Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/In closing

Update this page

June 24

Turkish massacre

• Turkish massacre → Armenian genocide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish genocide. There's also a relevant entry currently under discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_23#Turkish_genocide_(19th–20th_century) Bogazicili (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Disambig between List of massacres in Turkey, List of massacres of Turkish people and any (list of) massacres committed by Turkish people not on either of those lists. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Arrowroot biscuit

• Arrowroot biscuit → Uraro  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Arrowroot biscuits → Arrowroot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

• Hmm. And Arrowroot biscuits redirects to Arrowroot, so we should sort that out too. There are mentions of the Australian type at Arnott's Group, Cecil Augustus Motteram, William Arnott (biscuit manufacturer). Biscuit also names arrowroot as a variety and has an image of one. So maybe Biscuit#Semi-sweet is the best we can do? It would be good to mention uraro there, though. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note I've added Arrowroot biscuits to this discussion as the plural and singular should have the same target, whatever that ends up being. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Iran–United States war

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 2#Iran–United States war

Karakasa

• Karakasa → Oil-paper umbrella  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unmentioned in the target, and seems to primarily refer to kasa-obake. however, the name on its own isn't mentioned there either, only as parts of alternative names for it. results for "から傘" gave a mix of both, and results for "唐傘" were a mishmash of umbrellas, yōkai, and netflix series i haven't heard of (which only actually narrows it down to "not kill la kill"). should it just be retargeted to kasa-obake over the romanized spelling's primary association with the yōkai? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 18:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

should also add that it did previously target kasa-obake, but was retargeted in 2011 with no explanation. pinging @Cold Season in case they still remember why. idk, maybe results were different back then consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 18:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Bomberos

• Bomberos → Firefighter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bomberos (Chilean firefighters) → Firefighter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No WP:FORRED. Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Refine the second per Ninixed. Don't refine the first per Thryduulf. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Refine the second to Geography of firefighting#Chile. Neutral on the first. Ninixed (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget both to Geography of firefighting#Chile, where it's mentioned, per Ninixed. 9ninety (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC) self striking, see new comment below 9ninety (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Refine the second per Ninixed. Don't refine the first - per that page "Bomberos is the name given to firefighters in most Spanish-speaking countries" so pointing to a Chile-specific section would be inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete the first and refine the second. Indeed, bombero simply means 'firefighter' in Spanish. Since firefighters have no special relevance to Spanish-speaking countries (vs. every where else), and since they have no special relevance to Chile (vs. every other Spanish-speaking country), neither the current redirect nor the refinement is appropriate for bomberos.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete both. I was under the impression that the term bombero(s) was Chilean, but as Myceteae points out, it is simply Spanish for firefighter. I don't think it makes sense to delete Bomberos and keep Bomberos (Chilean firefighters), which is disambiguating from the former. I don't see any meaningful links to the latter either, so it's most likely not a useful redirect. 9ninety (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• It's generally inappropriate for "X (Y)" to exist when "X" doesn't without a very good reason, so oppose the course of action proposed by Myceteae. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Ingénieur

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

Per WP:FORRED, it’s not valid. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Mentioned at target 9ninety (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  On further thought, possibly refine to Engineer#France, the specific section which talks about the title. 9ninety (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  In Quebec, it is a protected term, thus, refining isn't good. We just need to source it for the "Ing." of Quebec to be added. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment following up on @65.93.183.249's comment, I have drafted a dab page for Ingénieur, although I'm not entirely sure if it meets the criteria for a dab page. Any thoughts? 9ninety (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I've also added an entry about the related term Ingenieur in German (edit: and Dutch) 9ninety (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Further comment: If my dab proposal is accepted, Ingenieur (which currently redirects to Engineer's degree#Netherlands) can also be retargeted to the new dab, as I've added four entries related to it. 9ninety (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Db-blankdraft

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

University (Scandinavia)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to University college (Scandinavia) per Katiedevi. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget To University college (Scandinavia) per Katiedevi Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oppose retarget to University college (Scandinavia) since University ≠ University college on the English Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Clint Murchison

• Clint Murchison → Clint Murchison Jr.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could also refer to his father who was also known around the same time as Murchison Jr. Murchison Jr. was best known for being the founder of the Dallas Cowboys, but his father was also well known in the 60s. Murchison Sr. was noted during the time of the JFK Assassination and Madeleine Duncan Brown (An advertising executive) had claimed to have been present at a party at the Dallas home of Clint Murchison on the evening prior to the assassination of John F. Kennedy that was attended by Lyndon B. Johnson as well as other famous, wealthy, and powerful individuals including, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, H. L. Hunt, George Brown, and John McCloy. P.S I did get this last part almost mostly from the article Madeleine Duncan Brown. But back to the point, I would suggest to Dabify. P.S. I restarted this in order to notify people about it, but unfortunately I couldn't. If someone could help me list it in discussion categories for ones related to Texas, Oil, American Football, Dallas Cowboys and Business, that would be very helpful. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• This certainly seems like it should be a dab page rather than a redirect, unless Jr. is so much more prominent than Sr. that Jr. is WP:PRIMARY. But even so, there should then be a hatnote on Jr.'s page. Rlendog (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Rlendog I agree. If it does redirect, regardless of who it should have a hatnote. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Square root of 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I wouldn't call one "goddamn" enough to break WP:CIVILITY User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete. Not what redirects are for. Unhelpful for readers who may be trying to learn more about the topic. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • To clarify, a reader who might plausibly search for "square root of n" is most likely looking for explanation and instruction on the meaning of the operation and its calculation. They are not served by being blankly redirected to the result without any explanation. The only vaguely related explanation would be found Square root, so that is the only plausibly acceptable target, though barely, so I would favour deletion rather than retargeting. The redirects are also misleading, since -2 and -3 are also the square root of 4 and 9. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    • @Paul 012: Would it change the calculation if there was content at the target articles describing their function as the positive square roots of the redirected numbers? BD2412 T 03:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
      • Not sure what calculation you meant; did you perhaps mean to ask if it would change my opinion? If direct mentions at the targets are added, then I guess I'll have to (grudgingly) accept the redirects. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
        • Yes, I meant the utility calculation of having the redirect. BD2412 T 16:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, useful. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 16:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete the 3rd one tho, implausible. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 16:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

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

• Comment: I just noticed that Square root of 4 has history, though that only lasted three days. Not sure if restoring the article and nominating at AfD instead would lead to any better informed outcome. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I have restored the previously deleted content under the redirect for discussion. I believe that this is the most complete version. BD2412 T 16:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 6#Square root of 25 has been closed to a "no consensus" result. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: See Special:WhatLinksHere/Square root of 4 and Special:WhatLinksHere/Square root of 9. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 07:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless. Do not promote the joke draft; this isn't dihydrogen monoxide level funny. —Kusma (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all as ambiguous- the square roots of 4 are both 2 and -2. This makes them harmful as not factually correct. And if someone wants to know square roots they should use a calculator or search engine, not am encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Israel protests on university campuses in the United States

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

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

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

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

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

• Disambiguate to cover the current target and the other articles mentioned by the nominator. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep the other articles are partial subtopics and disambiguation is unnecessary. Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 19:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Unrefine per Elmer, and do not disambiguate per Cremastra. #Universities is a #Responses sub-section and not appropriate. #Pro-Palestinian_protests_on_university_campuses, a sub-section of #National, is more appropriate than the current, but unfair to the other state sections. Jay 💬 10:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Unrefine per Jay. Mildly related: I'm surprised Anti-Israel protests is red. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Likewise Protests against Israel. Opposition to Israel redirects to Criticism of Israel, but that's probably too broad a target for people looking specifically for protests. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'd say rightfully so. I'm pretty sure we don't have that for any other country (no Anti-Russia protests, Anti-United States protests etc.), so we'd be singling out Israel in this case. And none of these should exist anyway, because protests are intended against governments and leadership, not against entire nations (we do have protests against Donald Trump, Protests against Ali Khamenei, Protests against Benjamin Netanyahu etc., which are fine).

  P.S. I initially thought Criticism of Israel should probably be moved to Criticism of the Israeli government, like Criticism of the United States government, but upon reviewing the contents of the page I found that much of it probably belongs on Legitimacy of the State of Israel and Censorship in Israel instead; but the current scope doesn't allow for such a move. The article is currently unique on Wikipedia; we don't have Criticism of China, Criticism of Russia etc. 9ninety (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Filmi music

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

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

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

• Keep Filmi music and Filmi song. Remove Filmi songs since you rightly point out that 'Filmi' refers to Indian cinema in general. I'm not sure a disambiguation page is necessary. It may be more useful to update the pages you have mentioned to be more inclusive, but I am open to discussion. Katiedevi (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget Filmi Songs to Filmi, Keep Filmi song and Filmi music targeted as they are. I agree that there seems to be an issue with Filmi's coverage being limited to India while articles like Filmi qawwali making it clear that "filmi" is not in fact India-specific. But I think it's clear the same concept is being described and this is just an issue of inadequate coverage in Filmi. I don't see the need for a DAB. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• Target all at Filmi per Elmer Clark. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try... in an effort to avoid a "no consensus" close...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Target all at Filmi per Elmer Clark. Songs that are simply used in a Hindi film are not quite the same as those that were made specifically for Indian cinema. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Inurement

• Inurement → Desensitization (psychology)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Someone searching for the legal term Inurement will end up on the wrong page. Disambiguate? Not sure what the right page would be. Non-profit organization laws in the U.S.#Federal taxes? See https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/inurement-private-benefit-charitable-organizations Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Non-profit organization laws in the U.S.#Federal taxes per Guy Macon. 'Inurement' or 'inure' do not occur in Desensitization (psychology) and the legal interpretation of 'inure' seems to be more prevalent. Katiedevi (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oh, look, it's a WP:NEELIX redirect. InureInure also points to Desensitization (psychology), but it was a Wiktionary redirect before it was retargeted by Neelix. There's more information on Wikidata than there is here, so I think a Wiktionary redirect would be appropriate. Normally, I'd suggest consolidating the Wiktionary redirects at a single title, but wikt:inure and wikt:inurement are different enough to deserve individual redirects. That's a roundabout way of saying that I'd support a soft redirect of Inurement to wikt:inurement and a revert of Neelix's edit on Inure. - Eureka Lott 07:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• Either of the above suggested retargets would be fine with me. If I had to choose I have a slight preference for the Wikipedia retarget over the Wiktionary retarget, but they are both good choices. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Culture of potato

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

The Storm of 2012

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Aruba national cricket team & others

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 1#Aruba national cricket team & others

Deepak Punia (rugby union)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 1#Deepak Punia (rugby union)

po(l)ypifer

• Polypifer → Coral  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Poypifer → Coral  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

let's try this again!! "polypifer" refers to organisms formed from polyps, which is a list that only happens to include coral. there was a discussion about this before (see here), but it just kind of went nowhere. still no opinion on the plausibility of the second redirect consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

will add, though, that the term used to be mentioned in the current target... but only in passing as part of an image's caption. it's not mentioned there or in polyp (zoology) anymore ( °Д °;) consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

let's try this again!! Why do you torture us so?

As I said in last year's discussion, I think Dawkins' usage of the word is most relevant. Coral#Anatomy is still my top pick, followed a retarget to polyp. Cremastra (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

admittedly, i kind of oppose retargeting to the dab, as it seems the term only refers to living organisms with that funny shape (y'know, hence polyp (zoology)). that aside, it seems this and other results related to richard dawkins have been recently overcome with slop of ai variety, which isn't related to this discussion, but is a bummer nonetheless :c consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 17:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

SHReK

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Template:R semi-protected

• Template:R semi-protected → Template:R protected/semi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, as the target page is not supposed to be called directly, either {{redirect category shell}} or {{r protected}} should be used. Retargeting to {{r protected}} doesn't make sense either as that rcat automatically determines the protection level, and this implies otherwise. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep or retarget to Template:R protected per 86.23.87.130. Helpful as a search term. Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  This may be helpful as a search term, but that doesn't outweigh the fact that this should never be used. I should also mention that this was previously deleted (technically not kept after a move) following a TfD. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Your concern can be resolved with a WP:BOTREQ if necessary to bypass incoming redirects. Redirects are primarily utilized as search terms, and one cannot expect readers to know all the "secret handshakes" of titling conventions we use in various namespaces. Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Stance updated, updates in italics. Steel1943 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or Retarget {{R protected}}. I'm going to disagree that this is helpful as a search term as it stands. Sending people looking for a template to a "behind the scenes"/"core" template that is not actually supposed to be used and where the only documentation is "you're in the wrong place, go look somewhere else" does not strike me as a useful result. Retargeting to {{R protected}} seems like a reasonable option to me, that way any attempts at using this template will actually work, and I don't agree with the nom that it wouldn't make sense. All the protection padlock templates (e.g. {{pp-semi}}) are redirects to {{Protection padlock}}, which automatically detects the protection level. 86.23.87.130 12:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to {{R protected}} per the IP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. It's written as "semi-protected", which is how the protection term is spelled. Definitely useful for those who try to look for the template. 1isall (talk/contribs) 17:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I TfMed R protected for merging into {{Rcat shell}}. 174.138.212.166 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• (nominator comment) I was unaware there is precedent for pages like {{pp-semi}}, in which case I am more than happy to retarget this to {{R protected}} per 86.23.87.130. I still hold my belief that keeping this current redirect is not helpful, as it cannot handle cases where protection levels are changed. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep and fix the calls. The titles are not interchangeable and thus instead the redirects using this template should be fixed rather than this template redirect retargeted. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Kilma

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Blo.gs

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Christ Agony

• Christ Agony → Jesus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I might be mistaken, but would a better target be Passion of Jesus? 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 07:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget - Passion of Jesus is indeed better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget more specific target is better. -- LWG ^talk 12:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment even more specific is Agony in the Garden, but I don't know whether that's a better target. Agony of Christ redirects there, and it makes sense for the two redirects to have the same target. Jruderman (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment if this is a useful redirect, then yes, a retarget is probably in order. But I note that it has 19 page views in the last 90 days, and never more than 2 on any day. Those views may have occurred simply because the redirect exists and pops up when people type something similar in the search window. So it may be worth considering whether anyone actually uses this exact phrase as a search term; it doesn't look like a probable formulation to me. P Aculeius (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps Christ's Agony would be a better title to redirect from. If so, I agree with Jruderman that Agony in the Garden is probably the best target. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 12:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, okay. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

仏

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

not mentioned at target; maybe retarget to Buddha (which might be a closer match, although this term is not mentioned there either) or delete? Duckmather (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per WP:FORRED (it does refer to buddha as a Chinese/Japanese character) and low pageview, but would support soft retarget to Wiktionary:仏 as an alternative, since it's a less common concept/more unusual character — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 07:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

soft redirect per Volatile. Or redirect to CJK Unified Ideographs (Unicode block), which has the redirect to Wiktionary already. LIrala (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

ABDUL RAHIM AYOUBI

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

Potato potato

• Potato potato → Tomato#Pronunciation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's a mention of the differing pronunciations of "potato" at the target section, but I don't think this is a very good target. Tomato tomatoTomato tomato redirects to Let's Call the Whole Thing Off (see there for an explanation), so "Potato potato" should either redirect there or just be deleted. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 00:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe dabify it and include Potato Potahto. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Let's Call the Whole Thing Off which is the source of the whole thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget Let's Call the Whole Thing Off. 'Potato Potahto' can be WP:TWODAB hatnote'd in. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Foot play

• Foot play → Flirting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

this can refer to A) footsies (in which case this should be targeting footsies or B) foot fetish (in which case this should be targeting foot fetishism). either way, this current target is just inappropriate for either options User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Disambig. There is also Figures of Argentine tango#Foot play (which could do with a better-phrased introduction). Most of the other hits are either collocations which don't belong on the dab page, or playing off the front or back foot in cricket which may merit a link to Footwork (cricket) but I'm unsure. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WACP

• Wikipedia:WACP → User:Starfall2015/WatchControlPanel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect, created in good faith, to a personal toolbox doesn't quite satisfy the high bar required for a cross-namespace redirect from projectspace. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep It's not just for my semi-administrative work, it's for everyone. Additionally, I spent a long time on finding an open shortcut. As well, I don't want to type all that, typing 7 chars is better than 35 by a factor of five by all means.

Thanks, Starfall2015 chat | about me 05:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

For personal use, you can install User:BrandonXLF/PortletLinks which will allow you to create direct links to desired pages using portlets (the sidebar, drop-down toolbox, footer) which will be always available on all pages. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 03:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: We usually do not have shortcuts to user scripts, but we do only if the userscript is heavily used (same with shortcuts --> userspace). Considering that this is a brand new script, it is not seen by many users, it might not be used heavily, and in the end, the script would simply not be important enough to warrant a shortcut. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep it's just a harmless shortcut; will be useful to a few people, even if it's niche. 9ninety (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC) Amending to delete per the IP and CX Zoom. 9ninety (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep. If the user wants it, and it isn't needed for anything else, then there's no reason to delete it. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 08:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not agree with this reasoning. What will then stop anyone from creating a bunch of WP shortcuts to, say, personal XfD, CSD, PROD logs, etc. alongside other userspace pages? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 03:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete This is not the type of user space page that would justify a wikipedia space shortcut. @ToadetteEdit mistakenly seems to think that this page relates to a userscript or antivandalism tool, but it isn't even that - it's just links to two administrative noticeboards, the new account log, and the block log - basically just a much worse version of Wikipedia:Dashboard. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per 86.23.87.130. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

American Businessman

• American Businessman → Businessperson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• American businessman → Businessperson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too vague Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: For what it's worth, American businessesAmerican businesses is a redirect that targets Economy of the United States. In addition, American business does not exist and never has existed. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no clear target for this. Businessperson has no particularly relevant information about "American businessman". Also note that similar redirects for other countries generally don't exist. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

KenTacoHut

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

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

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

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

• KenTaco Hut (not part of the nomination and should be bundled) was an article that was merged to the same target per its AfD. The paragraph on KenTaco Hut was removed from the target with summary editing for style; copyediting. Jay 💬 09:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added KenTaco Hut to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Flagstaff war.

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2019 Coahuila Challenger 604 Crash

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

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

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

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

• The pageviews for 2019 Coahuila Challenger 604 Crash could have been from Bombardier Challenger 600 series which had a link, which I have just removed. Wait a few months and check again. Delete 2019 Coahuila Bombardier Challenger 604 crash. The article was at this title for only 18 minutes. Jay 💬 02:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Influencer Smurf

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

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

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

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

  The table there has 117 smurfs listed, but not one of them is cited. I have added nom's source there though. Jay 💬 09:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  The skinny is that Influencer Smurf has been canceled.^[3] Xe has allegedly been replaced in the trailer by Vanity Smurf.^[4] Perhaps there is a story here that is worth including somewhere, but until such story is available, the redirect (whether to Smurfs (film) or List of The Smurfs characters) is not helpful. See also WP:CRYSTAL.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, obviously. No articles link to Influencer Smurf. The term is nowhere to be found on the target page, so following the link (like from Category:Internet memes introduced in 2025) will only result in a confusing waste of time.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC) Moved from the May 27 page (where the redirect was originally nominated) by Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The Doctors (series 1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not asking you to provide evidence of absence, I'm asking you to provide evidence of the primary topic you repeatedly claim exists. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I made no such claim. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Eh? You've spent this entire discussion opposing the view that there is no primary topic. Either there is a primary topic or there isn't, if you reject the evidence showing there is no primary topic then (assuming you are acting in good faith) you can only be asserting that there is a primary topic. Are you commenting in good faith? Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If you recall my original !vote, my rationale was I don't see the ambiguity. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only comes into play where there's ambiguity. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I have objectively demonstrated that ambiguity exists, everybody else commenting sees ambiguity exists, so I was assuming good faith that your comments were are difference in opinion regarding the presence or absence of a primary topic - it now seems that assumption was incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Doctor#Series No clear primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• First choice - Delete per nom because of the ambiguity. Second choice - retarget to Doctors series 1 per Tavix, and tag as {{R from incorrect name}} and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} to a properly titled article per WP:TVSEASON. We don't have any specific article on the series 1 of any "The Doctors" shows, and we have The Doctors (TV series) for anyone interested in any other show with the name. Jay 💬 08:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Maggie Weinroth

• Maggie Weinroth → Colorado State Fair  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, useless. K1 does not apply because this should never have been an article in the first place and it has no useful history. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Manupur (1748)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 1#Battle of Manupur (1748)