reasons listed above by everyone else. Sudafed is not a brand of pseudoephedrine, it is a brand of cold medicine that used to – and sometimes still does – contain pseudoephedrine. If someone wants to go through the trouble of creating an article draft, "Sudafed (brand)" probably has adequate RS coverage to be a standalone article, but until that happens, "cold medicine" feels best to me.-Ich (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrats (UK, 2025)

[edit]

Not sure why this exists. The party wasn't created in 2025 and there are no other Liberal Democrats in the UK to distinguish it from. Loytra✨ 15:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I've now just realised that this redirect was created by virtue of editors updating the party's infobox colours on the {{party color}} template. As the Lib Dems adopted a new colour in 2025, this page exists to allow editors to use both the new colours and old colours in different scenarios. I'll still be leaving this RfD up as this method seems a bit unusual to me — I've seen party colours be updated before but never have I come across it necessitating the creation of a new, unneeded redirect. Loytra✨ 15:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I was the one who created the redirect, for the exact reason you later mentioned. Using the redirect and it's own page name, we can preserve the historical colour of the Liberal Democrats on various parts of Wikipedia in use already. I would suggest leaving the redirect and page intact as it is benign at most. Into oblivion (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now- ideally Template:Party color would be improved with a new "year"/"version" parameter added to allow two different colours for the same party at different times. For instance "{{party color|Liberal Democrats (UK)|2025}}" to state that the post-2025 colour is used. However, at the moment the template does not have that functionality and I wouldn't be confident adding it myself, which means that the only way to use the Lib Dems' new colour in post-2025 topics without inaccurately using it for pre-2025 topics is the workaround of having "Liberal Democrats (UK, 2025)" as the party name in the template.
I have brought up this issue at Module_talk:Political_party#Allow_a_party_to_have_multiple_colors_over_time. Rusalkii (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon request, I created Scottish Liberal Democrats (2025) and Welsh Liberal Democrats (2025) for the same reason as this redirect. The conclusion of this discussion would apply to those too. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone update the module to eliminate the issue?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Syrian incident

[edit]

No mention of "1969 Syrian incident". I'm sure there were a lot of incidents that occurred in 1969 in Syria. Redirect is currently vague as is, although contains history as a GNG failing article. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Two Something Else television series

[edit]

Implausible search term. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of roles and awards of Jonathan Bailey

[edit]

The contents of this page (roles and awards) became so large that each one has their own page now (List of Jonathan Bailey performances and List of awards and nominations received by Jonathan Bailey), so this page has no reason to exist anymore. Hugo.Std95 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary elections in Maryland

[edit]

No mention at target. Note that this appears to have pretty extensive history Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sotong

[edit]

indonesian and(/or?) malay term with seemingly no affinity consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lip biting

[edit]

I'm incredulous that the pathological behavior described at the target is what most readers think of with "lip biting" and all but certain the emoji is never used this way. I suggest retargeting 🫦 to flirting but there may be better options. Several sources describe it usage this way, or as indicating sexual arousal.[14][15][16][17][18] Keeping lip biting as-is may be the best option but I'm nominating these together for full consideration. I am not proposing deletion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-17.0/U170-1FA70.pdf
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woojin Apollo 750

[edit]

Unhelpful misleading redirect, as there is no content about this vehicle model at the target. Left guide (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equity Pictures

[edit]

This redirect looks more like WP:CIRCULAR as this was created to be directed back to itself. I call for deletion until an actual target can be found or an actual article can be created for this. Intrisit (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to removing the circular link, but should Equity Pictures be mentioned in the article? Equity Pictures (2003–2013) is listed as the predecessor in the infobox but otherwise not mentioned. The History section describes other predecessors and related entities going back to the 1980's but says nothing about Equity Pictures. A quick Google search for equity pictures turns up mostly DEI-related diagrams and a few mentions of what I assume is the subject of this redirect in non-RS's. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a {{citation needed}} in the Infobox. Jay 💬 17:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
again that’s MOS:CIRCULAR Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , I guess. Someone can re-create if evidence is found and content is added to support its relationship to the current company. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region

[edit]

Deletion of the redirect because it matches WP:R#DELETE (3. The redirect is offensive and, as WP:RNEUTRAL requires for deletion, this is a case of not established terms and are unlikely to be useful) as well as two of the WP:DEL-REASON:
3. Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects;
6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources.
The redirect should be deleted, because the term "Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region" returns 0 results on Google Books and Google Scholar. Overall, this is clear vandalism, because Lithuania cannot occupy its own capital (which Vilnius was according to its Constitution) any more than the United States can occupy Washington D.C. or France occupy Paris. +JMJ+ (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems to be a redirect describing the time period from a Polish (nationalist?) point of view, as evidenced by the article title of the target on the Polish Wikipedia. I see no evidence of "vandalism" here (so I declined speedy deletion of the redirect). —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's vandalism because it's an inflammatory redirect. +JMJ+ (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    that's... not what vandalism is. you can argue it's inflammatory, sure, but that's a different thing. to be both, it'd have to be something like "that time those lithuanian chuds squatted on vilnius territory" or something consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, from Polish–Lithuanian_War#Aftermath it seems that it was internationally accepted that Vilnius was part of Poland at the time (of course that wasn't accepted in Lithuania), and so it makes sense to have a redirect describing that point of view. —Kusma (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. +JMJ+ (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. +JMJ+ (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Just a presentism POV of +JMJ+. Vilnius then Wilno was then capital, but of Republic of Central Lithuania, later a part of Second Polish Republic. And after all Kaunas Lithuania accept it, because agree to normalizing relations by 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania and as well rejected Hitler offer to invade with Germany in September (in contrast to Slovak invasion of Poland)
    The term again come from direct translation of Polish literature pl:Litewska okupacja Wileńszczyzny. Vilnius Region or Wileńszczyzna accord to Lithuanian researchers Leonas Sabaliūnas was 60% Poles, 20% Jews and only 6% Lithuanians so its not surprised that this term was coined in literature and accure in Google Books and Google Scholar Bildete (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    oh fr*ck, we're doing afd-style notifications in rfd now? i can get behind that consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • no opinion on what to actually do with this redirect, but don't delete as vandalism or inflammatory per above. unfortunately, it seems the nom's got some definitions wrong. no objection to deleting it over pretty much any other criterion, but vandalism almost definitely isn't it. if it's from a polish pov, it might be inflammatory, but i'm not experienced enough in this area to confirm that it comes from just really hating lithuania beyond "it seems lithuania and poland were wrestling over it for a while", to which mild confusion seems just as likely of a reason to search for something like this mid-studying-about-events-that-happened-during-hitler's-existence consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You yourself acknowledge your lack of experience and knowledge in this area. It most definitely is vandalism, unless you think that seriously talking about a "Japanese occupation of Tokyo" or "Russian occupation of Moscow" is not inflammatory. +JMJ+ (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except as far as I know, "Japanese occupation of Tokyo" and "Russian occupation of Moscow" are not terms that people use. On the other hand, "Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region" appears in Polish sources and according to the links provided by the (now blocked) redirect creator the related term "Lithuanian occupation of Vilnius" appears in English sources as well. Translating a foreign name into English and redirecting it just isn't vandalism. It might be POV pushing beyond what WP:RNEUTRAL allows, it might fail WP:FORRED or WP:R#D8 but in general you can easily imagine an editor in good faith doing it to facilitate searching by ESL users of the encyclopedia. Note that like consarn, I don't have an opinion on the redirect beyond "it's not vandalism". Warudo (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    that's... still not what vandalism is. it's geographically wrong, sure, but it's got mentions, and the redirect seems to have been created based on them, and not in an attempt to deliberately disturb the wiki or take a shot at lithuania. you also haven't really argued for why you think it's inflammatory beyond "it clearly is", so the best assumption anyone can make is unfortunately pov pushing
    of course, this doesn't disqualify the redirect from actually being pov pushing itself, but that seems to be on a per-reader basis. as for me, with the evidence currently presented, i don't see how that would be the case consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    if comparisons are needed, i don't think many places have had situations like this, where places have been wrestled over to the point where some povs could argue that they've usurped themselves... or at least not any that don't involve brits being brits or americans "manifesting destiny"
    i think a more accurate comparison would be to the 8 january brasília tussle, where some could argue that it wasn't a coup d'etat, and some would argue that it was. this doesn't immediately confirm either viewpoint as deliberate vandalism (or as inflammatory)... but unlike in this alleged occupation, it actually was a coup d'etat, so people arguing against it were mostly just shadowboxing a wall, and losing, so that's where the comparisons end. really, the one thing they got done was annoying me with incoherent videos that kept getting spammed everywhere consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is WP:OR, WP:FRINGE. The Lithuanians and Lithuania can never "occupy" their historical and current capital city (Vilnius) and its region (Vilnius Region) because Vilnius was Lithuania's capital city since 1323 until Lithuania was destroyed by Russia in 1795. In 1918, Lithuania was restored and once again declared Vilnius as its capital city. Lithuania continued declaring Vilnius as its capital city even when Poland controlled Vilnius and its region in the interwar period. This claim "Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region" is as much unscientific as a page "French occupation of the Paris Region" would be because Germany controlled Paris and its region for some years. We all know that such a page about Paris would not last long, so there also should not be a page called "Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region". -- Pofka 09:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Translations are not OR. Again, "French occupation of the Paris Region" is irrelevant whataboutism because no one has produced a source that uses that phrase, unlike "Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region". Warudo (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Occupation" of your own country's capital city is WP:FRINGE. No matter what country you pick, especially in a case of Lithuania which was first mentioned in 1009 and Vilnius has been Lithuania's capital city since at least 1323 (first mentioned as such in the Letters of Gediminas, a Lithuanian monarch). If some authors write that a nation can "occupy" their own capital city then it means that such authors are WP:FRINGE and per Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia should not be used in Wikipedia. -- Pofka 18:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    how dependant is that on this being a plausible search term? that seems to be the big question here, and i'd say the answer would be "not very" consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 22:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it's not true that the nation cannot occupy a city that considers its own capital. Great example is Italy and Rome, which is a very similar case to Lithuania and Vilnius. In 1861 unified Italy was formed and Rome was declared its capital, although it was held by a Papal State, and recognized as part of it internationally (French troops defended it), Florence was made a temporary capital of the new state. In 1870 Italian troops occupied Rome, but the Pope didn't reconigse it until 1929. And the phrase "Italian occupation of Rome" is used by RS. Marcelus (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects don't have to be neutral; this is controversial description but used in some discourses, including historical. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The target article's lead does say .. the Polish government-in-exile, [ ] regarded Lithuanian rule as an occupation. which is good enough for this redirect. But I could not find content in the article body to corroborate this, and I've added a {{citation needed}}. There's nothing on the government-in-exile at the target, or about Lithuania or Vilnius at Polish government-in-exile. Like consarn and Warudo, I'm neutral; no sufficient grounds for deletion have been put forth, and nom hasn't explained how a historical Polish POV is inflammatory, or how an inflammatory redirect is vandalism. Jay 💬 18:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I can see an argument that the redirect is from a Polish (nationalist?) point of view, it also is the article name in pl-Wikipedia, translated back to English, and is also a term used in some sources. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 18:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IFat

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, and appears to have never been (based on my quick perusing of the edit history), not even as far as when this redirect was created in 2007; also google doesn't suggest any particular connections. Maybe delete unless someone has an explanation for what "IFat" could mean? Duckmather (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Largest carnivore tooth

[edit]

Not mentioned at target and I'm not sure Tyrannosaurus does actually have the largest teeth of any carnivore. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean delete. A quick Google search reveals several contenders (Livyatan is most often mentioned), debates about the best measurement (length, volume, etc.), and debates about whether to exclude tusks. Livyatan § Teeth includes the statement: These teeth are thought to be among the largest of any known animal, excluding tusks. Given the vagueness of "largest" (and to some extent "tooth") and possibility of new discoveries, I don't think there can be a definitive target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esconichthys apopyris

[edit]

Not mentioned at target Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Thing in the Dark

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

Computer Systems Engineering

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

Remanie

[edit]

"remanié" is a term only mentioned in passing. results imply the primary topic is a surname or a french word (which is completely unrelated to fossils), and i only got one result actually related to fossils consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose merriam-webster gives the primary meaning as a fossil or other fragment included in a younger rock formation--Kevmin § 16:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    that definition doesn't really work for having fossil as the target. based on it, it could just as easily target rock (geology), pebble, or relict consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & update target to Fossils#Derived or reworked (remove the comma). There is a prominent, italicized usage and definition in the first sentence of this section: A derived, reworked or remanié fossil is a fossil found in rock that accumulated significantly later than when the fossilized animal or plant died. On Google, I get a mix of dictionary definitions and geology sites that confirm this definition, French–English dictionaries, and a few sites that list other uses in English that are French borrowings. Wiki search mostly turn up quotes in French. This appears to be the most common meaning in English and is the only one for which we have an encyclopedia entry. This is an appropriate {{R to diacritic}} although I'm unclear whether that should be used with an {{R to section}} or only to matching page titles and list entries. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Lieber

[edit]

This page has multiple incoming links from Lieber's other projects. If she is indeed not notable, then this redirect should just be deleted, as she is clearly not only known for this film (and if anything, her role in it seems fairly minor). — Anonymous 23:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article and send to AFD. Geschichte (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and consider AFD for proper assessment. The article was recently BLAR'd (May 2025). It was getting >700 monthly pageviews pre-BLAR and continues to get ≈400 views per month post-BLAR. Quite possibly just an artifact of being linked in a few high-traffic articles. Linking to a random movie she appeared in doesn't make any sense. Even if this is her most high profile role, the article (appropriately) contains zero biographical information and doesn't even discuss her performance. If found non-notable at AfD this should not be made to redirect back to the film. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ugh... delete and do not restore unless someone actually thinks the sources are usable. as is, citation 1 is a filmography and not usable for notability, citation 2 only mentions her in passing in the context of one random episode of friends where she's one of two actresses for the same character, citation 3 only mentions her in passing in the context of a one-off appearance in seinfeld, and seems to be from a blog, and i have to wonder what the hell citation 4 is doing there because it seems to be nothing but the headline followed by a picture of her and who i'm assuming is her husband. as is, i found some seemingly usable sources for her, but they're not in the article, so a closer would be restoring a filmography with effectively one source that doesn't prove notability, meaning she unambiguously doesn't meet gng as is, and if an article were to be made from those sources, it would be under wp:tnt, whether the creator wants that to be the case or not. honestly, people saying that it should be taken elsewhere without actually assessing the stuff they want taken elsewhere should stop, since it only actually means they want someone else to deal with a potentially really simple case consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 22:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 and 2030 Women's T20 World Cup redirects

[edit]

Excessively premature, and therefore unhelpful; no content about the 2028 and 2030 renditions or anything related to them at the target. Nominating for deletion. Left guide (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and updated the table to include 2028 and 2030 (with confirmation that the number of teams will increase to 16). However, I was unable to find confirmation of a host for the 2030 edition. -- Tavix (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a host listed is a minimal piece of information about the event, and nothing relevant to the qualification. Qualification 100% cannot be kept based on that irrelevant information, and it's not really enough to warrant a redirect for the W20WC redirects either. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consensus on the non-qualification redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely Redirects

[edit]

Very unlikely redirects even with what is typed in them. Valorrr (lets chat) 06:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Random City Titles

[edit]

I am unsure how it relates to the page... Valorrr (lets chat) 06:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. They seemingly refer to Cidade Maravilhosa, which was a march written for the 1935 Rio Carnival. The three terms are (supposedly) "mottos of the city of Rio", but I don't think they're particularly helpful and are more likely than not to lead searchers astray. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eng Ler Qi

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Jay's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dum Dums

[edit]

These have different targets, but should probably be in sync. Should they both redirect to the lollipop article? Or the dab page? Left guide (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox music of

[edit]

Unused and unneeded redirect. this isn't an infobox. it's a sidebar. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Solidest (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Huang

[edit]

Battle for Dream Island, also created by Cary and Michael Huang, now also finally has its long-awaited own page. I am RedoStone (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards either a full-fledged article (which is probably unlikely) or a set index article. AlphaBeta135talk 00:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is something navigation pages proposed to do, but the community do not have consensus for such type of page. GZWDer (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I was not aware of this. This would seem to address a recurring issue at RfD. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A similar (and perhaps even better-thought-out) concept is that of directory articles, which were proposed by Theleekycauldron. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this, I'd say? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird newscasters

[edit]

Term is mentioned a bit on a number of different articles, but no article describes it in any detail. It is not mentioned at all at the current target; it is probably best deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 00:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Prups

[edit]

I have found this term on the internet a bit with Greg Proops (unlike Greg prubts, which has 0 hits on google); however, it does not seem to be a common nickname and I can't see it helping the reader. Casablanca 🪨(T) 00:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greg prubts

[edit]

Term seems to be completely unused as a name for Greg Proops. Should be deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 00:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sieges of the Russian Russo-Ukrainian War

[edit]

Soft redirect from unlikely search term, likely created by mistake. Mclay1 (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

[edit]

The Sims 2: Nightlife (old)

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

Undisturbed

[edit]

These adjectives are certainly associated with the concept described at the target, but are not mentioned there, and I'm not sure their association with the target is so strong as to justify these redirects. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (2024 Beyoncé album)

[edit]

This should be deleted. It is neither useful nor accurate, as Cowboy Carter has a title and was released almost two years ago. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly P

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

Always Fun

[edit]

The only mention of this phrase at the target is the slogan in the television station's logo (we have tried in recent years to not normally mention slogans in broadcast station articles). Even at that, it seems highly unlikely that anyone actually searching for this phrase on Wikipedia would be looking for KDAF. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IHeartTelevision

[edit]

There has never been any television operation by this name. Clear Channel completed the sale of its television station group (which is the subject of the section this redirects to) before the iHeartRadio platform ever existed, much less the name change of Clear Channel to iHeartMedia. (As far as I am aware the television presentations of iHeart events also do not use "iHeartTelevision" in any form.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wick flick

[edit]

This seems to be a variant method of speed reload publicized by Wick, which we don't mention in the target article. Also somewhat ambiguous with "Wick flick" as in "movie about Wick", though the speed reload meaning seems primary after a quick search. Rusalkii (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to understand. Who or what is "Wick"? Is it something about John Wick? Jay 💬 18:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Z E T A3 19:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The listing comment is a little unclear but a web search confirms a "Wick flick" is a speed reloading technique featured in the John Wick movies. There is chatter about it online but it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant coverage at the current target nor at any of the articles about the films. Since readers seeking information won't find any, it should be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamfeindlichkeit

[edit]

Fails WP:RLANG PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Z E T A3 19:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wokerati

[edit]

Delete or maybe soft redirect to wikt:wokerati. The section no longer exists and the term is not used. It's not a synonym for woke or wokeness but is a pejorative for people who might be dismissively referred to as woke SJWs. The meaning is non-obvious on its own. I'd understand it if I read/heard it in context but presumably anyone searching for this has encountered it somewhere and is seeking clarification. Some will be able to infer the meaning it but it seems more helpful to send them somewhere that actually defines it. It does appear in several articles, mostly but not exclusively in reference to the incredible quote "Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati". --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Z E T A3 19:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck It, Lose it All

[edit]

Seems to be a lyric to a song that is not discussed anywhere on wiki. (Other wiki language versions have it listed as a 2012 album, but that doesn't seem to exist.) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also the capitalization is odd. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vināyak Dāmodar Sāvarkar

[edit]

No one searches using macrons. It is way too niche. As seen from its page information, throughout the entirity of the past decade of its existence, the redirect has only gotten barely a hundred views. It has not proven itself to be a useful redirect for most users and should be deleted. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. It literally costs us more to delete this kind of thing than to leave it alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: Yes, you're right that nobody is likely to manually type macrons into the search box. Put people do copy/paste unfamiliar names and words into the search box. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming the use of macrons is accurate or at the very least a transliteration variant one might reasonably encounter. It is standard practice to include transliterated/romanized versions of names, sometimes multiple. Note that for many subjects the name is given in native script with common or official transliterations either in the lead or infobox or both. This usually makes verifying the appropriateness of RLANG redirects straightforward. Due to special guidance at WP:INDICSCRIPT, native scripts are omitted from India-related articles (although strictly speaking this doesn't prohibit transcriptions using macrons).—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Vũ Ngọc Trâm

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Song-yeon

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dulanya Karunaratna

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malayka Mohamed

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Henares Cruz

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Joy

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Tae-yeon (badminton)

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Duijndam

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Sarena

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fatema Rabie

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Pinke

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in New Jersey

[edit]

This article certainly covers the topic of Indians in northern New Jersey, but I feel a bit mislead by this redirect on the whole. I was reading Little India and the article linked to here from the New Jersey section, and I was expecting to read an article about Indians in New Jersey in general, but it's very specific to the New York area. I think this redirect would be best deleted to encourage article creation, possibly being split out of Indians in the New York metropolitan area Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, it could also be ambiguous with Native Americans in New Jersey. Maybe a disambiguation page might be better? – Epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two thoughts:

1) The vast majority of (around 85%) of Indian Americans in New Jersey live in Central and Northern New Jersey, within the New York metropolitan area, and the recipient article details a lot about Indian Americans in New Jersey. A far smaller minority (15%) live in South Jersey, within the Philadelphia area. There’s also no separate article for Indians in the Philadelphia area. So it makes practical sense for all intents and purposes to redirect Indians in New Jersey to Indians in the New York metropolitan area, per WP:DUE. 2) The term ‘Indians’ to describe Native Americans is outmoded and deprecated and in fact now considered generally offensive to the Native American community, who have often expressed a preference to be known as the original Americans. Therefore, I don’t believe we should be encouraging at all (via creation of a disambiguation page) the thought process of going backward to a reference to Native Americans as ‘Indians’. Castncoot (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans are still widely referred to as "American Indians" or "Indians". Redirects are meant to guide readers to articles that they may be looking for, even if some in the community may view the term as offensive. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Strike Fear

[edit]

I proposed this page for deletion when it was a 2-entry disambiguation page that failed MOS:DABMENTION. The PROD was removed and it was redirected as it stands today, by @Katzrockso:. I posted at Talk:Galactic Empire (Star Wars)#Operation Strike Fear: "if we're going to have Operation Strike Fear redirecting to Galactic Empire (Star Wars)#Galactic Civil War "in accordance with usage online" can we please have a mention of the term at that section?" but no such mention has been added. I therefore think it should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per mom. Redirects like this don’t serve readers. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:READABILITY

[edit]

Redirect to WP:readability tools, as that new page created by User:WhatamIdoing actually talks about how to make articles readable in the common sense of the word. The user essay it now points to is less focussed, and just a user essay. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobie

[edit]

Fails WP:RLANG PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, plausible typo. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I disagree with the assertion that this is a plausible typo or misspelling. "-phobia" is a common suffix in English and a and e are not next to each other and are not typed with the same finger on standard English keyboards. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone speaking English as a second language, I often typo based on muscle memory. The Dutch word for 'or' is 'of', which is a typo I regularly make when writing English. Similarly, 'phobie' is the suffix in French, and might come out due to muscle memory. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Myceteae. drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 20:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Racisme anti-arabe

[edit]

Fails WP:RLANG. Also "anti-arab racism" is not islamophobia per se. People can still be racist against Christian arabs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy retarget to Anti-Arab racism which is the exact French-to-English translation of "racisme anti-arabe". Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 18:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But what does anti-Arab racism have to do with the French language? Traumnovelle (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, still fails RLANG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attentát

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

Blue Jays

[edit]

This has gone back and forth for years. Let's just settle this so we don't have to keep going back and forth. I know the Toronto Blue Jays are currently (As of the time I am listing this at RFD) in the World Series, but even if they weren't, I still think the plural term most commonly refers to the Major League Baseball team, or at bare minimum there is no primary topic. Either change target to Toronto Blue Jays or Blue Jay (disambiguation). Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toronto Blue Jays. Other redirects are based exclusively on capitalization, and there is no functional difference between those and this redirect. drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 20:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HIPPA

[edit]

The only spelling at the DAB that's ever all-caps'd, as far as I can tell, is Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act § Misspelling as HIPPA (currently linked to on the DAB through HIPPA (misspelling)HIPPA (misspelling)). Retarget there as the primary topic for that spelling under WP:DIFFCAPS. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the reason I moved to HIPPA (misspelling)HIPPA (misspelling) was to allow intentional links from misspellings. So if, in the future, if someone links to HIPPA, rather than than turning up at the links-to-disambiguation patrol WP:disambiguation pages with links, those will turn up on WP:Database reports/Linked misspellings, where someone (probably me) will either correct the spelling if the link was unintentional or change it to HIPPA (misspelling)HIPPA (misspelling) if the link was intentional (e.g., DIFF). – wbm1058 (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While "HIPPA" is literally a misspelling, I don't think it would actually be correct to categorize it as an {{r from misspelling}}, since it would be pointing to a section about the misspelling as an encyclopedic subject, rather than just the correct spelling of the thing. The fact that it can also be linked by someone who is misspelling the word is annoying, but usually doesn't override PTOPIC. It would be nice if we had some way to track "pages that aren't categorically invalid to link to, but probably aren't what you meant to link to". This also happens with SIAs a lot; for instance I created the SIA self-inflicted wound, and get notifications once every few weeks that someone's linked to it. There are a minority of cases where it really is the best link, but usually someone wants something more precise. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that Trivialist marked it as a misspelling back in 2012 when it was just an article link. Then when it was changed to a section link in 2019, the {{R from misspelling|HIPAA}} could have been removed. That would be another way to solve it. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

[edit]

Wing Mang

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

Bnuuy

[edit]

See previous RFDs: 1 Sep 2022 and 18 Sep 2025 UtherSRG (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the link is a semi-plausible misspelling for "bunny" and is now discussed in the article, where it's directly relevant. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Would it be reasonable for me to ping major contributors to the article and people who have commented on the redirect before?) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can ping all participants in the two past RfD discussions or other relevant discussions, or a broad swath of major contributors to Rabbit, if you think that would benefit the project. Selectively rallying editors who have added and advocated for bnuuy content would of course be inappropriate. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a quick note that the new mention at the target alluded to above is a pretty gross misrepresentation of the source -- the article currently says: "In internet memes, a rabbit is often called a "bnuuy", a deliberate humorous misspelling of "bunny".[214]" While all the source says is "Indonesian artist Bnuuy (a popular internet slang for “Bunny”) is taking matters into her own hands ..." and that's it. If anyone here thinks this should be kept, especially at the main Rabbit article, I'd urge them to source this properly to something a bit more substantial, with somewhat more to say on the topic first. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that is inadequate sourcing. The entire section is weak and does not demonstrate notability of the meme phenomena relative to the subject of rabbits. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consider salting due to repeated re-creation and inappropriate addition of content to the target article in an attempt to justify its existence. The meme is entirely non-notable and in no way suitable for inclusion at Rabbit. I have removed the internet and meme culture from Rabbit. I agree with IP35 that the source for "bnuuy" did not support the statement made. A Google News search for "bnuuy" turns up only one hit, this from WP:KNOWYOURMEME, which doesn't even mention "bnuuy". This is a remarkable lack of coverage. Even obscure memes will sometimes have a handful of stories in reliable-ish sources (and a few such stories do not establish notability). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Droit d'auteur en France

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

Hotchips

[edit]

No idea what Hotchips have to do with the IEEE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a notable conference, and it is named Hot Chips, not Hotchips. And if Hot Chips redirect to French fries, so should Hotchips. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to French fries? Or to a restored Hot Chips?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar 4

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

ShamPoo

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

wp:help me

[edit]

considering the existence of template:help me, would it be more reasonable to retarget it to that template (where helpme used to target) or the teahouse? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life's Not Fair

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

Letterman General Hospital

[edit]

I question whether readers looking for this title are actually looking for the building that formerly housed the hospital and now houses an art center, rather than Letterman Army Hospital, the institution itself. BD2412 T 17:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zephra

[edit]

This is a store in one episode of this show, with one episode title containing this as part. However, an in-WP search for "Zephra" finds many other matches as well. No indication that the current target is anywhere near approaching something like the PTOPIC, and none of the hits rise to the point of requiring redirects or even a dab page. Delete. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep mentioned at target and this nomination doesn't even name anything else as a plausible target.... Joseph2302 (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not mentioned at the target though; it's merely part of the title of one episode, which is at the target. The point is that none of the possible search hits have any claim to the redirect target over any of the others, including this one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This would target well at Superstore (TV series)#Plot or maybe even one just for later season, as Zephra played a significant role in the show, but right now there is not a good target and it doesn't help the reader to go to such a specific target. It's probably best to delete to allow for unencumbered search and the readers, short of something being written in one place, can see that we have information on Zephra in a few different articles.Casablanca 🪨(T) 17:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Struck after BD2412 added Zephra (opera), see below Casablanca 🪨(T) 23:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]
That's totally fine with me. That's the WP:PTOPIC anyways. Striking !vote in favor of this. Casablanca 🪨(T) 23:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is America Great Yet?

[edit]

Unmentioned at target; would seem to be some sort of slogan retort, but there's no information about it, so delete. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Rain Genius

[edit]

While Ayrton Senna is one of Formula One's greatest ever rain drivers (cf. 1993 European Grand Prix); however, this does not seem to be a commonly used nickname for him and there does not seem to be a WP:PTOPIC for the term either. Deletion is likely best. Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 03:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend!

[edit]

I don't see any affinity for the exclamation mark here. Note that there is a song which does have an exclamation mark, see Weekend (Earth and Fire song)#Scooter version. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:COPYGP

[edit]

Target doesn't exist (only existed for a short while, without consensus), so it makes no sense to have or use this shortcut., which isn't about copying within Wikipedia anyway. Fram (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin moonshine

[edit]

while allegedly an archaic synonym, results gave me... pretty much everything else, mostly due to differing definitions of "moonshine". i also didn't get a whole lot of results, but that's besides the point consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • It definitely was a synonym for jack o lanterns, there even was a kids booked named Pumpkin Moonshine ([23] limited pages on internet archive) from 1938. And I found some newspaper articles from before prohibition in the US referring to pumpkin moonshine decorations around Halloween ([24]). And of course there was also literal pumpkin moonshine made during prohibition. And apparently there as a moderately successful race horse in the late 1970s/early 1980s named Pumpkin Moonshine. I'm not sure if it is a common enough now for a redirect without a decent enough source to add a reference in the target. Hopefully will look more. Skynxnex (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Axiniform

[edit]

refers to things shaped like axes... in the specific context of biology. which the target isn't about. doesn't seem to be the kind of info wikipedia has. results gave me lingerie for some reason consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antler sleeve

[edit]

archaic meaning seemingly lost to results, since they were almost exclusively predictable mixes of antler-shaped stuff on sleeve-shaped stuff (and vice-versa). existed as an unsourced stub until 2008, and is unmentioned in the target now. has one incoming link of note, but it's mentioned in passing, undefined, and also unsourced consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blood organ

[edit]

...what? originally redirected to water organ, where it's currently unmentioned, and the current target also doesn't mention the term. as far as taking it literally goes, that'd be literally every single organ (organ, not organ) of any living being with blood, but the most "plausible" one seems to be the heart, as far as the results i got care. still, they weren't enough to suggest that this would actually be a plausible term for... anything, really consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's an unusual search term. Someone might come up with it, but it's not actually clear what the intended meaning would be. Blood? Heart? Vasculature? "Blood" is generally classified as a connective tissue or body fluid rather than an organ. I don't expect the average reader to know that, but I also don't think many people think of blood as an "organ". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CobWeb

[edit]

titlecase redirect made after those went out of style... and also on april fools, which isn't important to this, but it's funny consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Hallows’ Even

[edit]

plausible typoi on its own, but not after already having typed the entire correct title consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At first glance this looks like an autocorrect error but they usually handle named holidays like All Hallows' Eve correctly and capitalized Eve is common as a personal name and in the name of many holidays. Overall traffic is low with some occasional spikes that don't have an obvious explanation. The spike in October–November 2022 makes sense seasonally but most years it does not see this increase. Most Octobers it sees <10 hits. The spike in February 2024 does not make sense seasonally. I wonder if this made its way into articles a couple of times. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Night of darkness

[edit]

really, really vague, but at least less redundant and more physically possible than "shadows of darkness" consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

alguna hora de las brujas

[edit]

spanish for "day of the witches", "day of the witches (but i'm too lazy to add the accent)", and "night of the witches" respectively. no affinity with spanish demonstrated consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snap Apple Night

[edit]

while the painting is mentioned and results suggest that it might be an obscure synonym for halloween in ireland (some results also clump scotland together with it, but i haven't found anything that actually suggests that), the mention is in passing and not in a context that would suggest that it's a plausible search term. at best, apple bobbing (of which snap apple is a variant) says that it's a synonym, but somehow only says that in the context of the painting? this is confusing, not spooky, and i don't think there's a good target for this

the aforementioned results also only suggest that in the contexts of the painting and informal family stuff, by the way consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trilloween

[edit]

it spok day

results gave me king of the hill shitposts. i know nothing about koth. probably a bad pun. implausible nonetheless consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to refer to either King of the Hill or trill hip-hop–related Halloween activities. Not a synonym for Halloween generally and not mentioned anywhere on en-wiki. There is a seemingly non-notable album by a non-notable artist titled Trilloween. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Castrinos

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

MDAC (disambig)

[edit]

Improper names for disambiguation pages which should be Deleted per WP:RDAB. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva redirects

[edit]

Completely unrelated, these redirect names are never mentioned in the article. Looking at their page summary, they are barely even used. They should be deleted. — EarthDude (Talk) 05:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological interactions of Pyrocystis fusiformis

[edit]

Overly specific redirect, one of many created by the same editor who has had many of these deleted. I could see keeping this redirect if it had existed as an article at one time, but it was only ever a redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Handegg championship

[edit]

Unlikely to be the primary referent and possibly confusing. This phrase is used to refer to a variety of events and not just gridiron football ones, but rugby football ones as well. What should we do with it? retarget to an existing DAB, DABify, or delete 204.111.137.106 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

[edit]

Zebra giraffe

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

Next Israeli election redirects

[edit]

These redirects are a burden to maintain as the status of the 'next' election changes throughout time. At the recent RM Talk:2026 Israeli legislative election#Requested move 27 October 2025, there was consensus to move without leaving a redirect from the former article title, Next Israeli legislative election. Deleting these leftover redirects is consistent with the consensus of that discussion. Israel has a system of regularly scheduled elections every four years and early elections, which occur frequently. When early elections are called, new articles are quickly written on en-wiki. The date of the next Israeli election is often unknown because of the frequency of early, off-cycle elections. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wow! did i really create the first one of these items? apparently this edit for Next Israeli parliamentary election says that i did! amazing! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Drew Stanley (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu marriage

[edit]

These redirects should probably have the same target, although I'm not sure which one would be more appropriate. मल्ल (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @मल्ल: perhaps bundle Hindu view of marriage or do you see that as distinct? That one currently targets Hindu wedding. I would target all to Marriage in Hinduism. While "wedding" and "marriage" can be ambiguous I would send the "marriage" redirects to the "marriage" article unless there is some other qualification. Both articles have hatnotes to the other and weddings are discussed extensively at Marriage in Hinduism. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 ( talk) 23:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Edited. Will update !vote in thread below. 20:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hindu view of marriage seems like it should much more clearly redirect to Marriage in Hinduism, while there is at least some contention at least for the other two. Thanks to your looking into it I agree that all three should target Marriage in Hinduism. I don't think deleting Hindu Marriage is that necessary per WP:CHEAP but I don't feel too strongly about it. मल्ल (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no pages that link to Hindu Marriage (#2). I propose we delete Hindu Marriage because there is no instance where that term would be a proper noun in a sentence.
    Hindu marriage should point to Hindu wedding considering it is used on the pages of celebrities to indicate their style of ceremony. On Feminist theology, the link is "Hindu marriage ceremonies" (emphasis mine), indicating it is about Hindu weddings, just describing the term in a different way. Drew Stanley (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see some discrepancy in how these links are used in articles but in many examples "marriage" is the more appropriate meaning and in some cases either one could work. Several articles used piped links [[Hindu marriage|Hindu wedding]]. I find the editors' actions frankly a little strange here but I realize people use wikilinks without checking where they point. Editor behavior does give us a clue towards usage but shouldn't necessarily dictate redirect behavior. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give an example in which "marriage" is more appropriate? There are few enough articles that I am willing to just go in and make the fixes rather than use the redirects, when unnecessary.
    Agree to delete Hindu Marriage, right? Drew Stanley (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the 11 uses of Hindu marriage in articles, Marriage in Hinduism is the best fit in 5:
    • Govender v Ragavayah:

      The court noted that Hindu marriages were not recognised in South African law, which violated section 9 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the court ordered that the definition of “spouse” in section 1 of the Intestate Succession Act include the surviving spouse of a monogamous Hindu marriage.

      This clearly describes the relationship between the legal and religious status of "marriage".
    • R. K. Narayan:

      The concept of horoscope-matching in Hindu marriages and the emotional toll it levies on the bride and groom is covered in the second book.

      This second one is interesting. "Bride and groom" suggests a meaning closer to "wedding" but the choice of "marriage" suggests that the "emotional toll" extends beyond the wedding day, impacting the rest of the marriage. That sentence should be reworded to "Hindu wedding" if the intended meaning is more restricted.
    • Sapinda describes a type of cousin marriage in Hinduism. Sapinda § Conditions for a Hindu marriage includes the following:

      Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 laid down conditions for a Hindu marriage. A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely […] Out of the five above conditions, this article refers to the condition stated under section 5(v), which states that if the Hindu bride and the Hindu groom are "sapindas" of each other, the marriage between the two cannot be solemnized by law and will be legally void.

    • Svayamvara:

      Svayaṃvara (Sanskrit: स्वयंवर lit. 'self-choice') is a matrimonial tradition in ancient Indian society where a bride, usually from Kṣatriya (warrior) caste, selects her husband from a group of assembled suitors either by her own choice or a public contest between her suitors. […] Despite being closely associated with the epics, Svayaṃvara is not listed as a form of marriage in the Dharmaśāstra, a collection of Sanskrit texts on law and conduct.

      Here, "form of marriage" is a piped link using the Hindu marriage redirect. This corresponds to the content of Marriage in Hinduism, especially Marriage in Hinduism § Types of marriages.
    • Yogic marriage is a poorly sourced stub. The usage here is potentially ambiguous. Although "consummation" typically occurs on the wedding night, whether or not the marriage has been consummated is a binary status that applies for the duration of the marriage. Overall, I read this as referring to a type of marriage where the features of the "wedding ceremony"/"act of marriage" (the chanting) is a defining feature.
    The usage Hindu marriage ceremonies or Hindu marriage ceremony appears in two articles: Feminist theology and T. Ramaswamy Choudary. A better option here would be [[Hindu wedding|Hindu marriage ceremony]] or creating a Hindu marriage ceremony redirect to Hindu wedding. (Hindu marriage Ceremony does exist…) Or maybe the editors were deliberate about wanting to link to the "marriage" article and not the "(wedding) ceremony" article.
    Three articles use the piped link [[Hindu marriage|Hindu wedding]] so that the Hindu marriage redirect shows up as "Hindu wedding" in the text: Parineeti Chopra, Parineeti Chopra, Raghav Chadha. This is an inappropriate use of redirects and piped links and these should be replaced with the direct link to Hindu wedding.
    The only remaining article is Wedding of Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck and Jetsun Pema. Here, I would just replace Hindu marriage with Hindu wedding or Hindu marriage ceremony. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, reasonable to delete Hindu Marriage. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against women

[edit]

I propose retargeting to sexism. We say that sexism is "prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but primarily affects women and girls." Meanwhile, misogyny is "hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls ... sexism, which denotes sex-based discrimination". A source says "Sexism: discrimination against women ... Misogyny: hatred of women".[25] Another source says "Misogyny may be distinguished from the closely related word sexism, which signifies discrimination based on sex (although it most frequently refers to discrimination against women)".[26] This would revert the result of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_7#Discrimination_against_women Uhoj (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sexism is general, convering discrimination against men as well as women, whereas misoginy is the one focused on women. I don't know that it's the best target, but IMO it's better than sexism. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
opppose per above and previous discussion Oreocooke (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retargeting → Sexism per my initial comment and largely in agreement with ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. The definition(s) of misogyny and the coverage in the article is much narrower. There word 'discrimination' occurs only twice in the article body of Misogyny; once in the definition of 'sexism' as pointed out by the nom. In contrast, discrimination against women is a substantial focus of Sexism. We should have readers' expectations and the content of the candidate targets front of mind in determining redirect targets. Someone looking for information on discrimination against women should be sent to the article where most of that content is covered. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - discrimination primarily connotes the legal, political, and otherwise systemic, whereas misogyny (at least in the current article) is about an ideology. I agree with Binksternet that a separate "Discrimination against women" page is the best future scenario. Drew Stanley (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sexism per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and Myceteae. I agree that the article contents are better suited for understanding the phrase 'Discrimination against women'. Just to note, the current redirect allows the reader to access information on discrimination in a religious content, which the retargeting to Sexism wouldn't offer. I don't think this warrants keeping the redirect, but just something to keep in mind in case an article is created from this redirect. Katiedevi (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poa+annua

[edit]

Implausible due to having a plus instead of a space Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Weiss (fictional person)

[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, incidentally puts a BLP into a hoax category w/out sources or context (which is very confusing). BLARED into Haviv Rettig Gur ten years ago, content was removed from that article last year by @Elli: in Special:Diff/1218667446. No opinion between adding a mention or retargeting. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JZS

[edit]

No idea why this even points to Jelcz. It's not a typo, not an acronym for anything Jelcz-related AFAICT...

So I suggest delete. Alternatively, it could be retargeted to Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research which sometimes used JZS as an abbreviation e.g. [27]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create disambiguation page. When the redirect was created (in 2011), Jelcz was owned by JZS (Jelczańskie Zakłady Samochodowe), and that should still be mentioned in the article. StAnselm (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? Or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DABify per StAnselm. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Log-Pearson type III distribution

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

Pearson type II distribution

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

Breeing

[edit]

let's do it again!!

originally an unsourced stub, this currently only has a mention in bree, and is unmentioned in the target. while it's definitely a term that exists and might predate the stub's creation, reliable sources weren't found to justify a mention then, and the only new results i could find now were misspellings of "breeding" and "brewing" consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 16:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Tavix. Should be removed from Bree if deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Aboriginal Music Awards

[edit]

Page created so that it could redirect to Indigenous Music Awards. However, the Canadian Aboriginal Music Awards are not the same as the Aboriginal Peoples' Choice Music Awards, which became the Indigenous Music Awards. Msoul13 (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to The Canadian Encyclopedia, the Canadian Aboriginal Music Awards is the former name of the Indigenous Music Awards. The rest of the information I've found thus far doesn't clarify things. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the information from The Canadian Encyclopedia and at this link, I have added the former names to the article. So it seems the redirect from "Canadian Aboriginal Music Awards" to "Indigenous Music Awards" is appropriate and should remain. (On a side note, haven't found anything that mentions the "Aboriginal Peoples' Choice Music Awards" (emphasis added). Msoul13 (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep based on these findings. I found this article from the Winnipeg Free Press describing the name change from "Aboriginal Peoples Choice Music Awards" to "Indigenous Music Awards" in 2015. I found other sites of variable reliability using that former name (use of the apostrophe varies—Peoples, Peoples’, People’s). The situation is pretty unclear and probably warrants discussion on the article's talk page, possibly with outreach to appropriate WikiProjects. That's beyond the scope of this discussion and I'm satisfied that there is at least enough justification to keep this redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southern and Eastern

[edit]

I'm not really sure what circumstance would lead to a reader searching for "Southern and Eastern", but the current target would almost certainly WP:ASTONISH most users. I have no preference regarding whether this should be retargeted (possibly to a page like "Global North and Global South"?), deleted, made into a disambiguation page, or left as is. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spaghetti con puntarelle, acciughe e briciole

[edit]

italian for "spaghetti with puntarelle, anchovies, and breadcrumbs". oddly specific recipe that isn't mentioned in the target, and seems to have been created as a link for the list of pasta dishes... where it's mentioned in passing without a source or picture. seems to be niche, even in the context of italy, so i don't think it's all that plausible on its own, especially since anyone looking for this would already know what a spaghetti is (or at least i hope they do), and presumably that this ain't a recipe site consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either delete or retarget to the list (and remove the link there). The list is a mess -- some of the entries we have articles about, and this would serve as a nice index to those. Some don't, and the links are just to the article on the main type of pasta (like this one, but there are quite a few more), and some are just red links. My inclination would be to trim the list down to bluelinks, in which case, delete this redirect. But if it's wanted to include non-bluelink entries, then you either leave it as a redlink in the list per WP:REDYES, or you delink it and redirect this to the list. Ehh. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a dish, not a recipe and most of your argument seems to be based on that error. Retargeting to the list would work, but I don't see a big problem with leaving it as it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, whoops. wikipedia still isn't an indiscriminate list of those dishes, though, because if it was, i could add my "too much garlic bread" to garlic bread consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably that would run afoul of our COI expectations and this dish appears to exist outside of the kitchen of a single wikipedian so your example doesn't really work. For a comparable example find something from your own culinary tradition that the people in your region would know but is relatively obscure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "but I don't see a big problem with leaving it as it is." The problem is that sending someone who searches for a topic to a general article with no information about that topic misleads the searcher that there might be information about it there, and wastes their time. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Random spaghetti dish that doesn't appear to be especially notable. The sparse list entry is not a very compelling target. Someone would have to type the name just-so to find it and then there isn't much to find. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of pasta dishes as {{R to list entry}} and remove link there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insta

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

History of the Jews in Timor-Leste

[edit]

Redirecting from one country to another country. Timor does not seem to be mentioned in the Indonesia article either, so a reader won't find what they’re looking for. CMD (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hexalene

[edit]

This is an alternative name for a different compound [28] for which we have no content. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz-Jeanselme syndrome

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target and not synonymous. It can be caused by other infectious diseases such as yaws. It is mentioned in the article for one of the physicians who discovered it, Édouard Jeanselme, but not the other, Adolfo Lutz (except that the 'See also' includes a link to this redirect). Redirecting to one seems arbitrary. It is not listed at List of eponymous diseases. It could be added there but should not also redirect there as this would create a circular link. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 23:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2027 ICC Women's T20 Champions Cup

[edit]

No sources use this name for the tournament. Vestrian24Bio 02:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Democracy

[edit]

I'm curious if Lee Teng-hui is the primary topic for this. Based on my own Google search, Lee Teng-hui is the first topic. However, the first page also has links to John Dewey and Larry Diamond (see here). With the recent creation of both Mr. Democracy and Mr. Democracy (disambiguation), I thought it would be worthwhile as a community to determine whether this is a correct primary topic. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HNLMS Zeehond (2)(P335)

[edit]

"HNLMS Zeehond (P335)HNLMS Zeehond (P335)" is mentioned in the target article, but the nominated redirect is not. It's unclear what the "(2)" in the nominated redirect is meant to represent, or how it is a plausible or valid search term for any part of the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Thunderdome

[edit]

Ambiguous; many if not all of the topics at Thunderdome can be referred to as "The Thunderdome". Redirect to dab. 162 etc. (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1988 California State Assembly election

[edit]

Topic unmentioned at target. None of the other California assembly elections redirect here. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pukovnija

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

Most inexpensive food

[edit]

Odd and potentially confusing redirect that is clearly WP:COSTLY. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% sure I am doing this calculation wrong, but the cheapest instant noodles I can find are ¤0.47 for 370 kCal at 790 kCal/¤ but I can find beans at 1382 kCal/¤. Casablanca 🪨(T) 17:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

[edit]

Compressed+natural+gas

[edit]

Pluses instead of spaces are highly unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Er Kanada

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

List of Urdu-speaking people

[edit]

Not all Muhajirs are Urdu-speaking nor all Urdu-speaking people are Muhajir (as the Muhajir article itself states), such as Gujarati-speaking Muhajirs, Marathi-speaking Muhajirs; most of Pakistan is non-Muhajir and is Urdu-speaking. There's no redirect for "List of English-speaking people", "List of French-speaking people", "List of Spanish-speaking people", "List of Hindi-speaking people" etc. Also, the article List of Urdu-speaking Muslims was recently deleted. IqbalianThought (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and tagged page. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 23:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Mighty Poo.

[edit]

No mention on the page. There are multiple mentions on Conker's Bad Fur Day, but Great Mighty Poo already exists; there is no reason to have a second redirect that just adds a period. The character in-game is never uniquely referred to with a period. I'm surprised that this redirect has stayed for over a decade. TheSilksongPikmin (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gochu-japchae

[edit]

no, not that pepper steak~!

from korean, though even counting the incoming links and views, no affinity is demonstrated. it also doesn't seem to be the exact same meal mentioned in the article (seems to be different meat cuts and different vegetables), so there's that too consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Japchae, or Japchae#Varieties, which mentions the dish. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 23:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i did mention that that one also didn't demonstrate affinity (as it's just a link to an article that doesn't mention it), and doesn't have a source to the name, so for what it's worth, i'll oppose doing that as well. it also seems to be yet another different recipe from what other results gave me, but that's kind of a given at this point... consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Japchae#Varieties where it is mentioned and remove the circular link. I don't understand the claim above re: no affinity and I am not concerned about the lack of sourcing. There are numerous recipes and descriptions online describing this as a type of japchae. Editors may add additional description and sourcing if there is concern about this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar 5

[edit]

There isn't any mention of a fifth Madagascar film at the target. A fourth film was in development, but never came to fruition. Previously nominated (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 13#Madagascar 5) in a group nomination. RanDom 404 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had originally tagged this redirect for WP:G4, but reverted Myself, after finding revisions in the added history of the redirect for a former article/draft [29]. With that being said, I'm either delete or draftify the old revision and move without redirect to Draft:Madagascar 5, and I don't have a strong opinion which except the existence of the edit history should make this ineligible for WP:G4. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    G4 applies to recreations of previously deleted articles, but it doesn't appear in the log that this page has ever been deleted. RanDom 404 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't even bother looking at the log because I had no reason to assume the closer of the 2017 RFD did not execute the close in the manner which they stated. I guess that didn't happen... Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Numani

[edit]

There are many surnames that contain the word Numani or Nomani, such as Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Nu'mani and Abdul Rasheed Nomani. Therefore, redirecting this word to a single page is incorrect. Delete.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival (upcoming film)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Deleted as G7.

Heimlich Himmler

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

Peter Ward (construction)

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

Jaques strappe

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

Android flagship

[edit]

no relation to the topic provided, not existing as an established brand or technical term. Should be deleted. Longer: Android is a operating system of smartphones. A lot of smartphone manufacturers use it and sell (marketing term) so called "flagship". There is no reason to redirect to a arbitrary selected manufacturer and even more arbitrarily select a modell of this company. Amtiss, SNAFU ? 22:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's promotional and could apply to any number of phones. I quickly found reviews describing dozens of different Android phones as "flagship". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 23:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is not an arbitrary manufacturer: Android is Google product and Google Nexus was, at one time, an "official flavor" of Android as opposed to manufacturer modifications. Google Nexus phones were also often the first release phones with the latest Android versions. MKFI (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be so but the term is not unambiguous; it is applied to other phones.[30][31][32][33] It is also promotional, which makes it problematic even if it were more consistently applied to a specific phone. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evets Kainzow

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

Butt baby

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

Kangaroo hop height

[edit]

We do not discuss the height of the hop at the target; this is more of a search term than a useful redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii: Just a heads-up, I bundled in several other seemingly related redirects created by the same author around the same time, so we've got a total of seven now. Feel free to remove any of my additions you disagree with. Left guide (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I don't doubt that people search for these but since we have no content on the subject it is a disservice to send readers here. Folks wishing to read about kangaroos generally won't have trouble finding the article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron blunderbuss

[edit]

unclear as to if it refers to the ammo or any given part of a weapon being made from iron, and the target doesn't have enough info for either. existed as a stub mostly dedicated to mentioning that it was in fable 2, and most of the results were related to that game consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significance to justify even a redir. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pemuras

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

Heat sore

[edit]

I can't find any evidence that this is a synonym for herpes, cold sore, etc. When I search heat sore (without quotes) on both Google and DuckDuckGo I get results for heat rash and some results about treating sore muscles with heat. The pages do not use "heat sore" as a synonym for heat rash. When I search with quotes, "heat sore", I get more sore muscles results including a lot of hits for a product called Cool and Heat Sore Muscle Roller. Google Scholar turns up nothing about herpes. Google and DuckDuckG both have suggested search heat sores on lip that do turn up results related to cold sores as well as canker sores and other lip/mouth sores but I'm not finding sources that actually use "heat sore" and results are essentially the same as simply searching sores on lip. I expected to at least find Quora posts if this is a term used by some with this specific meaning. I'm inclined to delete as this phrase is not really found anywhere except incidentally and has no clear meaning. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 20:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWN

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

Jesse we need to cook

[edit]

A quote that apparently never actually happens. This is a meme where apparently Walter White says "Jesse we need to cook", but not actually in the show, I don't think. Because of this, it's not likely to be a useful redirect, especially so that it is not mentioned anywhere at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep R from meme is permissible. jp×g🗯️ 20:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. (either as is or retarget to the series) Oreocooke (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is very different than "Luke, I am your father", as the Star Wars misquote is an R to section for the movie it comes from, to The Empire Strikes Back#Legacy, where the line is mentioned and discussed at the target. I.e., the article says The revelation that Vader is Luke's father continues to be seen.... The redirect in question here does nothing of the sort, does not target a section, not discussed at the target, and {{R from meme}} is for subtopics of the redirect target, and this non-existent line from no piece of official media is not addressed as a subtopic. Readers are gonna want to read about this line if it's a meme. In terms of a suitable target, they might want the article for Jesse, or they might want the article for Walter (the person who would be speaking this line as a meme), or they might want Breaking Bad as a whole, or the episode where the "cooking" takes place. Wherever the content exists. And no content exists to my knowledge. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the nom opposes keeping due to a lack of mention at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a meme. LDW5432 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like consensus is moving towards delete, one more relist to confirm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your base

[edit]

incomplete consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aybrbtu

[edit]

definitely seems implausible that there would be an acronym for someone who would abbreviate the "are" but not also the "your". results were fittingly confused, since it sees pretty much no use. doing both would make it a significantly less catchy "aubrbtu", so i kinda get why it would be avoided, but you get the idea consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What happen?

[edit]

surprisingly vague. it probably doesn't matter that this and a couple other lines are only mentioned in wikiquote, though consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

«All your base are belong to us»

[edit]

implausible quotation style, fittingly doesn't do numbers consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

«Delete» —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ssuutb

[edit]

acronym of "somebody set up us the bomb". i got no results actually related to zero wing, so it's definitely on the implausible side, and google probably thinks i have massive badonkers to worry about now... consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are you gentlemen

[edit]

while the phrase without a comma does seem to have the scene as its primary topic, it's not by much, and it doesn't seem to be a plausible search for someone who doesn't already know all the other big funnies consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide enzyme

[edit]

Suicide enzymes (e.g. Methylated-DNA–protein-cysteine methyltransferase, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41589-019-0461-9, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00445) are not the same as suicide inhibitors. While they are related, the current suicide inhibition article does not mention them at all; proposing redirect deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE #10. Preimage (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cotl

[edit]

I would consider retargeting this to Cult of the Lamb, since CotL is a common acronym for it; depending on if it is considered the PTOPIC. Cult of the Lamb gets 499 daily pageviews and 10480 total, Consolers of the Lonely gets 38 daily pageviews and 789 total. Cotl has 3 total pageviews, and 1 of those was probably me.

When searching "cotl" on Google, Cult of the Lamb is shown first, Sky: Children of the Light second, and the Raconteurs album doesn't show up at all at least 10 pages in. Searching "cotl album" shows OSTs of the two above games. Searching "cotl rock album" shows some Cult of the Lamb remixes and unrelated musicians such as The Cult. "cotl the raconteurs" links to The Raconteurs, and the album is only linked as a YouTube video, though states that the search term "cotl" is missing. It appears to not be a common acronym for the album. This redirect was also made back in 2008, before either video game existed. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Di-clo

[edit]

Bot created redirect that is not a common abbreviation for the target. Though mentioned in a hatnote, delete due to confusion with diclo, a brand name for diclofenac Mdewman6 (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ICBC(Asia)

[edit]

Not WP:X3 eligible since ICBC (Asia)ICBC (Asia) is a valid name for the target, and thus "(Asia)" is not a disambiguator ... but the lack of a space in the title makes this redirect unlikely and potentially WP:COSTLY to maintain since the latter part of the title looks like a disambiguator, and thus concerns about WP:X3 eligibility may come up again. Steel1943 (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sketches(for My Sweetheart the Drunk)

[edit]

I'm not seeing any evidence of the stylization being used to refer to the target in any third-party source. Without such evidence, this redirect just looks like a WP:X3 issue, and this can be considered WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I come across such very implausible redirects (with little or no usage in reliable sources) and really not quite sure how they are helpful to the readers. Reading WP:R, personally, I feel it would help if more clarity gets added there for handling such redirects. Asteramellus (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryukyu News(paper)

[edit]

Apparently, this is not a WP:X3-eligible redirect. The redirect is not clear why there is a need for this to exist when we have the redirect Ryukyu NewspaperRyukyu Newspaper, which serves a similar purpose. I'm not seeing any evidence that the stylization of this redirect exists in English text. Steel1943 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie White

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: SNOW keep / procedural close

Puppy Dog Tails

[edit]

There are multiple potential targets (no need to delete the redirect) so I am bringing it here to decide where it should point. "Puppy Dog Tails" appears to have been the original name for the show Puppy Dog Pals. So it may be worth a redirect to that show, but the current target does indeed have an episode with this name. RanDom 404 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having a full episode seems more significant than a pre-release name only mentioned in 1 source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify What Are Little Boys Made Of? should be the primary topic if there was one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
And If Looks Could Kill (Transvision Vamp song) should be a dab target, since the EP contains a track of this name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Who the hell is Steve Jobs?

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

People Mover (Detroit Airport)

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

Similar to deleted redirect Detroit People Mover (Airport), the title of this article is not a term used in published sources or common language to refer to the target article. 42-BRT (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no evidence that this name is in use. I agree with Casablanca Rock's assessment and find this to be reason enough to delete. Additionally, the redirect has only 54 views since its creation. It is essentially not in use, which is unsurprising. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The opening phrase of the target article is, The ExpressTram is an automated people mover … All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: It's a people mover that services Detroit Airport, so it seems like a plausible search term for readers, even if this exact word order and punctuation don't appear in sources. To me, this fits within the principles of WP:RGUIDE:

    The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect…In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

    I'd also argue this has very different merits than the previously deleted one mentioned in the nomination, since "people mover" and "Detroit Airport" are individually commonly-used phrases, whereas "Detroit people mover" seems not to be. Left guide (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Butt darts

[edit]

Overwhelmingly, the most common meaning online is actually: "A drinking game where a coin is placed between the buttocks, and the player attempts to drop it into a cup by squatting. The rules can vary, but typically if the coin is dropped in the cup, everyone else drinks, and if it's missed, the player drinks." There are a couple less common uses, including anal sex. These should be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 23:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Butt darts" most often refers to playing the back nine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? This is contrary to my findings. Urban Dictionary does include your definition but almost every single Google hit was for the supposed party game. The 'anal sex' meaning possibly originates with Superstar (1999 film) but I found references to the party game going back to the 2000's so it is nearly as old and far more common online now.[34][35][36][37] Unsurprisingly, reliable sources don't define the term but I'm finding next to nothing to support the anal sex meaning and dozens of forum, social media, and blog posts about the game. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless the game is notable. I don't think many people wanting to read up on Anal sex are going to search for it using this term, the current use is definitely the game. Denaar (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should create the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This reads as an acknowledgement by the redirects' creator and sole defender that the game is the primary topic, not anal sex. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jax 0677 The subject doesn't need to be notable. This could, for example be a section in Drinking games. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
It would need to be sufficiently notable within the topic of Drinking games to warrant a mention there and I have not found any evidence that it is. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify if possible, otherwise soft redirect to Wiktionary. (There are plenty of published usages, mostly describing the game.)
Note colocation in sewing: How do I fix these pointy butt darts? at Reddit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I found many references to the game and several to sewing—more sewing than anal sex—but no SIGCOV in reliable sources that would justify an article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

[edit]

April showers bring May flowers

[edit]

Because of the newly created April Showers Bring May Flowers, this redirect no longer has much use since it’s unlikely that someone would specifically use this capitalization to find the current target so suggesting delete. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The old

[edit]

While this is the literal meaning of "Ye olde" I do not expect most of the (very few) people searching for "The old" to be looking for the phrase "ye olde", the entire point of which is the weird spelling. This primarily has the effect of cluttering search for anything starting with "The old". Rusalkii (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of the term being used in this manner, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. A hatnote probably wouldn't be necessary, but it wouldn't be the worst thing. - Eureka Lott 14:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list entries are PTMs, but the list itself isn't. I think that's an important distinction. - Eureka Lott 14:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this but I see this as a technicality; something that a relatively tiny group of editors like us can rationalize based on all of our various naming conventions but doesn't align most readers' expectations. "The old", used alone, informally, most likely refer to the elderly/old people. Mostly, it's a very common pair of words that occurs in many article titles. There are also a great many titles where we omit 'the' per WP:THE but where the average reader would might include it (The Old World, The Old Testament, etc., etc.). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is some support for the new retarget option, but there also appear to be some questions and skepticisms about it that haven't been addressed yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom. "The old" is not a plausible term for Ye olde and "The old" could be a generic term with different meanings based on context - so it seems redirecting to any specific page might be misleading. Asteramellus (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans

[edit]

Retarget to European people. The term “Europeans” most commonly refers to people who are from or associated with Europe as a whole — a collective demonym rather than a list of distinct ethnicities. The article European people covers this broad cultural, historical, and demographic meaning. By contrast, Ethnic groups in Europe provides a more detailed breakdown of the continent’s individual populations, while Demographics of Europe deals with the overall population statistics. Hassan697 (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medicom

[edit]

Not mentioned in the article. From what I could find, Medicom is a company that manufactures a product using chloramphenicol, but it also produces plenty of other medical products. मल्ल (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(the) goddamn batman

[edit]

i'm going to goddamn preface this with the goddamn disclaimer that this is a goddamn weak nom and not about goddamn deletion

while easily the most (only technically not only) goddamn notable thing about the goddamn series, only one goddamn section actually mentions and elaborates on it (including a goddamn instance of the goddamn line from the goddamn comic), and it's the one i think people searching those goddamn titles would be looking for. thus, keep or refine to #critical reception? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What, is this Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#All-Star Batman and Robin all over again? Steel1943 (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's a very goddamn slightly different goddamn case, but yeah, kind of
i should be goddamn glad i'm not also repeating my own goddamn self like the goddamn batman does in the goddamn comics, that would be unreadable. truly unreadable. truly goddamn unreadable. that would be truly goddamn unreadable consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 10:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peso pluma

[edit]

Should be retargeted to Peso Pluma (the Mexican singer, in title case). English speakers who type "peso pluma" into the search bar are more likely to be looking for the musician than the Spanish name for a boxing weight class. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Peso Pluma per nom and tag as {{R from miscapitalisation}}. Peso pluma does mean featherweight in Spanish but there is no special affinity between the language and this boxing weight class. Peso Pluma is one of the most popular singers in Mexico and has had significant Billboard chart and streaming success in the United States and globally, making him a more likely search term on en-wiki. This redirect was created in May 2019. Pageviews show a huge spike in views beginning in 2023, which is around the time the signer's career took off. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

在日 韓國人

[edit]

Delete as it's in an unknown language or not correctly spelled in any language. User:Cryptic thinks it's Japanese but 國 isn't used in modern Japanese and it uses " " not the Japanese "　". I think it's ko:재일 한국인, but MOS:HANJASPACES says that the Korean space shouldn't be used when Hanja is used. 172.97.220.91 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

W Sound

[edit]

I have added a note at the top, but I believe that nonetheless, the article Voiced labial-velar approximant is a better target. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 19:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep different capitalization and redirects of this form don't usually exist (e.g. B sound doesn't exist and C Sound redirects to something unrelated to sounds). SignTheSign (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS, W Sound is a musical project by Westcol that has released several singles that have reached number one on charts in different countries (for examples see La Plena (W Sound 05). ItsMario97 (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DIFFCAPS. There's already a hatnote in place at the current target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Walsh (politician)

[edit]

Delete redirect. As recently created redirect/title. Where the subject fails WP:NPOL. And the target contains no mention of the subject. Guliolopez (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internazionale

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

2024/25 New York mayoral special election redirects

[edit]

There was no special election for mayor of New York City in either 2024 or 2025. There is a regularly scheduled election, but no special election occurred. This is misleading and does not help the reader, thus these would be best deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only is it redundant as there is obviously no special election, but it may confuse people into thinking that this is a special election Aesurias (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Monarchy.

[edit]

The full stop doesn't strike me as a likely search term for anybody, I don't think we're in the habit of making redirects with stray punctuation on the off-chance somebody types it in that way. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 14:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spümcø International

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

Shadow Cabinet of Annita Demetriou

[edit]

please delete. this redirect is useless. Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 11:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reopened. "Useless" is arguably a deletion rationale. It's also not good form to close a discussion that you have participated in. -- Tavix (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the page had information but was changed to a redirect. however, no it basically has no use and the original content is not used in the target page Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 16:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible redirect that in theory could become notable since it seems like it may be still a thing? And it is mentioned at the target. And it is unambiguous. There are a moderate number of redirects already of the form "Shadow Cabinet of <blank>". Skynxnex (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Аlexаndr Popovici

[edit]

Delete per WP:MIXEDSCRIPT, the "А" is Cyrillic while the rest is Latin. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Аhmаud Mаrquеz Arbery

[edit]

Delete per WP:MIXEDSCRIPT, the first "А" is Cyrillic while the rest is Latin. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ross federman

[edit]

Delete: unhelpful redirect, none of the other band members have redirects of miscapitalised names. Ross Federman already exists so this one is unnecessary. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep redirects are cheap, harmless {{R from miscapitalisation}}. SignTheSign (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025–26 United States network television schedule (Copy)

[edit]

It's not 100% clear why this redirect exists, but it has significant history behind it. I presume it was intended as a temporary maintenance or drafting spot that probably would've been better off in draftspace or in someone's userspace. This move on 28 May might provide insights. Regardless, as it exists now, it's not a good reader-facing title in mainspace. Left guide (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been separate articles in the Draft and article namespace before they were merged. Keep for attribution and mark with {{R with history}}. SignTheSign (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Тhe Нelpful Fох Ѕеnko Ѕan

[edit]

Delete per WP:MIXEDSCRIPT, the "Т" is Cyrillic while the rest is Latin. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Тeletriumph

[edit]

Delete per WP:MIXEDSCRIPT, the "Т" is Cyrillic while the rest is Latin. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect that I initially created should be written entirely in Latin. I used my English language QWERTY keyboard to create the redirect, using the capitol letter T.
In English, the name "Tele" is short for Television, and this is why this is what the awards are called the Teletriumps in English. They are the television awards.
If that T is truly in Cyrillic (not sure how that's possible), then please delete and rewrite in Latin script. Guylaen (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right though, there does seem to be a strange gap between the T and the e. Guylaen (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarrely enough it does appear as the T is Te (Cyrillic) from this:
'Тeletriumph'.codepoints # [1058, 101, 108, 101, 116, 114, 105, 117, 109, 112, 104]
If it were a normal T, it should be:
'Teletriumph'.codepoints # [84, 101, 108, 101, 116, 114, 105, 117, 109, 112, 104] Casablanca 🪨(T) 21:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Bondage

[edit]

Obscure synonym? Appears to be a random word swap as the band was never referred as Alice in Bondage. SignTheSign (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the redirect was made way back in 2007. I'm not sure why, as not once has the band (or even its fans) ever used the name. Xanarki (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Total energy

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

Good offices

[edit]

Not mentioned in target, the association with Cyprus is certainly not the primary one. I think the main meaning for this term is the diplomatic one used in e.g. Foreign relations of Switzerland#Good offices, but the term isn't unique to Switzerland, making that a poor target. We also have United_Nations_Commission_for_Indonesia#Council's_Committee_of_Good_Offices, United Nations Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and several other similar articles. Could conceivably be a XNR to wikt:good offices? Rusalkii (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a disambig page would fit this? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Type-67

[edit]

The Type 67 articles in the wiki do not have hyphens in the names. Would like to request a delete. Ominae (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep harmless, people could easily think a model has a dash. SignTheSign (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kritty Gurung

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Akemi Murosaki

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna Sherchan

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Kyselicová

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Emanuelle Bejasa

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleyna Korkut

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alya Elghandour

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Mouritsen

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

[edit]

Upcoming Taylor Swift album

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

Wikipedia:Unreferenced

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

Scatter-rifle

[edit]

doesn't seem to be a particularly plausible term. the results were pretty much exclusive to games, and the rare coincidence consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of Ireland

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

Transpeptidation

[edit]

Straight to the point – Reasons 1 and 5 of WP:RFD#DELETE:
Transpeptidation → delete
Transpeptidase (disambiguation) – three options:
→ 1: delete both target page and this redirect
→ 2: delete target instead, move its contents into this redirect
→ 3:[added. 12:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)] make target into an article, make this redirect into an actual disamb page as named so.

Both link to a disamb page; you'd think the page with "(disambiguation)" literally in its name/title would be the disamb page, but no! It also doesn't make sense to redirect "transpeptidation" to "transpeptidase" – that's like redirecting polymerization to polymerase, and the latter is just a disamb page anyway (despite not having "(disambiguation)" in its name/title). I also don't think that a disambiguation for transpeptidase needs to exist; it's a class of enzymes, it's not exactly a "may refer to" situation since nobody uses the word to mean specifically a particular protein, unless they specified that protein. Since I don't have enough knowledge for either subject to make them into articles myself, I decided to choose deletion, hoping it becomes a red link somewhere for someone see and turn it into an article.

If I recall correctly, I only just discovered transpeptidation/-ase because I saw the former word mentioned in peptidyl transferase center, and I tried to wikilink that until I discovered... (Perhaps no wonder it wasn't hyperlinked?) And that's why we're here now. CheckNineEight (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deleting transpeptidation. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it's decided only Transpeptidase (disambiguation) should be kept. Also, I forgot that I had a 3rd option for that, which is: swap it with its target and make Transpeptidase – the one without the parentheticals – into its own article (no deletions, but no more redirect – just an article and a disamb). Speaking of options, I realized that I could have worded my original post much better, and I also forgot to put "(disambiguation)" in "Transpeptidase – two options:". (Can I edit my post?) CheckNineEight (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'transpeptidase' label is clear enough but you can edit it to add '(disambiguation)'. It's always good to exercise caution around changing the wording in discussion posts but in this case it isn't likely to mislead and you can always add an updated timestamp or make a note about the change. There's some general guidance at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. Transpeptidase is a good candidate for a set index article. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused

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

So ... Lucid? Delete as hopelessly ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lunamann and Cyber. At least in terms of Wikipedia usage "Not to be confused (with)" as a phrase is used in the sense of disambiguation, and because disambiguation is redirected there it makes sense for this phrase to lead there. Furthermore, from there there's a hatnote to the corresponding Wikipedia policy. It's simple and straightforward enough to keep the redirect. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 04:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R/Buttcoin

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:

Not mentioned in article. मल्ल (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-gravitational field

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

Vennala Kalagotla

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosheila Quierez

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siofra Flynn

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tija Horvat

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah Zakaria

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ishasriya Mekala

[edit]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016/0280(COD)

[edit]

Looking through the article, it seems unclear how this redirect is a likely or helpful redirect, given that "0280" and "COD" seem to be mentioned now there in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{keep}} This is the code of the legislative procedure, which was and is linked in the article. Nemo 08:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Nemo. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 15:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When this redirect was created in 2018, the directive was a draft, and was mentioned as such. Now, it is confusing why a 2019 directive is referred to as 2016. Delete - without mention, these are just some numbers and letters with a burden of verification. No reason to use draft version codes. I unpiped it from PhotoDNA. Jay 💬 05:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ErfurtWiki

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

Tonsillitis secondary syphilis

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 3#Tonsillitis secondary syphilis

Dictation test

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 3#Dictation test

2025–26 Hockey India League

[edit]

No substantial history whatsoever. News we do have is that it will start on 3 January 2026 per this [44]. It could be created, but it is probably just by the narrowest margin WP:TOOSOON. Delete per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It actually starts in December and it’s the right time for it to stop being a red link. OCDD (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OCDD The concern is not that is starting soon. The concern is people see a blue link, they might just assume the article exists when it is just a redirect. Red Links are to encourage article creation. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Green High School college of Sports, Maths and Computering.

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

October 25

[edit]

Magistral (1982 film)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#Magistral (1982 film)

Draft:Tropical Disturbance AL98

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

Permanent protection

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

Sprunki Phase 3

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

Sexual laws in the United States

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

Upsilon Fornacis

[edit]

Apparently the star doesn’t exist. It doesn’t appear anywhere on the web, not even the redirected page, so deletion seems very reasonable. Astronomical Editor (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The designation exists. It appears on this chart from Bode's Urangraphia and is shown in Uranometria Argentina. Gould lists it as HD 17627, magnitude 6.9, although it seems to me more likely that it would be magnitude-5.9 HD 16975. Lacaillie's planisphere seems too simple to determine for sure and Bode's star positions are somewhat fanciful. Either way, the name has dropped out of use. Lithopsian (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is now listed at the redirect target. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Fornax#Stars, there is a line mentioning Upsilon as two stars. So if these designations are confirmed, it could mean it is a binary star or an optical double. Astronomical Editor (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HD 17627 is a double star, probably a wide binary, component magnitudes about 7 and 8 separated by 5". Wagman lists υ1 at magnitude 6.7 and υ2 at magnitude 8.5. It isn't clear who else, if anyone, used the superscripted designations. Lithopsian (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the newly-claimed existence of this designation warrant keeping the redirect? Or should it still be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Huo

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

Eng Ler Qi

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#Eng Ler Qi

Aahna Bhatia

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

Olga Szwarnowiecka

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

Lucy Yang

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

Ip Sum Yau

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

Wikipedia:Pages for deletion and similar titles

[edit]

Pages are not just limited to articles; they are also categories, files, templates, etc. I should also note that Wikipedia:PfD redirects to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I believe these redirects should be retargeted somewhere else, maybe Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussion venues. Also, tell me if there are redirects similar to the ones being nominated that I missed. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 14:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I noticed that WP:PFD was linked on a page created in 2005, though I created the page in 2014. I then noticed that WP:PFD was speedy deleted in 2012 per WP:G8. Admins ... what did WP:PFD target before being deleted in 2012? Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding stating that "...WP:PFD redirects to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion": Umm, no it doesn't... Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I meant Wikipedia:PfD, with a lowercase F. My bad. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 16:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added to the discussion, considering what happens to one "PFD" title should affect the others. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Discovered via WP:REFUND that the answer to my question is: WP:PFD apparently used to target Wikipedia:Page for Drunks in 2012. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't it be better to retarget all to match wp:xfd, and then add a hatnote there? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I oppose this option for Wikipedia:Pages for deletion per my finds above. I'm "weak oppose" regarding the rest since I prefer my resolution since it matches an established naming scheme. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Mills depot

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

Zendaya's Hat Theory

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

Paperhanger

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

No wife, no horse, no mustache

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

Woke elite

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

Wokerati

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 1#Wokerati

'MINE CRAFT' redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 3#'MINE CRAFT' redirects

Izgrednici

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

Islamophobie

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 1#Islamophobie

Racisme anti-maghrébin

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

Racisme anti-arabe

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 1#Racisme anti-arabe

Islamfeindlichkeit

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 1#Islamfeindlichkeit

Dirty Jew

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

Linnea Holmedal

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

Attentát

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 1#Attentát

Sakshi Kurbkhelgi

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

Vivian Nalule

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

Zsófi Szabó

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

Katharina Nilges

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

Nguyễn Thị Thu Huyền

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

Terrorist (ethnic slur)

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

Terraist

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

Terrorism in Asia

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

Wick flick

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 1#Wick flick

Cipher machine

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

Razorbacks

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

October 24

[edit]

Pokal Hervis

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

Wing Mang

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 31#Wing Mang

Jirard

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

National Television Company of Ukraine

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

Droit d'auteur en France

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 31#Droit d'auteur en France

ShamPoo

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 31#ShamPoo

wp:help me

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 31#wp:help me

User talk:ArticlesForCreationBot/Shutdown

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

Wikipedia:Helpdes

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

Bad!

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

Anti-trans laws

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

1969 Syrian incident

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#1969 Syrian incident

Avatar 4

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 31#Avatar 4

Victim of Circumstance (Public Disturbance album)

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

2026–27 AFC Champions League Two

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

Hotchips

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 31#Hotchips

Motherfucker, I am Both: "Amen" and "Hallelujah"...

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

Eastonmd

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

Sexy phase

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

Big gene

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#Big gene

Men who lie with men

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

Wikipedia:DONOT

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

Liberal Democrats (UK, 2025)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#Liberal Democrats (UK, 2025)

MAHA

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

Life's Not Fair

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 31#Life's Not Fair

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

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

Kha'y

[edit]

a vintner (scientific term for people who make adult grape juice) from ancient egypt or something. currently unmentioned. is apparently an r from merge, though i genuinely don't see what could have been brought in, and even if something was, it's long gone (aside from coincidentally citing the same book that served as the blar's only source). while i found a couple sources, i'll have to check them in a while, though they might not be reliable, and seem to only have the text string in them by coincidence

also unmentioned in egyptian wine, by the way consarn (grave) (obituary) 16:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to Tomb of Tutankhamun.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete or redirect to list of ancient Egyptians. The source for the original article was Vintage: The Story of Wine (1989) by Hugh Johnson. I know nothing about that book, but I'd be more comfortable with an Egyptological source. But I don't think Kha'y, or any variant of that name, is mentioned in the books about the tomb on which the tomb article is based. As he was reportedly a royal chief vintner, there might be reference to him in some other text—but I looked at Who's Who in Ancient Egypt (1999) by Michael Rice, which is the closest thing I know of to a biographical dictionary of ancient Egypt, and Kha'y is not listed there. A. Parrot (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a Khay (vizier) at List of ancient Egyptians but this doesn't appear to be the same person. Their name is also rendered Kh-'-y in the article. I'm not familiar with transcription schemes for Ancient Egyptian but if Kha'y is another variant I would retarget to Khay (vizier), otherwise delete. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was merged to the target in 2008, and remained there until March this year, when Ligaturama removed it while trimming the history of wine by moving it to History of wine, where he mentioned Tutankhamun's tomb, but omitted this vintner. Jay 💬 18:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just tagged it as {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 11:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There's always a compromise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
nah, i think this would've been a delete consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudafed

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#Sudafed

6-7

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#6-7

Martin (chess bot)

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

LGBTQ issues

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#LGBTQ issues

2028 and 2030 Women's T20 World Cup redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#2028 and 2030 Women's T20 World Cup redirects

Psychotic drugs

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

Environmental risk

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

October 19

[edit]

Leucoderma syphiliticum

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

Greedy (Cuphead song)

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

Lutz-Jeanselme syndrome

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 30#Lutz-Jeanselme syndrome

Once In Your Life (Desperate Housewives episode)

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

2026 wildfire redirects

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

HODL

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Hodl to Hödl as per Shhhnotsoloud, tag as R to diacritic. It's plausible that someone could type in Hodl while meaning for Hödl; not everyone has access to the keys that would allow someone to type an ö character. On the flipside, Delete HODL as per WP:RETURNTORED. Vgbyp may be right in that there's enough info to make a full article for this topic; in that case, we need to delete the redirect, so that someone in the future will be alerted that we don't have information on the topic, rather than pipe it to Wiktionary. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also reaffirming retarget/delete as per Pppery; one sentence with a link to wikt isn't enough to support the redirect, especially when, even after getting to the section in question, you still need to CTRL-F to *find* this tiny piece of discussion of the term. We're WP:NOTWIKTIONARY. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as it has a mention, which it does at this time. And as long as the mention indicates that "Hodl is a term meaning..." and links to a source that uses "HODL" in all caps (which it does), then HODL is a fairly harmless alternate-cap redirect. The solution should be adding a hatnote saying "Hodl redirects here, for the surname, see Hödl". Utopes (talk / cont) 02:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Hodl →Hödl and delete HODL. Redirects to diacritics are quite useful for en.wiki readers. "HODL" is barely mentioned in the Bitcoin article. It would be more useful to send readers to search, where the term is mentioned in several articles. {{Wiktionary}} and {{canned search}} for hodl, HODL, etc. could be added to Hödl to help readers typing "hodl" instead of "HODL". --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Myceteae. The current target's text never mentions the all-caps variant; as long as it doesn't warrant mention in the text, it looks like an error. No objection to recreation if consensus holds that HODL should be present in the article. And the various Hödls are seemingly more long-term significant than this slang term; we can just throw a See also ==> bitcoin§Use for investment and status as an economic bubble into the Hödl disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to the simple fact that a close was disputed. For that reason, this discussion may potentially need more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I’ve added previous afds here and on talk:Hodl which were previously invisible. The momentum seems to be shifting away from retargeting to Wiktionary as was first suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Hodl and delete HODL per all of the above as well as the fact that Hödl is a WP:PTOPIC with a base name, unlike "hodl", which has a one sentence mention in an article. Our readers are best served by the {{R from diacritic}} option, rather than the status quo. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BARE URLS

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 26#Template:BARE URLS

Not to be confused

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 27#Not to be confused

Nuh buh

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: moving to delete. Was tagged for WP:CSD#R3 speedy deletion on 24 October 2025, at 16:59; and, speedy deleted on 24 October 2025, at 16:59

Vmorp

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

Specific Ocean

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

Topics referred to by the same term

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

SS Toledo

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

Draft:Fandom (webiste)

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

2024–25 African Football League

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

Network publishing

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

Choccy milk

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural and WP:SNOW keep

Bull's Green

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

Capitol siege redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#Capitol siege redirects

Equity Pictures

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#Equity Pictures

Famous person

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 26#Famous person

Captain(R)Muhammad Safdar Awan

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

Galle Marvels in 2025

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

2016/0280(COD)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 27#2016/0280(COD)

Ruhollah Khomeini(r.a)

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

Template:Reason needed

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1320143969"