This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
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.
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.
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.
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:
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.
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.
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.
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:.)
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.
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.)
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.
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 alsoWikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
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.
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:
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.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.
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|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
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.
This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.
Retarget per Tavix. Mexico has a long coastline, and we have plenty of articles about it in that category, so this should go somewhere, and the category seems the best route. Yes, it's a cross-namespace redirect, but both mainspace and categories are meant to be reader-focused, so this is a good exception. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: What do others think about the category retarget suggestion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus whether to keep or retarget. Relisting again to allow consideration of the hatnote. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational19:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
dere's no list in da target. not for clanz (bad moonz, blood axes, evil sunz, etc.), not for klasses (shoota boyz, kommando boyz, etc.), not for individual gitz (ghazghkull, tuska, nazdreg, etc.). waz an artikle 15 years ago, but all da sourcez (all two of 'em) waz primary. i say we delete as vague an' unmenshuned. this actually hurt to type and keep understandable, wow, i'm not doing this again CONSARN(WAAAGH!)(ME GUBBINS)14:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion's back on the menu, boys There's also the "this isn't a name specific to Warhammer 40k" problem-- admittedly in many settings it's spelled "orcs" (or, y'know, "uruk-hai") and not "orks", but I'm not sure that's enough to narrow down to specifically 40k. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't catch it til after I hit Enter: uruk-hai is simply a redirect to orc, which in turn is specifically about the race as written by Tolkein-- and says that an alternate name for THAT is 'Orks'. My speculation on WP:XY has a lot more ground than I thought it did LOL 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the fact that the concept of similarly-spelled Orc is not exclusive to the Warhammer 40,000 universe, Ork is a disambiguation page. No clue what anyone could be expecting if searching this title. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-BLAR page content? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬18:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not sure why this was relisted, to be honest. there was no disagreement on the observation that the content was about as suitable as scrawnie dakka (that is, not at all), 3.5 delete votes also without opposition, and arguments that even the title wasn't good. i guess if it needs reiterating, pre-blar content not good consarn(grave)(obituary)20:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only mentioned in passing at the target. This probably could be an article on its own, and I cannot find a good target for it, so deletion might be the best option Casablanca 🪨(T)17:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently a super obscure (and not clever) nickname for this movie and Ehrenreich's portrayal of the character, sprinkled across various edgy Reddit threads rather than reliable sourcing. Let's not cater to the toxic fandom. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely non-notable character not mentioned in the article. Portrayed by Anthony Daniels, but I really don't think this needs to exist because he's essentially a background extra. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
only mentioned in passing in the target as one of the things that company bought (and is awfully vague about what it actually is). results do confirm that it exists, but show that the primary topic is instead a web browser for the dreamcast (funny story, that), which is mentioned here (if also in passing). this is where things get weird though. normally i'd vote to retarget to dreamcast online functionality as the primary topic, but i'll actually vote to return to red... on both ends, as i've found seemingly reliable material for both planetwebs, which i'll be compiling in a while consarn(grave)(obituary)20:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...actually, i'll tell the story first. planetweb (the browser, not the indeterminate business company) actually had a planned port for the gamecube of all things. however, that never left the demo phase, and ran like yandere simulator on a game boy. also, when i said it "never left the demo phase", i actually meant it "never left the being scraps of html jank with a fake cursor function and honest to gork (or mork) unused, even jankier content phase" consarn(grave)(obituary)20:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
alright, it's late saturday, i'm done being chronically distracted, let's dump some of them result things
the corporate slurry planetweb thing turned out to be a dead end of sorts, as it turns out a lot of people had dibs on that name, so forget it
as for the browser ones, forgive the heresy i will commit, but i must use... google...
if it needs saying, my current stance is returning to red. at least some sources exist, and it's likely that someone not as bad at finding them as me would be able to find more, or at least something unambiguously usable... but until then, there's really nothing to work with. both current possible targets are lackluster at best consarn(grave)(obituary)20:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the most prominent shooting in Manhattan—redirects aren't exercises in category theory, they're a tool to get readers successfully from names they might think of or use to the articles they ultimately wanted to go to. Please be aware of this fundamental concept before engaging in further frantic shufflings. Remsense 🌈 论22:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Many crimes have been called a "Manhattan shooting". It is such that it is used all the time. Such as a random shooting in 2017 [3], one in 2016 [4], or another in 2013 [5]. The title is not precise enough to target any single crime. -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really such a shame and too bad that there is no such discussion venue for this, like a DpfD/DPFD, i.e. "Disambiguation pages for deletion" or "Disambiguation pages for discussion". But at least we have a G14 speedy deletion criterion. Intrisit (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the disambiguation page without prejudice to AfD. There is very clearly no primary topic for this term, so the only viable options are a dab page or nothing, which is discussion for AfD if anyone wants to have it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I would prefer to keep both this as a disambiguation page and also include the List of shootings in New York, which is more general and a longer list. The two pages serve different purposes. This page serves to distinguish only those shootings that happened in Manhattan while the title of List of shootings in New York is sufficiently vague to apply to the whole state, not just one small part of New York City. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as a disambiguation page. There are several topics that this can refer to; not all of these are referred to as "the Manhattan shooting", but all of them are "Manhattan shootings". – Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That page is already loaded with multiple similar but unrelated links that it may confuse an average WP visitor, let alone editor, so having its own DAB page might "clear the air" with regards to zooming straight to the preferred article. That's what I wanted for Lionsgate before it ended up where it ended up! Intrisit (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore or create the DAB for this title per others above, although AFD looks funny to me. 65.93.183.181, if it's the same guy seeing this here, 2017, 2016 and 2013 – even 2014 – shootings in Manhattan where most news outlet bureaus/bureaux are based will always generate some sort of uproar, which will later be transferred to or translted as articles here on WP, after all the 2023 Union Square riot with Kai Cenat kind of giving away consoles and its related likes. Intrisit (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Slight preference to Retarget to List of shootings in New York. The list is short enough, and a high enough percentage of them are in Manhattan, no real advantage to a separate list at this time but it's probably a useful search aid. If, sadly, we get many more articles about shootings in Manhattan, then some sort of split might be useful. Skynxnex (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user Indeblues attempted a DAB/SIA creation earlier this day with only one entry (the target article title). An IP editor requested a G14 deletion which was declined by BusterD. Due to a little bit of content with this title as an R3 deletion may be declined by that user, who's an admin by the way, so listing this here for discussion. Worth stll keeping this? Intrisit (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also a reply to @Eureka Lott: That title is AFD-worthy because only one straight link links to it with the others being to where it's mentioned instead of it being incubated into a hatnote. Intrisit (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the issue is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine article that is mis-titled. It is covering all events from 2022-2025, and that is what "the war in Ukraine" and "The Ukraine war" refer to. News sources discussing "The war in Ukraine" or "The Ukraine war" are referring to the events that have occurred in Ukraine since Russia's invasion in 2022, not the conflict that began in 2014.--JasonMacker (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While points are mentioned sparingly in the achievement article, it doesn't seem like a major aspect. Delete as overly vague and unhelpful. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as vague per the previous rfd. it could refer to their relations just as easily as it could refer to their cuisine, or that time japan did a bad, or that time south korea did a bad, or their geography, or their interactions with sports where men kick balls, or whatever else you can think of. it also excludes that other korea, but that's not as consequential consarn(grave)(obituary)14:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. In addition this got 83 hits last year, which while not super common is also a very long way from nobody - and given that there isn't a limit on the number of redirects we can have, there is no requirement that only the most common search terms can be redirects. This redirect is helping around 100 people a year, deletion would make things harder for them entirely unnecessarily. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep or refine, potentially speedily, in absence of a rationale, whichever the closer is more in the mood for. if the target's gonna be deleted (prodded? taken to afd? speedied after an rfa?), the redirect's going with it, so there's not much to worry about consarn(grave)(obituary)21:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this and related redirects were discussed and kept at RfD in 2022 when they were mentioned in the target article. The consensus of commenters there was very much that the mention in the article was DUE. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "biotechnology product" is nowhere in the target article, leaving readers not arriving at their intended information. Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentABC, ABCD and ABCDEFG are dab pages, ABCDE is a redlink but was previously an article about a software programme that was deleted at AfD. This title was created as a redirect to Latin script in April 2024 but retargetted to the present target about 12 hours later. Previously (2017) this was what appears to have been a straight-up copy of the then-current revision of the Alphabet article that was speedily deleted under A10. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Comparable to ABCDEFG, but that one has more possible targets. Here we can add ABC (medicine)#ABCDEF, and perhaps the " American Boys' Club for the Defense of Errol Flynn" (mentioned in [[Errol Flynn). Deleting certainly serves no one. Fram (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The TV station that most commonly branded as CBS46 or CBS 46, now WANF in Atlanta, disaffiliated from the CBS network this month. There is one CBS affiliate on channel 46, KION-TV in California (which brands as News Channel 46). JAV317 repointed CBS 46 to KION-TV, so now we have two redirects pointing in opposite directions. All uses of the redirects were for the Atlanta station and almost exclusively in citation templates; I have deliberately bypassed the redirects in about 12 or 13 uses to go to WANF for futureproofing and to avoid confusion.
Note I've added CBS 46 to this discussion as they should both point to the same target. I don't currently have an opinion what that should be, but disambiguation is another option to consider. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Target article never mentions Bradtmoore, making this redirect more confusing than helpful. I have no idea what Bradtmoore is/was and neither does anyone else on WP, it seems, so why do we have this redirect? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed the half-sentence mention. Still, former names of long-abolished post offices are not notable and are an unlikely search term for someone looking for information on Heber. Suggest deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone searching for this place would learn that there was a post office with the name a half-mile north of Heber. Of course the post office wouldn't be notable but that's why it's a redirect and not a stand-alone article. --Tavix(talk)14:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I created it, the target made sense. The term "hard border" was being bandied about and, like most things Brexit, "means exactly what I want to mean, no more and no less". So directing it to the specific section of the B&tIb article was the most useful to readers. Seven years later, a world-wide perspective says it has to become Border#Regulated borders. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we are going by my vote in that discussion. Wrong venue if you go by the fact that the nominator is seemingly disputing the closer's result, meaning WP:MRV is that way. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TWODAB, such a page is only appropriate if there is no primary topic. At least I personally have never heard of Smashburger the restaurant but I have eaten a smashed burger, so I would think the dish would be the primary topic. As mentioned previously, there's already a Template:For anyway. guninvalid (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Golden Age of America was previously created and XfDd. Term is not used academically to refer to a specific era. If this article is to be made again, it really needs to be an actual article made through the AfC process. guninvalid (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Delete. The American economy is in decline, the COVID-19 pandemic was the most serious epidemic the country has faced in decades, the democratic backsliding in the United States is still ongoing and we have sources pointing to the existence of authoritarian presidents, the United States Constitution is still dysfunctional and to quote one of our sources: it is the main reason "why the US still has so many undemocratic institutions that most or all other democracies have reformed."[1], and the country has alienated key allies like Canada and Mexico. If this real-life dystopia is the country's "golden age", I would like to see someone describing an actual improvement in the life of the proverbial average Joe. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Chapter 7". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point. New York: Crown. ISBN978-0-593-44307-1.
I think they're more like antonyms. A golden age"denotes a period of primordial peace, harmony, stability, and prosperity"; the gilded age was "a time of materialistic excesses marked by widespread political corruption". Schazjmd(talk)20:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a brief allusion and one which doesn't need a link or redirect. Not to mention the period in question is the post-covid era, completely incongruous with the redirect target. guninvalid (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ambiguous; but if kept, retarget to Second inauguration of Donald Trump#Inaugural address. I find very few sources using the phrase prior to January 2025 and never consistently about the same historical period, and many sources using it after that date in specific coverage of Trump's inaugural speech (in which he said the "golden age of America begins now"). Schazjmd(talk)14:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a blue link as it's a very common phrase that people will search for. I agree the current target isn't perfect, List of biblical places is much better but still not perfect. If Category:Hebrew Bible regions were an article I'd be strongly recommending retagetting there, but as it's a category and there are mainspace options I'm not so sure. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Term not used in target article and it looks like it never was. Sources use the phrase, but inconsistently (sometimes referring to advertisers leaving since 2022, sometimes users leaving in 2024) and mostly as a headline. Belbury (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This character is called "GEOMETRICALLY EQUAL TO" in Unicode, and there is no explanation of this at the target, nor any content related to "geometric equality". 1234qwer1234qwer401:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, being a valid search term does not justify redirects for titles where we have no reasonable content to point the reader at. I am not sure the article on the Unicode block is particularly informative here, but I would not mind it too much. 1234qwer1234qwer406:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to subst-only templatethen punt to TfD. Most arguments in WP:FORRED don't apply to Template-space and a bot replacing the foreign language template limits the amount of confusion that can be generated by an editor using one. {{Baustelle}} was created in order to ease the burden at Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates per the edit summary. I don't frequent TfD, but if this is standard practice there then I see no reason not to do the same here. The fact that this and similar "templates" were ever transcluded at all makes it seem likely to happen again (if uncommonly). ⇌Synpath20:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the article and tag as per Paradoctor; even though the author advocates for deletion, the proposed article that supposedly 'replaces' the redirect IS at a different title from the redirect. It'd only help to keep the redirect around and point it to the new target.That said, @Pppery What's this about salt evasion?? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann: Because new and anonymous users would keep recreating the article at a new title once the article was move to the draftspace, but they'd do so by publishing the same draft with the same issues. This time, however, a more competent editor published a different version of the article, hence it exists at American Communist Party (2024). Yue🌙07:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for factions and split parties to have the leader's name in brackets, not as a Wikipedia disambiguator. In this case, the only usage of this bracketed term appear to be Wikipedia-related, and this was a temporary title, per creator's vote, because American Communist Party was protected from July 2024. Duplicates such as Draft:American Communist Party, Draft:American Communist Party (2024) and Draft:American Communist Party(2024) are still not accepted to mainspace though. Agree with Yue that this is a non-plausible disambiguation. The party had three founders, and favouring one because it helped as a salt-evasion title, makes this a poor title. Delete, and the pre-BLAR content needn't be kept as it was duplicate, and the American Communist Party (2024) article evolved separately after a lot of forking and merging. Jay 💬05:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect page should be deleted due to the wrong title. Ganghwa Anglican Church is the correct title and all links to this redirect page have been corrected. There are only three Korean Anglican Cathedrals (called "주교좌성당" in Korean): Seoul, Daejeon and Busan. Wikipean (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an easy mistake to get confused between a cathedral or a church. This way, a user would still reach the correct article despite their confusion. Katiedevi (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget as proposed. From Merriam Webster, the definition of a mushroom appears to be "an enlarged complex aboveground fleshy fruiting body of a fungus (such as a basidiomycete) that consists typically of a stem bearing a pileus – especially : one that is edible". This includes foods that aren't of the typical "mushroom" form, including sparassis crispa (the "cauliflower mushroom") which sparked this debate. However, I guess there are some cases such as the penicillin example or those mentioned at the last paragraph of Fungus#In food, so there's a weak case there for retargeting. It might be better to just move edible mushroom to edible fungus though, and cover it all under one umbrella, since the vast majority of edible fungi are indeed mushrooms and I'm not sure there's a need for two different articles. — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't find anything about the magazine or TV show (there is a show called simply New World that I found in my cursory searches, without the definite article), but the DAB page New World (disambiguation) has several entries properly titled "The New World". I'll let the rest of the community decide whether a secondary DAB page is needed or the existing one is sufficient. — Anonymous00:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is by far the primary topic. Googling "Tel Aviv 1968" -Wikipedia literally every hit on the first four pages of results is about the Paralympics, as are all but 2 on page 5 (and one of the ones that isn't is an ebay listing) and all but 4 on page 6. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a fairly common naming scheme with regard to Olympic events. For example, Tokyo 2020 redirects to 2020 Summer Olympics. We could include a hatnote to 1968 in Israel, which mentions the bombing, if that's considered significant/likely enough, although I doubt it's required, considering Thryduulf's comment. 9ninety (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit00:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete, potentially as a train wreck. single sentence that could've been a shortdesc, unsourced, said nothing about the river itself, doesn't refer to any specific river, and doesn't seem to have any single river it could refer to. it also has a really unhelpful incoming link in the list of rivers of the philippinesconsarn(grave)(obituary)14:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or retarget to Clan Donald Assuming the dab page being proposed is Macdonald, I don't think that's the best target as none of the main entries other than the fast food chain are regularly and obviously pluralised. This is a very common misspelling of the target, including in things like this heritage listing, and that is the primary topic on Google (when discounting non-notable local attractions called "Old Macdonald's Farm" in various spellings, capitalisations and punctuations) which argues for keeping. On Wikipedia, most uses are for various clans Macdonald (or MacDonald), which are covered on the Clan Donald article, suggesting retargetting there is best. While that is on the dab page it's the 16th entry in the See also section and not presented with any explanation of its relevance to the search term, so someone using this search term isn't likely to be well served by that dab page. I think keeping the current target is my preference, but that's slight. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add hatnote to Clan Donald. Very plausible misspelling, potentially fuelled by the spelling of Big Mac, McDonald's flagship product. The fast food chain is very likely the intended target. BugGhost🦗👻22:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very useful redirect. The target article is about the field, not about its practitioners. I suggest a retarget to Health professional as the corresponding individual term to this collective term, but would also be open to deletion as overly vague. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary redirect as the target article has been around for a very long time now, far beyond the point where someone would search "Draft:Taylor Swift". Cyberthetiger🐯 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to Casablanca Rock's comments, deletion will not bring any benefits to anybody at all. Discussions over harmless redirects like this just waste everybody's time. Thryduulf (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are around 20 more of these, but I don't want to create a huge nomination. I might nominate the rest of those pending how this goes. Casablanca 🪨(T)15:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed those up, thank you! I checked the second two redirects as well, but they didn't have anything other than article alerts or the AnomieBOT retarget, which will auto G8 if these are deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T)00:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget the appropriate index (List of Olympic competitors) and tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, which is what we should do by default for every list that has been split. This is for the same reasons we routinely keep redirects from moves: to avoid unnecessary breaking of incoming links, maintain attribution etc. Nobody searching for ...Co-Cz will be astonished or even surprised to arrive at a page offering links to ...Co-Cq and Cr-Cz. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This makes the most sense. I've got a list of pages to update here, that if closed as retarget, I can just retarget the rest of these after to match if someone pings me. Casablanca 🪨(T)16:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear where this should target. Could go to any of the articles at the 87 dab, so maybe it should go there? Also there's a movie called One Eight Seven. It certainly doesn't belong here, so either redirect or delete as unhelpful. TNstingray (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This gets a handful of passing mentions in articles about journals they publish, and lots of mentions in citations of works they publish, but we have nothing in any detail at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Googling for "Melonwater" -Wikipedia gets a lot of results (band names and usernames I was expecting but at least two different knitting patterns I definitely wasn't!), but absolutely nothing that even resembles a primary topic, nothing that's even worth investigating for notability and (on the first four pages) only two hits obviously related to watermelons. Of those two hits, the first was an instagram post on page 2 that is no longer available and the second, on page 3, was Urban Dictionary merch (a mug saying "Melonwater drinking berrystraws"). Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like this redirect should be deleted, it leads to a cast section in a work's article where the subject's mention encompasses all of six words. This is hardly a good article for someone looking for information specifically on this actor to be offered. I think as there isn't a reasonably relevant article to redirect to, it would be better to delete the redirect and leave a red link to encourage article creation. Adam Blacktalk • contribs11:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name "XCX World" itself is not mentioned in the target article, despite a mention of the leak which was commonly referred to as "XCX World" by fans (only mentioned in Charli (album) with no sources). Chuterix (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit seems to have been the last time this article mentioned 'bobbin' or 'spiral' batteries; this mention traces from 2022 (when it was removed) to 2019 (when it was added). The editor who removed the content in question was @Thumperward; the explanation he gave for the removal was that this is a list article; content belongs in the main articles.He did not indicate that the information was being transplated to anywhere in particular; the only article I can think to check is electric battery which has no mention of 'bobbin' or 'spiral' anywhere. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The terms refer to the two main types of construction (not size) of, specifically, Li-SOCl2 (Lithium Thionyl Chloride) cells (see, for example, this page). We do not have an article specifically on Li-SOCl2 cells; they just have an entry on the list at Lithium metal battery, which does not discuss their construction. The two redirects in question don't quite fit into Criterion 10 ("could be plausibly expanded into an article") - their ideal target would be an expanded Lithium thionyl-chloride article that discusses the cell's construction - but I still think deletion is the most appropriate solution unless that article is created. That being said, Lithium metal battery is the best target article we have at the moment. Tevildo (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this would more naturally point to Template:Contentious topics, a dab page for the various contentious related templates. We are trying to make it more clear that {{controversial}} is for articles which are controversial but not within a formal WP:CTOP, and this redirect only aids that confusion. There are three transclusions of this redirect; bypassing those uses should not be a barrier to retargetting to Template:Contentious topics. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)03:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit you're right, I used the wrong keyboard combination. I wanted to support the redirect, the other nominations confused me. FaviFake (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Vitrio (talk·contribs) took this redirect to AfD, but there is no current non-redirect history for this page (it was the original title for the itself-since-redirected Tyrannus (comics)Tyrannus (comics), which is probably why this redirect points to the "T" list, but the current all-redirect history here started with a 2006 page move). Their explanation follows:
Nothing links to it, and the redirect takes to a page which does not mention the name Romulus Augustus. Seems not just pointless but confusing as it interferes with the genuine Romulus Augustulus. — User:In Vitrio09:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
In which case it should be Romulus Augustulus. And that would confuse with the genuine article even more. Maybe it should be a disambig on the Romulus Augustulus page alone. In Vitrio (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per In Vitrio the original nom. Do not move one redirect as another redirect. No opinion on creating a Romulus Augustulus (comics) redirect as there is no mention at Tyrannus. Jay 💬15:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can go ahead and add the information about Romulus Augustulus as the true identity of Tyrannus to that list entry, so long as doing so is still proper even with this discussion ongoing. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought, we could preserve this redirect as a good search term, given the close naming association between "Romulus Augustus" and "Romulus Augustulus" for both the comics character and the historical figure the character's based on. I can see the former serving as an avoided double redirect if kept at all, while the latter can be a newly created redirect. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ambiguous. Google largely associates these with red bananas but none of the sources on the first few pages were reliable. "Purple Bananas" (capitalized, plural) is the name of a book and an app. Several companies and a weed strain are named "purple banana" or "Purple Banana" and as mentioned in the prior RfD, the term is used in a Prince song. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needlessly long and weirdly capitalised redirect - and the target article can be reached simply by typing the first word of the redirect into the search box. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an explanation of the term to the page as suggested. If the consensus is to move the redirect, would be happy for it to be moved to the new redirect page. Kiwichris (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There are a variety of targets proposed, so I think having more participants would help establish a clear consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Yookay" is just a phonetics rendering of "UK", and if anywhere should redirect there, but that seems pretty accessory. The migration-related meaning does not seem to have caught up and is unlikely to be significantly expanded on any of the suggested pages. Place Clichy (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Icelandic, but Keep French and Dutch - due to Austria also being a member of the European Union, and the EU having 24 official languages, French and Dutch being in those, it means that the official names of Austria in those languages do have official name status, so should be kept per WP:FORRED exception for official names. page views also support that they are used as search terms often enough to be valuable. Raladic (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The European Union has jurisdiction over Austria and its other member states at a constitutional level so it’s a little different from the United Nations. The European Union for all intents and purposes is really one supra-national “state” and acts as such with regards to all areas that the countries sign in the treaties of joining the European Union, which is why the European Union also has the various institutions such as a legislative body. Raladic (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jurisdiction is not the criterion we use. Instead we delete redirects that point to articles not directly related to that language or a culture associated with that language. Austria has no special connection to the French language/culture nor to that of the Netherlands just because it is a fellow EU member. It's not like you can use French in Austria and expect to be understood by default. In general, official languages of the European Union are not official languages of the member states the same way official languages of the UN are not official languages of its member states. Warudo (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had only brought up the EU link as I figured that would be simple enough, but fair enough let me expand: That's where it gets tricky, the Jurisdiction of the European Union is that of a community, which does have a European Culture and the European principle of multilinguality is enshrined and embraced by members of the European Union.
Ignoring the history of relations by European countries also ignores facts that the European culture and its interconnectedness over the centuries, including linguistically.
And then we get to the Congress of Vienna, which established some of the modern countries of Europe following Napoleon's fall, resulting in the establishment of Germany.
Or the post World War II resulting Allied occupation of Austria (Between the French, U.S., Soviet and British forces) when Austria was sub-divided into four parts (history tends to talk more about the east/west Germany divide) and English, French and Russian were common language for 10 years in the respective sub-divisions of Austria and Vienna respectively (Vienna was split slightly different by the Allied Control Council), which had a lot of intermingling of culture in the more "recent" history of Austria. Austrian German has a lot of loanwords from French that are used in day to day interactions, whether reading the Feuilleton in a newspaper, drinking a Wiener Melange and so forth.
Which is also why French is the most common second language after English (which itself isn't a minority language in Austria as it's spoken by 3/4 of the population) in Austria and is spoken by over 10% of the population.
Then we get to food and drink, which is even more of a giant mixing pot linguistically across Europe. The world-famous French croissant has its origin in the Austrian Kipferl, following an Austrian baker opening a Viennese bakery in France. The linguistic English term for fine pastry is Viennoiserie (a French loanword term for "Viennese pastry"), named after the bakery's origin from Vienna. Ironically the group of pastries itself it also very commonly nowadays just lumped in with the term Danish pastry, which, surprise, was another baker from Austria who brought Viennoiserie to Denmark and ironically, the Danish language term is wienerbrød (Vienna bread). Then on to Viennese coffee house culture which spread throughout Europe and the western world, and that ironically the most common type of coffee ordered in Austria has the Austro-French name Wiener Melange (Viennese mix, w:fr:Café viennois) and is the precursor to the Italian Cappuchino.
Long story short, the French culture and language is most certainly extremely intermingled in Austrian culture. So are the Italian and many others.
Restore the pre-BLAR content without prejudice to AfD. It contained multiple assertions of importance (split from a notable organisation, participated in multiple notable groupings, stood in multiple elections) so it isn't speedy deletable. I'm not sure it's notable, but if sources exist they will almost certainly be in Dutch (or possibly French) and given this originated in the early 1990s are not guaranteed to be easily accessible on Google. As such a more thorough investigation by someone who knows the best places to find sources meeting that description is required here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I redirected the article because it had zero sources and a quick WP:BEFORE came up with no results from my memory. I have no problem if it was recreated with reliable sourcing, but it shouldn't be restored without establishing some contention as to the material reasons for the redirect. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add, there is a version of this on the French Wikipedia which doesn't demonstrate any notable sources[7] and also on the Dutch Wikipedia that also has no sources[8], so even the native language versions of the project feature nothing to draw from. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only two results on google for this non-standard AA notation. Not mentioned in the target page, or the Wikidata entry (which includes many possible nomenclatures). I don’t think this is a plausible search term. Zzz plant (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an unambiguous structural molecular formula for the compound. Many compounds have similar structural formulas like this, including a majority of the protein-forming amino acids. Perhaps not useful as a search term, but redirects serve other purposes, such as internal and external links. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All redirects beginning with the characters "NH2CH" were created a few months ago by this redirect's creator except the one for glycine. I'm not in favour of indiscriminately creating redirects for every reasonable representation of a structure. Redirects shouldn't be a space to dodge around WP:NOTDATABASE. If these were older or made independently by a collection of editors I'd let it pass, but, as is, they're better off deleted unless endorsed more broadly. As for linking, none of the "NH2CH"-prefixed redirects are used as links, so I find that implausible. I don't know how to evaluate external links, but I would guess that they're too new to have any real use outside of WP. That said, I do agree with Myceteae in the prev. discussion that these are reasonable searches for smaller compounds. I think CH3COOH (created 2004) and CH3COCOOH (created 2010) are good examples. Note that acetate is linked only once and pyruvate is not linked in mainspace. ⇌Synpath15:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be an accurate name based on the contents of the article, unambiguous. I don't think WP:NOTDATABASE is applicable; chemicals as an entire topic are all very commonly searched for by formula as another way to refer to the chemical, this one seems harmless. I wouldn't mind seeing different notations as redirects as well, as long as the title is accurate. Utopes(talk / cont)04:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HOC6H4CH2CH(NH2)COOH is another accurate formula for tyrosine that has existed as a redirect since 2013. Redirects are cheap, and these are both good examples of that. Formulas can be written in alternate ways, and the chembox at the target confirms the accuracy of these searches. Utopes(talk / cont)04:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Synpath's comments here that these unlikely search terms that amount to a WP:NOTDATABASE workaround. I second Synpath's comment in the methionine RfD that these are more "trivia" than useful. To reiterate and expand on my previous comment, chemical formula redirects are (more likely to be) useful when the notation is simple and the molecule is (very) small. H2O is familiar to the general public. Chemists, students, healthcare workers, and many non-specialists with passing familiarity can glance at CH3COOH or CH4 or EtOH or NH3 and immediately recognize them. These short formulas and abbreviations are commonly used in running text to 'name' these molecules, increasing the likelihood that they will be encountered by readers without the knowledge to parse them. NH2CH(CH2C6H4OH)COOH and similar are unlikely to be encountered except when referencing a particular way to write the chemical formula. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk16:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, internal links of this sort should be avoided in article space. Molecules should be named, and further defined/described where appropriate, in running text in a general audience encyclopedia. Readers should not be expected to parse NH2CH(CH2C6H4OH)COOH nor click a link to find out what it means. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article now at David Lim (mountaineer) was created at this title in 2005, but it was moved just under 3 hours later to David Lim. Given that the only editor at this title also edited it post move, the short time the article was at this title, that it was possibly intended as promotional (the first version of the article could be read either way) and hasn't led to a relevant target since 2014 (when the mountaineer's article was moved away from the base title to make way for disambig) all mean that there is no navigational value in retaining the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to refer to a clothing company that doesn't currently have a wikipedia article. Current target is not common usage so probably should be deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T)00:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can find about no information on this term. It certainly doesn't seem to be used enough to warrant a redirect. It's averaging 2 views a month, so it's not being used much here either. This is probably best being deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T)00:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to adding content about the park. This is a plausible search term for the housing development discussed at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to adding content about the park. This is a plausible search term for the current target from those who don't know the intricacies of Wikipedia's title conventions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Poking around the notes and references in Accordion, there is some suggestion that aeoline[9] or Aeolian[10] were early names for the instrument, or early forms of the instrument. I found sources online that back this up, specifically for aeoline.[11][12][13] I can't speak for the sources' reliability. But this is apparently not the main meaning today.[14][15][16] I lean 'delete' but it's possible there is a suitable target or that aeoline could be described at Accordion#History. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see suggestions to keep, retarget, and disambiguate, but no clear consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I condensed all my entries into one heading, because if one of these can go then the rest can follow. These are utterly obscure Star Wars background characters without any meaningful target. They are not mentioned at the current target either. The others listed separately at least had possibilities. They were nominated separately using Twinkle, but I have condensed these to assist my fellow editors. I'm recommending outright deletion. TNstingray (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen the movie a few times and I do not remember any of these characters. Additionally, they're so obscure and irrelevant they aren't mentioned at the target page either. Iminscotland (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some mentions of someone in the Spanish Wikipedia, but over here, this is an entirely non-notable character mentioned nowhere. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly a joke redirect. Apparently there was some pun for the character design before the film's release but that is entirely unsourced, and non-notable. I don't see redirecting it to Twinkie. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at target; used to be an unreferenced stub that later got redirected. According to Distant Memories (which might be a target alternative but probably is not terribly helpful), the title of the work is also actually Music for Piano. 1234qwer1234qwer403:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear target. Obscure Star Wars character not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, but may also refer to a Sony camera? Just FX could lead to a number of other places as well. Unhelpful to the reader, I'm leaning towards deletion. TNstingray (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character that should stay on Wookieepedia. Not mentioned here nor anywhere else besides Ben Burtt as a voice credit. If we don't redirect there, I recommend deletion. TNstingray (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume the disambiguator is in the sense of "Tiger, but the wild animal"-- as opposed to, say, Tiger (guitar), or Tiger Electronics, or HMS Tiger. In that sense, if it weren't for the fact that Tiger is so unequivocally the primary target as to render this an unnecessary disambig, it'd honestly be an XY situation between Tiger and all the other animals on the Tiger (disambiguation) DAB. As it stands, though, the target is correct.That being said, while unclear may not be the correct term, implausible... possibly is, I'll grant you that. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find this rather implausible and unclear. 'Wild' would seem to distinguish the animal in the wild from tigers in captivity. There is no domesticated tiger. The history reveals vandalism and is otherwise useless. Pageviews shows only 149 total views since May 2017 so it is, unsurprisingly, not useful nor used (much). (For reasons that are unclear, it had many more views from July 2015 to April 2017.) --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:MISGENDER, the former name should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists -- therefore this redirect should not exist (and probably should be salted). Sophisticatedevening(talk)19:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This redirect has no place on Wikipedia, as discussed above and per the talk page consensus. Blatant guideline violation. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: MOS:MISGENDER only applies to living people. It says "unless a living transgender or non-binary person [...]". This is because it has to do with the WP:BLPPRIVACY policy, which only applies to biographies of living persons. Cyrobyte (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.
What encyclopedic value does the deadname have? Why should it be included?
Again quoting WP:BDP regarding extensions of BLP to deceased people:
Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. (emphasis added)
Keep: Many people are gonna look ub "Robert Westman" on Wikipedia so this is necessary to help readers. Besides as already mentioned MOS:MISGENDER only covers the living--Trade (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: I am not talking about any editor or making any accusations of transphobia towards other editors; the redirect itself is transphobic because deadnaming is transphobic. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyrobyte: Manning's deadname is included because she is notable under her birth name. There was significant and sustained coverage of her under her birth name since Manning leaked the documents in 2010 and did not obtain a name change until several years later. This is spelled out in MOS:DEADNAME (in fact, it's included as one of the examples of when including a deadname is appropriate). In the case of this redirect, the person being deadnamed (Westman) was not notable under their birth name and so there's no reason to include it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's insane. It is much worse to have a deadname in the actual article of a BLP than to have a deadname redirect to a non-BLP. In my opinion, Manning's deadname should not be included but this redirect should be kept because it's not a BLP. Cyrobyte (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the merits of your position; however, there appears to be a well-established consensus to include Manning's deadname in her article that would require significant discussion to change. You make a good point about the difference between including it in the article and including it as a redirect. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined the speedy deletion. It is not a page intended to disparage the subject, as redirects are simply an aid to locate an article. I note that Bradley Manning redirects to Chelsea Manning(and they are alive). However, a community consensus can still be obtained via this discussion to delete. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable (by Wikipedia's standards) under that name. I encourage you to further note that Chelsea Manning is the first example given there in MOS:DEADNAME to illustrate this exception to the general idea of avoiding use of people's deadnames.
Because of that, I don't find Chelsea's deadname existing as a redirect (which also is an R from move, given the notability timeline) persuasive in keeping this redirect at all. Hamtechperson15:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that Manning's situation is different. I was more referencing it in relation to the speedy deletion I declined, regarding intent. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do oppose misgendering somebody in body text, but this is likely a common search term and a useful redirect to have. Not to mention that redirects aren't really subject to the same guidelines as articles since their primary function is to take plausible search terms and redirect readers to the appropriate page. This is why we have redirects from inappropriate names, slang terms, etc that aren't appropriate for actual article content. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt, WP:DEADNAME already applies to redirects of deadnames for individuals who only became notable after their transition. As that already has community-wide support, this RFD is redundant as a WP:LOCALCON cannot override a larger community-wide discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c15:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it provides for a BLP like exception if desired- but it exists now, why not keep it instead of just waiting six months to a year for someone to create it later? 331dot (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. WP:DEADNAME only applies to living people because it has to do with WP:BLPPRIVACY. I don't understand why people are glossing over that fact. And even if the exception is applied for recently deceased people the redirect will be recreated in a year or so anyway. Cyrobyte (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the damage it does to potential familial survivors and to the community in general. Flip that argument around, where's the harm in deleting and salting for six months to a year and then allowing a discussion to be held to determine if the time is right then? WP:BDP certainly seems applicable here in allowing protections to extend temporarily until a better picture of who this person was emerges. WP:NODEADLINE. —Locke Cole • t • c23:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it is in the article. As with all deadname redirects we should always defer to the consensus of the editors in the article about inclusion or exclusion unless there is some clearly-articulated reason to differ. If there is no consensus we should wait for there to be one before creating or deleting the redirect. In this case it's complicated because it is disputed what the subject's preferred name and pronouns are, but this name is currently bolded. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC) edited Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rough consensus on the article's talk page to not include the birth name in the article; the current state of the article (as of this comment's writing) only includes "Robin Westman". I say "rough consensus" because there has been significant pushback. In case it becomes clear that this person wanted to be referred to by their birth name (it isn't clear right now, like you said), the redirect can be recreated by an admin. I still recommend salting because the redirect will probably be repeatedly recreated if this RfD is closed as "delete". It's best to err on the side of caution and leave out the redirect unless there is consensus to include it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We would have this discussion to point to if it is recreated. It's unusual to preemptively salt something absent evidence of an actual problem first. And, frankly, repeated recreations would indicate that the redirect is useful. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dotrepeated recreations would indicate that the redirect is useful Or, it's transphobic harassment because the internet is filled with internet trolls with nothing better to do than to wittle away at efforts websites such as Wikipedia take to reduce exposure to deadnames for recently deceased trans individuals. WP:AGF is not a WP:SUICIDEPACT. A minimal 6-month reprieve so the sources can settle down is perfectly in line with WP:NODEADLINE. And this is something we should try to get right. —Locke Cole • t • c02:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't increase exposure to have a redirect which would require already knowing the person's deadname. AGF is not a suicide pact but it also doesn't mean there is a troll around every corner that we should plan for. Do you have evidence that there are specific efforts to troll this deceased individual? 331dot (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of the article had to be semi-protected due to the number of unhelpful comments, many of which were transphobic; I would consider that evidence of trolling. Although I do see your point that having the redirect would require already knowing the deadname. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just echoing what SPM said above, this is precisely what I was observing, and even with the ECP protection on the article itself we still have gotten a couple people inserting the deadname. —Locke Cole • t • c07:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf Unless I've missed something, the name is not currently in the article, and rough consensus is against including it at this time. WP:CCC, sure, but let's extend WP:BDP protections until more is known about the subject of this article and the heavy opinions being expressed in the media have had a chance to settle down. —Locke Cole • t • c23:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term is not mentioned at all in the target article. I'm unsure what "New York Times democracy" is, nor what the New York Times has to do with classical liberalism. Day Creature (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I play NationStates and it's definitely a thing there, but I haven't seen it used anyehwere else, nor is it the same as classical liberalism. Retarget to NationStates which has a chart explaining these things. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 18:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of RDRAFT is twofold - firstly (and arguably primarily) it is to enable those who significantly contributed to the draft before it was published to find the page at its new location, and secondly to discourage the creation of a new draft duplicating the article. If the only significant author in draftspace was the one to move it, or all significant contributors are clearly aware of the new location (e.g. they edited after the move) then there isn't any need to keep for the first reason (I haven't investigated whether that applies here). The second limb requires consideration of whether it is plausible someone else would write a draft duplicating the subject at this title, and in this case I think the answer to that is very clearly yes, so I'm leaning keep. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, in a semi-similar vein to WP:SRE, simply retargeting this to Star Wars: Starfighter would be the best option. Such redirects are harmless; discussing them (much less so here than MfD though) is a time-suck for energy that could be otherwise more productively spent. — Godsy (TALKCONT)21:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I say when it comes to these unnecessary draft redirects, we should ignore all rules and just clean up this clutter. I do not see any long-term benefit in retaining such draft redirects when almost all articles are incubated before they are ready for the mainspace and the core article contents remain with the moved article. I find it dubious that we ought to concern ourselves with hypothetical actions of a draft being recreated for this when the main subjects people would be looking for are already in the mainspace. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs)16:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
should probably have mentioned that i ended up not drafting the dab because it'd only have two entries, which isn't enough imo. would've mentioned it a couple hours after this nom but i forgot :( consarn(grave)(obituary)21:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect would be useful if there is an article having information about the company named as such. But what the current target has is a one-word mention, and as an example. Delete. Jay 💬06:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no targeting the tropical depression on its section articles for Huaning. Although JMA officially upgraded the system into tropical storm named Lingling (18W), this is a former name and needs to be deleted permanently. Icarus 🔭 • 📖 • ✎02:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects were on manual blacklists (from what I can recall frequent disruption) that got deprecated. If there is a better target for them, or someone wants to make a dismabig page that's fine -- but if they are going to be deleted they should be salted until ready to be used again. — xaosfluxTalk00:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i mean... should they really be fully protected now? we're kind of 3 years past the disruption, and those two redirects aren't the teahouse, so i doubt it'll happen again- what do you mean 2022 was 3 years ago consarn(grave)(obituary)11:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget → Isotretinoin (aka Accutane). Google searches reveal accutan is almost always a typo/misspelling of Accutane. It is also a "branded" formulation of isotretinoin, of questionable legitimacy, sold on several "gear" (anabolic steroid) websites.[18][19] When I Google "accutan" alaska I mostly get Facebook, Quora, and Reddit posts on the first two pages referring to either Akutan, Alaska or Akutan Island, with some results for Accutane. This 1899 Wyoming newspaper article apparently spelled the island's name Accutan. If a hatnote is implemented, Akutan (DAB page) might be the better page to point to. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page has had several changes to what it should target just by people changing the history, I figured a discussion would be the best way to get consensus. I personally think that Chad (paper) § 2000 United States presidential election controversy makes the most sense as a target because it is on a page that defines what it is and explains it context while linking to an article on the larger issue of the recount. Casablanca 🪨(T)18:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the top of the page, not to a section? That seems to be the only point of conention here at the moment, so it might be better to clarify. Tevildo (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Chad (paper) § 2000 United States presidential election controversy. This is the reason the term entered the popular lexicon and became notable, and is to this day. Other sources that define the term typically reference the 2000 election—for example, these pages from the first page of Google search results for hanging chad: [20][21][22][23] Re: Lunamann's suggestion: the 2000 election section is also short and also defines the term in the relevant context (a "hanging chad", where one or more corners were still attached). --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Chad (paper)#Partially punched chad, as that is the actual section talking about "hanging chads". While their notability comes from the election controversy, that section is still in view of the reader, and it makes more sense for a redirect to point to the topic itself rather than to the reason for its notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged with a {{R avoided double redirect}} to The Perfect Girl (song). That has since become an article so it appeared in Category:Avoided double redirects to be updated, so when I went to check The Perfect Girl (song) to see if it was still an appropriate retarget I wasn't really sure what to do. The article is about the song written by the Cure, but other than mentioning that the Cure wrote the song, it's really all about a cover of the song. I am unsure if the current target of the album the song was released on by the Cure is better, or if there is benefit in retargetting to the specific song even if there's very little information on the Cure's version of the song. Casablanca 🪨(T)13:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has article or list potential and a red link may inspire its creation. The article on jaw is far too broad to be the appropriate target. A list of ICD-9 codes may contain some of the info on the topic but is not an adequate substitute for an article or list dedicated to the topic. Note that the two uses of jaw diseases currently in article space occur at List of MeSH codes (C07)#MeSH C07.320 – jaw diseases and List of MeSH codes (C05)#MeSH C05.500 – jaw diseases. These are no better than the ICD-9 list and if we think such a list could be appropriate then at best "jaw diseases" is ambiguous because multiple such lists exist. There are other classification schemes such as SNOMED and ICD-11 that one could argue for. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm on the fence here. On the one had, it doesn't seem like the most likely of search terms but on the other hand if someone does use this then the target is relevant and (in terms of extant encyclopaedia articles at least) unambiguous, so it is harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this redirect is a sentence with a subject of "Inna", searching for pages by typing in sentences is not plausible and I don't think this is worth keeping. Utopes(talk / cont)03:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure; maybe delete. The title has a curly quote, which is a bit unlikely, and we have a straight quote version of this title. But on the other hand, this title is so long that it's probably going to be entered primarily by people who copy/paste it from somewhere — and maybe someone's source for this copy/pasting would use curly quotes. So...is this useful or not? Nyttend (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Improper name for disambiguation page, highly unlikely target of which no others exist following this convention. Could have been moved to AHLAHL during pageswap but was left at this title instead. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the situation's a little confusing. Although it was created by a bot, I don't want to delete the first two edits (they're from 2008, so not recent), and obviously they didn't originally occur at this title, so they probably ought to be histmerged somewhere. But unfortunately I'm unclear where that somewhere should be; the target dates from 2003. Once that's resolved, of course we can delete. Nyttend (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are both plausible search terms. Barkan, Israel appears to be used to refer to Barkan in a fair few English-language sources. [24][25][[26], for example, though the decision to write it like that certainly often very political. Slightly differently, Tel Aviv, Palestine brings up a lot a lot of hits because that's what it was known as before there was an Israel. You see this in a fair Wikipedia articles (ex [27][28][29]+[30]), but also in pretty much every type of source under the sun spanning the past century, from US government reports [31][32][33] to bibliographies[34] to medical journals[35] to official publications by Mandatory Palestine [36] and others[37][38][39]. It was just a common way of writing the city in the early 20th century.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋06:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it does appear that Z (joke line) is the only item at the dabpage that uses exactly 6 Zs, this is not an overly notable article. It's likely a reader might be seeking other topics at Zzz instead; no primary topic, redirect to dab. 162 etc. (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My initial thoughts would be to actually move the current target over top of the redirect. This seems to be how the significant majority of the sources refer to the topic, as well as how the article actually refers to it in the body. At that point, a hatnote there to the dab page would suffice to someone who maybe got the wrong number of Zs. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Zzz dab page per nom and per WP:ASTONISH. Any string of Z's is impossibly ambiguous. The joke line gets an average of 9 views/day and did not show up in my first three pages of Google or Google Books search results. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk20:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move over redirect per 35.139.154.158 and hatnote. For several years, it was the busiest residential telephone number in the United States, if not the world is a significant enough claim for me to be comfortable with this as the primary topic—especially given that it's the only item at the dabpage that uses exactly 6 Zs. --Tavix(talk)21:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move over redirect. If it weren't for the joke line, which is the only plausible target for Zzzzzz (no other entries on the dab page have six Zs), we simply wouldn't have a redirect at all. As such, it's automatically the primary topic. Suggesting that readers would be "astonished" not to land on a disambiguation page and instead land on a topic that actually has that name, when they type in a string of six Zs, is pretty absurd. It's been suggested the onomatopoeia for sleeping might be a target, but again that's rarely typed with six Zs. Why not Zzzzzzz or Zzzzzzzz while you're at it. I'd also be happy with moving the target over the redirect if that's the consensus, I haven't looked at whether Z or Zzzzzz is the more common name of the two. — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The base page is "Z" and in the lead it references a signular Z, but at one time was listed as 6-Zs for no specific reason other than to ensure it's placement at the end of the directory listing. It doesn't seem like the sort of small detail that matters for this, and redirecting to the DAB is more appropraite. TiggerJay(talk)15:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect was originally an article containing facts about Belgium but was turned into a redirect in 2005. This should be Deleted as the article about Belgium contains a lot more than just facts. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-weak Keep; it may contain 'more than just facts' but it does unequevocally contain facts about Belgium. Anyone who searches this redirect and lands on the Belgium page would be happy with what we have there.Whether this is a plausible redirect is another issue entirely; I feel that it's plausible enough but other editors may disagree. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone using this search term is unambiguously going to end up at the right place, and given that there is no evidence of it having caused any harm in the past 20 years I think it is unlikely to cause any going forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous non-definable term. No incoming links for the 2 couplets and likely questionable incoming ones for the latter that should be reviewed and re-targeted appropriately. WP:RNEUTRAL applies (specifically "redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion") as a dog-whistle term used by anti-trans activists that should most certainly not be pointing to male/female but rather to some page like Transphobia if it’s discussed there or else, the redirects should be deleted. The terms use are comparable to another anti-trans coded hate speech dog-whistle phrase “adult human female”, which has its own article dedicated to explaining the use by anti-trans activists. All links appear to have been created not too long ago. For reference:
TERM TO AVOID:
“born a man,” “born a woman,” “biologically male,” “biologically female,” “biological boy,” “biological girl,” “genetically male,” “genetically female”
Phrases like those above oversimplify a complex subject and are often used by anti-transgender activists to inaccurately imply that a trans person is not who they say they are. “Biological boy” is a term anti-trans activists often use to disregard and discredit transgender girls and deny them access to society as their authentic gender identity. As mentioned above, a person’s sex is determined by a number of factors – and a person’s biology does not determine a person’s gender identity.
As for "Biological sex", which doesn't have a singular definition, so the current redirect target (which was quietly changed last year) gives the wrong impression that there is as the article is titled sex-gender distinction. It is also associated as a catch-all dog-whistle term. Some references to that effect - [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. I'd say the most likely target would be Biological determinism if we added a section explaining its use as a dog-whistle, which talks about the conceptual determinism of claiming that there is a singular definition and some of the history like Eugenics and the likes associated with it. Raladic (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this would somehow legitimize these non-neutral neologisms. They are typically exclusively used in anti-trans circles trying to define something that scientists agree, doesn't have such a simplistic definition. This by itself may warrant a separate article (since there is plenty of content available in the scientific, and more recently the spill over into the legal, community on the fact that there isn't a singular definition, e.g. [47], [48], [49], [50]) that explains that there is no such thing as a singular "biological sex" definition, but the current redirect to Sex-gender distinction is a distortion as the title implies that an incoming redirect means that there is. So while the 2 couplets could be redirected to Transphobia to explain the dog-whistle term, right now, the only likely target for biological sex I could maybe see would be Biological determinism which talks a bit on the concept of the fuzziness of nature vs nurture and how genes do not make a sex alone. Raladic (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so this whole nomination is about WP:GENSEXactivism? Sigh. Anyway, I still !vote Keep, or possibly retarget. I don't see content at biological determinism that seems relevant to these topics, so that target doesn't seem too useful for a (non-activist) reader. The former target of Biological sex you pointed out, sex, seems ok (with male and female kept for the others) but lacks room to mention the sex-versus-gender aspect.Re the suggestion about redirecting to transphobia, will I also be seeing you at WP:VPR#Unsalt of Gaza Holocaust arguing for the restoration of the redirect to Holocaust trivialization? That seems more clearly a non-neutral redirect than these, which are reasonable search terms that have been co-opted and poisoned by activists. Anomie⚔12:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that they've been bundled and there's been further discussion: - RetargetBiological sex > Sex as per Myceteae, tag as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. They're right in that this is really just what sex is, lol - Retarget all others > Sex-gender distinction. As per WP:RNEUTRAL a redirect is under far less scrutiny re:neutrality; as it is not seen unless actively searched for, there is no fear that it may shift the opinion of anyone who happens to see it. Worst case scenario, an anti-trans bigot searches for it, lands on Sex-gender distinction, and maybe has their mind expanded a little. The alternate targets presented by Raladic, Transphobia and Biological determinism, don't feel like they would, to me, actively help the reader in any way, especially biological determinism which seems excessively off-topic. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first four, as they are not likely to aid navigation. The most common meaning of biological male is trans woman. A lay reader searching that term has presumably encountered it as part of the ongoing anti-trans moral panic, and does not need an explanation of man/male, but rather some article text explaining why everyone in the 2020s has gotten so up in arms about biological people using bathrooms and playing tennis. I don't think a suitable target exists for that right now so delete. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 13:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biological woman/man as ambiguous. The current Female and Male targets are plausible but are too broad. Other plausible targets have been offered, and more may exist. It's possible an article could be written on these topics. Weak delete Biological female/male. Female and Male are probably the best targets for each of these. I find these less problematic than the woman/man pair but they suffer from similar problems and a case can be made for multiple plausible targets. Retarget Biological sex → Sex. These terms are synonymous. "Biological sex" is often used in trans discourse, though by no means exclusively in anti-trans rhetoric. "Biological sex" is also widely used in biomedical literature as synonymous with Sex. I looked at the first 10 uses of biological sex in article space and Sex would be a reasonable target for all of them. Two have it as a piped link to sex and one as a piped like to "biologically" in the construct "biologicallyfemale". I agree the internal links would benefit from more thorough review. *Maybe* add Sex–gender distinction to the hat note with {{redirect}} but I'm not advocating for this. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk20:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the next 10 articles that link biological sex and these affirm my !vote. In a majority of the 20 pages I've looked at, Sex is the best target and appears to be what the writer intended. I have found only a few articles where Sex–gender distinction also works and none where it is clearly a better target than Sex. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The original target was Skunks as petsSkunks as pets, which contained a comprehensive table containing the relevant information. This article was WP:BLARed on 11 September 2024, and left pointing to the vestigial section Skunk#As pets. I think the ideal solution would be to restore Skunks as petsSkunks as pets and send it through the proper AfD process - if it fails, the redirects that are the subject of this RfD can be deleted, otherwise they should be restored. Tevildo (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if you restore the suggested target article (no opinion on that at the moment), this should still be deleted, as it's way too specific to reasonably point there. One of the redirects in question was an unsourced, pretty clearly nonnotable stub, which was BLARed to "Skunks as pets", but there was nothing to single out Virginia there as opposed to anywhere else. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RestoreSkunks as pets and target there, per Tevildo and Thryduulf. The last pre-BLAR version was quite detailed and contained nearly 50 references. It is even a former featured article. I have no opinion as to whether the article should be kept or deleted but reversing a less-than-one-year-old unilateral BLAR is reasonable. Redirects can be deleted with the article or re-evaluated pending the outcome of AFD. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk20:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDYES and MOS:NOFORCELINK. This is an adjective that might redirect to anorectum but that page does not exist. The three examples in article space, and others I can conceive of, either violate MOS:NOFORCELINK (Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.) or are unnecessary. If a word needs to be defined in order for a passage to make sense to a general audience, it should either be defined in the article or avoided. The meaning of anorectal may be well enough obvious from context in these articles but if it's not, sending readers to the dictionary indicates a NOFORCELINK problem. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiktionary redirects impede normal searching within Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Without a soft redirect in place, a normal search will still include a prominent link to the Wiktionary entry right at the top, along with the primary definition. I also agree that linking this in an article without a clear topic to link to is a problem. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst that article did previously list the event, its is correct to only list notable events there e.g. ones with articles. Thus, this event should not be listed at target article, and so redirect is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous AfD, which did not have any support for keeping the article—the only !vote was for deletion. --Tavix(talk)13:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AfD has already decided this shouldn't exist as an article. RfD can now decide this shouldn't exist as a redirect either. There's no reason to play ping-pong as Jay suggested. * Pppery *it has begun...02:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can do that, since it was more exhaustive than the current target, and cannot be compared to the current target. Vestrian24Bio, what do you think, since you have been reverting any attempts to restore the list page? Jay 💬06:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list notability guideline asks if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources,not whether the items are notable. There are plenty of stand-alone lists with non-notable entries (eg: members of Category:Redirects to list entries). There are sources discussing regional T20 leagues in India as a group ([51][52][53]), so I don't think an AfD would be a foregone conclusion. --Tavix(talk)14:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this RFD is to decide what to do with Madhya Pradesh League, not to try and demand restoration of other articles that are different redirects. But my point still stands- if restored I will AFD it, because I do not believe it meets WP:NLIST. Therefore, redirecting to that article is not beneficial. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
originally created as what i'll just assume was homework, the target doesn't seem to do much to actually provide a solid answer for what's the oldest pyramid overall, but everything seems to point to that being the pyramid of djoser. whether or not that would be a good target is beyond me, though, as that article makes no effort to directly claim it's the oldest pyramid in the world, being content with just stating that it's the oldest pyramid in egypt consarn(grave)(obituary)18:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the Step Pyramid of Djoser. It's well known as the first structure known as a pyramid (which the Mesopotamian ziggurats are not), even in children's books; I learnt the name of Imhotep as a child because a book had a few pages about the Step Pyramid because it was the first of the pyramids. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's well known as the first structure known as a pyramid (which the Mesopotamian ziggurats are not) Except that explicitly contradicts our own article on pyramids. I won't argue that Step Pyramid of Djoser was the first Egyptian pyramid, but that's running straight into both the "first doesn't necessarily mean oldest" and "pyramid doesn't necessarily mean Egyptian" issues. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that if you google "first pyramid" (with quotes), all the results are about the Pyramid of Djoser, which is also the one I had in mind when seeing "1st pyramid". I don't think it's as contradictory to redirect there as the deletes have it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lunamann's technicality, but weak retarget to Djoser in the absence of any other article claiming to be the first pyramid, and the absence of an age-based list at Lists of pyramids. Jay 💬11:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pyramid of Djoser - All results point to this, and while there are technically other pyramid structures before it is almost always referring to Egyptian pyramids in everyday language, while more specific terms like Ziggurat are used for other non-Egyptian pyramids AFAICT. Sophisticatedevening(talk)13:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or tag possessive of this sort for cleanup, per my !votes and comments in the Canada's and David Bowie's discussions. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search turns up far more results for the variation of baseball called blitzball than the fictional sport in Final Fantasy X, where this redirect currently points to. The current redirect was created from a disambiguation page in 2017, and I believe the baseball variation has grown significantly since then. Hdjensofjfnen (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with restoring the disambiguation. My concern at the time was a lack of mention for any other topic which now looks to have been resolved. --Tavix(talk)14:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Blitzball (sport) to reflect its page history and potential to merit a standalone article about the sport, as it seems like it may be notable, but then make the original location a DAB page split between the real-life sport and the FFX minigame (which also seems likely notable). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Disambiguate, or is the baseball sport the primary topic? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬14:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ignoring the fact that neither of those redirects predate the iphone, the term has become a little too widespread to be easily narrowed to just cameras that are smaller and simpler than professional cameras, or cameras that ask you to commit infanticide. ironically, it's been narrowed down to just "any small camera lol", regardless of whether or not it's meant to fit in someone's pocket. problem is, that doesn't really have a good target to my knowledge... consarn(grave)(obituary)20:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Consarn: - "Pocket camera" generally used to refer to the 110 format (AKA "pocket Instamatic") and that's what my redirect originally pointed to until someone changed it. In the case of the Game Boy Camera, it was actually marketed under the specific *name* of "Pocket Camera", so I'd be okay with that capitalised version redirecting there *if* there was a {{redirect}} header for other (non-capitalised) uses of pocket camera. Ubcule (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that much i know, but came across some problems
for the former, the meaning has been spread a little thinner than that proceeding the early 70's, the name is unmentioned in the target outside of a source's title, and results (all five i found) seem to use the more general meaning of "smol camera :3"
for the latter, it'd likely need to be the primary topic for the term as a proper noun to avoid a more general target, which it doesn't seem to be
@Consarn: - With respect, I do agree that this is a weak nomination, and I just can't see it as a problem worth worrying about to that extent.
IMHO, you might be technically correct that, as it stands, it doesn't *strictly* adhere to the rules, but we tend to apply a common sense approach to those.
The ultimate question is whether removing a minor redirect completely in order to avoid a minor infringement of the rules would- in practice- improve anyone's experience or reduce potential confusion. And it's pretty certain that it wouldn't.
it could, but i fear it'd be too ambiguous due to the aforementioned definition issue. which would mean that, in a best case scenario, it'd have
the game that asks you to not be silly while offering a gif of masahiro sakurai dancing (check is the best track in the game by the way, sorry, i don't make the rules)
point and shoot camera (referred to as pocket cameras, apparently, but not actually mentioned in the target)
hole cam (apparently referred to as a pocket camera)
and... that's really all i can think of. all other results i could find here were just the generic term, and one of the targets doesn't even have a mention. still, if that works, i guess it works, so i can fry my brain by listening to more 8-bit polyrhythmic dissonant messes consarn(grave)(obituary)11:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt "Dead Nazi" is something anyone would search on an encyclopedia (or in general) to look for German casualties. Something like "German/Nazi deaths" is what people would search. As a result, I think this unambiguously refers to the cocktail and is thus pointing at the correct target. I also vote to overturn the RfD on Dead German for the same reason. 9ninety (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@9ninety: Anecdotally, a 'Dead Nazi' shot is vastly more common than a 'Dead German' shot (at least in my locality). Cursory google results seem to support this. Thus, while this seems to have a case for primacy, that other (now deleted) redirect has (at least seemingly somewhat) less of one. — Godsy (TALKCONT)08:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This could be moved without redirect to Dead Nazi (cocktail) as perhaps a best of all worlds solution. Otherwise, I do think that this is probably the primary topic (were it not that 'Nazi' is capitalized as a proper noun, one might feel stronger about this). — Godsy (TALKCONT)08:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per the BLARer, Diamond Platnumz is his most prominent collaborator. Restore, and it may be taken to AfD if desired. Jay 💬06:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. while there were a handful of sources, they're unusable (primary, blogs, etc.), not primarily about him, and/or down. while some searching did net me a fair amount of sources, they're not in the article, so it's better off started from scratch. i'd normally just dump them here, but they're about diamond platnumz or people tangentially related to things tudd did, with the man himself seemingly being the least notable part of everything he's apparently produced. this is the best i could find for him specifically, which is not a good look imo consarn(grave)(obituary)22:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support and confirm the existence of the error, but although you can use the existing name for alternative mainstream writers, I don't know if Spain has its own William Burroughs and Timothy Leary, but there probably is.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also mentioned at Google Fiber#First city selection process, which might be a better retarget option because it gives more context. Thepharoah17, I'm having a hard time believing your nomination. What searches did you conduct to conclude that there is no evidence of any affinity between Google Island and Sarasota? A Wikipedia search for this would give you the answer immediately. A Google search for "Google Island" gave me some results pertaining to Welcome to Google Island, but there are plenty of results for Sarasota (and searching including 'Sarasota' would help even more). --Tavix(talk)14:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum I looked into the redirect's history, and found that it was created as an article with respect to 2013 Korean crisis, which it was subsequently merged into, and which was itself later merged into 2013 in North Korea. So that's how it ended up at the current target. But the 2013 flareup was relatively minor, as determined at the AfD, and Korean crisis is still a vague term that could refer to any period of crisis. 9ninety (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of this supposed staff neologism at the target article. People who want to read the article on "Google" would search for "Google". Utopes(talk / cont)03:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that people who search for "Greyglers" would not just want to read the article on Google (with no mention of Greyglers), or else they would've just searched "Google" if that's what they wanted. Therefore a subsection or anchor would be required to pinpoint this redirect but there is none. I might have mixed up the verbiage, apologies. Utopes(talk / cont)05:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record though, I'm not putting up THAT much of a contest against those who are of the opinion that the 'Mexican-style burgers' Casablanca found aren't enough to demonstrate WP:RLANG affinity; if consensus is that this should be deleted for that reason, I'm okay with it 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Mexico is hardly the only Spanish-speaking country, so it's inappropriate to redirect to specific content about it. On top of that, it's still just the Spanish word for "hamburger", notably a loanword from English, with no particular reason to have a redirect for it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you'd be surprised, but delete both as vague. the term does primarily refer to yeehaw bread in all the languages that have it, but it's also generally used to refer to hamburgians (as in people from hamburg) who happen to also be female. in all such cases, there's no affinity anyway, so it's no big loss consarn(grave)(obituary)20:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the correctly-spelled redirect because it's mentioned in the article. I would oppose refining to the Mexico section (even though it's the only section that currently contains a mention) due to the concerns expressed about redirecting to a specific Spanish-speaking country. --Tavix(talk)21:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as hopelessly ambiguous; these seem much more plausible as general screams or keyboard mashes then references to one specific video game or Chinese tourist classification. * Pppery *it has begun...23:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find both useful, though take that with a grain of salt as I am a Chinese nerd. I don't see why these redirects should be deleted, as anyone looking for screaming would be searching for "screaming" and anyone just smashing their keyboard are not let down in any way by where they get to. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as plausible search terms for their respective targets. We shouldn't reward keyboard mashes and I don't think someone would be looking for Screaming this way. --Tavix(talk)14:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst that article did previously list the event, its is correct to only list notable events there e.g. ones with articles. Thus, this event should not be listed at target article, and so redirect is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous AfD, which did not have any support for keeping the article—the only !vote was for deletion. --Tavix(talk)13:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's not the typical use of WP:SNOW but let's be real: Is there any reasonable reason why AfD would give any result other than Delete, given there's been no functional change to the article since it was AfD'd last if we restore it, and we just proved that Redirecting isn't a viable option? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both pages were redirected because they lacked "in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG". This creates a new problem where the target article makes no mention of the events. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 15:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes target UK Rampage to WWE in the United Kingdom (I have also contributed to it and it has a mention now of that topic). On the other hand WWF European Rampage may not be currently covered in WWE but it's still the only sensical place to target it to if it must. Hbkid2 (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a new article is not suitable for mainspace, it is either speedy deleted, AfDed or converted as an ATD. Redirecting and deleting at RfD is not a shortcut to deletion. Take WWF European Rampage to AfD if it cannot be a redirect. Jay 💬15:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Keyboard technology as per Thryduulf; if ImStevan is correct and people do use this term, Justjourney is still correct in that it's ambiguous. The proposed retarget discusses pretty much all possibilities, including buckling-spring keyboard, mechanical keyboard, et al. I'd like to note however that the proposed refinement to #Notable Switch Mechanisms is an oddly formatted section; the title presents it as a discussion of multiple mechanisms, but only buckling-spring is talked about, with other mechanisms being discussed further up at Keyboard technology#Keystroke sensing. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, implausible search term, not mentioned at the target. Somewhat similar (albeit not identical) to some specific, minor brand names, that might be a more likely target of such a search, and for which I don't see any coverage on WP (not surprisingly). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lunamann that the suggested #Notable_switch_mechanisms is an oddly formatted section with no content other than one sub-section #Buckling_spring. So shouldn't the target be Buckling spring to which the redirect Clicky keyboard also points? Jay 💬17:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague. This is clearly a term people use but not for with a consistent, specific referent. Mechanical keyboards and certain "gaming keyboards" appear to be the most common meanings, along with 80's and 90's style keyboards like the Model M but not specific to this product. I agree with Lunamann, this could refer to any number of keyboards. Keyboard technology is a better target than a specific section, since the term is not used with specificity, but this seems too broad to be helpful. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk01:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
RetargetHodl 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, DeleteHODL 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]
Keep hodl. Mention is there, and was there at the time of nomination too. To be fair, the term was bundled here by Shhhnotsoloud, and not by nom. Also tag it as an {{R from merge}} as it was merged to the target, as mentioned at the second AfD. Second choice, retarget to the Hödl dab if the Bitcoin entry is added there. If the uppercase HODL is used for the same term, keep, otherwise delete. Jay 💬09:14, 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]
RetargetHodl →Hödl and deleteHODL. 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 🍄🟫—talk15:21, 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]
Keep The phrase "These United States (of America)" became prominent in the wake of the American Civil War, while usage has declined, it's unambiguous and can only serve to help the reader. Casablanca 🪨(T)21:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's less common than "These United States", but if "These United States" is reasonable, why not "These United States of America"? It's not an error, and since it's the country's full name, it's reasonable to encounter it too. "These United States" was indeed a bit common at one time; cf. Emperor of these United States, a title announced in 1859. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't mention algebra or geometry, and the two appearances of "group" are in the phrase "a group of Jewish physicists" and "Dutch Astronomer and Skeptics Group Settled". When the redirect was created in 2013, the article mentioned this string — it's the title of a serial edited by the subject — but it's disappeared from the article at some point over the intervening twelve years, so we don't need the redirect anymore. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete, unless suitable content is added to the target. It's not an XY issue and This is a plausible redirect to this target—Algebras, Groups and Geometries is a real publication that Santilli edited and has published in.[58][59] However, if content about the journal hasn't been deemed appropriate to keep in his article then the redirect is not particularly useful. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 15:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Edited.--MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk14:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 I was trying to concisely say more or less the same thing while highlighting that this redirect has the potential to be 'rescued'. I see now that this reads as a correction or disagreement, which was not my intent. I apologize for my sloppiness. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk14:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of these are general mathematics terms, most people searching won't be looking for a specific book by a specific person. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to Turkish Women's Volleyball Cup lead, the Turkish name is Türkiye Kadınlar Voleybol Türkiye c i.e. the Turkish word for cup is Kupası not cup. Thus, seems implausible to think many people would search for the Turkish word for volleyball along with the English words for cup and women. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only results I can find for "cup voleybol" are colocations in strings where it is clearly not being used as part of the proper name of anything. "Cup volleyball" gets the same sort of hits, but also a few sites selling trophies and strings of keywords. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it because Varahagiri is his middle name? And is it his middle name, or first name? And I'm not referring to the second "V". Jay 💬10:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete because once again, the closer seized upon AtD without really considering the arguments made against keeping the place name article. As usual, the township has a list of supposed "unincorporated communities", but since the point of the nomination was that there's a lack of sourcing for Plano being a "community" (i.e., a settlement) in the first place, the entry needs to be removed in the township article; and then there's no reason to point this particle to it. Mangoe (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the most suitable target. Removal of this place from the target article is not related to the AfD or this RfD. It is an article content matter. Jay 💬18:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the name of a blog that is not discussed at the target article. People who search for this would be led to believe that we have information about this particular blog, when we do not. Someone who wants to read about the subject of keyword would be confused on the overarching page of Google that does not give insight for this incoming search term. Utopes(talk / cont)03:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. "The Keyword" is the title of Google's official blog. See https://blog.google/about. One might say we already mention the blog in the target article, albeit only as sources and in an external link. I just added the blog title to the external link. I don't think we'll want to add any more details about the blog to the article, it just doesn't seem important enough. I'm not sure how useful the redirect is, but it doesn't seem incorrect or in other ways harmful. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the blog was an actually unique title then the external link is probably enough, but at the same time beginning a topic with "the" is a likely method (albeit an unsupported one) of searching for any topic, in this case, Keyword. Retargeting to the dab was attempted back in 2021, but it was retargeted back. I would support retargeting to Keyword and creating an entry for "The Keyword, the official blog of Google" on the dab page, as that way the information is communicated without leaving people guessing why they ended up at the massive page for the entire company. It currently forces them to scroll to the bottom to find out "ohhh, it's because there's an external link on this page called 'the keyword', that's why I'm here". Mind as well search for "Google" at that point to receive the same experience. Utopes(talk / cont)03:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect creator. The main purpose of this redirect was to facilitate linking in citation templates that use The Keyword as a reference. Its existence is necessary because unlike most other companies that simply post their press releases on a generically named subpage of their main corporate site, e.g. [60][61][62][63], Google's official newsfeed is a standalone site with its own unique name, so piping it as [[Google|The Keyword]] would be a confusing WP:EGG link that looks like vandalism. Disambiguation is not necessary here because it is not ambiguous per WP:SMALLDETAILS, WP:TITLEPTM, and WP:THE: no other article listed at Keyword (disambiguation) is titled The Keyword, emphasis on "The" and the capital "K" — distinctions that the average reader would not go out of their way to type in the search bar unless they are looking for this topic. Thus, there are only partial title matches with a low risk of confusion with The Keyword, and there is nothing to disambiguate The Keyword from. A {{redirect-distinguish}} hatnote may be added to Google to address any concerns. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linking in citation templates is definitely a good reason to have a redirect, as long as the connection between the keywords of "The Keyword" and "Google" is evident at the target. Where I saw an issue is that "The Keyword is the official blog of Google" is not something that was stated within the prose of Google, until recently when it was added into the external link section. Because The keyword is a redlink, WP:SMALLDETAILS is out of scope because people who search for "the keyword" in lowercase will also be taken to Google, and might not notice that the search funneled through a capital "K" instead of the lowercase "k" they used. The best case scenario I could see with keeping is potentially refiningThe Keyword to go to Google#External links, which is the only way that people who search for "The Keyword" can be taken directly to the location where their keyword of "The Keyword" is discussed and mentioned as the "official blog". But that's probably a weird solution, lol. Utopes(talk / cont)21:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any noun could plausibly be referred to / searched for using "a" or "the" in front, including the nouns on the disambiguation page. It's not how we do redirects on Wikipedia, but it's not impossible for someone who doesn't know to include "a" or "the" before searching for a noun. Someone who searches for "The foo" will never usually be met with a redirect, but "foo" will still be the first result of a Wikipedia search and give them the answer they wanted firstly. Similarly, "Keyword" is the first result for people who search for "The keyword" on Wikipedia, for anyone who wants to read about the keyword terminology. I don't think going around and creating "the foo"->"foo" redirects is that helpful, but this is a unique situation. Here, I would support refining The Keyword to Google#External links so people actually know why they ended up at the target they did. How do you feel about this solution? Utopes(talk / cont)19:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any results about Angela Merkel when searching this name in quotes. Her maiden name was changed from Kaźmierczak to Kasner 24 years before she was born so she never went by it; I don't see how this could be a plausible search term. Zzz plant (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similar to Benjamin Mileikowsky, it is used by political opponents. Personally, I do not see what is so bad about being Polish, but that is irrelevant. You can see that it does get pageviews so it is harmless, not libelious in any way, and WP:CHEAP. I would also like to note that original research does not apply to redirects, as the goal of redirects is to get the reader to the correct article. [64] has it being used, [65] and Family of Angela Merkel show that her ancestors used it. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 19:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The above keep vote is nonsensical -- off-wiki references to this are completely irrelevant. Links to, or searches for, this topic are presumably looking for information about this topic, not a different one. Since we seem to have no such coverage, this should be deleted. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. While it might not be a formal abbreviation it is one I've seen used on maps to denote Portuguese territories/possessions (e.g. [66]), and I'm not seeing any evidence that it's used for anything else. A hatnote to the dab can be added if desired, but none of the current entries there are abbreviations and none seem to be styled that way. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to be a standard abbreviation for anything. A retarget to the dab page is inappropriate over the main port page, because what on there would make any more sense than the primary topic? And once we're there, we're left with a random word with a period on the end; these sorts of unnatural redirects are routinely deleted. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
does not seem to be a standard abbreviation for anything other than "Portugal" on maps as I noted (with a source) in my comment. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some random-ass obscure map used it one time doesn't make it standard. In order to qualify for a redirect, it should be a well known abbreviation, and such an abbreviation should be noted in the lead of the article, neither of which seem to be the case here. Otherwise, who's to say it's not an ad hoc abbreviation for any other random word that starts with "port..."? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1909 National Geographic Map1932 National Geographic Map. It's not just some random-ass obscure map nor is it one time it has been used extensively on many maps in many atlases for many years. Other examples [67], [68], [69], [70] and there are many others (Sao Tome and the Azores are useful areas to look at to see this). Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly WP:PANDORA is actively misleading nonsense (see WP:NOTPANDORA for the explanation) and should never be cited as anything other than an example of the harm a shortcut can do. Secondly, the other discussions you cite are completely irrelevant as they are not abbreviations and had no evidence of use. This is an abbreviation with strong evidence of use going back over a century at least. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The maps demonstrate that it has a long history as an abbreviation for Portugal, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of a specific standard. This isn't opening a Pandora's box at all; it's supporting a very common and very natural abbreviation. And because it's an abbreviation, the concluding full stop is not random or problematic, unlike Wikipedia. and other redirects with trailing full stops. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except, per the evidence above, it isn't vague and "unnecessary" is never a reason to delete a redirect because just about every redirect can be described that way by someone who doesn't personally use it (even if others do). Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose retarget because it wrongly creates the impression that professeur is innately a specific academic rank, instead of in reality a general word for "teacher" or "professor" of any rank in French. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 22:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ambiguous and not really suitable for a disambiguation page. Francophone education is a redlink, but if we have an article under some other title that covers education in francophone countries, I'd prefer retargeting there over deletion. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the paragraph was poorly cited, part uncited, so if it is to be "restored" then it has to be properly written from reliable medical sources, as the claim sounds like pseudoscientific nutrient marketing to me. If there is any genuine evidence it must be compliant with WP:MEDRS. If that can be found I'll support. user:Zefr, what do you think? Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the medical literature to support any significance for avenalin as an individual nutrient, apart from its contribution to oat protein structure. It's a moot point anyway - when oat protein (or any food protein source) enters the stomach and is digested by gastric acids and enzymes, amino acids are the outcome.Zefr (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, avenalin should not be redirected to or mentioned in the oat nutrient section. Avenalin is not measured separately as part of the macronutrient protein composition of oats, and its fate after digestion into amino acids cannot be measured. There are no MEDRS sources to support any unique effect of avenalin. The current Oat#Nutrients section is sufficient in content and consistent with the descriptive format for other foods. Zefr (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chiswick Chap and Zefr. Avenalin is not mentioned at the target and any mention has been repeatedly removed, with cause. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD literally says that mention has been added to the target, though as a footnote per Thryduulf. And as the AfD nomination said, This video game company appears to have only worked on one game, PlanetSide..., it makes more sense to keep the redirect here, and tag as {{R from creator}}. Jay 💬06:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jay. Anyone searching for this will be redirected to the only information Wikipedia has on the subject. That it's in a footnote is still more helpful than nothing. --Tavix(talk)14:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially misleading redirect. There is a sentence in the target article that somewhat resembles this redirect, and the redirect could be cited as a true statement ... but the target article is not what the redirect is about. That, and the redirect could potentially have WP:XY issues since if it can target the current page, it could equally target Rational number. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see three different potential targets mentioned, which means there is no consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a phrase readers are likely to encounter but not one they reasonably expect to have an encyclopedia entry. Three reasonable targets have been suggested. This is more trivia than an encyclopedia query, so a DAB is not called for. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Myceteae, this is just a statement and not the subject that one would type in expecting to be the subject of an article about this statement. Search results would be helpful to indicate the many articles that might use pieces of this statement. Utopes(talk / cont)21:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused on why it redirects to Arbaclofen placarbil, a prodrug to (R)-baclofen (Pubchem CID 44602), as I believe that chemically, Arbaclofen would refer to (R)-baclofen, and not a prodrug. As arketamine (CID 644025) refers to (R)-Ketamine, for example. In my opinion, maybe there should be a section on the baclofen page about (R)-baclofen, if there is significant differences at the medical level from the racemic mixture. Themonkey942 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Someone searching specifically for "arbaclofen" is almost certainly looking for the pharmaceutically-relevant use of this compound which is in the form of arbaclofen placarbil rather than baclofen. If in the future there is a section at the baclofen page about arbaclofen, then maybe the redirect can be changed at that point. But currently, the reader is best served by redirecting them to arbaclofen placarbil. Marbletan (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to baclofen and tag with {{R with possibilities}} per Duckmather, possibly with hatnote to Arbaclofen placarbil, ordelete. Scholarly literature has many references to arbaclofen as distinct from the prodrug. There is precedent for redirecting the pharmacologically (more) active enantiomer to the parent compound, with dextromethamphetamine → methamphetamine, where levomethamphetamine has a separate article, but the situation here is not exactly the same and the dextro- enantiomer is discussed extensively in the meth article. The prodrug is not the same as the active drug arbaclofen, and arbaclofen appears to be written about more frequently than the prodrug. It's entirely likely readers will come across this molecule and want to read about it, and would find more relevant content at baclofen. The article on the racemic compound could also be expanded to discuss the active enantiomer. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There are several options. Let's see if we can reach consensus. Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to baclofen and tag. That's where the most relevant info is on Wikipedia, currently. The article should be expanded to mention the R-enantiomer specifically as there are many scholarly reviews describing how it has been studied. ⇌Synpath16:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: Your comment was not clear to me. Was it a response to Sorabino, and were you opposing his keep? Did you want Patriarchate of Constantinople bundled here? And can you draft the disambig page at the redirect, as there seems to be no opposition to it? Jay 💬08:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unmentioned at BOTH targets. The Chastity belt (BDSM) page DOES mention "the CB series of plastic chastity cages", but doesn't go into any detail about the cages themselves, only talking about the creators.
I will note that one of the pictures on the Chastity belt (BDSM) page depicts what appears to be a CB series chastity cage. As recently as this 2018 edit, an image that was explicitly noted to be a CB-6000 was on the page; the edit right after this removed the picture entirely after being on the page since... well, definitely this 2008 edit but according to the history it's even older. The current image depicting an unknown CB-series(?) chastity cage was added in 2019.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. The specific products are not mentioned at either target and there's no evidence that they are notable enough that the should be. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no information at the target, and verifying brands having random alphabets and numbers will always be a maintenance problem, without there being a cited mention. The sourced linked for the CB series mentions CB-2000 and CB-3000, but no CB-6000. Assuming there are CB-4000, CB-5000, etc., and redirects get created, these become a costly maintenance problem. Jay 💬07:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, apparently the CB-X brand has, in order, Mini-Me, Mr. Stubb, CB-6000S, CB-3000, CB-6000, and The Curve, with no mention of 1000, 2000, 4000, or 5000. So I have no clue. In any case, Mini-Me is a full article on the Austin Powers character (as expected), The Curve is a DAB without an entry pointing in this direction, and Mr. Stubb, CB-6000S, and Cb-6000S are all redlinks. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose making a generic rule. As some redirects of this pattern are useful, some are not. Specifically, keepHow to pronounce English as that's a very useful and plausible search term for someone who doesn't know the word "phonology" (for example a learners of English, who are quite likely to be looking up that article). DeleteHow to make a Mayday call, regardless of whether this is a good search term the target article does not contain that information so the redirect is misleading. No opinion about the others at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not seeing what we gain by deleting these likely searches (NOTHOWTO is Wikipedian-facing, not public-facing, after all), or why a TfD would set precedent for RfD. Not an RfD regular, though, so FWIW (just noticed the knight's tour nom). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really an obvious target (that is, one article which has adequate coverage of the subject). The only article where the phrase itself ("free-market socialism") is used is Market socialism#Classical economics, so my initial suggestion is to Retarget all there. Tevildo (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all much of these are not found in any way on their target pages, and might well be entirely different from what I can tell. Better suited as their own concept in a sub-section first if redirects were to be appropriate then. Not as is. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the subjects listed in the target disambiguation page represent verb-like subjects; all of the subjects are nouns. This means that redirecting the present participle form of "lure" to the disambiguation page is misleading since the redirect represents no alternative forms of any of the subjects listed at the disambiguation page. Delete unless a proper target is found. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the conventional use of the verb matches these. I had a look at what this redirect replaces - this search output, and it seems there's three topics of aggressive mimicry that are not properly documented here: caudal luring, lingual luring, acoustical luring. We could add these in the existing list, or we could split this out into a separate disambiguation list, and have the two of them link to one another. --Joy (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try. There have been no additions to the Lure disambiguation page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬04:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EurekaLott why is it unreasonable for a reader to look up "luring", and then expect to be efficiently navigated to articles about the known types of luring? --Joy (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biology isn't my area of expertise, but from what I can tell from the articles, acoustical luring, caudal luring, and lingual luring are not referred simply as "luring," which makes them WP:PTMs that don't belong on the disambiguation page. The guideline is intended to keep disambiguation pages manageable and uncluttered. The Aggressive mimicry article, which covers the overall concept, should be a good fit for the page, though. - Eureka Lott02:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and keep the aggressive mimicry entries on the DAB page. I've updated the lead to say Lure or luring may refer to: This is overall the most sensible solution. Luring is a plausible enough search term for fishing lure and several other entries on the page. The article on aggressive mimicry discusses various types of "luring" under § Luring prey and uses this phrase several times, as well as luring pollinators. I don't know that biologists would typically use luring unqualified as an umbrella term for these behaviors, but it is a plausible search term. Combining similar terms, word forms, and variants on a single DAB page is explicitly allowed per WP:DABCOMBINE and is common practice. Adding a few more entries to Lure is more parsimonious than creating a separate Luring DAB page that duplicates some of the entries or points readers to a second DAB page for topics that include lure but not luring in the title. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. This page was kept at AfD, and merged after. If no more content at the target, bring the page back. If truly not important, someone can AfD it. Utopes(talk / cont)03:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:XY and WP:DIFFCAPS. In addition to what has already been said, when I was searching up this term on third party search engines, I found results for a chain of restaurants named "The General Public". Probably best to delete this redirect to be better safe than sorry. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not familiar with the game, but the redirect was created back in 2018. Perhaps its been since cancelled or released? Either way, if its not mentioned in the article, it should be deleted for now. It doesn't get many views so there's not much to lose here... Sergecross73msg me20:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Two retarget options on the table. Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not currently mentioned at target, though apparently contents of the article previously existing at the title had been merged into the target at some point. 1234qwer1234qwer400:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, do not keep. No mention of a "catalog" anywhere on the page. People who search for "Business Data Catalog" will be misled by the existence of a redirect that does not answer their questions. It does not seem as if there was any discussion to merge, so undoing that seems to be the action. If people wanted to read about SharePoint instead of Business Data Catalog, they would've searched for "SharePoint". Utopes(talk / cont)05:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per the WP:XY issue brought up by Bugghost, meaning there is more than one possible target. In addition, this title is probably not suitable for a disambiguation page. Also, there is also an argument that Mixed liquor could target Liquor, leaving even more WP:XY issues. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first, delete the second as per BD2412. The Mixed Cocktail redirect redirecting to Cocktail is unequivocally correct (if an unnecessary disambig that needs to be tagged as such, in the same manner that Japanese bobtail cat > Japanese bobtail is an R from Unnecessary Disambig; all cocktails are mixed). Mixed Liquor, meanwhile, is much less definite; there's an argument of course that every mixed drink containing a liquor is a cocktail, but I'm far less certain on that front than I am with Mixed Cocktail. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. A mixed cocktail is obviously a cocktail. And if you mix two kinds of liquor together, that's probably a cocktail too. I don't think there's a problem with mixed drinks, since those include non-alcoholic drinks, and the cocktail page links to the mixed drink page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mixed cocktail as an unnecessary disambig per Lunamann. Keep Mixed liquor, I don't see a problem with it. If it was mixed liquors I would understand that it is about mixing two liquors, but with mixed liquor, I see it is as a liquor mixed with something, which as a cocktail is good enough for me. Jay 💬14:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Struck Mixed liquor per Lunamann's discovery of MLSS. It is not only a partial title match, but the article has multiple mentions of "mixed liquor". It will be surprising to retarget Mixed liquor to MLSS, so I'll support the deletion. Jay 💬14:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mixed cocktail and delete Mixed liquor. The first is synonymous with Cocktail and can be tagged as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} as others have stated. "Mixed liquor" makes me think of a clumsy attempt to look up something related to the idea that combining different types of booze increases hangover or has other unique effects. It's not a plausible search term for that, and we have at least two other targets that are, so delete per XY. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Seoul Street Art Festival. An image has been added with this pun slogan (the addition of a caption or prose elaborating could also provide insight to readers regarding the topic). This generally seems to be what is referred to most commonly by this phrase in notable search results, and we now have content related to it. It can be disambiguated later should we find more ways to cover the topic. — Godsy (TALKCONT)06:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the two options don't really work (people are not going to search for the street art festival by its pun slogan), and the category of Film Festival awards is not substantial. Utopes(talk / cont)19:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that there are "lots of issues in Toronto" is reason to keep the redirect pointing to the main Toronto page—where one can get an overview of multiple issues—rather than just one subset of issues such as the environment. --Tavix(talk)16:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Issues in Toronto, Ontario if there is no other suitable target. Agree with nom that the huge 18 section generic article is unhelpful as a target to a redirect that promises to provide information about the issues in Toronto. I can't say the same about Issues of Toronto because of attribution "issues" per Eureka. Jay 💬08:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I agree with Servite here that articles will be more likely to be created if they are red linked. One can debate the need to delete, but I feel the creation of articles is less likely while there is a working redirect for them, especially for less experienced editors who may think that redirect is purposeful. Mn1548 (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Won't comment all all, but either the redirect needs removing and an article actually written or per returntored delete the page so an article can be written in the future. Mn1548 (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be few links to these articles apart for through navboxes, and when looking at these (for example, {{Wests Tigers}}) the bluelink stops it from being immediately clear which seasons do or do not have articles. Also, instead of redirecting to the club article, a redirect to 2025 NRL season may seem more relevant or useful when linked from places such as the infobox of the 2024 club season. EdwardUK (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all; all of these articles contain information on 2025 lineups, timelines going "to present" (and 2025 is the present), or both. Cremastra is correct that these are not stopping the creation of new articles; information can be added on these redirect pages to expand them into proper articles if anyone is inclined to do that. Utopes(talk / cont)20:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Whispy Woods names and unhelpful lists
Originally thought this was a one and done when I nominated Yggy Woods' redirect earlier, turns out there were a lot more. While the character Whispy Woods seems to have a use on-wiki, a bunch of his variations from when the character list was redirected just are not mentioned anywhere else and seem like particularly minor characters. Additionally, now with the character list gone, many of the older redirects for old character lists merged into the one just redirected are now unhelpful, since the new target does not discuss "Kirby enemies" or bosses as a group. All in all, these are not useful redirects, and should probably be deleted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Computerfan0 Twin Woods and Flowery Woods are both unmentioned at the targets and are rather minor characters in the grand scheme of the game. I also feel that even with merging the two redirects are inaccurate; the characters section is not discussing bosses or enemies, and the only ones that would have the coverage to be discussed are minimal and not a good reflection of what a reader would be looking for with that redirect. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: more input is still desirable here Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Twin Woods, Whispy Borg, Flowery Woods, Yggdral Woods, Whispy Flowers per nom. Keep Kirby series enemies and Kirby series bosses, in part to preserve their 2005 and 2006 histories, respectively. The target is about the Kirby series and contains information on bosses and enemies from the Kirby series, so it's not too bad fmpov. Utopes(talk / cont)20:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete whispy borg as technically incorrect (though that's its name in japanese, it goes unmentioned in planet robobot, and it's known as clanky woods in english), yggdral woods (same case, yggy woods in english) as not even the right character, twin woods as a case of return to red (apparently it's a notable-ish golf stadium, yuck), and the rest as unmentioned. absolutely delete the lists, as they were piles of unsourced fancruft that were redirected (not merged) back in october 2007. oppose retargeting the lists to the main article, as it only contains info on two bosses (meta knight and perfect male figure king dedede) and one enemy (waddle dee). bandana dee was a midboss in super star ultra, but i'm not counting that one appearance, he's a FRIEND, he's shaped like a FRIEND, his bandana is made of FRIENDSHIP- consarn(grave)(obituary)00:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dev can be an alternative transliteration of the Sanskrit Deva, which is the term for deity in Indian religions. I'm not sure what the best target is. Deva#Religion and mythology lists several of the concepts related to Deva, but doesn't list Div (mythology), the current target. 9ninety (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current redirect to Div (mythology) might be misleading because "Dev" is simply another transliteration of Deva, not specifically "Div". Dev is not a notable topic and not used to mean "Deva" in reliable sources. Asteramellus (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. In many Indian languages/dialects, the "a" sound at the end of the word isn't actually pronounced; so Dev sounds the same as Deva. This is why Rama is commonly spelt as Ram. So Dev is a very plausible spelling of Deva, which is a notable topic. The problem is, we don't have an article on Deva (mythology). We have individual articles on Deva (Hinduism), Deva (Buddhism) etc., but not the overarching concept, which has roots in ancient Indo-Iranian religion (Deva is related to Daevas, who were similarly venerated by Iranians until they were reinterpreted by Zoroaster as malevolent). 9ninety (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add hatnote to Deva#Religion and mythology noting the spelling/tranlisteration (there are other religions that have similar uses for the term Deva that may also be truncated in speech or in some transliterations). Both appear to be valid alternate spellings/transliterations. older ≠ wiser12:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue concerns disposition of the redirect Dev (mythology) and upon investigation, there are multiple topics that could be referenced by this term. I'd also be OK with changing the redirect to point to Deva#Religion and mythology, although considering the marginal usage, I think a hatnote is sufficient (and easier to describe variant spellings rather than trying to wedge a mention of Div (mythology) into the Deva disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser19:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apocryphal is simply an adjective meaning likely untrue. It's a completely different concept from books that were rejected from the Bible Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first definition of the word at wikt:apocryphal is "(Christianity) Of, or pertaining to, the Apocrypha." I don't understand the reasoning behind the suggestion to retarget this to Apocrypha (disambiguation), because the term doesn't directly apply to the items listed there. - Eureka Lott18:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Apocrypha (disambiguation) as per Chrisahn and Lenticel. If 'apocryphal' is 'pertaining to apocrypha', then that could be a number of different things, all of which are listed at this disambig. It also has a Wiktionary hatnote to Apocrypha, from where one can easily get to Apocryphal. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd honestly say no, in this case it's NOT the same primary topic. Using the second/third definitions listed on Wiktionary (which... admittedly seem to be the same definition repeated twice, to my brain???) is common enough, and discussion of the actual Apocrypha is rare enough, that I'm fairly certain it's caused the primary topic for the adjective to shift. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refine/Keep per Godsy as the target now contains a discussion of the adjective form, unlike the dab page which concerns only things called "Apocrypha". Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Delete. Sorry everyone, but the mention at the proposed target is unsourced, and violates WP:NOTDICT even if it were, and I'm not sure how useful the adjectival form of the redirect is to ...anywhere, really. But if no one has the fortitude to delete it, I'd say just keep it to match the noun form. If there's a primary topic for that, then it should be for the adjective too, since nothing at the dab page has any particular affinity to it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete. The use in articles needs major cleanup if this is to be kept. I agree that Apocrypha is probably the primary topic among WP articles, if there is one, but use in WP articles, and other writing, is frequently of the extended meaning "likely false story". This meaning is sort of explained at Apocrypha but the article emphasizes the biblical meaning and other written, religious canons. I looked at the first 10 uses in article space and ended up removing 6 instances. Some of these were borderline and most violated MOS:NOFORCELINK. This behavior is difficult to control but should not be facilitated. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk01:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always thought that apocryphal meant "a story of doubtful authenticity", and had never heard of the biblical/canonical Apocrypha until I stumbled across the Wikipedia article recently. From what I can tell, "Apocrypha" is used more like a proper noun ("the Apocrypha", capitalized). It may be the origin of the adjective apocryphal, but the latter has clearly developed a new meaning in modern English. I think the current second or third definition at wikt:apocryphal should probably be made the first definition to reflect the far more common contemporary use. Most dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster, Collins) list that definition first, and also mention that "Apocryphal" in the biblical sense is usually capitalized. 9ninety (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To close old log date. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont)02:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My gut says this should be an article. Both of the previous dab entries were bad: "Computer music" is about something more specific. "Sound card" is about a piece of hardware that computers use to emit an audio signal, but there's far more to computer audio on the software side. The new target, "Digital audio", is also bad. It's more about the low-level signal aspect of how digital audio is represented and processed, etc. Maybe a case of WP:RETURNTORED? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak restore. I agree with the nom that the dab page was better than the redirect, it was helpful for readers even though it wasn't a good dab page according to the rigid style rules for such pages - it's exactly the sort of page (plausible search term for multiple topics that aren't actually this) that the still-born navpages concept was intended to be, maybe calling it a set index would prevent future good-faith attempts to fix what isn't broken? I do agree with the IP that not everything was covered but expanding the page to include them (MIDI and speech synthesis maybe should be there too) is I think preferable to deletion. 01:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
Restore as a better option than redirect. If there is disagreement, it can be taken to AfD. I'm not much for Computer music, but Digital audio should be added to the dab. Jay 💬09:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I had originally closed this to "restore", but then I reread the comment by the IP, and realized that their "WP:RETURNTORED" suggestion may not be compatible with the page being restored as a disambiguation page (which is what is in the edit history) rather than an article. So ... relisting in hopes of clarifying things. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. i don't think it'd be all that useful for dab material, as it's either too vague (definitions of "computer" and "audio" vary too much) or too... not exclusive to computers (midi isn't exclusive to computers, sound cards technically aren't exclusive to computers, computer music isn't the only form of audio that exists or exclusive to computers, etc.). i also couldn't name any fitting entries for a dab or targets for a redirect for the same reasons if results are needed, i got a little bit of everything (all of the time), and it was all way too vague to get anything out of, almost like audio itself is too general a concept for this kind of stuff consarn(grave)(obituary)18:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To close old log date. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont)02:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources that will actually claim there was a genocide of Turks happening for over a century. This is fringe historical negationism, generally only claimed by deniers of the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocides. Claiming that Turks were the real victims of genocide is a form of Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocide denial (see Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum), as thus doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Therefore, these titles are not appropriate, as they were titled by a Wikipedia user last month, not by credible historians. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the Turkish genocide AFD, it was recreated as a redirect, and remained as such for 2 years, having been edited by 7 editors with 4 different targets. It was deleted (I would say incorrectly) by the AfD closer Sandstein as a G4. Another redirect Turkey genocide created in 2017 still stands. Jay 💬05:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts on Thryduulf's suggestion now that Turkish massacre has closed as disambiguate? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide_of_Turkish_people is specific and cannot be retargeted to the massacre dab which is for by and of Turks. From the List_of_massacres_of_Turkish_ people, only the Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction (the current target) includes genocide, so that can be a keep. From the List_of_massacres_in_Turkey, it is mostly the WW1 ones perpetrated by the Young Turks that are seen as genocide (Greek, Assyrian, Armenian, Yazidi). So overall, the massacre dab is too broad a target for any Turkish genocide redirects, and a Turkish genocide can be made a dab similar to the massacre dab (of and by). Turkey_genocide (not bundled here) can be retargeted to the new dab. On the timestamped redirects, the period of 1820-1920 is mentioned by multiple sources and the infobox of the current target, so I'm Ok with that timestamp. Not so much with 19th–20th century, because WW1 that comes under 20th century, makes the title vague, and it may be deleted. Jay 💬14:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To close old log date. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont)02:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to keeping the status quo, redirecting to Clovis (given name), or other alternatives. I was at Luigi, followed the link to Chlodwig and was "astonished" to read the opening line of Louis (given name) which contains the very similar name Chlodowig which is a piped link to Clovis (given name), and wondered why these don't point to the same place. Louis may, indeed, be the better target but it's not obvious to me. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 20:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC) EDIT: I have specified a preference below. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Retarget to Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. There is absolutely no reason to have redirects created from every ancient form of every given name; that's just absurd. That's why we have the "Search" function (in addition to the "Go" function) in the search field, to locate all instances of the term, not just the one Neelix happened to turn his obsessive and nonsensical brain to. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My hesitation is that it is used in two articles where it is linked with reference to the name, and none in reference to this or any other individual named Chlodwig. A Google search turns up a variety of references, including to the fellow you linked and to Clovis I aka, apparently, Chlodwig. I take your point about not creating redirects for every variant of a name that has ever been attested, but where a redirect is used in article space in this way, I'm inclined to keep or redirect to a more appropriate given name, but not retarget to a specific individual that no editor has linked mononymously this way. A DAB page would be better than this. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Clovis I, as the two most likely targets. A number of Frankish royal names have no standardized spelling, but are found in numerous forms, and this is one of them. It needs to redirect either to Louis or possibly to Clovis, as they are the same name. Presumably the link at Louis goes to "Clovis (given name)" because otherwise it would be a recursive link and uninformative; the same word can certainly link to different places depending on context, and in that case anyone clicking on it would be looking for historical information. Without that distinction, "Louis" makes as much sense—perhaps more, because the redirect is a spelling variation. Strongly oppose redirecting to "Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst", as an extremely improbable search target for the bare name. Most English speakers will be familiar with the name "Louis", many with Clovis I, very few with this German prince. That redirect would certainly astonish many readers. P Aculeius (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Chlodwig is not mentioned anywhere prominently or in bold in Clovis I. (It's buried deep in the body text and one has to use Control+F to even find it.) Therefore, I struggle to understand why that article is being promoted as a superior retarget. Softlavender (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because most uses of it (under any spelling) encountered by readers are likely to be references to the Frankish king. Though there were other notable persons—including notable Franks—by this name, as well as partial title matches (such as the above-mentioned German noble, and the Clovis culture of North America and their characteristic spearheads), Clovis I sweeps the field among persons whose names are likely to be rendered simply as "Clodowig", "Chlodowig" "Clodwig", "Chlodwig", etc. P Aculeius (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A condition for redirects is that the term be featured prominently, preferably in bold, in the target article, so there is no puzzlement from the reader as to why they ended up on that page when they were searching for something entirely and noticeably different. Since Clovis I still fails in that regard, I continue to oppose redirecting to that article. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such condition. Many thousands of morphological variants lead to the topics they're variants of without being "featured prominently" in the articles they target. In fact it would be absurd if persons (or things) whose names were spelled, though infrequently, in numerous ways had to feature each variation "prominently, preferably in bold". It's more common to have a subsection listing variant names, or simply to place a footnote in the lead. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P, in my opinion you don't sound very familiar with redirects or the conditions and rationales involved. "Chlodwig" or some variation of it would need to be mentioned in the lead, preferably the lead sentence, for the redirect to make sense to anyone typing in the term and clicking on what comes up. Generally people who type in a term are looking for someone by that very name, hence Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. Most people can't remember the tongue-twisting rest of the name and so would simply type in "Chlodwig".
"Chlodwig" and "Clovis" are not even spelling variants of each other, and differ too much to be understood by an unexplained redirect. If there are still people who want "Clovis" to be considered as a target, then in my opinion the only solution is Chlodwig (disambiguation), which would, quite obviously, list Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst (and any other wiki titles with "Chlodwig" in them) first, and could then list or mention Clovis and/or various Clovises. Softlavender (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, "Chlodwig" even shows up in some dictionaries defined as Clovis I.[74][75] I am leaning towards Clovis (given name) as the best redirect. This is consistent with the two uses in articles currently, pointing to the origin of other names, and would lead readers to Clovis I and all the other Chlodwigs and Clovises. Clovis I could be mentioned in the lead or otherwise made more prominent there if there is concern that enough readers are looking for this individual (he is, of course, listed already). A new Chlodwig (disambiguation)Chlodwig DAB page (not that anyone has suggested this) page seemsmay be extraneous and would mostly point to and duplicate entries from Clovis (given name). WikiNav[76][77] shows a fair bit of traffic between Clovis (given name), Louis (given name), and the related names. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk03:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Clovis (given name)or DAB. The given name article already contains the etymology and lists individuals called "Chlodwig". Readers clicking Chlodwig from one of the other given name articles or entering the search term after seeing the name in reference to Clovis I will be confused and potentially mislead if they land at the article for the relatively obscure German prince. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clovis I is the only individual who is routinely attested as "Chlodwig" mononymously in reliable sources, including standard dictionaries[78][79][80] and the reference work I cited on the draft DAB. It's a disservice to readers to obscure this. I would prefer to lead with something like "Chlodwig is the German name for Clovis I, first king of the Franks…" and then list the two lesser-known nobles and Clovis (given name), but I won't die on that hill. Perhaps listing "Other people named Clovis (given name)" as the last bullet and reworking the opening sentence would be better. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk19:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Compare de:Chlodwig. The overlap between Clovis, Chlodwig, Louis, Lewis, Ludwig, Ludovicus drives me nuts but the solution is a project-wide shift in how we handle given names and that is not on the table here. Srnec (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reader searching for "Chlodwig" (I presume this is already a small population) would likely be looking for someone with that name or information about that name. I find it unlikely someone would search Wikipedia using that name and expect or hope to end up at a page that disambiguates the name "Clovis". In any event, the first sentence of Chlodwig links directly to Clovis (given name). If we were to go your route, it should be at Chlodwig (given name). voorts (talk/contributions) 15:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a dab page. I see that you have edited the redirect page. I have removed a statement from it that did not match the citation. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, not if the only persons listed are two obscure nineteenth-century aristocrats. Since this is a mere spelling variation of Chlodowig, Hluodwig, etc. it should probably list other Frankish kings or nobles who might be found under this spelling (no matter which spelling is the most frequent), or redirect to A) the most important article under any of them (Clovis I) or B) whichever spelling is used as a disambiguation page for the majority of them (such as "Clovis (given name)" or "Louis (given name)"). Otherwise we have a fractured disambiguation tree where each spelling variation is a separate list, disambiguation page, or redirect, even though there is no sharp distinction between them, and readers might use any of the spellings to search for various persons. The present version misleadingly suggests that the said nineteenth century aristocrats are the only notable persons who might be searched for under this spelling. P Aculeius (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are all spelling variations of the same name. Presumably any notable examples (or at least any with articles about them already written) are under some other spelling, and redirects from various spellings would not be indexed in a disambiguation page, though they might be listed in an article about the name. That does not mean that people will not search under those spellings.
A similar example might be illustrative: the Merovingian dynasty (to which Clovis and multiple of his namesakes belonged) is named after a king whose name is variously given in Frankish, Latin, French, and English sources as Merovech, Meroveus, Merovaeus, Merovée, Merewig, etc. However, though he bequeathed his name to the dynasty, he was not an important king, almost nothing is recorded about him, and so his name did not survive into modern times—at least not to a significant degree. Consequently there is no telling what form he will appear under in any given source. Only one spelling will be listed in a disambiguation page, and per DAB guidelines it will be the spelling used in the title of the article about him. But all of the other forms will be redirects to that article.
If the result of this discussion is that "Chlodwig" redirects to a disambiguation page, then the lead paragraph should probably mention as many spellings as possible, and only major groups (such as "persons named Louis") would be split off into their own pages (but with those pages still linked here), with all other notable persons listed irrespective of which spelling is used. P Aculeius (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anthroponymize, with thanks to the efforts of Voorts and Myceteae for creating/promoting the Anthroponymy page. If this is a variant of other names, that should be also be explained there. --Tavix(talk)17:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Tavix for reframing the suggestion; I have been thinking along similar lines. We've been calling this a DAB page but I agree the proposal has morphed into a given name article at this point (some may still favor a strict DAB page). The sticking points for some editors seems to be the degree of completeness required to support publishing Chlodwig. Relevant content from Clovis (given name) and Louis (given name) could be copied, excerpted, or otherwise duplicated (with attribution). I understand the desire for completeness and of course accuracy but pushing out some version of a Chlodwig page will permit and invite further improvement, such as the addition of as-yet-unidentified Hluodwigs. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To close old log date. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont)02:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Duckmather; several terms come from "Endia", most notably the derogatory slang. Even if it's derogatory, non-neutral redirects are allowed by Wikipedia, there's a whole category for them. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞?15:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bis-Serjetà?: I understand the disamb. But with rds, the thing should be substantiated in sources and covered at the target. Both of which don't happen here. For instance Amerikkka, another deliberately spelled slang, does not rd to the country article but to a related topic. Gotitbro (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you completely. This shouldn't be redirected as per nom (observed in other similar country pages) and deleted asap. ACMehta (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, ATD talks about article content, and it doesn't apply to redirects, which don't enjoy the same level of protection as articles. There's no substantive history to preserve here, so nothing is really lost in the deletion. If you think disambiguation is the best way to go, that's fine, but it shouldn't really be done as some sort of middle-ground, ATD thing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That might be your opinion but it's not what WP:ATD actually says. It says If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page (emphasis mine). It doesn't single out articles. And for the record, yes, I think disambiguating is obviously superior to deleting here. Warudo (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirects for first names should generally be avoided unless that person is specifically well known by their first name only. I'm also dubious as to the usefulness of pointing to "India" here. A retarget to ENDIA is probably okay, but also unnecessary, since the search box will automatically redirect to an article that only differs by casing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ENDIA. Doesn't seem a plausible spelling mistake for the target. A no-caps version of an allcaps title (remember, Endia is the same as endia) is always reasonable. Redirecting to a person's first name doesn't seem particularly helpful, but disambiguating would be far better than deleting. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disam makes zero sense because it would have only two pages. Redirect to a first name is undue and to ENDIA is redundant since both the all caps and nocaps already exist. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, do not keep. At least two potential targets (ENDIA & Endia Beal) have been identified during the course of this discussion, leaving a "delete" result making no sense at all. Also, the current target is clearly a bad target for this since it doesn't seem to be a likely misspelling, especially given there are targets in existence that are known by this exact spelling. Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I personally do not agree the existence of this redirect category implies we should always have given names point to people when we only have one biography with a given given name. It will very often not be what a reader is looking for, especially for less-known biographies which most are. 1234qwer1234qwer412:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at target. The current situation, while the result of an RfD, amounts to an attempted compromise that just splits the baby; either this bit of wikijargon deserves a cross-namespace redirect or it doesn't and should be deleted; in no other situation would we redirect to a mainspace target that merely provides vague hints of this sort. * Pppery *it has begun...20:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or retarget to match WP:!VOTE. I agree with Pppery. The information at Negation is not enough to understand this term, because !vote as used on Wikipedia doesn't just mean "not a vote", but rather reflects a bit of philosophical history of how our decision-making works. The current target is so unhelpful in clarifying this term that someone has added a hatnote there, resulting in a silly situation where everyone following this redirect to the current target is best served by immediately clicking on the hatnote. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 20:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the arcane programming term nor Wikipedia's own internal jargon deserves this unhelpful and confusing redirect. Bishonen | tålk21:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keepbut shift to a more specific subsection of the negation article. User:Pppery, the target article says, “For example, the phrase !voting means ‘not voting’”. Also, editors in this thread might find a link to the previous RfD useful: link. Regarding the hatnote at the target, it should remain regardless of this redirect, and I don’t see anyone here arguing otherwise. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That example in the article is both unsourced and misleading; the way !vote is actually used (at least in Wikipedia discussions) means something more specific than just "not voting". The text not voting in the article is wikilinked and leads to the Abstention article; that's definitely not what !vote means around here. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 01:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the redirect is not kept then Retarget to match WP:!VOTE. The current target article clearly explains what the prefix “!” means in ordinary language, and gives the well-sourced example of !clue which means clueless. It’s very difficult to search for words that have the “!” prefix, because search engines ignore the exclamation mark even if the whole term is surrounded by quote marks, but I found this source which correctly defines !vote. Anyway, the main thing is, that people who encounter “!vote” should be able to put it in the Wikipedia search box to find out what it means. I don’t much care how this is achieved, but it should be achieved one way or the other. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anythingyouwant's improvements. Readers who read "!" as "Not" should naturally be led to the Negation article. The philosophy behind WP's !vote may be added. The hatnote to the meta term was already there. Another hatnote to Not voting for Abstention, may be added. I don't like the term "ordinary language" in the section title, but that's an article content issue. Jay 💬06:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to WP:!VOTE as a useful, acceptable WP:CNR. I agree with Pppery and other comments made here and at prior RfDs. This amounts to a clumsy avoidance of a CNR that sends readers looking for the most common usage on a wild goose chase. The brief mention that has been added to the end of Negation#Programming language and ordinary language is buried after a long, technical explanation and that sentence is liable to be deleted or altered in the future. !vote is an implausible search term outside of Wikipedia jargon. Deletion is a poor option as evidenced by the history of recreation and repeated RfD discussion where CNR is suggested but has yet to gain consensus. A hatnote can be added to WP:!VOTE pointing to Negation#Programming language and ordinary language to further explain the rationale for this usage, and on the off-chance someone not looking for Wikipedia jargon enters this unlikely search term. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think adding the subsection Negation#Usage in ordinary language is an improvement but I still see this as a workaround to avoid a CNR that would be much more useful. And I maintain the concern that this content could be deleted or substantially edited in the future to remove the !vote example and usage. We can't always predict or account for this sort of 'redirect decay' where a target that once prominently discussed the word/phrase has been slowly edited to remove it years later, but here we have a target that is better (Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Not-votes aka WP:!VOTE) and more likely to be stable. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion § Not-votes. While I normally don't support WP:XNRs, the continued recreation of this as noted above shows that this likely makes sense as a redirect. While I would say that almost anyone who comes across !vote will be coming across it in the context of something in the project namespace so, WP:!VOTE/Wikipedia:!vote should be sufficient, it appears for some reason it is not. I oppose redirecting to Negation § Usage in ordinary language because I don't really think that the usage on Wikipedia belongs there. While it's not in programming language, it's rather specific jargon for Wikipedia editors, not daily parlance. Casablanca 🪨(T)01:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Casablanca Rock, I accordingly modified the target article to say “colloquial” language instead of “ordinary” language. A number of editors here have mentioned that “ordinary language” might not be the best description of how the exclamation mark is used for negation in a conversational manner. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Negation#Usage in ordinary language. We have mainspace coverage of this term, with a citation also in mainspace. We are here to build an encyclopedia firstly, not take people to our backrooms, so mainspace coverage of a search term is always a priority to target redirects to, if it exists, and it does. Wikipedia !votes end up in mainstream media whenever journalists cover any influential Wikipedia discussion, of which there have been many, and people may want to read about encyclopedic coverage of that term if they want to search for it on Wikipedia. (People in the know, know to search for "Wikipedia:!vote" instead.) There are more people who read about Wikipedia without editing, than there are those who edit Wikipedia and participate in discussions, but it's the readers who we should be accommodating over anything else. Utopes(talk / cont)04:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore this was BLARed in 2020 by Premeditated Chaos with the rationale "redirect marketing to the product that was being marketed". The article content was, in its entirety: MSharePointCOE is a Microsoft strategy for evangelization and sharing of SharePoint across Enterprise. and three categories, there were no sources. Unfortunately this needs to be restored and either merged somewhere or deleted at AfD as it does not meet a speedy deletion criterion and thus cannot be deleted here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thryduulf's explanation sans the last sentence. Because this is a redirect, and this is the forum for deleting redirects, this can (and should!) be deleted here. --Tavix(talk)14:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a blarred article, and as such needs to be treated as an article for the reasons I have to explain to you every time you try to inappropriately delete article content at RfD, despite never getting a consensus to change the policy to support your view. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the policy (or whatever you want to cite for this, i'll go with wp:blar for now) doesn't support your view either. it deliberately says nothing about if a blar goes to rfd. it's also been stable as a redirect for a little over 5 years, so unless you can make a genuine argument for restoring its content beyond a procedural headache that introduces problematic stuff back into mainspace for at least a week, there's no actual opposition to it being blanked
There isn't a policy that supports his views. If there was one he would have cited it. Instead he has to resort to vague waves. --Tavix(talk)16:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Show me one policy that says you can delete article content at RfD. Just one. I've been asking this for literally years and you've never presented one yet. Whereas I have pointed you to the deletion policy every time.
WP:ATD-R: A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed, such as by reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. The preferred venue for doing so is the appropriate deletion discussion venue for the pre-redirect content, although sometimes the dispute may be resolved on the page's talk page. This BLAR has been disputed by its nomination here, and by everybody who has agreed it is inappropriate.
WP:XFD states that articles and other pages in the main namespace go to AfD or Prod. It does exclude redirects, but because the BLAR has been disputed we discuss the pre-redirect content which is not a redirect.
I didn't cite these before because I didn't think you'd need to be spoonfed again after I've spoonfed you the same exact links on multiple occasions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's better. this still spawns problems, though
what is your actual argument for or against the content of this blar? judging by you describing the fact that this "needs to be restored" as unfortunate, i don't imagine you're exactly in favor of restoring it due to its own merits and not out of procedure. if you're not in favor of it, has the blar even been disputed? i'd say it hasn't
neither of the pages you cited state conclusively that blars need to go to afd. atd-r says it's "preferred", but doesn't mandate or oppose them going elsewhere. xfd i still don't get, because it specifically excludes redirects from afd. this is why i asked for something that didn't only have afd as an example a couple comments down
It is unfortunate that something that is clearly not suitable as a stand-alone article in its current state cannot be deleted without less bureaucracy than AfD (or I suppose PROD) but unless and until policy changes to explicitly allow article content to be deleted at venues that are not intended for or set-up for discussing article content, and there is some method to advertise to interested parties that a venue which doesn't normally discuss article content is actually discussing article content, that is the way it has to be. Every BLAR that gets brought to RfD is, by definition, being contested. Every person who recommends something other than keeping such a redirect as a redirect to its current target is, by definition, contesting the BLAR. I have also explicitly contested the BLAR, so yes, this BLAR is unambiguously contested.
As for some method to advertise to interested parties... WP:AALERTS includes RfD and each WP:DELSORT topic includes a section for redirects (if someone wants to advertise a discussion there). You can also post a notice to the relevant WikiProject(s). --Tavix(talk)20:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how is taking a blar to rfd more bureaucratic than restoring it and taking it to afd? maybe it's more bureaucratic than prodding, but that's like saying that a blender is better at blending stuff than a wooden spoon consarn(grave)(obituary)22:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: None of what you listed supports it does not meet a speedy deletion criterion and thus cannot be deleted here. WP:ATD-R explains what happens when someone BLARs an article and someone disputes that. In this scenario, you then have an intact article (not a redirect), so the logical place to dispute that would be AfD. That's not the scenario here—the page has long been established as a redirect and the selection of venue has already been established as RfD. It was nominated due to a lack of mention, which is an RfD concern that does not touch on BLAR whatsoever, so this BLAR has been disputed by its nomination here is false. Furthermore, the RFC that established this clause explicitly addressed this: This close does not comment on WP:RFD suitability for BLARs in any scenario, nor does it comment on what deletion venue is appropriate for what kind of page. WP:XFD explicitly explains that Redirects for discussion (RfD): Redirects, including soft redirects, in any namespace. Given the fact that this is a redirect, and WP:XFD doesn't list any exceptions to this, RfD is the correct venue. For your interpretation to be correct, it would have to say something like "Redirects, including soft redirects, in any namespace, with the exception of former article content not speediable", which of course it doesn't do. As for, you've never presented one yet, here's an example from three(!) years ago where I provided you with the relevant policy when asked. --Tavix(talk)20:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please don't remind me that 2022 was 3 years ago...
to add to this, even assuming that arguing for deleting the blar with opposition to restoring it is "contesting" it, and any form of "contest" is worthy of restoring it anyway (however that works), then i can and probably should provide examples of this apparently existant rule being violated by admins, because this is the first time i hear of that
not assuming it, i really want to know what thryduulf thinks explicitly prohibits blars being deleted here and/or requires them going to afd despite agreements that the content isn't worth restoring (in this case, by what seems to be everyone but the nom lmao) consarn(grave)(obituary)21:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are just going to claim that policy says something other than what it actually says then it's clear that anything else I say is going to be a waste of all our time, so I shall not say anything more. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind being spoonfed policies, it's no sweat off my back. But don't make the claim that you don't want to waste time when you're literally advocating to waste AfD's time. --Tavix(talk)00:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
problem: it's verifiably not written how you say it is either. as i mentioned a couple times before, if it was, a fair bit of admins would either be in trouble for breaking a rule this important or not discussing whether or not it even exists, but that hasn't been happening a whole lot beyond this routine (at least to my knowledge) consarn(grave)(obituary)11:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. there's no sources, no content, no promotional stuff to make fun of, nothing. honestly, i'd argue for it being a case of a3 or a7 for a quick laugh, but this is a redirect, so it doesn't meet a csd for articles~ consarn(grave)(obituary)15:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an article it would not meet A3 because the content, although very short, does exist and it is not just a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond, a question or chat-like comments and it does not consist solely of images, template tags or article wizard framework. It does not meet A7 because it is about a marketing strategy which is not a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event. There is enough context that it doesn't meet A1 either, it's not a hoax or vandalism (G3), it's not promoting anything (G11), a copyright violation (G12), a musical recording (A9), a recently-created duplicate (A10), nor is it obviously invented (A11). The only time it is possible, according to every policy, guideline and principle, to delete article content at RfD is when there has previously been a consensus discussion about the article content on the talk page or other venue for discussing article content that concluded it is not wanted (it hasn't been discussed in any such venue, so it's not possible for there to be such a consensus) or it would a speedy deletion criterion if restored (as explained in detail, it does not). Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's pretty obvious that this doesn't really meet any csd. however, tagging it for a tangentially related one would be funny
Knowingly tagging anything for a CSD that it doesn't meet is vandalism. Vandalism is not funny. I should have said "every relevant policy that has anything to say on the matter" rather than assume you would understand that I wasn't being literal. I'm not sure why providing examples (as I've just done above) undermine my point when you've consistently failed to provide any examples of policy explicitly allowing the deletion of articles at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the reason i've been careful with my use of "every" in discussions like this, even if i then narrow the definition down to something more useful than "everything i could find", is that it first requires an "any". and then another, and then another, if you're in a good mood, and that those "any"s be in such unambiguous and unanimous (if not necessarily numerous, as this part is contextual) nature that nothing opposes them. the fact that an "any" hasn't been defined yet by the failure to actually be conclusive lends little credibility to an "every", even if it's narrowed down to "every relevant x"
as for the examples, as usual, i cite wp:xfd, which says that redirects go to rfd, and wp:rfd, which says that redirects can be deleted in rfd. sure, neither of them being specific about where blars have to go is a double-edged sword, as this means i myself technically have nothing to state directly and conclusively that states directly and conclusively that redirects have to go to rfd... which is why i don't say that. i say they can (and i have proof in the aforementioned examples), and i say they don't need to go to afd if they've been stable (thus, not disputed) and it's agreed that the content that would be restored isn't very cash money, and i've shown to only oppose them going to afd from rfd (if only by never having mentioned them going straight to afd, whoops)
it's much simpler than "blars from articles have article content, so they can only ever be debated in afd, so we need to restore them no matter what, even if it's unambiguously Not Good, unless it's unlucky enough to meet a csd". plus, i can probably do that thing where i dump a bunch of examples of blars getting deleted here with no fuss again (including some where admins have voted to delete), or mention that twinkle has no issue with them going to rfd, or a third thing consarn(grave)(obituary)20:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann: I'm willing to give it some love if there is sourcing for it. Did your searches turn up anything promising? If you're able to find something, it seems to me that the most we'd be able to do is add a blurb about SharePointCOE to the target, in which case we can close the RfD as "keep". Restoring is really only useful when there is enough content available for a stand-alone article—if you think that may be possible here, I'd love to hear why. --Tavix(talk)14:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i assumed in this discussion that thryduulf looked for sources before voting and didn't mention it for whatever reason, but for what that's worth, i looked into it just now and found... nothing usable, except for the unbelievably important revelation that it's actually "sharepoint coe", with a spaceconsarn(grave)(obituary)20:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hey wait a minute! doesn't the act of voting to restore something that's either unsourced or agreed in rfd to not meet gng (which is particularly egregious when that's mentioned in the vote) and take it to afd without first checking for sources and stating what's been found violate wp:before? it seems like a fairly large oversight, almost bigger than the fact that that question didn't have a single comma consarn(grave)(obituary)19:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative proposal, should reliable, independent, secondary coverage be located, delete and create a new section under sharepoint with details of the marketing strategy. Otherwise the merge would be dead on arrival with only a single sentence to its name — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C08:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(and yes, contested BLARs and incorrect venue nominations can be viewed as a waste of time without proper rationales though I acknowledge the second example has some additional circumstances and issues surrounding it). — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C09:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tavix. Nominating the redirect at RfD is not contesting the BLAR, it is contesting the redirect as a redirect. The history is not especially relevant, and the policies are clear that redirects are to be discussed at RfD. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 16:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When someone explicitly says that they are contesting the redirect, it's not a good look to say the redirect has not been contested. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? I am not saying the redirect is not contested. But the nomination statement, Not explained anywhere on the English Wikipedia deals with it as a redirect qua – if I dare use such a pretentious word – redirect, not redirect qua former article. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 17:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assyrians is redirected to Assyrian people. The issue here is that Syriacs is a very ambiguous term, as is Syriac people. It does not exclusively refer to Assyrian people. I don’t think it’s comparable to Armenians and Armenian people, for example.
The term is not mentioned at all in the article (at least not in any language I can read). It appears there may have once been a type of administrative subdivision known or translated to English as "peripheral unit", but the present article makes no mention of this. For English speakers, I think more likely meaning for this term would be peripheral (computer devices). older ≠ wiser15:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore DAB; perifereiakés enótites can indeed be translated to 'peripheral units'. Meanwhile, while Peripheral CAN be argued to be a WP:PTM, I believe it's fine; as wikt:unit definitions 7 and 8 define a 'unit' to be an individual piece of equipment or an item that may be sold on its own, both things that can describe a peripheral in the tech sense. If it's deemed that peripheral is too much of a PTM and the redirect should instead be kept, I'm fine with that-- the Regional units of Greece page already includes a hatnote to peripheral, notably assuming that peripheral unit is a redirect and not a DAB....One that shhhnotsoloud added when he BLAR'd the DAB. Fair enough. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore DAB, as before this edit. The literal meaning of periferiaki enotita is peripheral unit. As administrative regions of Greece are called peripheries in Greek, regional unit is a better and more understandable translation. This meaning being just as legitimate as that of computer peripherals, both targets are equally valid. Place Clichy (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was BLAR'd to tail in 2010 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scut, which is what it looks like the IP was trying to enforce; it was a semi-article about the tail and semi-DAB. Now confusingly, we also have Scut (disambiguation) which was created in 2016. This may be out of scope for RfD and I'm not an expert on when to use histmerges, but it feels like we should do a hist merge between Scut and Scut (disambiguation) and have the dab live at the base name and redirect the title with (disambiguation). So, uh, restore dab in whatever way makes the most sense. Skynxnex (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is hopelessly ambiguous, search terms works find the potential targets anyway. I would check the hit count though - but I'm on mobile Dovid (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4 pageviews daily on average, 1835 monthly on average, is a decent amount; and it makes sense that it gets that many pageviews given it's just as "ambiguous and vague" as the title of Impacts of the Gaza war, which is an actual full article on the impacts of the current war in Gaza. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yarn of shaggy texture. or apparently of a brand named "shaggy". or any combination of those two. not necessarily tied to carpets either way, and i found nothing suggesting that this is an alternative name for carpets, so this could probably be a cut-and-dry a1 if it wasn't blar'd in... 2009... why is this older than one of my sisters? consarn(grave)(obituary)12:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My first thought was to wonder whether this was used to mean Shaggy dog story, given that "yarn" is a synonym for that, but I can't immediately see any evidence of that (but my searches did turn up a surprising proportion of Scooby-Doo-related hits, although none that indicate that would be a good target for this redirect). I'm not going to recommend restoring the old content here as although it wouldn't meet A1 (no context) if restored it would meet A3 (no content). I'm leaning delete but I've run out of time to investigate fully. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In more than ten years I've never visited this page before, but this should be deleted -Shagpile carpet is a thing, and the pile of a carpet is made of yarn, but this isn't redirect worthy. Note that the article Shag (fabric) is badly flawed, inherently wrong, and we shouldn't encourage readers to see it. I may PROD it. - Roxy thedog13:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - It shouldn't redirect to heatsetting, which has little or no special relationship to shaggy carpet.
The heatsetting article, while reasonably accurate to reality, is unsourced - has no inline citations - There is a list without links to german language references. To me, it doesn't meet en.wiki standards, and should be looked at !! Roxy thedog08:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that an royal style would be considered non-neutral as it's elevated from normal to be honorific, but it seems like that Rcat is pretty much exclusively used for non-neutral from a negative perspective, so I don't really have a strong opinion on this being kept to its current target. In reality, there is likely very little/no potential harm, especially BLP related, of giving someone what could be perceived to be an overly honorific name. Casablanca 🪨(T)12:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of honorifics. {{R from honorific}} is a redirect to {{R from name with title}} which would fit the redirects I listed above, with the exception of HIM The Emperor which targets an article about the style not a person. If there is concern about styles not being titles (per SMcCandlish in the linked previous discussion) the target could be renamed to "R from name with title or style". Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally right. I should've researched further before stating it was retargeted. 99% of the time something ends up like that it's because of that. Apologies on my end there. Casablanca 🪨(T)12:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCure for diabetes mellitus type 1 as {{R from merge}} and delete the rest. The other pages don't have much history other than serving as redirects to the now-merged article. Diabetes type 1 curing is especially awkward and therefore implausible as a search term. § Transplant and § Research are both plausible refinements in theory but neither is clearly better than the other and neither focuses on nor comprehensively discusses the concept of a 'cure'. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the Disney ones (neutral on those). Except for the Disney ones, these are all disruptive pointless moves that should have been reverted without leaving redirects, some of whose disambiguators are highly implausible, and certainly not helpful. The Disney ones seem to have also been around a move request, and I'm not sure of the full story there, so staying neutral for now. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer / relister: Nom added the bottom 5 entries on 14:35, 11 August 2025, so this nomination needs to stay for 7 days from the time, or it may be relisted, or the new entries moved as a new nomination to the August 11 page log. Jay 💬08:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The titles are countless, so I'm not/I wasn't expecting a quick close of this nomination discussion, considering the multiple moves this sockmaster/sockpuppet has done. This multi-pronged nomination should have a clearer picture by Tuesday, so as to be deleted at once and in unison. I'm aiming for a 1 September closure of this specific discussion. Intrisit (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting Per Jay's comment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk)16:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not open – closed! I wish I were having my own PC right now to respond to you quickly – I've been using a public internet café PC and in private browsing mode since the beginning of this year. Since this original nomination, I've been sporadically amassing these titles as at the time, I feared they were a lot, considering what the sockpuppet has done. Hopefully when they get deleted, they could be traced to this discussion as a reference for that. Intrisit (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The list of redirects has grown since the original nomination, with the last three being added 8 days after the previous relist (nearly a month after the initial nomination). Relisting so that they can all be examined appropriately Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks, Thryduulf! As I've stated, I'm aiming for a September 1st closure of this discussion, considering the multiple page moves by this sockpuppet/sockmaster has done. Such a shame these/those titles could not be deleted or eligible for G5 or even R3 deletion. But these titles I've added about or over 2 hours ago are the last of them – consider this multi-pronged nomination completed! The rest of the reason why these titles were not nominated at least within a week before or sonner is mentioned in my reply to Liz above. Sorry about that! And thanks again! Intrisit (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checked one, Boomerang (European TV channel). Has history back to 2008. Continued checking, almost all of these seem to be well-constructed redirects, keep all per WP:Trainwreck. Just because G5 exists does not mean that we need to enact it in every situation, especially if the titles are viable enough to be "recreated immediately after". Hitting delete and then immediately remaking it is a waste of an edit. None of these are created by the sock-puppet to my knowledge, but instead by various longterm editors moving the pages back and leaving behind redirects. Utopes(talk / cont)21:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when created this redirected to a section of this name at the-now deleted Israeli style hummus article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli style hummus suggests that the content was a mix of unsourced and non-notable varieties of Hummus. The section on the 13 September 2020 version of that article read as follows:
Jerusalem hummus is a dish consisting of Israeli-style hummus that has been topped with toasted pine nuts and warm, spiced ground beef or lamb that has been browned and seasoned with spices such as baharat. This variety has been called "The Best Hummus" by VICE.[1] Instead of topping the hummus with olive oil (as is common with other varieties), the hot beef or lamb fat takes the place of olive oil in this dish. It is very popular in Jerusalem, particularly during the winter and is a unique variety of hummus as it contains meat and most hummus is both vegan and pareve.[2][page needed]
It also contained the inline-image File:Jerusalem hummus.jpg with the caption Jerusalem hummus, an Israeli style hummus that has been topped with spiced, browned ground beef and pine nuts. but I've not been able to get that to play nicely with the blockquote. I've not looked into the notability or reliability of this. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 20 August 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's nothing wrong with an episode name redirecting to the main article about the show. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as Thepharoah17 notes these are not episode names, but rather, the names of individual "Shen Gong Wu", which in the show's canon are the MacGuffin artifacts that are sought after by the heroes and villains (and also used BY the heroes and villains to use their powers). (And even if they WERE episode titles, the correct target would've been List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes.) In situations such as these, I feel like the model is still how we handle Pokemon-related redirects, even after the obsolescence of the WP:Pokemon Test; namely, no matter how relevant a detail of a show may be, if it's not notable enough to show up and be explained in the article itself, it shouldn't have a redirect-- and then, on the flip side, there's a high likelihood that it's not notable enough for article inclusion, either, because we're not Bulbapedia.(Or, in this case, we're not Xiaolinpedia. ...Oh, ew, it's still hosted by Fandom.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's time for another one of those "piles of votes because a lot of them have different rationales"
retarget silk spinner to loom. results seemed to treat that as a serviceable alternative name for those. Or for spinnerets, but those were outnumbered by a lot
delete monkey staff and chameleon bot as vague
delete all the bird redirects as "make up your mind on a spelling, come on!!" (and per below)
This redirect, created many years ago without an explanation, isn't actually mentioned as such at the destination page which is about the weather, and it obfuscates the search which shows how this word is more typically used. Joy (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with hatnote. wikt:storm indicates that as a verb, 'storm' can be used either to indicate actual meteorological events (or compare things to it)-- in which case the current target is correct and is probably the primary target-- or, to indicate an assault on a military objective-- in which case redirection to an appropriate military strategy article might be a good idea. With two potential targets, disambiguation is the word-- and with one being the clear primary target, we should use a hatnote to disambiguate, rather than a dedicated disambiguation page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have disambiguation between a meaning that is documented and a meaning that is not. If we try to follow the breadcrumbs from assault to get to storming, it ends at military tactics, which mentions assault but doesn't mention storming. So a prerequisite to what you're saying is documenting storming in an article like that. I didn't want to propose a solution that would force volunteers to do more work, rather, just use what we already have.
I see no evidence that this form of this verb is primarily used for meteorological events.
With regard to hatnotes, the storm article already has two, so adding a third one for a meaning that doesn't really match the primary topic for the base term would add more visual clutter for all the other readers who did not look up this present participle.
JFTR, if storming was squashed with storm (disambiguation), it would be part of a genuinely huge list, most of which is unrelated to "storming". If we point readers to wikt:storming, it doesn't explain this meaning. wikt:storm does, but on a page where the reader has to scroll down a lot to get to that (six pages (PgDn) on my big desktop screen; on mobile, they have to tap the English heading, and then engage in manual scrolling (no PgDn there) for about seven screen-fulls to get to that meaning :)
You want to redirect to the specific section of the same page which mentions this player. I don't see why a discussion is needed for that. Please withdraw this and fix the target directly. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See draft. I've converted the category info and article history into a list with accompanying map. It probably doesn't deserve to be a stand-alone list (please tell me how to cite this stuff properly), but it can be merged as a subsection of List of mountain passes#Europe. ⇌Synpath14:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Synpath has made a draft list but isn't sure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬13:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If e.g. "Henry 8" is unambiguous or has a primary topic, why should it lead to a disambiguation page because e.g. "George 3" is ambiguous? Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Casablanca Rock and Thryduulf. These should track to the Roman numeral versions. If the Roman numeral has a primary topic, there's no reason for the Arabic numeral version to be different. If the Roman numeral is a disambiguation, the Arabic version should point there as well. older ≠ wiser14:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that George 3 and George 4 are ambiguous as, in addition to being a shorthand for the relevant kings, they are also (actually capitalised as GEORGE 3 and GEORGE 4) the proprietary names of old computer operating systems (always Arabic numerals). OosoomTalk 14:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Retarget per Casablanca. I seem to have carelessly created some of these like George 6, but it was a long time ago and I now agree that George 6 should go to Primary Topic George VI, etc. And, even though I can remember using GEORGE 3, I think it's probably sufficiently minor that the king George III should be PT for George 3. PamD18:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice to AfD or merge. This was a very short article that was BLARed in 2013, that had a source. A quick google suggests that "Blinkie" is possibly the more common spelling but it's likely that more sources exist on this. Whether the correct amount of detail is a mention at GIF#Animated GIF, a separate section at GIF or a stand-alone article I don't know but those are not questions for RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not having an inline source is not the same as not having a source - the external link clearly supports at least some of the text. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to add a mention somewhere. Whether or not a mention (or section) can be added is absolutely a question for RfD, especially given that there's no scope for a stand-alone article. --Tavix(talk)13:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct; I had not seen WP:NOPIPE before making my comment suggesting [[Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales's]] as a solution. That said, WP:NOPIPE also explicitly mentions the practice of using [[Jimbo Wales]]'s instead; it presents it as a more reasonable alternative to specifically [[Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales's]], but presenting it as "the correct way" also means it's the preferred alternative over making [[Jimbo Wales's]] as a redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the discussion here and was alerted to a recent discussion of the same topic on the talk page here, which stemmed from a discussion at Help talk:Link#Consensus on possessives?. My read is no consensus on the general practice of including the apostrophe in the wikilink, aside from NOPIPE, which doensn't apply in the case of redirects. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk19:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and fix active mainspace uses to instead use [[David Bowie]]'s instead of [[David Bowie's]] as per Traumnovelle. If a redirect exists purely for use by the editors, it doesn't need to exist (Shortcuts to Wikipedia: namespace or userspace essays notwithstanding); the editors can simply just... fix it. If the 's showing up outside the link doesn't look good to you, just pipe the link-- [[David Bowie|David Bowie's]] is a perfectly functional way of getting a link that looks like David Bowie's instead of David Bowie's. Strikeout 15:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an issue with how linked anchors are displayed on some skins. I use the vector-2022 skin and jumping to the K5 and K6 anchors hides the text underneath the banner at the top of the skin. Maybe I should just link the section (WP:R#KEEP) rather than the anchors in the future. ⇌Synpath18:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or tag these somehow so they can be cleaned up in article prose. See also my !vote and comment under Canada's discussion. These look bad and should be discouraged in article space, although I don't see any MOS or other guidance on this. To the extent they are useful for editors, an appropriate tag (R-cat) similar to {{R from alternative punctuation}} or {{R from misspelling}} could be used to identify these and facilitate cleanup in article space. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my argument against David Bowie's above, and fix the active mainspace uses Tavix mentioned. To wit: If a redirect exists purely for use by the editors, it doesn't need to exist (Shortcuts to Wikipedia: namespace or userspace essays notwithstanding); the editors can simply just... fix it. If the 's showing up outside the link doesn't look good to you, just pipe the link-- [[Canada|Canada's]] is a perfectly functional way of getting a link that looks like Canada's instead of Canada's.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're referring to shortcuts with the latter part, seeing as it's what I gave leeway for up there: Because a namespace shortcut and a mainspace redirect, despite being based on the same technology, are meant for entirely different purposes. A namespace shortcut is meant to be an easily-remembered shorthand for the often long and unwieldy titles that we often give our essays; as an example for an essay written by me, it's far easier to remember "WP:BACKINBOX" than it is to remember "Wikipedia:Please, put Pandora back in the box". This is useful when, for example, we need to cite such an essay in a discussion (for example, here in the XfD pages); it's far easier to go "Keep; X user's argument is invalid, see WP:BACKINBOX" than to type out the full title of the essay. However, this is a practice that's only used here in project namespace; over in mainspace, shortcuts aren't a thing. A mainspace redirect is meant to be interacted with by readers, not the editors. Its primary purpose is to catch searches that readers might toss at Wikipedia, and redirect them to the correct article. Editors aren't expected to need redirect technology when editing mainspace articles, primarily because they already have the powerful ability to simply pipe entire sentences into links without creating redirect pages. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and fix current usage in articles, consistent with Lunamann's arguments. Unlike singular vs. plural word forms, readers do not (reasonably) expect to find an article titled Canada's. In fact, it's not obvious what this refers to—it is ambiguous. I am not suggesting a retarget, but Canadian (disambiguation) is arguably a better target. The boundary between 'helpful for editing' and facilitating sloppy editing that goes against WP norms is fuzzy but this crosses my threshold. I view this as an error that should be corrected rather than perpetuated. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps there could be a tag for these akin to {{R from misspelling}} or perhaps an appropriate category already exists. I think this usage should be identified and removed from articles (fixed) and perhaps there's a better way to do this. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Myceteae and nom. Effectively these are redirects from typos, and in most cases it's better to fix the typos and remove the redirect. If the redirect stays, that just encourages more undetected links to a mistaken link target. Gawaon (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is a fundamental difference between the possessive form and a misspelling. I still see this as a bad practice and something that should be cleaned up in article space. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk20:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I searched up similar discussions from the archive. That search finds ~75 logs with nominated redirects that end with 's. I linked some here roughly for every year going back to 2016. I believe the RfD on J.R.R. Tolkien's is a good discussion to skim as it was well-attended. I was hoping to come out with a clearer sense of whether these are good redirects or not, but I've basically landed on: "They can be useful for linking (especially beginning editors), some cases require them, but they tend to promote poor style while clogging up search results and are at worst confusing." That and they seem to be discussed perennially, which is an aspect of WP:COSTLY. Maybe a new tag/maintenence category suggested above can help wrangle this, but I don't know if that is less/more work than what we're currently doing here.
I agree there needs to be wider discussion. Perhaps WP:VPP or another centralized discussion forum would be a good place since there have been a number of discussions at RfD, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking, and Help talk:Link (and possibly elsewhere). Ultimately, I think an RFC on guidance to be added to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking (aka MOS:LINK) is in order but more WP:RFCBEFORE may be needed to clarify the question, or whether or not the MOS should even tackle this. The style question of whether linking possessive this way in article space is proper is separate from redirect-specific considerations, like 'usefulness', but these are interrelated and resolving the style question should inform how we handle redirects. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful, and self promotional for the original editor of the redirect. As per WP:RDEL "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful' and "The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam" for the original editor / creator Nayyn (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry DrinksOrCoffee reopening this one as well. Same as the above, Keep as a common synonym for target, and would appreciate clarity as to how this got deleted without explanation while under a live deletion discussion. BugGhost🦗👻23:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BugGhost. "Sucking cock"/"Cock-sucking" is a VERY VERY VERY common colloquial English term for Fellatio, to the point where it's more recognized than the term Fellatio itself. Thus, it fails the "novel/very obscure synonym" check for WP:RDEL. I also fail to see how it would constitute self-promotion (promoting who exactly???) or spam (if it were spam you'd think more than just one redirect would be in this RfD, right?)I'd also like to note that the argument given by Asilvering that Pppery is referring to isn't here???? As far as I can see user:Asilvering hasn't commented on this RfD. Given that, I'd like to ask what user:Pppery's argument for deleting this would be? Nevermind. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely useless, and potentially misleading. As a phrase, this is generally used as some sort of retort, and has very little to do with the actual act. Also DNFT and all that per Asilvering. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bugghost. Someone searching this is either looking for the target article (in which case this redirect helps them) or they aren't looking for encyclopaedic content (in which case they aren't relevant to our considerations). Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a realistic search term for anyone looking for the target. It's more realistic as an insult, which leaves someone searching for this wondering why they're here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This phrase is used more commonly as a pejorative to a point where readers searching this term aren't necessarily looking for the current target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete consistent with the outcome of the January RfD where it was established that Fellatio is not the appropriate target for the insult/retort. Agree with BugGhost that suck dick, sucking dick and dick sucking (and we have the corresponding suck cock, sucking cock and cock sucking) are valid redirects for the act, but I see the "a" in "Suck a cock" to generalize "my", "his", etc. The other similar terms are sufficient for anyone looking for the act, and this one was troll behaviour or fishing for credit per nom and asilvering. As an WP:ATD, retarget to Cock (slang)#Derived terms where cocksucking is mentioned. Jay 💬07:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects do not enjoy the same level of protection that ATD offers content pages, because there's no content to preserve. A redirect can trivially be recreated. Crying ATD with a bad alternate target doesn't cut it, and this is a bad alternate target, because it's about a different topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is more likely to refer to slang than a description of the action, per Steel1943. Not discussed at the slang article. Utopes(talk / cont)01:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Cock (slang)#Cocksucker or Sexual slang#Pejorative usage as they cover the insult meaning though they don't precisely mention the phrase. The former is the closest semantically, the latter covers how the phrase is used. No objection to deletion, but these redirects should be considered as a way to prevent spam recreation if this comes up again. Maybe salting outright is necessary, but I haven't seen many discussions that result in salting. comment copied from related discussion § Suck a dick⇌Synpath18:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful, and self promotional for the original editor of the redirect. As per WP:RDEL "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful' and "The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam" in this case, for the original editor / creator Nayyn (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry DrinksOrCoffee I've just reverted your close. Can someone explain what happened here? This redirect looks correct to me, the nom statement is baffling (not sure how it could be seen as self promo or spam or as a very obscure synonym), and the redirect got deleted while it was meant to be under discussion at RFD? What happened? Could anyone with deletion goggles give some insight? Either way, Keep (recreate?) as a harmless redirect from a common phrase to the correct article. (Pinging nom Nayyn) BugGhost🦗👻23:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bugghost, it took me some work to understand what "self promotional" meant here but I think I get it. The context is that the creator, who from behaviour I assume is a middle schooler, has spent most of their time on Wikipedia creating or requesting dozens of redirects on topics that middle schoolers think are edgy and funny, like various sex acts, names for genitalia, and the n-word. See their extensive user talk page for examples and various attempts by admins to tell them to cut it out. If any of you think any of these redirects are genuinely useful, they can be recreated. My personal opinion on the matter is that no one should do that, because we should not feed the trolls and because these redirects are stupid. No one's needed a redirect from "suck a dick" to "fellatio" in 25 years. We don't need it now either. -- asilvering (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarity on this one. I appreciate why the redirects made by this user got nuked, but seeing as this one (and Suck a cock below) got listed at RFD I think they should have remained at a deletion discussion rather than deleted outside of it. Regardless of who made the redirects, even if it was a vandal who also made unhelpful redirects, if it was listed at RFD it should stick around until we get a consensus. Maybe wp:nuke should be updated to avoid deleting things that are already listed at deletion discussions? Either way, in my view, the "the website has survived without this for x years so we don't need it now" argument is techincally applicable to all new articles/redirects, so without further reasoning it's not enough to justify deletion. It's worth noting that suck dick, sucking dick and dick sucking are already existing non-controversial redirects to fellatio, and suck a dick is not really an outlier. BugGhost🦗👻23:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/recreate as per BugGhost. I now understand why these were considered spam specifically, as prior (on 'Suck a cock') I hadn't seen the other redirects (though as a note for user:Nayyn maybe it'd be a good idea to bundle them together and specify "hey, the reason I'm doing this is because these are spam", so we don't spend energy trying to figure out how these are somehow self promotional, next time?)That said, I'd like to still point out that this is a common colloquial English term for the act of fellatio ('cock' and 'dick' themselves both being colloquial terms for penis), which means it still fails WP:RDEL's "novel/obscure synonym" test (er, passes??? okay so what it does is evade WP:RDEL). Also, given these are recently created I'm not sure we have data on how much they would be searched, so I don't know if asilvering's "we haven't needed these redirects for 25 years" argument actually holds water? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The view logs when I submitted them were less than 5 views over the past 30 days, so I didn't think it readers were finding them useful... Nayyn (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely useless, and potentially misleading. As a phrase, this is generally used as some sort of retort, and has very little to do with the actual act. Also DNFT and all that per Asilvering. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This phrase is used more commonly as a pejorative to a point where readers searching this term aren't necessarily looking for the current target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete consistent with the outcome of the January RfD where it was established that Fellatio is not the appropriate target for the insult/retort. There is also no useful content at Dick (slang). Agree with BugGhost that suck dick, sucking dick and dick sucking are valid redirects to the act, but I see the "a" in "Suck a dick" to generalize "my", "his", etc. The other similar terms are sufficient for anyone looking for the act, and this one was troll behaviour or fishing for credit per nom and asilvering. Jay 💬06:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: as with "Suck a cock" above, Dick (slang) could very easily be expanded to cover "Suck a dick" as a derivation of the slang term (particularly given its generic use as a dismissive insult). BD2412T19:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is more likely to refer to slang than a description of the action, per Steel1943. Not discussed at the slang article. Utopes(talk / cont)01:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Cock (slang)#Cocksucker or Sexual slang#Pejorative usage as they cover the insult meaning though they don't precisely mention the phrase. The former is the closest semantically, the latter covers how the phrase is used. No objection to deletion, but these redirects should be considered as a way to prevent spam recreation if this comes up again. Maybe salting outright is necessary, but I haven't seen many discussions that result in salting. ⇌Synpath18:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn
Note: Bundled Vict. 1 due to the similarity. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
Delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: wrong venue
Disambiguation draft requested Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete as author G7ed
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 27#Biological woman/man
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus
Comment: Perhaps there could be a tag for these akin to {{R from misspelling}} or perhaps an appropriate category already exists. I think this usage should be identified and removed from articles (fixed) and perhaps there's a better way to do this. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 18:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Agree --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 18:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
