Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For the reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.
XFD backlog
V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 0 0 37 165 202
TfD 0 0 0 22 22
MfD 0 0 0 8 8
FfD 0 0 0 37 37
RfD 0 0 0 10 10
AfD 0 0 0 3 3

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

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

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Current and past redirects for discussion (RfD) discussions

[edit]

Current discussions

[edit]

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

Old discussions

[edit]

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion

[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When to delete a redirect

[edit]

Shortcuts

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

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

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

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

Reasons for not deleting

[edit]
Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumorBarack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "AttorneygateAttorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

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

Closing notes

[edit]
Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list

[edit]
Shortcuts

January 29

[edit]

Knowers

[edit]

Delete this implausible Neelix redirect. Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Head harness (weight training)

[edit]

There is no information at the target, or anywhere else in Enwiki, about a head harness in the context of weight training. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bailey's Bank

[edit]

Not in target article. I think there's a case for its inclusion, since it's in the Shipping Forecast, but not sure where to place it Serendipodous 15:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 18:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Visual

[edit]

Links to a page that doesnt contain any related information. Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ambisexual

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

These ambiguous, undefined terms should be deleted. Dictionaries give several definitions including bisexuality, intersex, sexually ambiguous, and unisex. (See: wikt:ambisexual and Merriam-Webster.) The sole use of any of these redirects in articles was a link to ambisexual in a direct quote at Algie the Miner#Analysis. The intended meaning there appears closer to sexually ambiguous/gender ambiguity; I have removed the wikilink per MOS:LINKQUOTE. A search for these words in articles reveals a variety of uses for example 'hermaphodite' has long been used for ambisexual people who are now more commonly labeled intersex[1] and The story is set on the fictional planet of Gethen, whose inhabitants are ambisexual humans with no fixed gender identity, who adopt female or male sexual characteristics for brief periods of their sexual cycle.[2] The prior RfD had very low participation and did not address the multiple meanings of the term. The version of Bisexuality at the time of the last RfD also did not mention these terms (Special:Permalink/1226524982). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Draft:Amphisexual was never a draft of Bisexuality or any full-fledged article. Amphisexual was always a Wiktionary redirect that was eventually redirected to Bisexuality. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gwydir Shire (1906 –1943)

[edit]

WP:UNNATURAL space between the end of 1906 and the hyphen. Was only at this title for 3 minutes, would likely be best deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exact words

[edit]

kind of surprisingly, not the only application of exact words, nor does the target cover enough of said applications to justify this redirect

...yes, that argument is itself subject to exact words, mainly via differing definitions of "exact words" and how the target doesn't actually mention the term consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague; WP:RSURPRISE. This is a common phrase that likely does not correspond to any encyclopedic entry. This almost reads as a joke since, as the nom points out, the exact words "exact words" do not appear at the target. Regardless of the intent, this redirect is unhelpful. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Governor and Company of merchants of Great Britain, trading to the South-Seas, and other parts of America, and for encouraging the Fishery

[edit]

this title is way too long...IMO Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Projective symplectic group

[edit]

No mention at target and not much on this in any of our articles; maybe retarget to Classical_group#Symplectic_groups. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arctophile

[edit]

Originally a WP:DICTDEF stub from 2006; was PRODded and subsequently BLAR-with-merge'd in April 2006 (information was also moved offsite to wikt:arctophile). Information lasted from April 2006 until... huh.

  • August 27th 2009, business as usual.
  • September 1st, 2009, the article's hit by an IP vandal that changes the reference to teddy bear aficionados being "arctophiles" to "pedophiles".
  • September 2nd, 2009, the entire sentence is removed by a well-meaning IP editor, who presumably hadn't seen the old version from a few days prior and assumed the vandal had added the entire sentence rather than changing a few words.
  • September 2nd, 2009, a few hours later, the IP vandal from before comes back and vandalizes the page again.
  • September 2nd, 2009, near immediately, ClueBot reverts to the version from... the well-meaning IP editor.
  • Page then goes on as if nothing ever happened, nobody ever noticing that the sentence mentioning arctophiles is now gone.

Unfortunately, the article has since marched on; while my first instinct is to delete as unmentioned (or soft redirect to Wiktionary), there IS the idea that we should maybe try to readd the mention? What do you guys think? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

also as someone who self-identifies as a teddy bear (see: my userpage), seeing some of the vandalism that the teddy bear article's gotten makes my blood boil lol. ...Stuffing boil? ...Wait stuffing's not liquid, so it wouldn't boil, would it? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Makes my stuffing burn"? "singe"? Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
is stuffing's flash point lower than its melting point??? if it melts, it can boil. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we re-add the mention, which seems like has happened. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear Doctor Who redirects

[edit]

Doctor Who monster redirects that are vague and/or could describe multiple creatures in the show's universe. Unhelpful for navigation and should be deleted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history of Butterfly people? Also, Vampire (Doctor Who) is a redirect from merge from its AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

H1.5O

[edit]

Misleading redirect, as chemical formulas are always in whole numbers and never seem to have decimals. Edit summary was "create redirect for alternate chemical formula of water", but this is most likely not true, and there is also no mention in the target article that would support the edit summary. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"the Anti-Heros"

[edit]

Delete per unnatural Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mental activities

[edit]

This is a pretty strange redirect. I found it because it's the initial link on Cognition. Canadachick (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:35 PM

[edit]

Other things happen at 10:35pm, not to mention this is only for the central time zone. Delete. I2Overcome talk 02:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon, Dave, Ronnie, and Mark

[edit]

Delete as an ambiguous list of names. I2Overcome talk 02:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

East side of Chicago

[edit]

There is a neighborhood in Chicago called East Side, Chicago, but there apparently is no commonly referred to "east side of Chicago" like there is a west side, south side, and north side (hence this redirect; see The Night Chicago Died#Accuracy). Delete as it doesn't exist, and redirecting to the lake is a bit of a WP:SURPRISE. I2Overcome talk 01:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I’ve just been watching too much Todd in the Shadows KajagoogooSonichu (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

[edit]

Claims of hate speech or hate acts against holocaust deniers

[edit]

Not addressed at subject. Was previously an article, an ancient VfD voted to redirect it. Not really a coherent topic and this is not addressed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as unmentioned. Also, to my knowledge, improbable (for "hate speech or hate acts". Or?). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naggers

[edit]

Retarget to The Naggers or delete per WP:XY. Could also be DABified if more potential targets are found. ~2025-42329-12 (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify, mentioning current target, The Naggers, and Nagging. Also, WP:XY applies to redirects in the form X and/or Y, like Mountains and volcanoes, where it's unambiguously referring to two different topics simultaneously - it's not really applicable here. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per User:Bugghost. 162 etc. (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like dabification, but where? Thoughts on BD2412's suggestion, anyone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people from Deeside

[edit]

This redirect should be deleted as it is confusing - none of the people mentioned in revisions of it in the month prior to it being made a redirect are present on the article it links to and, according to history, was merged into. Also, River Dee, Aberdeenshire contains no similar list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltrasonicMadness (talk • contribs) 17:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ocd personality

[edit]

This redirect is based merely on several incorrect assumptions. First of all, it would seem like it refers to the personality of people with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD); this is not obviously the same as what constitutes OCPD (the current target). Furthermore, this redirect seems to be the result of confusion between OCPD and OCD, and, also, it implies that OCPD is the personality that people with OCD have. I see no use for it, and I don't think we should be keeping misconceptions alive. BlockArranger (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Rather confusing. OCD and OCPD are very much not the same thing despite their similar name and this does not have much value to the reader because of the potential confusion between different similarly named disorderse and the ambiguous redirect. Casablanca 🪨(T) 18:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree this is likely the result of widespread confusion and is likely to mislead further. OCD is far more widely known to the general public, although it is also subject to rampant misunderstanding. This reminds me of a similar discussion not long ago. Common errors, misnomers, etc. can sometimes make for good redirects but as I said there care should be taken to not perpetuate misconceptions. I remain a little uneasy about the decision in that RfD. I'm leaning delete here, but would consider refining to Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder#Differential diagnosis where the relationship to OCD and other disorders are discussed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Major University

[edit]

The term "major university" is vague and could refer to something like list of largest universities rather than this fairly low-prominence Spanish Chilean school. -- Reconrabbit 16:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's Chilean, not Spanish. Secondly, this used to be the article name for ages, and it wasn't disputed until now. It is a literal translation and Google says it is somehow used to refer to this university. Of course "major university" (no caps) could redirect to the proposed article Bedivere (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the mistake. I only found out about it because the move to Mayor University created a new redirect that went to the new pages feed. -- Reconrabbit 18:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Skibidi Challenge

[edit]

Delete, section doesn't exist, and the term isn't mentioned in the article. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Domenico

[edit]

I'm not seeing why this first and middle name combination should be a redirect, when the combination alone isn't used to refer to the person and is also a match for Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo. Not a good candidate for a disambig page, as both articles are partial title matches that wouldn't warrant disambiguating. Suggest deletion as the redirect's presence is obstructing search. Paul_012 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Campani-Alimenis

[edit]

Not sure why this redirects to Cassini instead of Matteo Campani-Alimenis. Seems like an obvious copy/paste error, but seeing as it's over twenty years old I thought I'd raise it here just to make sure. Paul_012 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

みとよ かわて

[edit]

Delete, section target broken and translation of name not in article. Suonii180 (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • seems more like a case of "just fix it". in this case, an anchor should do the trick. that said, return to red, as she actually seems to be somewhat notable
...is what i would say, but i'll actually also note that she has an article in ptwiki, and while it's a stub, it works as an argument to delete this specific redirect, as the name would actually be 川手 ミトヨ. why this redirect is written in hiragana (as opposed to katakana) with non-japanese name order is beyond me consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied territories, Palestine

[edit]

Retarget to Israeli-occupied territories. An AfD on a similarly-named article has led these to redirect to Palestine. However, per WP:ASTONISH, redirects that are specific to the occupation should probably point to the dedicated article rather than to the generic article about the country. Specifically, the "occupied territories" under slightly different names were a subject of international law and numerous UN resolutions for many decades, and a long-standing article about this topic exists. Strangely, the article Israeli-occupied territories was not discussed in the AfD. Place Clichy (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible target could be History of Palestine#Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. Place Clichy (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the ones that end with "occupied" as grammatically fucked up. no opinion on the others consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe these were official designations used by the UN for many years, see e.g. [3] and [4]. Place Clichy (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    i wanted to say i was just mistaken and stuff, which i most likely am, but those results, and some of my own research done right now, actually made things really confusing for the purposes of this rfd, as they seem to refer to...
    • "occupied palestinian territory(ies)" separately (since everything i could find uses the two terms separately)
    • two separate tags/terms taped together by coincidence or as part of a sentence (not entirely sure about percentages, so this one is either very important or completely irrelevant)
    • palestinian territory that is undergoing occupation jank
    • territory that is undergoing palestinian occupation jank (yes, that's apparently a different thing)
    • territory that is undergoing occupation jank palestinianly (what)
    • palestine itself lol
    • the west bank, gaza strip, and east jerusalem specifically
    • a couple buildings (coincdentally, sources that seemed to use this definition all refused to load)
    • "hehehhhahhhehhahehahheaheahehehehhe wouldn't it be really funny if i said 'property' while referring to women"
    seeing as sources that (seem to) use the term deliberately seem to be either vague, about as confused as me, or certain but contradictory to others, i'll tentatively change my vote to "ow my thinky ball" consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We only just debated this, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_11#Occupied_Palestinian_territories and I don't see that anything has significantly changed. The AFD was clear that Palestine is the correct target for this term, and the subsequent RFD found no consensus to change that. The two terms are largely synonymous these days. The proposed retarget is to a more general article on Israeli occupation, which covers other areas such as Golan Heights.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion was a no consensus, and article Israeli-occupied territories was not discussed, which are 2 reasons why a new discussion is welcome. Although the area is indeed the same (and the AFD reflects the name under which it is most commonly known), the notion of occupied territories is not synonymous with the area and we have articles to reflect that. Place Clichy (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Israeli-occupied territories per Place Clichy. --Hassan697 (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I'll just repeat what I said last time since nothing has changed: Keep all per Amakuru and common and official usage. Occupied Palestinian Territory is the name used by the UN.[5][6][7] The US State Department uses similar terminology.[8] These redirects are all common and accurate ways to describe present day Palestine. The AfD addressed this, identifying the title as a POVFORK and noting that the content substantially duplicated content from Palestine. The terminology is used and explained in several places in the Palestine article. I see the nom's comment above that the last one closed as 'no consensus' and that Israeli-occupied territories was not explicitly discussed as an option. This does not change my view.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

എങ്ങനെ നീ മറക്കും

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

Boele

[edit]

Nicolette Boele is not the only Boele on Wikipedia (see Boele (name) which lists other Boeles). It may be metter to retarget the redirect to Boele (name) disambiguation page. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 09:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move disambiguation page to here. I was initially going to vote to keep seeing as she gets something like 30x the pageviews of the other two, but then I realized that it makes no sense to have a page titled "Boele (disambiguation)" when the title "Boele" is free. Now it could be argued based on the aforementioned pageviews that the name should just be kept as a redirect, but I don't think her notability is such that her surname alone should redirect specifically to her. However, if someone else thinks it's best to just keep I'm not particularly opposed. Also, User:Youshouldchooseausernamethat (great username), you should make sure to put your new RFDs at the top of the day's log. — Anonymous 12:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion could be a case of WP:WRONGVENUE. Anyways, if the disambiguation page is moved, its title should be moved and not copied and pasted. I was the creator of this redirect. But yet to make any vote/argument one way or another.
Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stranger (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 2 years ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Surrounded (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 2 years ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Passenger (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 2 years ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Need for Speed 2 (film)

[edit]

Delete as unmentioned after being removed in this edit due to not entering pre-production. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bewbs

[edit]

okay, this one got a chuckle out of me. unmentioned meme, implausible as a search term to anyone who doesn't already know what a breast, boob, mammary, bonkhonagahoog, or tit is. was deleted 4 times as vandalism before, and the creator was blocked for socking 7 years later, but that's probably not important consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

[edit]

2025–26 Oman Professional League

[edit]

Target contains no information about this specific year. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

JP Morgan

[edit]

From its creation in 2003, it swapped from J. P. Morgan to JPMorgan Chase then again to J. P. Morgan then again to JPMorgan Chase. Search results and incoming links are variously intended for either the financier or the company. Retarget to J. P. Morgan (disambiguation) as ambiguous? Sign² (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lady GaGa (band)

[edit]

Not a band. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 08:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confusing redirect with completely incorrect disambiguation (unlike most in Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguation that are nonstandard formatting but are still fundamentally correct disambigators), few page views (before the nomination, 66 in the last year to an article with over 6 million pageviews in that timeframe), and searching Lady Gaga would show the article before you could type the disambiguator meaning that readers using this redirect are probably looking for info on a backing band rather than the artist. Sign² (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote/comment right here validates my "keep" vote. For one, claiming that all readers are intending to search "Lady Gaga would show the article before you could type the disambiguator" is a WP:ASSUMENOCLUE failure since it assumes all readers know how Wikipedia functions. In addition, in this case, use = useful, meaning 66 people/tools were served by this redirect during the past year, and were then guided to their appropriate article where at the minimum they were explained how "Lady Gaga" is not technically a band. Also, third party search engines did not return any bands specifically named "Lady Gaga" (I found a "Haus of Gaga", but that was all), meaning believing readers could be attempting to find anything other that the current target when searching this redirect is essentially flawed. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I find this disambiguation implausible. I find that someone may make a notable band named "Lady GaGa" plausible, and there are many examples of naming bands that went on to be notable.
    The Rcat mentioned is for incorrect disambiguation due to a typographical error, a format that does not follow Wikipedia convention or a previous editorial misconception. This is none of that. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; gets views but I think sending the reader to search results communicates the idea that Lady Gaga is not a band better than this redirect does. J947 ‡ edits 03:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Football (upcoming video game)

[edit]

This is not true anymore KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above rationale. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cobweb (upcoming South Korean film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 2 years ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vande Bharat (Sleeper) Express

[edit]

The official name for the service is Vande Bharat Sleeper Express, the target of this redirect. This is not a common name and breaks naming rules by including a disambiguator in the middle of the title. Hence, it is highly unlikely that this redirect would be used. Similar for the template corresponding to the article. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 08:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: plausible typo or alternate name. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 16:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help to know the move history a little better. Unfortunately, when it comes to that stuff, Mediawiki kind of stinks. It was apparently just moved a few days ago, but looking at the page log, it looks like it might have been to revert another move first? Worst case, keep for a few months and then revisit this and it can be safely deleted. None of the sources write it with sleeper in parens, and it makes no sense to do so. Definitely delete the template redirect now, which is pointless (like the template itself, frankly). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The history is that, an article was created at this title, was nominated for AfD, and merged into Vande Bharat Express. I was the editor who performed the merge. Concern at the AfD was that it was too soon for an article, along with people on the talk page raising the point about the parens. Once the service started, I anticipated that an article would be created and wanted to avoid an histmerge so I moved it to its current location, which is both the official and common name. I'm sure I broke a couple of policies along the way, but I think this was the cleanest solution. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Winner (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released a week shy of over 2 years ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above rationale and stronger arguments from the "keep" side ("delete per nom" is not particularly persuasive). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Robots (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 2 years ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above rationale and stronger arguments from the "keep" side. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up Dead Man (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete both per WP:UFILM. Target released over 30 days ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary disambiguation. UFilm only keeps if disambiguation is necessary. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 5 months ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Badlands (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 60 days ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest of All Time (upcoming film)

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

Delete both per WP:UFILM. Target released over a year ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Deadpool film

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Subject was titled and released two years ago and the redirect has few page views. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 00:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the possible target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Naked Gun (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 5 months ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:UFILM: 32 pageviews this month despite low views beforehand. These redirects seem prone to surprise spurts, suggesting deletion after 30 days may not be the wisest course of action. J947 ‡ edits 00:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 42 hits in the 30 days prior to nomination is more than an order of magnitude above "minimal", to the extent that assuming good faith of this nomination is only just about credible. The article does state that (in August 2025) there was discussion of a sequel so it's possible that there was some spike of news/speculation related to that but if there was I haven't found evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the possible target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Smashing Machine (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 3 months ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the views are clearly trending downwards, 8 in the 30 days prior to the nomination equally clearly show that they are not at minimal levels yet (e.g. Lütz, Germany got only 7 in the whole of 2025). Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf Genuine question, what does constitute "minimal" in your opinion? The guidance does not specify "zero views" nor does it suggest a period of time that views should be at or below a specific level. If an average of <2 views/day and 0 on most days is not "minimal" then I'm not sure what is. The actual language at UFILM is these redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion once they are no longer of use and pageviews have tapered off. We often use pageviews as a reasonable proxy for being of use but of course there can be separate arguments for each of these. I don't read having tapered off as "having reached and stayed at zero" but I see how it could be interpreted that way. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not possible to say objectively what is and isn't minimal views beyond the obvious extremes (0 views for three month is undeniably minimal, multiple hits every single day is undeniably not). It's about the total number of views and the pattern of those views over time in combination. In this case the evidence shows that people are still using this redirect and in the absence of any indication that they are not finding what they are looking for we have to assume that a redirect that is being used is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heretic (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over a year ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over a year ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over a year ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: are you using a script or bot to create these RFDs? RFD is currently flooded with similar deletion discussions, all with the same rationale. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 02:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle with a copy/pasted rationale that I adjusted to accommodate when the target was released. No bot, just can't bundle these since there's a huge history of these becoming WP:TRAINWRECKs, as already displayed on this page... Steel1943 (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over a year ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Night (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 2 years ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Point of divergence

[edit]

This redirect is way too specific for a title that seems like it would explore in general how alternate histories decide the "root cause" of the changes; most points of divergence in the genre do not involve time travel. The old target before 2023 was a now-deleted section on "stories set in a multiverse in which all alternate histories are co-existent and travel between them occurs via a technology involving portals and/or paratime transporter machinery. These authors established the convention of a secret paratime trading empire" which is also similarly too specific. If we can't find a more apt target, I think we should red this link to encourage creation of a well-sourced article exploring the subject in general. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Minneapolis ICE Shooting

[edit]

2026 Minneapolis ICE shooting exists already and is the correct title per MOS:NCCAPS Framl (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mario vs. Sonic (film)

[edit]

This was never confirmed. All that's been brought up is crew members saying it would be cool. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 15:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We could also target Draft:Mario vs. Sonic (film) on WP:MfD. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tureen VII

[edit]

Only mentioned at Tureen (disambiguation). This seems only relevant to Wookieepedia. Remove entry from the dab page and delete. TNstingray (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Turkana

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target nor anywhere else on Wikipedia regarding Star Wars. I don't know if there is a better target connected to the Turkana people or not. Probably delete. TNstingray (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taihland

[edit]

Delete per being a unlikely search term. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm even surprised that this redirect has lived for over 2 decades. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This got 43 hits last year, which is way more than I would have expected so I went to Google to see how common a typo it is. What I found was a mix of results about a basketball player named Taihland Owens about whom we have only a couple of passing mentions that I've found, and typos for the country. It's not common enough a typo to be a clear keep, and the basketball player means we can't be certain that all 43 users were people were looking for the country, but on balance since it's not harming anything (I've not investigated whether the sportsperson is notable enough for an article, but if they are the article will be at their full name not their first name) so it's enough for a weak keep. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed redirects

[edit]

Not mentioned in article and I can't find suitable redirect targets. All of these but the last two exist because of this edit to List of magical beings in Charmed. The last two are two generic to redirect to a particular TV series like that. Graham87 (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Volleyball New Zealand

[edit]

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED as there is no content about the subject at the target article. Sport in New Zealand#Volleyball contains 2 relevant sentences but I don't think that's enough to anchor the redirect, especially as it includes a link to this redirect expecing it to provide more detail. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Tavix. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not a fan of Tavix's retargetting suggestion unless more information is added - and there really shouldn't be much detail about one small sport's governing body in the top-level article about all sports in a country, especially one as well-represented in English language media as New Zealand. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Мiхаель Дорфман

[edit]

Move without redirect to Міхаель Дорфман. The current redirect is a WP:MIXEDSCRIPT, as the letter "i" is Latin while the rest is Cyrillic. It should be moved without redirect to the same page name but only using Cyrillic letters. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Pitt episodes

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

Thalaivar

[edit]

Quite a specific redirect for a generic Tamil term. "Thalaivar" (தலைவர்), or "leader" could refer to any politician, actor, etc. While he is known as "thalaivar" occasionally, the term is so generic that it could be referring to somebody else. Furthermore, it isn't mentioned in the article, as a Ctrl+F for "Thalaivar" returns nothing in the prose. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 02:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatever be the generic nature of the term, that it is especially related to the actor is not deniable. I had created the redirect after coming across a number of the actor's films which directly referenced this moniker in their working titles: Thalaivar 169, Thalaivar 170, Thalaivar 171. Any other usages, if needed, can be easily disambiguated. Gotitbro (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MWFF

[edit]

These are also plausibly acronyms for Midwest FurFest as well User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Every use of "MWFF" on Wikipedia on at least the first four pages of article space results are for the current target, so it's clearly the primary topic, meaning that, at most, other uses need a hatnote or entry on a non-primary dab page, but as the Midwest FurFest article doesn't use that acronym (the first sentence begins Midwest FurFest (MFF) is a furry convention...) and I haven't found any other uses (an internal search for MWFF -film finds nothing in article space and nothing relevant anywhere else. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. "MFF" is the standard abbreviation for Midwest FurFest. I remember the long discussions we had about "FC" being an abbreviation for Further Confusion, but this is a much more clear-cut case. Tevildo (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above. No prejudice on adding hatnote to Midwest FurFest in target article --Lenticel (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’Hatnote’’’ MVPFAFF. ~2026-59768-4 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move Your Body (Sean Paul song)

[edit]

Not mentioned at either target, leaving readers unable to find the information they may be looking for. (Note: Move Your Body (Sean Paul Song) is a {{R with history}} as a result of a WP:BLAR after being an article for about a week in 2017.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Call On Me (Sean Paul and Rita Ora song)

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving readers unclear what these redirects are meant to refer. Per third party search engines, these redirects most likely refer to a song by Sean Paul named "Calling on Me", which is mentioned only by name in Sean Paul discography, but the mention there doesn't reference any involvement by Rita Ora; however, third party search engines also state that it seems Rita Ora may have been involved with the song at some point, but had to drop out of the project. Compound that with the fact that these redirects are "incorrect name" redirects for "Calling on Me", deletion seems to be the best route here. Steel1943 (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Norah Creina

[edit]

Not mentioned at target Mdewman6 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'Nora Creina' is actually mentioned at the end of the plot: The case against the page breaks down for lack of evidence, and the three murderers are suspected to have died in the wreck of the ship Nora Creina off the Portuguese coast. This is a very minor mention however, so retarget to PS Norah Creina as the primary topic. Sign² (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Kannagi Nagar

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3

Type-o

[edit]

Could also refer to blood type O, or anything in Type 0#Type O. Sign² (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the Type 0 as a {{R from ambiguous term}}. My weak preference is to target the top of the page rather than the Type O section as this could just as easily be a misreading/misremembering of one of the Type 0 entries as one of the Type O ones and it isn't necessarily going to be obvious to someone arriving at the section that they are in the right place for a listing of the Type 0 topics. I'm not going to stand in the way of a consensus for targetting the section though. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Retarget to Type 0 per Thryduulf. A minister, a priest, and a rabbit participate in a blood drive. The nurse asks the rabbit for its blood type and it says, "I am almost certainly a Type O". BD2412 T 14:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum (upcoming video game)

[edit]

Delete per the spirit of WP:UFILM. Target released over 10 months ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Americans

[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 11#Sino-American A1Cafel (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, the other option in the dab is not referred to by the plural. Sign² (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Soviet Russia Wikipedia browses YOU

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

what in akella's name was previous rfd? keep implausible, unmentioned joke because is cheap? that is not argument, is ticket to not think! also, missing comma consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 14:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirects are WP:CHEAP, and consensus at the previous RFD reveals that it gets a few hits and it's harmless. ~2025-42329-12 (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it got a few hits in 2012, under 200 hits in the last 10 years (pre-rfd) is nothing consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nice demo of the concept, Wikipedia can be fun, and redirects are cheap. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    i know this is veering into bludgeoning territory, but that's still not how that works. this redirect is no more plausible than an according redirect for any other snowclone, and both of the reasons in this one are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (specifically under "it's harmless" and "it's funny"). it would be easy to completely change this case if the joke was mentioned or shown in the target, but that doesn't seem to have been attempted (it only actually exists in the context of this redirect, for starters, no one seems to have ever made this joke independently of it). wikipedia can engage in tomfoolery, even in mainspace, but not in a case like this (see static cling for an example of that done less wrong) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Consarn when you read the It's harmful/harmless section that essay it explicitly states Whether something is harmful or harmless are also valid arguments for and against deletion of redirects at Redirects for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    if you wanna say that, sure, but it would first require arguments that it actually is harmless that aren't just "it's funny" in a trench coat, or that work when the joke itself isn't mentioned in the target
    as an aside, it was potentially initially created as vandalism, as the target was already an article at the time, but it was still created as a redirect to soviet russia. as usual, this isn't important to the discussion itself, but it's pretty funny, so i'd be committing humor heresy if i forgot to mention it consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and potentially list at WP:DAFT, mainspace is not a place to contain jokes made up one day. Sign² (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless, a bit funny, already kept once, and old. We don't need to delete everything from the early days when they're pretty hard to stumble across. And WP:NOTPANDORA: even if kept, there's a clear consensus here against creating new redirects of this type. Skynxnex (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

㌣

[edit]

no affinity with this target, so i'm torn between retargeting to cjk compatibility or the list of unicode characters. consider this to be starting off with a weak retarget to the latter, i guess consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worth noting that typing セント into the search bar goes to this page. ~2025-42329-12 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Except that has WP:RFOREIGN issues?? We're not the Japanese wikipedia. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe retarget to 1 sen coin or Japanese_yen#Sen which would be the Japanese version of the cent? Google Translate tells me that the article describes the sen as "comparable" to the cent (though it also translates the title to "Money" despite it being about the Sen, so take it with a grain of salt), and "㌣" redirects to the generic article instead of Sen, which has a different character. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Toxic Avenger (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 2 years ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seriously? 23 hits in the 30 days prior to the nomination and you claim this is "minimal"? I shall refrain from casting aspersions about your intent and/or competence but it is not easy to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and WP:UFILM: a whopping 436 views last year. J947 ‡ edits 00:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thing is, we don't know from views whether we gave readers what they were looking for. I hadn't heard of it before, but the 2023 film seems to have been a successful one with some big names. I strongly suspect, then, that readers are looking for information on a sequel, especially if the begin to type the name and see "upcoming film" as a suggestion. While I wouldn't necessarily call the view count "minimal", neither would I use "whopping". Not enough to outweigh what I suspect is misleading and disappointing readers. --BDD (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say this is necessarily the case. The film premiered in 2023, but only got a wide release in August of last year. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thought: the film is part of a genre, superhero films, where sequels and franchises are especially prominent, and thus where readers may especially anticipate and seek information on an upcoming film. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Time in Hong Kong (upcoming film)

[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over 2 years ago, minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is still consistently getting views, maybe there is a link someone external that hasn't been updated, but we'd be doing readers a disservice by deletion here without getting any benefits ourselves. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cantor fan

[edit]

I would like this redirect to be deleted as The Knaster-Kuratowski fan and the Cantor fan are different things (see discution here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2025/Dec#possibly dodgy redirect) and so the redirect is at best confusing and at worst just makes no sense. I cannot see any article where adding a section about the cantor fan would make sense(it is a cone over the cantor set and so not terribly significant. Also nothing uses the redirect (it was used by one article and then was removed from that for reasons listed above) so I don't see too much point in keeping it Flapjack06 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lith. Brit.

[edit]

Ambiguous with Lithuanian British, which redirects to Lithuanians in the United Kingdom. The abbreviation is not mentioned in either article, though. Mathguy2718 (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: ambiguous in the abstract but doesn't look to be in reality. It's much more likely that the reader encounters the abbreviation for the book and wants to know to what book it refers, a question answered by the current target, than abbreviating a search for "Lithuanian British". J947 ‡ edits 01:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't retarget. Down to page 7 of a google search for "Lith. Brit." -Wikipedia every result was either referring to Lithophylacii Britannici Ichnographia (the work mentioned at the present target) or a hit from late 19th or early 20th century Midwestern United States newspapers - from what I could access of the latter types I wasn't certain if it was an OCR error or someone's name but it definitely wasn't referring to Lithuanians in the United Kingdom. Searching for "Lith. Brit." Lithuania -Wikipedia gets only three results, the first two referring to the current target. The third is the entry for Nicholas Beriozoff in The concise Oxford dictionary of ballet ("Beriozoff, Nicholas (b Kaunas, Lithuania, 16 May 1906). Lith.-Brit. dancer, choreographer, and b. master.")[15] but a single entry in a single book (there are no other Google Books hits when including "Lithuania" in the search term) does not make a useful redirect. For a term like this I would expect to find lots of uses in forum discussions and similar, but I'm just not. I'm open to the idea that as the abbreviation is not mentioned it might be confusing, so I'm not going to object to deletion on those grounds but if it is kept the current target is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, without prejudice to this discussion I've categorised this as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Lithophylacii Britannici Ichnographia. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

[edit]

Richest country

[edit]

These redirects should point to the same target, but I'm not sure where. On a side note, there exists many related redirects that point to different places and need to be discussed in general, explained below:

Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Western alliance

[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Alliance. "Western alliance", in sentence case, refers to an alliance of Western entities. NATO is one, but there are others that perhaps might be so described (Five Eyes, OECD). Is it sufficient, in the words of the last editor to edit this page in 2016, to say "in practice, the 'Western alliance' basically always means NATO"? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A google search indicates that the term "Western alliance" is most likely to be associated with Western Alliance Bancorporation. Other than that there does seem to be some colloquial usage referring to either NATO or the allies in WWII. I'd suggest retarget to Western Alliance Bancorporation. TarnishedPathtalk 21:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The banking usage does seem to be the predominant usage of the term. Retargeting seems reasonable. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Google or Bing search results can be biased to prioritize commercial entities and ad revenues. Book results (people do still read books, no?) clearly show a predominance of the geopolitical in the results. And while not definitive, Wikinav results for Dec for Western Alliance show a large proportion of readers (over 75%) continuing to NATO over the bank. older ≠ wiser 21:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bkonrad, and the WWII allies? TarnishedPathtalk 22:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Three bean salad (disambiguation)

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

"Countries+LETTER" redirects

[edit]

These redirects, though quite old, seem unlikely as search terms. To clarify, I could see a redirect such as List of countries (A) or List of sovereign states (A) targeting List of sovereign states#A, but not CountriesA doing so. These redirects of the past have probably outlived their usefulness, assuming they ever had any. (Also, for what it's worth, depending on how the discussion goes, it's worth noting that the sections/anchors List of sovereign states#W and List of sovereign states#X do not exist [in other words, there are apparently no sovereign states that begin with the letter "W" or "X"], and none of the nominated redirects currently target sections/anchors.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with history dating back to 2001 are usually not deleted. Maybe the pages could be moved to the Historical archive? Pinging Graham87. Janhrach (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this discussion before and I'm meh about what to do with the pages listed here. Some page history only belongs in the Nostalgia Wikipedia or the August 2001 database dump. Even though I imported several of these page histories from the August 2001 database dump (search this import log for "countries"), I did it to prove that old accounts/hostnames existed (like Adsl-63-204-214-106.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) and don't mind what happens to them. We have deleted pages with histoyry from 2001, like the list of people by name. Graham87 (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think CountriesU deserves a separate discussion due to it's relation to UuU (CountriesU replaced UuU and may even have been what allowed UuU to be the first Wikipedia edit before backups were discovered). CountriesU is even linked to from WP:UuU and so I think First Wikipedia edit#First edit might be a more appropriate target for CountriesU but that should be a different discussion. PokémonPerson 02:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Alps

[edit]

The existence of this redirect showing up on search results makes it look to readers like we have an article on the Italian alps. We don't, not even a section at the target. We could retarget to Northern Italy#Geography, which is reasonably informative, or delete the redirect. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Titles

[edit]

It's unclear what should be done with this redirect. For one, this redirect targets its current target due to what looks like a WP:BLAR of an almost 4-year old article in 2008. However, the title "National TitleNational Title" is a redirect that targets National championship, a subject that has almost nothing to do with the current target article. In addition, the history hiding under this redirect, seems to correlate with the subject of the current targeted article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to National championship, which is a list of lists. "National Title" is an unusual way to refer to the official name of a country. Retargeting aligns with the common meaning and the related redirect National TitleNational Title. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was almost convinced to retarget per above, but a quick search reveals several companies calling themselves "national title". They aren't notable, but that doesn't mean someone wouldn't potentially search for them, and to me this seems more plausible than searching "national title" to find an ambiguous national championship. — Anonymous 02:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thailande

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

Delete per WP:FORRED. No affinity to French. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that these were discussed quite recently. I'm adding the Old RfD template to this listing. The September 2025 discussion covered both redirects and closed as 'no consensus'. I still disagree with the 'keep' arguments but unless there's new information or a fresh set of arguments I'm not sure it's worth discussing again so soon. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't think to check for old RfDs. I also disagree with the very tenuous affinity to French claimed in the previous discussions, and note that the only incoming link in mainspace remains a poorly formatted list that existed at the time of the 2015 discussion. I also note that two other country redirects with minimal affinity are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 15 § Indonésie and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 15 § Malaisie. That said, I won't object if someone does a procedural close here given the recency of the previous discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Penisgate

[edit]

No mention of such a term at target Vestrian24Bio 11:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's referring to "During an August 2015 show in Stockholm, Kravitz experienced a wardrobe malfunction. His leather pants ripped open, exposing his penis" in the target section, which cites a people.com article that includes the terms "Penis Gate" (in headline) and "#penisgate" (in body), making the redirect valid. Also, redirect terms don't have to be directly mentioned at targets - RFD nominations should ideally have a stronger rationale than this. BugGhost 🦗👻 19:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Google and DuckDuckGo searches both return several news articles like this covering a current Olympics scandal. A Twitter search for the hashtag #penisgate (some hits are NSFW) shows that this can and has been applied to numerous incidents and scandals (including an awful lot of references to Ted Cruz). A Google News search for articles published from 1/1/2017 through 12/31/2025 does contain references to the Kravitz incident but these are not the majority of hits. There is no primary topic for this phrase, which is unsurprising as the -gate suffix is a common feature of the language. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mokhatio oa Makomonisi a Lesotho

[edit]

Incorrect spelling of Sesotho-language name of subject. The correct spelling is "Mokhatlo". ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Syndrone

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close the nominated page is not a redirect

Category:Honored Artists of the Azerbaijan

[edit]

Delete unnecessary soft redirect from an implausible typo. Mclay1 (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahim Khan Kundi

[edit]

Delete, not mentioned in article and I couldn't find a suitable alternative target. Suonii180 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavelli the Prince

[edit]

I hope this is the right place to discuss the target. This was created in 2008 as a target to a video game Merchant Prince (video game) that has an alterante name "Machiavelli: The Prince" (and sometimes is rendered withot the colon as Machiavelli The Prince, ex. in an old review here). Recently, in 2024, User:RheingoldRiver retargeted it to The Prince (famous book) with the edit summary "I don't think anyone searching this is looking for a video game". I just regargeted it back, since I thought this is a very unlikely way to refer to the book, but a very likely typo/alt name for the game. Then I checked the history and noticed their retarget. So, I am starting a discussion here to gauge consensus. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep target as Merchant Prince (video game). I'm the original (2008) redirect creator. "Machiavelli the Prince" (no colon or comma) is the exact proper name of a distinct computer game as it appeared on eg. boxes on store shelves, and not the proper name of the book. (In modern parlance, Machiavelli the Prince would be considered a graphical remaster of Merchant Prince - it's not just an alternate name.) Erp Erpington (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NCNAME

[edit]

I've been looking at this redirect for a while, and determined that its current target doesn't sit well. I'd think someone looking to this redirect would be searching for something like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (name) or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names); however, neither one of those exist. It seems the intent of this redirect upon its creation is to redirect to a naing convention for "people", but even then, it could potentially be ambiguous with the advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Style advice#Titles (which should probably be its own "Naming conventions" page [or section of another naming conventions page] at this point, but that's a discussion for another day.) In addition, we also have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which includes the word "names". Quite frankly, it's not clear what readers may be trying to find when searching this shortcut, but it really cannot be assumed it's about people; the fact that the redirect doesn't have any incoming links doesn't make it any clearer.

With all that being said, my preferences for the fate of this redirect, in order of most preferred to least preferred, are the following 3 options:

  1. Delete due to lack of clarity of what this redirect is meant to refer.
  2. Retarget to Wikipedia:Article titles, the target of redirect Wikipedia:Naming conventions, though it may be a bit redundant since it's like saying "naming conventions name".
  3. Disambiguate if anyone else can figure that out as I have no idea how to assemble such a page since I have no idea what would be valid on it.

– Steel1943 (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ajnad

[edit]

Propose retargeting to jund (the historical Syrian provinces under the Caliphates), of which "ajnad" is the plural (and thus a natural search term when considering them as a group). Comparatively, the rationale for the current target is weaker, being the diacritic-less form of the Hungarian name of one of the commune's villages. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1997-2004

[edit]

Delete as very ambiguous, could mean so many things. Geschichte (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

9:00 A.M. (The Pitt)

[edit]

Ambiguous with its target (9:00 A.M. (The Pitt season 1)) and 9:00 A.M. (The Pitt season 2).

This has already happened twice. See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 20#The Pitt episodes. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Viper arcade game

[edit]

Implausible search target without disambiguator. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ISrael

[edit]

UNNATURAL capitalisation; unclear what purpose this serves. — Anonymous 04:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I originally was going to state that this should be kept as it is more plausible than something like IsraEl, but then I realized that, at least as of the last time I checked, typing a page name with different capitalization will take you to that page. So typing "IsrAel" should take you to Israel, and as such, this redirect is unnecessary. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 04:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheTechie typing a page name with different capitalization will take you to that page - yes and no. There are environments where this is what happens, for example the internal search engine will take you to a page that matches the capitalisation you entered (with the exception of the first letter) if one exists, but there is no page at that capitalisation it will take you to whatever extant title is the closest match (I don't know how it picks if there are multiple options). However, there are also environments where you are taken to the exact capitalisation you entered, regardless of whether it exists or not (for example linking and entering the URL directly). Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out @Thryduulf, but I still don't think that's a point of concern. If they're sent to a search page for a nonexistent capitalization, presumably the page they're looking for would be higher in the results. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 19:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Note that URL searching actually takes the reader to this page, not search, thereby requiring another click (and an annoying one to find at that). J947 ‡ edits 23:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you did there. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am 90% certain that I have seen some kind of marketing campaign where Israel was capitalized like this to emphasize its existence, i.e. that it "is", but I can find no sources supporting the noteworthiness of such a thing. BD2412 T 23:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rarely helpful but not harmful. Half of the nominator's rationale links to an essay which recommends not listing redirects for deletion that you think are "unnecessary" and as for the other half, well... J947 ‡ edits 23:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    While COSTLY is without a doubt a controversial essay to cite, there is a very strong precedent at RfD for deleting arbitrarily capitalized, spaced, punctuated, etc. redirects that don't appear to reflect any plausible alternative name or typo. — Anonymous 00:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To an extent and only in the past 10 years. Before that, consensus was generally the opposite. It is allowed to change. You can think for yourself. Is it worth it to bring this redirect to RfD? J947 ‡ edits 23:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Wikipedia. No one thinks for themselves here. — Anonymous 23:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom not natural and I do not see a purpose for this redirect or a reason to keep it. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Israel Kamakawiwoʻole because Kamawiko'ole has often been referred to as "Israel IZ", which can be easily confused with "ISrael" due to the similarity between the letters S and Z. PokémonPerson 02:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By the looks of it "IZ" is short for Israel anyway. This suggestion seems akin to having UZnited redirect to United States because the United States is called the US for short and Z looks similar to S. I'm not convinced. — Anonymous 23:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asian nigger

[edit]

??? Not on the list nor does it appear to be a recognised slur. — Anonymous 03:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pârvuleşti (disambiguation)

[edit]

This redirect may look fine at first, but it is a misspelling of Pârvulești (disambiguation), which surprisingly currently does not exist. Parvulesti (disambiguation) also does not exist. The redirect with cedilla, a misspelling, is implausible compared to the correct redirect or the same redirect without diacritics. Not sure if the misspelling should be deleted, but its links should be updated to reflect the correct spelling. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: plausible typo. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 05:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I actually agree with a keep this time, this isn't really a useful !vote. It's not a typo, as I explain below, and in a lot of other similar cases, it would be a reasonable delete, but this is sort of a special case. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Looking into this, according to our article at S-cedilla, it seems that it was used as an alternative to the S-comma in some texts and earlier versions of Unicode in Romanian text. I think this pushes it into a reasonable technical kludge (ideally, this is something that the search feature should handle automatically, but I'm not sure what it does here). Edit: changing to weak, because it's only for the standard "(disambiguation)" link to a dab page at the base title, so is probably pushing it a bit, but still. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Deacon Vorbis. Adding that the typo is plausible on keyboards with "ş" as an option but not "ș" (such as my own international phone keyboard when long-pressing over the "s" key), and readers less familiar with Romanian (e.g. tourists) or using a font that doesn't distinguish them properly might not realize that they are different characters. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ADR

[edit]

Not sure why an unrelated set of letters targets to "Parenthetical referencing". Possibly retarget to "Administrator review" or "Administrator recall"? I was looking for the latter that page when I used this redirect. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 02:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was not aware about the deprecation of administrator review, so I am suggesting retargeting above. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 02:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ADR probably stood for Author–date referencing. SignTheSign (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The redirect has been used 46 times in the past year. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 06:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan is a country

[edit]

Not really a valid search term, and if is, this is likely not where it should redirect to. The page history is also interesting, and it seems like the page may have been created as a test but it's borderline. – LuniZunie(talk) 01:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Political status of Taiwan as {{R from non-neutral name}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Chaotic Enby. I'll note that its creator got himself indeff'd for repeated vandalization and general WP:NOTHERE, including the removal of Speedy Deletion, RFD, and other such templates on pages. I do wonder if the "base32 encode" he added to this redirect at one point was part of whatever he was trying to build instead of an encyclopedia, but I seem to have misplaced my tarot deck, so I guess we'll never know. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I decoded them all, all said "Taiwan is a country" in different encodings. – LuniZunie(talk) 19:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Chaotic Enby. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 03:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Chaotic Enby. I would have expected this to redirect there in the first place and was a bit surprised to see it point to DeepSeek's article. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Chaotic Enby. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Breaker

[edit]

I don't know why this redirects to this particular page. Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate: a search on Wikipedia itself brings up other pages with the same name. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 04:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC) Retarget to Stormbreaker (disambiguation) per below. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 19:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechie, not sure if you saw, but there is Stormbreaker (disambiguation). Also, Stormbreaker is the title of an article about a novel. — Anonymous 19:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@An anonymous username: thank you for pointing that out. I have updated my vote accordingly. I might also suggest moving Stormbreaker to Stormbreaker (novel) and pointing the former to the disambiguation page, but that's a discussion for a different time. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 19:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I support retargeting. I would also agree that the novel doesn't seem to stand out as a primary topic here. — Anonymous 19:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

[edit]

Opensanctions.org

[edit]

This appears to be a sly commercial / advertising type of redirect. Recommend deletion. Amigao (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Viasat World

[edit]

This redirect was created on 4 March 2021 by Buidhe. I'm listing this here for discussion as it's now 5 years (half a decade) since creation and may not by A1 or A3 worthy, despite having a Wikidata linkage as such a category was within that page prior to this listing. Intrisit (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feet as food

[edit]

Honestly not totally sure what to do with this but probably delete. (unless we want to create a DAB) Lots of animals feet can be eaten - Chicken feet, Sheep's trotter and Cow's trotter so Pig's trotter is not really a good target for Feet as food. Squawk7700 (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

South Swindon

[edit]

Should this be a DAB, kept as is or South Swindon (parish) moved here? The constituency was renamed from "South Swindon" to "Swindon South" in 2023 and the parish was renamed from "Central Swindon South" to "South Swindon" in 2024. The constituency has 457 views and the parish has 25,[[16]]. Yes the views may suggest the constituency is primary but it's not named this anymore unlike the parish so it might just be best to have both the constituency and parish at their current names and put hatnotes on both articles. Google is mixed, By size the constituency has 72,468 people and the parish has 62,871 but the constituency appears to cover quite a bit larger area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Late January North American winter storm

[edit]

G6 contested by a TA. This is too ambiguous to be useful - there have been many storms in late January and in North America. Additionally, since this was further moved to Late January 2026 North American winter storm by the same user who moved it here, I believe this falls under G6: Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace, or redirects created by moving away from a title that was obviously unintended. HurricaneZetaC 19:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beefcake calendar

[edit]

Delete both unmentioned redirects unless a suitable target can be found for both. There's no mention of calendars on the dab page nor in the main Beefcake article. Beefcake magazineBeefcake magazine, one of the dab page entries, is a redirect to Physique magazine, which contains this passing reference: Later, magazines expanded their offerings to include other items such as slides, calendars, and posing straps. The last line of Firefighter calendar provides a definition of beefcake calendars but no other substantive discussion of the broader category. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Anxiety Disorder

[edit]

This is a genuine and moderately used term as revealed by a quick search, but its meaning seems subtly different from "TDS". While "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is pejoratively used by Trump and his supporters against critics, this seems to be a relatively neutral (if tongue-in-cheek) way of referring to general anxiety surrounding Trump and his politics. I say RETURNTORED as potentially notable (?) and even if not, it's not the same as what this article is talking about, as I've already shown. — Anonymous 18:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirect is misleading since the terms refer to different things. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here's the history on this redirect: On Aug 1, 2018 a request was made on the TDS talk page to add the topic to the TDS article. No one replied. On Aug 12, 2018 an editor added a sentence about TAD to the TDS article. Also on Aug 12, 2018 the redirect was created. The next day on Aug 13, 2018 the TAD sentence was removed by a different editor from the TDS article, which orphaned the redirect. 5Q5|✉ 17:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

twisty little maze of passages

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

List of the largest Protestant denominations in the United States

[edit]

Delete. This redirect should go to a page that lists denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, etc., not a page that lists some of their congregations and some congregations that aren't part of any denomination. The article was at this title for about three hours nearly ten years ago: moved there because "More neutral" at 20:47 on 2016-12-11, and moved away from that title because "New title is factually incorrect" at 23:25 on the same date. The latter rationale is correct — from its creation in 2010 this has been a list of megachurches. Some of them are congregations of denominations, but many of them are independent, and although some of the multi-site churches on this list function as denominations, they don't have hundreds of thousands of members. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Badware

[edit]

Seems like an unlikely search term to me. Could someone provide a source showing that it is a commonly used alternative name or related topic to prove that it is a common search term? Griefing22 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nominator was CU blocked as a sock, but this is not eligible for WP:SK#4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if this is an obscure term, keep per WP:CHEAP. And it has a very unambiguous meaning. Cesiumslate9 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
cheap doesn't actually say anything about the redirect itself, only the latter half does. it's also invalid here per wp:costly. as in the argument that it's cheap is invalid, not that it's unambiguous consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico (U.S. state)

[edit]

based on District of Columbia (U.S. state), shouldn't this be targeting Puerto Rico statehood movement? Abesca (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Horbar

[edit]

that's not a word that exists. not to be confused with hörbar, which is just "audible" in german consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 14:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is fair in love and war

[edit]

Not mentioned in target page, and not a misnomer (no mentions of this terminology can be found when searching the Internet). aaronneallucas (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably someone misremembered the familiar proverb, as the meaning is unchanged. Both should probably target Euphues: The Anatomy of Wit. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But what if they want to go to the song? Isn't the disambiguation page a better target? Kingsacrificer (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Insufficient comments to generate consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 07:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endurance (submarine)

[edit]

Too specific a target for the subject. Not sure what's best here. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, the topic is not about that specific instance of an underwater vehicle, the "ENDURANCE (Environmentally Non-Disturbing Under-ice Robotic Antarctic Explorer)" Rather, it is about the technical design topic of underwater endurance.
  • Keep or change to Redirect, with possibilities. The redirect was created to help global Wikiedia readers grok the design concept of "Endurance" with respect to underwater vehicle designs. In simplest form, it is both the concept and technical spec limit for how long an underwater vehicle can remain underwater. As of the time the redirect was created, and even now in 2026, the best place the design concept is explicated is in the article section: Attack-class submarine#Propulsion
however, the section might be edited to better explicate the concept; or even become an article on this aspect of the design of all underwater vehicles, not just submarines. When the RFD is complete, perhaps MOVE the redir to Endurance (underwater vehicle) to be more general. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Combat endurance would probably be the best place to put that sort of information in lieu of a full article being written. However, the current redirect title (and the proposed Endurance (underwater vehicle)) both suggest a submarine or underwater vehicle named "Endurance" - that is, ENDURANCE. Submarine endurance might work for the proposed article. Tevildo (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it could mean a submarine with this name. Its current use clearly is combat endurance (and I'm surprised that subs are actually mentioned there, though the statement is underwhelming). For a nuclear sub, endurance is limited by food and crew fatigue/sanity. I guess in war, it could be limited by munitions. I suggest we delete this redirect due to the ambiguity and if desired submarine endurance can be created to redirect to combat endurance, and that article expanded, perhaps with content from the current target, to discuss submarine endurance. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that Template:Infobox ship contains a line for "endurance" which for example the current target Attack-class submarine is 80 days, for Los Angeles-class submarine is given as 90 days, etc. Obviously a conventionally powered submarine is more complicated, can be limited to certain depths by battery power, or limited by fuel...all these caveats could be discussed at combat endurance. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Tevildo unless a suitable alternate target is somehow more of a primary target than a specific submarine literally called "Endurance". Definitely do not keep. The word 'endurance' is fairly well-buried in the paragraph that the reader is being redirected to, to the point where being redirected here can be confusing and WP:SURPRISEing. Re: something that N2e said: Definitely do not WP:MOVEREDIRECT. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jo (singer)

[edit]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget to one of the two disambig page suggestions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to close out 2026 January 17 log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Warning Broadcast system

[edit]

Emergency Warning Broadcast system and J-Alert [ja] are different things. Vcvfou698069 (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note This was not tagged until just now. Casablanca 🪨(T) 05:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per nom, keeping does not seem to make sense and there is article history. While the article was a stub, it probably is best as its own article that can be expanded rather than targeting something that it is not; however, I know nothing about this so I'm not even sure if this should be considered as a !vote or more a note of information. Casablanca 🪨(T) 05:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give it a full extra week, since it was just tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:12, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's rough consensus to retarget but not agreement about the best option. Can we decide between Emergency population warning and Emergency communication system?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 04:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's also Emergency notification system. Sorry to complicate things further. I'm struggling to grasp the distinctions and why we have so many different articles. I don't see any basis to select one over the others. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraordinarily messy. The capitalisation gives away that this is a specific name for a system, not a generic search term. Retargetting to a generic article therefore seems unsuitable. This was turned into an article twice, with similar text each time, and reverted twice under the conceit that it was covered in the target article. It was not. It is briefly mentioned in the initial target, Earthquake Early Warning (Japan). After the second time it was created, but before the second time it was reverted, Emergency Warning System was created by an LTA. Is that the same thing as the reverted articles? No! d:Q14799751 and d:Q17502463 and the linked ja-wiki articles suggest there's one system created in 1985 (what an article at this redirect should be about) and another (Emergency Warning System) in 2013. This is painful. I can't imagine how the Japanese government copes. One of the reverted articles' sources ([21]) is in English which helps with forming that conclusion. It also points to ambiguity with the Philippines's Emergency Warning Broadcast System (note caps?). Not to mention the various broad concept articles we have.
    I suggest to retarget to ISDB-T International § Alert broadcast, pointed out by Paradoctor above, which neatly summarises the potential targets. I think targetting one of the BCAs is a disservice. Given the viewcount and incoming links to this redirect, we can do better. I guess it could be deleted to encourage article creation. I also think encouraging the creation of another mindfuck of an article on a slightly different concept has potential to be unwise, and an existing BCA clarifying the situation might be simpler and clearer. Note that this solution only works if Emergency warning broadcast system is also created. I suppose it should point to Emergency population warning or Emergency notification system. I also suppose the latter should probably be redirected to the former. I also am keen to end this comment quickly so apologies if I'm missing some of the hefty amounts of requisite context.
    Note to new page patrollers: please don't revert again if the article is recreated. J947 ‡ edits 08:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've proposed merging Emergency notification system into Emergency communication system. Discussion here. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to close out 2026 January 17 log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Sanskrit

[edit]

current redirect to Sanskrit is misleading and don't see any other target to use for redirect. Possibly, this can be a standalone article. Asteramellus (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but not necessarily as RETURNTORED. Searching both Google and Google Scholar yields widely disparate uses of this term, but all of them seem quite obscure. — Anonymous 18:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Merriam-Webster defines it as the modern Indic languages.
    It might also be used for modern revival of Sanskrit, but I don´t know how that would differ from the normal use of Sanskrit; some children grow up passively bilingual as it is.
    There's also[22] a proposed conlang based on Sanskrit, but that appears to not be notable enough for us to mention; it doesn´t appear to be anything more than a proposal. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

's

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

Nominated at rfd a long time ago before people realized these links are wrong. There's a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Redirect about these because rfd wastes time. Jq talk 💬 contributions 17:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, we might as well get started on all these.
Delete all of these possessive redirects as as unhelpful, implausible relics created because MOS hasn't properly given guidance to editors re: how we're supposed to link (the closest thing to guidance on this topic being a passing mention on Help:Link#Illustrative examples of display text agglutination). Closing editor should make sure to go through and fix any pages that link to one of these redirects so they link to [[Foobar]]'s instead of [[Foobar's]] 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Afridi provinical government

[edit]

Redirect created from a page move and correction of spelling. Unnecessary and no links to the page. QEnigma 论 17:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2025–26 Scottish Women's Premier League

[edit]

No relevant information at the target about the specific season, making it misleading for anybody who searches for the term and expects to find relevant information about the season. • Quinn (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer light

[edit]

I don't think that LED strip light is a good target here, there are so many things that could be referred to as "Gamer light" - PC fans with LED lighting, RGB keyboards, Bias lighting, etc. I've been looking for a better redirect target but haven't been able to come up with something so I'm up for suggestions, but if none can be found I think they should be deleted a soft of WP:RETURNTORED. Squawk7700 (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksepticeye2

[edit]

Not mentioned at PewDiePie or jacksepticeye. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Red Carpet (song)

[edit]

I came across this redirect while trying to add entries to Red carpet (disambiguation). This redirect does not make sense, as there is an article about Red Carpet (Namie Amuro song). Either this should be the title of the article about the Namie Amuro song, or the redirect should be retargeted to the disambiguation page. Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSanctions

[edit]

This appears to be a sly commercial / advertising type of redirect. Recommend deletion. Amigao (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now? If this were a commercial/advertising type of redirect, I'd first expect International sanctions#OpenSanctions to get removed first and then this redirect get removed as unmentioned. As it stands, the section stands.
Honestly, someone should probably clean up that article anyways, it's got a "this may be written using the help of an LLM" warning at the top... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

113 (MBTA bus)

[edit]

Unused redirect that no longer has a valid target. (It previously had a section on a now-deleted page, but does not have an entry on the list that page was redirected to.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

5 (MBTA bus)

[edit]

Unused redirect that no longer has a valid target. (It previously had a section on a now-deleted page, but does not have an entry on the list that page was redirected to.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yemeni Land Forces

[edit]

I'll translate the Arabic version of this article instead of this page redirecting to the main general Yemeni Armed Forces article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until that translation is ready. I think it's a good redirect and I would prefer having it until another page is at its place . Kind Regards Squawk7700 (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close either the redirect can be directly overwritten with a sourced article and subject to NPP review, or a draft can be created and then moved over the redirect when accepted, either way no need for an RFD. ~2026-39780-5 (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Minus ion

[edit]

big RASTONISH. i would expect it much more to redirect to something like ion instead of what it actually does. Oreocooke (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok so i did a bit of digging and it used to be an article but got BLARred. that answers why, but RASTONISH is about least astonishment, so it still applies. Oreocooke (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would also expect this to point to Ion#Anions and cations but this is not a standard way to refer to anions. A cursory Google search reveals a lot of seemingly pseudoscientific products and concepts associated with the term minus ion, including but not limited to negative air ionization therapy. The term is not used at the current target, making this redirect unhelpful. The article that existed at this title was BLAR'd in 2010. No content was merged into the target and the pre-BLAR article was poorly sourced and promotional. It can safely be deleted. I doubt there is any information about minus ions that can be added anywhere on en-wiki. If there is, it would require all new sourcing and content and it's not clear that Negative air ionization therapy would be the best place for this coverage. The sole use of Minus ion in article space is at Little Girl (Miwa song). The meaning in the quoted material is unclear and is therefore in violation of MOS:NOLINKQUOTE; I will remove the wikilink. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Ion § Anions and cations as an {{r avoided double redirect}} to negative ion. Either that or delete – we can't stay here.
Given that "minus ion" is clearly not the correct way to refer to an anion, I don't think you'll get very many google hits for it, especially since "negatve" is more used than "minus" in this context. However, in this case internet coverage doesn't necessarily reflect actual usage, and I find it perfectly plausible that someone with no knowledge of chemistry would refer not unreasonably to a "minus ion" if they forget the correct terminology. Pseudoscience is usually overrepresented on internet coverage, and mental errors underrrepresented as there is, usually, a barrier between what goes on on peoples' brains and what they publish on the web. (When doing some cursory searches, I did find this, which was interesting but not, I think, especially helpful to us.) I'm sure Thryduulf can attest that I have next to no confidence in LLMs, but I did find it interesting that when I typed in "minus ion" (no quote marks) to Google, its accursed AI Overview pointed me unhesitatingly to anions. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i prefer this course of action Oreocooke (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to this view and could maybe come around. My one hesitation is that it is precisely because pseudoscience is overrepresented online that readers searching an online encyclopedia for this term will very likely have encountered this specific usage and will be looking for more information on the pseudoscience or marketing topic. When a term is widely used in one context (or set of related contexts) that we do not cover on en-wiki, and is also a plausible but hard-to-prove error for a different topic that we do cover, I find it difficult to confidently assign the target. That said, the pseudoscientific use of minus ion does ultimately refer to anions. So the proposed target is not strictly speaking incorrect but it fails to address a (likely) common reason for the search. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you found an RS that discusses the term in the context of the fringe treatment, we could retarget per Cremastra but add a hatnote to the therapy. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we lack reliable sources for either usage. But we have a large number of unreliable sources that use this in the pseudoscientific context. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Think Twice

[edit]

Lyric not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Song lyrics that might help someone go to the right place. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

[edit]

Luis Bermudez (voice actor)

[edit]

While Luis Bermudez, the voice actor, has worked on this show, Luis Bermudez is also credited as a voice actor in Amaim Warrior at the Borderline, Maesetsu!, List of actors who have played Inspector Lestrade, and Mobile Suit Gundam: Hathaway's Flash all in practically the same level of detail. Not sure where it should target? Casablanca 🪨(T) 20:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Maybe redirect it to MechWest as Bermudez voices a protagonist? In the others, it seems the roles are secondary characters. Does that reasoning make sense? Historyday01 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear target, search results can be used to see credits. Sign² (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of space

[edit]

The redirect targets the section where it targets, but then the target article itself has a link for edge of space, targeting Outer space#Boundary. I'm not sure which target is more applicable/preferred. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Memorial

[edit]

Left behind from AFD closed as merge; there was some support for deleting disambiguating this after the merge because the title is clearly ambiguous. Either delete or dabify (preferred), or retarget to List of LGBTQ monuments and memorials. I2Overcome talk 21:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans Memorial I2Overcome talk 21:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom and Presidentman. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Moorthiyar

[edit]

Unsourced "nickname" of WP:BLP which seems WP:OR. This nickname was first added to the main page M. Jagan Moorthy without any reference, which has been removed now since it was an unsourced change to a BLP article. The redirect should be deleted as well as there aren't any reliable sources that have mentioned "My Little Moorthiyar" as a nickname for M. Jagan Moorthy. Dhruv edits (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Holy WP:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI, batman
Delete as per nom. While WP:RNEUTRAL is a thing, so is WP:RFD#D8. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yaka (Star Wars)

[edit]

Not significant, only mentioned on Wikipedia on the Yaka dab page. Delete, and remove entry from Yaka. TNstingray (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non Existent Star Wars Species

[edit]

No targets on Wikipedia, nor Wookieepedia or Google for that matter. Delete as non-existent terms. TNstingray (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3 as blatant hoaxes. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers (film series)

[edit]

The first two redirects have had a slow edit war and are causing issues with Category:Avoided double redirects to be updated, so hopefully this RfD will be the final word. The last two aren't under an edit war, but I bundled them in for consistency's sake as they should all point to the same place.

For me, the most intuitive target is Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (no section anchor) as it is the most intuitive: people are looking for a film series on the Avengers, not the inside baseball in the section on how it was developed. It also has greater detail compared to the "in other media" article. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC) – copyedited at 06:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Best to keep it simple, direct, and concise for our readers. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 02:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget: I'd like to present the argument that the (film series) redirects instead want to be redirected to Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is the film franchise that contains all of the Marvel Studios live-action Avengers films (and thus would be the film series in question), rather than a page that is mostly about the protagonists of said films rather than the films themselves. Marvel Studios' Avengers, the one without the (film series) disambiguator, should instead go to Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) as per nom; THAT redirect isn't talking specifically about the films themselves. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we do go the route of the film series redirects pointing anywhere else, then they should be retargeted to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. The thought process for pointing them to the MCU Avengers team article was because there is extensive coverage of the films as well as the team there, more so than the films list, which provides a brief overview of the films themselves. The film series is about the team in question, so it makes sense for readers landing at that article than the broader main MCU article or the films list. The comics article is definitely not a viable target for readers looking for coverage of the MCU version. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. Skimming through the MCU article, it seems to be very broad, with detailed coverage of other Marvel movies too. I'm not sure that it would be easy for a reader to find information on the Avengers specifically in that article. Sdrqaz (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having a cow

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Marked as a double redirect to Don't have a cow!, which redirects to the disambiguation page Don't have a cow, which has four items, none of which could plausibly be referred to as "having a cow". Possible options include deletion, retargeting to wikt:have a cow (which discusses the idiom), or retargeting to Cow#Economy if we want to be more literal Duckmather (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have a delete per Deacon Vorbis. Jq talk 💬 contributions 19:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify, including:
-A soft redirect to wikt:have a cow
-Links to Cattle industry, You have two cows, and Calf (animal)#gestation as per BD2412
-A link to the Don't have a cow! dab page. Alternately that dab page could be merged with this proposed one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
disambig per above per above Oreocooke (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gaza war infobox

[edit]

Unexpected cross-namespace redirect; I would have expected this to either be a true infobox template or deleted outright Duckmather (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Such trivial attribution can be given with an edit summary (we are dealing with key-value pairs which I highly doubt can be copy-right in any country and is certainly not in the US). This never should have been in a stand-alone template. Gonnym (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chit,fatehpur sikari

[edit]

Unlikely combination of spacing, capitalization, and spelling errors for the village of Chit in the town of Fatehpur Sikri (not Sikari). Also not mentioned in the target article. BD2412 T 18:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jonas Promotional Concerts

[edit]

No such list identified in the target article. (However, this redirect is a {{R from merge}} as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Jonas Promotional Concerts in 2012; some of the content of the former article seems to be at Nick Jonas#Tours, but that section is not cover the entirety of the subject of this redirect. The history of the redirect also includes content not relevant to the Nick Jonas#Tours section.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Karter

[edit]

Delete as implausible - Whilst there seem to exist some sources confusing one name, I've found no source referring to her with both typos. Squawk7700 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A1A Aleworks

[edit]

Delete, no longer mentioned in article. There was previously a section mentioning it ([23]) but it was only a sentence long, unsourced and after a search online it looks like it's since closed. Suonii180 (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ali bin Muhammad al-Idrisi

[edit]

Ali bin Muhammad al-Idrisi is not the same person as Muhammad ibn Ali al-Idrisi. This page shouldn't be redirecting to Muhammad ibn Ali al-Idrisi's page 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mean time to restore

[edit]

A comment at the top of the article code says: "Mean Time To Restore" is currently mistakenly linked to this page although it may have a different meaning. So either this redirect needs to be deleted or retargeted, or thaty comment needs to be removed. Reference 1 in the article is now a dead link. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody's Gotta Hurt

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article, or anywhere on Wikipedia, or even the entire Internet, as far as I can tell. Seems like some fan announcement from September 2011 (when the redirect was created) that quickly got quashed, or something. Graham87 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Siva Vishnu Temple

[edit]

These are all implausible, misleading / ambiguous redirects. They are vague and ambiguous term that could refer to multiple topics. Note: I already moved the article to primary article Sri Siva Vishnu Temple (Lanham, Maryland). Asteramellus (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, revert the move, as this seems to be the only "Sri Siva Vishnu Temple" on Wikipedia, so it's unambiguously titled and shouldn't have been moved in the first place. After that delete all the rest, including the resulting unneeded disambiguated title leftover from the move revert. None of those names are correct, and I don't see any point in having endless combination of title errors for this thing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - that makes sense. I will revert the move. I was looking for a wiki page for Siva Vishnu temple in Livermore, CA and came across the Sri Siva Vishnu Temple page, but that page was for the temple in Lanham, Maryland - so, as a reader I was confused. I think it makes sense to create wiki article for the temple in Livermore and also for the one in Australia (I see few reliable sources for both). But, the page can be moved again when such other articles are created. Asteramellus (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the move @Asteramellus @Deacon Vorbis and working on fixing the double redirects, though it will also be done a bot soon. HurricaneZetaC 00:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Siva Vishnu Temple can be made a disambig page between the current, and Shiva Vishnu Hindu Temple of Greater Cleveland.
Sri Vishnu Siva Temple is a plausible interchanging of words of the target.
Sri Siva Vishnu Temple (Lanham, Maryland) can be tagged as an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}.
Jay 💬 16:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes seems I missed including Vishnu Siva Temple.
Regarding making Siva Vishnu Temple disambig page, agree that would help a reader land on the correct page.
Regarding "Sri Vishnu Siva Temple is a plausible interchanging of words of the target.", seems there will be multiple targets. So, if "Sri Vishnu Siva Temple" is not deleted, will it redirect to the disambig page? Asteramellus (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Vishnu Siva Temple could be a keep because of the "Sri" which is not part of "Siva Vishnu Temple". Jay 💬 06:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 08:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Franco's

[edit]

Unnecessary " 's " redirect A1Cafel (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete's every time. Jq talk 💬 contributions 23:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lithauen

[edit]

Target does not contain anything that could refer to "Lithauen", including variations and translations of Lithuania. Not sure how plausible this is as a redirect to the country, since it is a misspelling of the German translation ("Litauen"). Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sonic the Hedgehog 5

[edit]

A fifth film hasn't been confirmed, not surprising when the fourth one isn't even out. Yeah, it's really likely considering the film series' success, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, these draftspace redirects aren't harming anything. When it comes time to draft up a page for Sonic 5, they can be overwritten easily. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, while I see no reason to delete, I also see no reason to keep, Steel's argument makes sense. My keep !vote is thus especially weak here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA's

[edit]

Delete's what we do. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tavix. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 20:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to remove subpage transclusion from RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal occupation

[edit]

This term currently redirect to a category, which seems pretty unusual. When I clicked the link I assumed it would lead to somewhere to read about controversial military occupations or occupation (protest), but instead the category is for occupations that are criminal. Should this redirect be kept? ★Trekker (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd suspect a good retargeting option for this would be a subtopic of Crime, but I can't figure it out at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to remove subpage transclusion from RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chester A. Arthur's

[edit]

Delete's the way to go here. (See the list of incoming links for Delete's to locate similar discussions within the past year regarding consensus for deletion of similar redirects.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to remove subpage transclusion from RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same thing. [[Chester A. Arthur]]'s and [[Chester A. Arthur's]] produce different outputs. -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is if it's intelligible to the reader, and the link can be clicked. Two characters at the very end of the link not being part of the link is not enough to break the link's functionality. I repeat what I've said before-- that if you believe that hard that it's that important that the 's be part of the link, the correct response is to figure out how to update MediaWiki to blend 's into the link like it does for s without the apostrophe. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not wish to pursue a software fix—there's a nifty alternative that exists. You are the one that has a problem with these redirects, so you should be the one championing that solution. I'm going to continue to bang the drum that these are useful redirects in the meantime. -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one that has a problem with these redirects Well, that's an issue, because the solution that I'm actually championing, [[Redirect]]'s the way it is now, without the software fix, is the one you have an issue with. Neither one of us have an issue with both solutions, then. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why not let editors pick the solution they wish to apply? For some (like me), using a redirect produces a better result. Others, (like you) think not using a redirect produces a better result. I don't understand why your method needs to be the correct way. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:COSTLY concerns paired with the redirect's implausibility-borne uselessness in actual searches, mean that the impact of someone using the redirect extends beyond the actual page they're editing in the first place. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Implausibility is only a rationale for deletion for redirects whose only use is as a search term. This redirect's usefulness has nothing to do with search. If you find it implausible, then you won't encounter it while searching. Therefore, simply leave them alone and let those who do find them useful continue to use them. That goes back to WP:RFD#K5. -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COSTLY is not a magic wand. You need to explain how and why these redirects are costly and why that cost exceeds their utility. From where I'm sitting there is close to zero cost but very high utility. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've given a pretty extensive cost/benefit analysis over at WT:RE#Otherwise-implausible redirects originally intended as editor assistance (i.e. possessive redirects) From where I'm sitting, it's the reverse, zero utility and fairly decent cost. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete's Jq talk 💬 contributions 23:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brigham Young University's

[edit]

Delete's the way to go here. (See the list of incoming links for Delete's to locate similar discussions within the past year regarding consensus for deletion of similar redirects.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to remove subpage transclusion from RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Always Delete's these redirects. Jq talk 💬 contributions 23:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Square (math)

[edit]

Geometry is a branch of mathematics, and Square is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Delete or dabify if preferred. I2Overcome talk 00:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so this supbage can be removed from the main RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Route Redundant Redirect Leftover

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

Created by an blocked and banned user Nono64. The similar redirects are result in deleted. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Malaysia Federal Route Group 2 DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These redirects are incorrect because all of the target pages lead to State Routes; thus, we can't use the Federal Route as a redirect. This is due to the potential confusion it could cause for individuals unfamiliar with the distinctions between the Malaysian Federal Roads System and the Malaysian State Roads System. Additionally, all of the redirects are created by the banned user Nono64. I strongly suggest these redirects need to be deleted. DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't !vote on your own nominations. Comments are fine if you have additional info that didn't make it into the original nomination, but putting a big bolded !vote at the front of the post can confuse the reader into thinking the post WASN'T from the nominator-- i.e. wasn't from you-- unless they pay attention to the fact that both nom and vote are signed User:DiaoBaoHuaJian. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. I just closed the previous nomination about a few hours ago, and there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason for renominating them so quickly. CycloneYoris talk! 04:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't procedural keep, some of this is new information, I suspect the nominator might not have known to respond to questions at the previous RfD. Will give my thoughts shortly after doing some digging. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important: Malaysia Federal Route SA-- targets to Malaysian Federal Roads System, not Malaysian State Roads system.
    @DiaoBaoHuaJian: The previous RfD discussion resulted in a keep because we didn't see anything wrong with the redirects and you didn't reply to clarify. Redirects are allowed to be a bit incorrect, we have redirects from common typos like Garfeild → Garfield, or for names of things that aren't quite correct, like ATM Machine → ATM. The important part is that a reader might type the term into the search box or as a link, and if they do, then it points to the page the reader was probably looking for.
    However, whether or not these redirects are pointing to the right place, these redirects should be deleted for a reason I can't believe nobody has brought up. They each end in two dashes. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but no roads in Malaysia have any notation that ends in two dashes, and certainly nobody is going to enter two dashes as a link or into the search box. How was this not brought up? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 06:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Federation Cup

[edit]

I'm doubtful this is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT since Federation Cup is a dab page. Furthermore, some of the other dab entries have standalone articles for the individual 2025 event (such as 2025 Copa Federación de España, 2025 Nigeria Federation Cup, and 2025 FSA Federation Cup) whereas I could not find any for the Indian football event. Delete or maybe retarget to dab page? Left guide (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dab or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB page for the ones listed above but not the Indian event (unless sources are found that it actually happened under that name- our article suggests the Indian Federation Cup was replaced after 2017). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Invocando a Satanás

[edit]

"invoking satan". yes, this makes sense in context. same case as below as well, but even closer to primary topichood... which still isn't all that close, as google now just thinks i'm an actual satanist consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2025 San Francisco power outage

[edit]

Similar to the preceding nom, this one is a bit more specific, so I'm nominating it separately. Still though, someone searching for this would likely be looking for general information about the power outage itself, and not something this specific, making this a misleading redirect –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interparliamentary Assembly

[edit]

Though this specific institution is referred to often as simply the "Interparliamentary Assembly", I believe that the target of this redirect is too specific, and should instead be retargeted towards the more general article on Inter-parliamentary institution. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rape and sexual assault

[edit]

Delete per WP:XY. We have a separate article for Rape, and both the current target and Rape identify and mention both "rape" and "sexual assault", meaning there's WP:XY with the WP:XY... Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteRetarget: I would like to note that the very first sentence of Rape starts with Rape is a type of sexual assault involving..., which means that there IS an argument to be made that retargeting to Rape would be sufficient for disambiguation purposes, given it already links to Sexual assault. ...It'd also serve to teach anyone who searches this that the two aren't two different crimes i.e. Assault and battery, but rather, the former is a type of the latter. (20:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...Then logic would serve that the two pages would be merged/same, but they aren't... it's really odd. Steel1943 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...I mean, it's like rectangle and square, a square is a type of rectangle, but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square. Same for rape and sexual assault. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a lot of confusion over the terms, because the meaning and definitions of offences vary from country to country, and even from state to state (in federations like the US and Australia, where criminal law is a state matter). “Sexual assault” is a general term for assaults of sexual nature, that can include rape. “Rape” can also be used in a generic sense, as a synonym for sexual assault. But some countries, like Canada, have abolished the offence of rape entirely, and replaced it with an offence of sexual assault. So when you are looking at the laws of a particular jurisdiction, it may be wrong to say that rape is a type of sexual assault, because that’s confusing “rape” as a generic term with “sexual assault” as the defined criminal offence. All of which supports getting rid of this redirect, in my view. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The square and rectangle analogy doesn't work, because in some countries there is no "square" (rape), there's just the "rectangle" (sexual assault). Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this, is that... what I said is literally how it's described in the rape article, as rape being a type of sexual assault; if we're going to decide what to do with these redirects based on this information, said information should really be used in writing the articles, too. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the point of this redirect.★Trekker (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the WP:XY argument. (And hypothetically if we had Square and rectangle I also probably wouldn't support it redirecting to Square or to Rectangle.) Adumbrativus (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Okay yeah, fair enough. I won't strike my !vote but I won't fight overmuch more for retarget over delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rape per WP:XY. This exact four-word phrase is used upwards of 350 times in en.wp articles, including in many section headings, so it's certainly not implausible. Is the reader more likely to be looking for discussion on the topic of rape and sexual assault or the specific language used? I think either way Rape is the best target. We call rape a type of sexual assault, so "rape and sexual assault" = "rape" in that sense. But Mr Serjeant Buzfuz raises a strong point that our definition does not match some legal definitions, which brings us to the reader who's looking for discussion of this four-word term or a comparison of its two components. The article rape discusses "The term rape is sometimes casually used interchangeably with the term sexual assault" in its lede and goes into the legal side of things in the fourth paragraph of the Definitions section. It's not perfect – it doesn't discuss this exact term as a term – and there might indeed be a better target (perhaps Sex_and_the_law#Rape_and_sexual_assault could be expanded), but to me this target seems significantly improved to search results. J947 ‡ edits 04:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But if someone is looking for information on sexual assault, which is a broader term than rape, keeping this redirect to the Rape article is misleading, because it suggests that rape and sexual assault are the same thing. They aren't. That's why this should be deleted under WP:X or Y. If someone is looking for info on rape, it shouldn't direct to the broader term, sexual assault, and if they're looking for info on sexual assault, they shouldn't be redirected to the narrower term, rape. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't really think the reader is looking for one or the other with this search term. As I pointed out, this is a common term in and of itself. Even if they are, search results are only mildly more helpful than targeting one article or the other since they both introduce and link the other term prominently in their ledes. Nevertheless, I guess there's an intersection vs. union problem, in maths terms. I assumed that the "and" in "Rape and sexual assault" meant the reader was looking for something that is both the two – i.e. the scope of the article rape. But although it's more conventionally denoted "or", it could also mean something that is either of the two – i.e. the scope of the article sexual abuse. Either way, I think the last sentence of the first paragraph of my proposed target is prominent enough to give clarity in that situation. J947 ‡ edits 05:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    because it suggests that rape and sexual assault are the same thing Except that idea should immediately get disabused by the very first sentence of the Rape article, which both establishes what Rape is as compared to Sexual Assault and also links to our article on Sexual Assault...???
    If you're trying to say that the reader shouldn't come away with the idea that rape is a type of sexual assault, then you're suggesting we need to rewrite the Rape article outright. And if that's the case, well... I'm not stopping you from rewriting the article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is XY in form but we have multiple articles that discuss both subjects and their relationship. Deletion is sometimes reasonable in these cases, but so is selecting a target based on hierarchy/taxonomy of knowledge, content of specific articles, and other factors. Sexual assault is the umbrella topic that includes rape (in all its forms and definitions) and other related topics. Sexual assault includes links to Rape, other forms of sexual assault, and related concepts like Sexual violence in the lead. The article summarizes multiple common types of SA, including rape, and provides a broad overview of the effects and international perspectives of SA with frequent discussion of rape specifically. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to rape. I agree with J947. In addition to what has been said about, if someone is looking for content about sexual assaults generally then they are unlikely to be using this search term. Those who do use this search term are looking for information that includes rape specifically and the rape article matches that more closely than does the sexual assault article - which is only a singe click away anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are three different proposals being made in this discussion as to why someone would search for this phrase: 1 they’re looking for an article on rape; 2 they looking for an article on sexual assault; 3 they’re looking for an article on rape and sexual assault. The multiplicity of views as to what the basic purpose of this redirect actually is about gets back to why we don’t have “X and Y” redirects. It’s not clear what purpose it serves, or how it assists s searcher. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deltarune redirects

[edit]

All are not mentioned in the target page. Old Man and Carol Holiday have been added. Others are still not mentioned. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 00:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Carol Holiday as we can easily add her—with {{visible anchor}} if needed—in Noelle Holiday's section. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all with one exception; they are, as follows:
-An enemy only notable because the furry fandom is horny for her
-An NPC that barely gets any screentime
-A name that Gerson Boom gets referred to by in the UI as the protagonists, and likely the player, don't know his name at that point (Keep this one, the fact that it redirects to a specific section that does exist should've been a clue that this is a mentioned character)
-A set of shopkeepers that only get notable screentime in Chapter 2
-The mother of Noelle Holiday; while it could be argued that she's notable or will become notable (although the latter runs into WP:CRYSTAL issues), the fact remains that she's not in the article yet; as per Deacon we need to follow the content, not the other way around. The redirect can be recreated easily when the content gets added to the page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As of now, in the article, there is no mention of Gerson Boom being referred to as "Old Man". 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 03:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I fixed that in but a few minutes. Even added a source for it; the section was previously unsourced, it now has a new source and also links to a source that had already been used in the article in the Ralsei section. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 23:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since you added Old Man, I mentioned Carol also. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Refine Carol to List of Undertale and Deltarune characters#Noelle Holiday then? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which redirects should we be keeping now?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming spaceflight

[edit]

Somewhat vague, and any redirect that requires continual updating to be accurate shouldn't exist; delete. Also see the related discussion for Current spaceflight, which was the original title of this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even though the other discussion began on the 1st, it was relisted yesterday; I think it would be wiser to add this one there. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehh, I thought about that, but I think the difference in date is too large, and besides, this is still a bit different -- "current" vs "upcoming", so I went with a separate nom. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that these are sufficiently different and that adding a second redirect to a discussion this late is more likely to complicate matters. At least one editor already raised the difference in the 'Current spaceflight' discussion (although their preference is the same for both). It's possible both redirects will reach the same fate but separating the discussions is more straightforward. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have relevant content, and if editors are not keeping this up to date (and the evidence seems to be they are keeping it to date) then it's a task that could easily be done by a bot. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay, Illinois

[edit]

Confusing redirect; delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-34895-2 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned in target page and this was a one-off joke. Object to retargets unless this joke is sourced and mentioned there, which it isn't at the moment. HurricaneZetaC 23:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in the first retarget proposal but Green Bay isn't mentioned. HurricaneZetaC 23:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to either Executive Order 14172#Reactions, to JB Pritzker, or to one of the Greenland crisis related pages. No preference as to which. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, I will not object to deletion if a suitable target cannot be determined. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clone wars errors

[edit]

Mass nom for a mass creation of unhelpful, systematically anticipated errors. The WP:PANDORA is strong with this one, and these aren't helpful. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BACKINBOX is strong with THIS one. This mass nom is a WP:TRAINWRECK waiting to happen because these do, in fact, have disparate worth. In short:
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not a trainwreck, and this is a prime example of why PANDORA is a good essay. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, PANDORA has absolutely nothing useful or relevant to say about this (or any other) RfD nomination and should remain firmly uncited. We judge redirects based on their own merits (or lack thereof) not speculation about whether redirects that may or may not be similar to ones being discussed might be created for reasons that some people might think might have somehow been "inspired". Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a prime example of why PANDORA is a really bad essay section (the entire essay, which is mostly fine to cite, is WP:COSTLY.) As stated in WP:BACKINBOX (and as the author of the essay, yes, I am shamelessly quoting myself here):
  • In short, Pandora... doesn't serve to point out what's actually WRONG about the redirect -- which is the most important part, given it's what we're actually here to discuss...
and
  • It fails the test of WP:IDONTLIKEIT... Taken at face value, the actual text of Pandora could be applied to any redirect at all whatsoever, seeming to support the deletion of anything under the sun...
Your citing PANDORA here doesn't serve to elucidate at all why you think these redirects should be deleted-- and you using PANDORA as a reason to make the RFD in the first place has resulted in you scooping up redirects that are perfectly fine, mixing them in with redirects that aren't, and listing the entire batch as a trainwreck on the idea that we need to delete the perfectly-fine redirects to somehow prevent the not-fine redirects from being made. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
also, I reopened WP:COSTLY for the first time in a good long while to see if anything's changed, and it has-- Pandora's been cordoned off in a 'Disputed Reasons' section, with a hatnote denoting it as having been historically controversial. Positive change IMO :3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might not agree with exactly all of your conclusions, but I think that your proposal is quite reasonable and it is better than running into the risk of a WP:TRAINWRECK. So I support Lunamann's Keep/Delete pick. Rgds Squawk7700 (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not seeing any arguments that are based on policies or guidelines here. I think the problem is that there is no consensus in the community as to what kinds of typos are "plausible" and when it is useful to keep them. These typo RfDs are a waste of everyone's time when the community could come together once and for all in an RfC and decide which typos (if any) are worth keeping as redirects. Then, I think the criteria for WP:R3 could be modified to drop the "recently created" requirement in favor of "no incoming links from mainspace" and change "implausible" to whatever the community decides shiuld be deleted. Personally, I think the solution that makes the most sense is just to delete all typos except plausible misspellings of names. I don't thonk we need rederects for one charecter ertors, missingspaces; "strange punctuation". and the like. For the purpose of linking, I think it is beneficial to have as few typo redirects as possible, because typos are more likely to go unnoticed in articles if they are valid blue links. I2Overcome talk 20:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing any arguments that are based on policies or guidelines... that there is no consensus in the community as to what kinds of typos are "plausible" and when it is useful to keep them
    Far be it from me to repeat the same jokey meme reply twice, but you did not read mine.
    It may not be a policy or guideline, but my !vote and argument were based on prior consensus on typos that has been recorded on WP:RFDO, at WP:RTYPO. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That explanatory essay might say there is consensus to keep, but that does not appear to be the case. The two most recent RfD examples cited at WP:RTYPO were closed as delete, so that section is actually misleading and probably needs to be updated (I will probably do so myself). My point is that there is no community-established guideline on what typos should be kept as redirects, and it would be helpful to have one. I2Overcome talk 00:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There certainly is community-established guidance. ... Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones. [...] You might want to delete a redirect if ... the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target [...] However, avoid deleting such redirects if ... [s]omeone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. meta:Don't delete redirects says it best: "Redirects from spelling mistakes prove their usefulness with their own existence: at least one person has already made that mistake." Thus their deletion should be avoided, unless they are particularly harmful (or, in practice, if they are particularly useless, though even WP:COSTLY strongly suggests it is not a good use of community time to send such redirects to RfD). You cannot interpret the guideline in any other way. It reflects the longstanding consensus that misspelling redirects are helpful. That such RfDs sometimes end in delete is indicative of a coterie of editors who have not acquainted themselves with the guideline in question, and a minority who disagree with it. J947 ‡ edits 00:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If the consensus is as clear as you say it is, then we should be able to speedy keep these per WP:RGUIDE and not keep having these discussions: Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept. Otherwise, it couldn’t hurt to have more clarity. I2Overcome talk 02:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That sentence still around? I've never been brave enough to try it out. (It's very much overbroad. I read it as "all discussions that should be closed as keep per WP:R should be done so speedily" which is absurd, since that's what the RfD is meant to uncover.) J947 ‡ edits 02:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I read it as: "All nominations that are clearly against WP:R will be closed as Speedy Keep to avoid wasting other editors's time." If it was made extremely clear that certain types of typo redirects are not harmful and thus should not be nominated, we wouldn’t have to keep having these discussions. I2Overcome talk 03:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do fairly decently see WP:SNOW used to similar effect, actually-- if a good amount of editors immediately come out of the woodwork and say "Yeah nah we should keep this" and nobody shows up to say "We need to delete", someone eventually will probably bring up SNOW if an editor doesn't SNOW-keep first. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, there's an even stronger consensus that redirects should be evaluated on their individual merits, rather than in collective swathes of hundreds of thousands. I can't say it's sensible, but I don't see us moving away from this process anytime soon. You see these problems crop up in all other XfDs as well, if arguably not to the same extent. J947 ‡ edits 02:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Said consensus mainly comes from the issues borne from WP:TRAINWRECK (RFD being the XFD that probably grapples with TRAINWRECKs most often due to how small, simple, and numerous the pages we're here to discuss are) plus the WP:PANDORA/WP:BACKINBOX issue (and as the one who wrote BACKINBOX, you can probably guess what my stance is there. And if you can't, I do suggest reading BACKINBOX since that's where my stance is :3) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know if there’s a solution then, but it just seems ridiculous to me to keep having the same discussion over and over again. I2Overcome talk 03:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Masami Anno

[edit]

Delete: Not really necessary, page currently redirects to a show he has worked on, he has worked on more that that per his page on the Japanese Wikipedia. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity (old version)

[edit]

move to draft:gravity, so at least this mess isn't in mainspace consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete History has no value. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
wait, is that the case? if i haven't misread wp:cww and the timelines actually match, it seems it wouldn't be. if it is, though, then yeah, this can be deleted without issue consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here is the diff to today's article - no common text found. --mfb (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Might have legitimate historical value, but having an article with this title doesn't make sense to me. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Steps

[edit]

These redirects originate from a fake track list for Damn.[24] None of these are actual Kendrick Lamar songs. Ten Steps (song) could be retargeted to The Chase (Marit Larsen album). Double Standards (song) could be DABified, On Purpose, with Purpose, Life of a Don, The Smartest, and Control System are all plausible targets. मल्ल (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll give this another chance to avoid a trainwreck.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

dihydrogen monoxide

[edit]

check the history of the first one, it's about time this damn thing got settled consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Dihydrogen monoxide parody article This is a quite strong WP:XY issue, but one that can't be resolved through deleting the redirect, given what the redirect is-- the chemical name for one of the most important molecules on Earth. Thus, we need to disambiguate between the two; luckily for us, Dihydrogen monoxide parody links Water in the very first sentence, a natural disambiguation.
As an alternative, keep (at Water) but hatnote to Dihydrogen monoxide parody would be a suitable solution.
Also, don't forget to bundle in DHMO as well. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
oh right yeah, forgot the acronym. the hatnote is already in water, though consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
okay, that was a pain, so i wound up having to do half of it manually. three of the non-acronym redirects already targeting the parody are misspelled, but their plausibility can probably be discussed later consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ugh... had to do the other half manually as well, since massxfd printed out error messages instead of the template. as in it specifically replaced the redirect content with a manually made error message consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those three typed-offs:
  • Dihydrogren monoxide
  • Dihyrdogen Monoxide
  • Dihyrogen monoxide
These are typos from the very beginning: Even other page was typed off that way, when created, but fixed quickly 20 years ago, noted in the edit comment of that time. But these typed off "articles" were not fixed/resolved in the same time: These ancient relics of mistakes never had to survive that long. :-/ --Franta Oashi (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(re)target all to Dihydrogen monoxide parody (per above), where it makes much more sense. Oreocooke (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dihydrogren monoxide, Dihyrdogen Monoxide, and Dihyrogen monoxide for being pretty implausible typos (especially the first 2). Retarget the rest to Dihydrogen monoxide parody. ApexParagon (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello"

[edit]

Delete per UNNATURAL Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh national team

[edit]

"Welsh national team" and "Welsh team" both redirect to "Wales national football team". There are many other Welsh national teams, of course, but the football team receives the majority of page views. Would a disambiguation page make more sense here? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to boldly retarget Scotland national team to the relevant disambiguation page and will do the same for others if I find an extant dab page. There are a several similar redirects for other countries (see collapsed box), I considered nominating them all here but decided against to to avoid a train wreck but if there is a clear consensus here then they can either be done boldly or nominated separately/as a group (note I've not looked to see if any are redirects from move or have been discussed previously). I will leave a note at the sports Wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC) [reply]

There are also some similar but not identical ones that I will nominate separately shortly. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

create a disambiguation page - probably not a normal outcome for a deletion discussion, but the most practical. There's maybe even scope for a WP:CONCEPTDAB here. Something that lists all the national Welsh teams is what is required.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is one of the most common outcomes at RfD (my guess: keep and delete are the top two but I wouldn't like to say in which order, redirect is probably third, disambig (including set indexes) I'd place fourth followed by maybe refine. Might be interesting to see some actual statistics if anyone has them). Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tamoio

[edit]

Unless I'm out to lunch, it seems these should be retargeted to the more specific target of Tamoio people. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stages in Super Smash Bros. Melee

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

closed as keep before under the rationale that people might not necessarily be looking for a list, and that there's some info there... but this is a list title, to a target that doesn't actually have a list. it's actually kind of surprising that there's no mention of the 6 tournament legal stages here, even though final destination and battlefield are on that list consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

United States men's national team results

[edit]

This could refer to sports other than just soccer, the only other separate article I've found is List of results of the United States men's basketball team at the Olympics but articles about other national teams listed at United States national team often discuss results so that might be a better target? See also #Welsh national team below. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican National Team

[edit]

Not only is this ambiguous between different sports (e.g. Dominican Republic national football team) but it is also ambiguous with teams representing Dominica (e.g. Dominica national football team). I'm not sure that a disambiguation leading only to two different disambiguation pages (c.f. #Welsh national team), that I don't think currently exist, is ideal, but is that better than search results? Also note this has history as an article, I think it was a duplicate of Dominican Republic national football team but I haven't looked in detail. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UAE national team all-time record

[edit]

This is a {{R from move}} but it is ambiguous with teams representing the United Arab Emirates in other sports, although as far as I've found none of those have separate articles for their records. There also isn't at present a disambiguation page listing all the country's sports teams this could refer to. I'm bringing this here for discussion rather than recommending deletion, or any other specific action (see also #Welsh national team). Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

a lot of touhou project redirects, mostly characters (round 2?)

[edit]

let's try this again... consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 16:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

wait, that actually worked? well, see below. how did massxfd not die here? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 16:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, because Consarn didn't mention it himself: The original nomination for all of these was by user:~2025-31416-56, who claimed these were all unmentioned in the article.
That said, re-procedural close as per WP:TRAINWRECK-- I'm certain several of these characters should be redirected to the individual games they appear in. For example, Utsuho Reiuzi needs to be redirected to Subterranean Animism. As there is about five hundred of these, going through each of them and figuring out which games, if any, they need to be taken to would be a gargantuan task that would get confusing fast. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Yes, the Subterranean Animism article spells it 'Reiuji' instead of 'Reiuzi'. It's the same character and the same name. This is a Japanese series and a Japanese game at discussion, 'zi' and 'ji' are both romanizations of the same Japanese syllable.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. As someone a bit familiar with this series, no WP:TRAINWRECK here. If any of these are not mentioned at the current target, that is a problem for a few reasons. For one, all of the characters can be considered to encompass all media related to the topic. For two, for the most part, any media based on the target subject tends to be developed or created by various/random third party sources, meaning multiple unrelated video game developers will use these intellectual properties to creates unrelated games and none of them are considered canon. Deletion of all is probably the best way to fix the issue ... which seems to be that the subjects are not mentioned at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: as a continuation of the name thing, the kunrei-shiki isn't the issue with eiki's name, it's gluing her name together and missing the comma, implying that "s(h)ikieiki" is her given name and "yamaxanadu" is the surname, when it would actually be "eiki shiki, yamaxanadu" (given name, surname, job), with the good ol' japanese name order making it "shiki eiki, yamaxanadu" (四季映姫・ヤマザナドゥ). even among the few touhou fans one could reasonably refer to as "tourists", it's known that this is a mistake, so it being a redirect here doesn't make much sense. this means i actually meant "implausible romanization of an implausible mistake", whoops consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked all the redirects, and of them Eirin Yagokoro is in fact mentioned in the target. Keep that one (or at least renominate to be considered separately). No opinion on whether deletion or a procedural close and renominate in smaller batches is best, though the current target is clearly not correct for them. Rusalkii (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
well, no, i think this would've just been a "delete all except eirin, but maybe do something else with it" consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the days and years of the planets

[edit]

used to be a completely broken essay with one seemingly unreliable source, so let's ignore that part

should this be refined to #orbit, retargeted to orbit, or assumed to be the kind of list we technically don't have and deleted? is the fact that this seems to be focused on this solar system a concern? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as a poor ATD. The #Planetary_attributes section does not exist, and the proposed #Orbit section is about the revolution around the Sun, not the daily rotation. Jay 💬 13:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom tax

[edit]

Not plausible mistake or misspelling, not in redirect target, no sources found on cursory DuckDuckGo query Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There's a very slim chance that this is a mishearing/mondegreen caused by someone not knowing who Fanum is. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per ItsReallyAlex. In addition to being a plausible search term for someone who has only heard it or who has misremembered it, it is also not an implausible change for autocorrect to make. It's not ambiguous with anything else I can see and it's not otherwise harmful so there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grippy Socks

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

These redirects from euphemisms for 'psychatric hospital' should really match. The first one was the subject of a 2023 RfD which was kept, but it and the second one then had their target changed based on discussion that happened on the RfD notice post (rather than the RfD itself) in psychiatric hospital's talk page, citing how non-psychiatric hospitals and nursing homes also issue non-slip socks to patients (although I've never heard of the term being used to refer to non-psychatric hospitals or nursing homes). The third was missed at that time.

For the record, as the nom I'd think that psychiatric hospital would be the better target; as I just stated I've never heard of the other two proposed targets being referred to with any of these non-slip-sock-related euphemisms, and the stopgap solution of retargeting to a section about the non-slip socks themselves, while informative, can be a little WP:SURPRISE-ing. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to Sock#Non-slip socks i.e. change just Grippy sock vacation 's target. The target of Sock#Non-slip socks is already rich in discussion of the use of grippy socks in psychiatric facilities, explain the 'grippy sock hotel' etc. phraseology well, and contains links to psychiatric hospital, etc. To be clear, I can get that the 'jail' and the 'hotel' all refer to the hospital, not the sock. And 'vacation' refers to the in-patient treatment, not the sock. But redirecting directly to those psychiatric pages would be surprising - if I were searching for 'grippy sock vacation', I would like that euphemism to be explained. IMHO it much more likely that people will be wanting clarification and understanding of the 'grippy sock vacation' term, than to be actually wanting to find general information about a psychiatric hospital or treatment. The Sock#Non-slip socks section serves that purpose reasonably, and should therefore be the preferred target for these redirects. Chumpih t 08:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Sock#Other uses of the word and slang where all three terms are used and defined. It is true that psychiatric hospitalization is what these terms refer to. But the terms are not used at all in that article. Consensus has been that these terms do not warrant inclusion in the article. As relatively obscure neologisms, these terms are way too non-notable to be covered in the main article on psych hospitals. Editors agree that including these would suggest more prominent terms should also be covered, a list of informal terms and euphemisms should not be included in the article. Unlike loony bin and similar terms, which may or may not be suitable redirects without mention (see current RfD discussion), these grippy sock terms do require some explanation. That explanation exists and is best expanded upon (if necessary) at Sock#Other uses of the word and slang. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok with this. Or how about a 'colloquialisms' paragraph under non-slip? Chumpih t 13:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    These redirects should point wherever the terms are explained. That should not be the Psychiatric hospital article but somewhere in Sock is fine. I see no reason to duplicate the information within Sock but if someone wants to consolidate this all under #Non-slip, that’s fine. Alternatively, internal links between the sections could be inserted in the article to help readers find the existing coverage within the article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So it sounds like retargeting to Sock#Non-slip and also links within the page to avoid duplication would be satisfactory. Chumpih t 20:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Motherfuck the Radio

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 04:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Truck Canopy

[edit]

per blar and previous cases. not enough info here or in truck tent to justify consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to camper shell? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maw (Jedi)

[edit]

dark jedi, big difference (or so the game insists). also only mentioned in passing. used to be unsourced cruft, so let's not worry about that consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per my rationale for Pic (Star Wars). thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 20:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 17:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fire at will

[edit]

This phrase is not mentioned in the target article. I didn't find a more appropriate target, so I think it should be either deleted or softly redirected to the relevant Wiktionary entry. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Fire Away, which has basically the same meaning, as per nom. I will also support both a soft redirect and a WP:RETURNTORED deletion. Definitely Do Not Keep, as the NATO control code Weapons Tight does not seem like an appropriate target-- we're currently redirecting a phrase that means "Fire your weapons now" to a phrase that means "Do not fire your weapons unless you get attacked", that's just confusing. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this retarget because it would just create a circular reference, i.e. the mention there is just fire at will. I2Overcome talk 04:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, my main takeaway is "please don't keep" lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pyro Pyro

[edit]

Stretches plausibility as per WP:RTYPO; even disregarding that, there's also a song by this title from Wargasm. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo penis

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

Well, this is not how I planned to spend some time when I woke up this morning... Although I have no concerns about the potentially puerile nature of these redirects, I don't think we have coherent enough information on the topic to support them. Marsupials#Reproductive system is, of course, about marsupials generally, and Kangaroo#Reproduction and life cycle doesn't touch on male anatomy at all. Among all these redirects, the only incoming links are at Kangaroo (use of scrotum for Marn Grook balls) and at Jilly Goolden (failed to eat a penis on a reality show). I would leave these red (Hey, this is serious!) unless and until we have a straightforward discussion of male kangaroo genitalia somewhere. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per RETURNTORED. As stated by nom, what we have now doesn't support any of these redirects. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

[edit]

Portuguese creole of Tugo

[edit]

It should be Tugu, not Tugo. KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleSirTalksAlot: The page Portuguese creole of Tugu currently does not exist. If this is a misspelling, would it be ok to simply move the page without a redirect to the correct spelling? Left guide (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A comunidade de Tugu (Tugo ou Toegoe) tem sido reportada desde o século XVIII.

Could it be that Tugo is a former or alternate Portuguese or Mardijker form of Tugu? If so, leave the redirect. --Error (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

synonymous archaism or misspelling, it's a homophone word for most Lusophones. I found other sources though: [26] (linguistics website), linktr.ee/tugocoffee (company at Indonesia); [27] (magazine?). I also found it: [28] [29], using it as a name of someone. Abesca (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fast math

[edit]

kind of obviously, the primary topic is math operations done with speed over accuracy, right? well, yes, but just behind that were assorted math apps with ratings suspiciously under 4.4 (where i come from, that means they're unusable garbage), just behind them were assorted games (some not in english), and just behind them was math related to speed. none of those seem to have good targets, and i didn't get any results related to floating points, so this wouldn't be a good target regardless consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like you aren't searching properly. Google "fast math" has 795,000 results, with all of the non-garbage results on the first and second pages being related to FP. Likewise for "fast-math". Artoria2e5 🌉 02:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fast maths doesn't exist, which surprises me. A quick google search suggests it's the same thing (I think, but I'm not as certain of this as I might be). If it is the same then it should be created as a redirect to wherever Fast math points (if it isn't deleted). Thryduulf (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentioned/obscure Eragon redirects

[edit]

Delete these unmentioned/obscure Eragon redirects. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarify - Nom rationale is "unmentioned/obscure"; could the nom identify which are unmentioned (it seems they're all mentioned?), and clarify which policy or guideline is used to assess "obscurity" in a way that justifies redirect deletion? Thanks so much! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All are unmentioned except Fírnen. All of them are minor characters. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused, are we looking at the same page? List of The Inheritance Cycle characters mentions Bid'daum, Bid'Daum, Alalea, Anurin, Maud, Dellanir, King Evandar, Blagden, at least. Also Morzan, of which Morzna in the nom is a misspelling. And I'm still curious to better understand which policy or guideline is used to assess them as "minor" in a way that justifies redirect deletion. I'm not saying that's wrong, I literally just wanna make sure I understand the policy behind your argument; if it's right I'll happily vote delete. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I couldn't remember any of these characters, making them obscure to me. Some of them are mentioned briefly in the article but they don't seem to have much much impact on the story, making them minor. Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pppery (alt) (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No valid rationale, defaulting to Weak Keep - "I don't remember them" or "their story impact was not major" are not valid redirect deletion rationales and I haven't seen any other policy-based rationale brought up to delete the redirects of character names to the list where the characters are mentioned. Maybe Delete Morzna and Ineritance places as implausible misspellings. I'm more than happy to revise my position to support deletion if anyone can show me something even approaching a policy or guideline that covers deleting redirects based on character "obscurity" and how to quantify such a factor. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    oh scheiße i actually missed that tyo, good catch consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Dragon wing (article)" since the title doesn't make sense - the Dragon Wing was a boat. Delete the mispellings as Ben Salvidrim says. Keep the remainder as redirecting distinctive character and place names to the relevant article is I think standard practice. User:GKFXtalk 12:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Morzna", "Ineritance places", and "Dragon wing (article)" per Salvidrim and GKFX. No one has provided a valid deletion rationale for the remainder and the nominator cannot apparently even produce a correct list of which are actually unmentioned at the target pages, so keep without prejudice to renomination. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

William Beaumont Hospital, Grosse Pointe

[edit]

Target pages, both original and recently changed, are lists of multiple hospitals owned by Corewell Health, featuring little individual detail about each; other hospitals of similar prominence on that list do not have a redirect page.

This hospital, now known as Corewell Health Grosse Pointe Hospital, was known from 2007 to 2022 as Beaumont Hospital Grosse Pointe, and has never been commonly called "William Beaumont Hospital." 42-BRT (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean delete I found one news article referring to the hospital using this name, but the only other references were NPI databases. Most hits use the current name or simply "Beaumont Hospital Grosse Pointe" as stated in the nom's rationale. D8 pushes me towards deletion, but ping me if other sources using the "William Beaumont" name are found. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Run, Riddler, Run

[edit]

a short series that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. probably doesn't stand a chance of having a mention or article. or maybe it does. results on my end were so confused about things other than the joker's presence in the series (spoilers: he's not the riddler) that they slowly devolved into pokémon consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmentioned redirect. As of today, no discussion of Batman: Run, Riddler, Run has been added to the article despite the discussion here and at Talk:Riddler#Missing paragraph. The redirect can always be recreated if at some point there is consensus to cover this topic in the article (or elsewhere on en-wiki). As it stands, this is bridge to nowhere as the target provides zero explanation or information about "Run, Riddler, Run". The edit history at the redirect consists entirely of its creation in 2011 and two edits related to this RfD listing; it can safely be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Diplôme des Etudes Approfondies

[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Without mention and explanation to its language affinity in respect to its target, WP:FORRED as a helpful reason for deletion applies. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Master of Advanced Studies#France and francophone countries. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I had originally closed this discussion as retargeting here after seeing this comment. However, I then read the proposed target more thoroughly, and the target says that the target section's subject is "not to be confused with" the subject of this redirect, meaning it may not be an appropriate target, even though the redirect is mentioned there. (Chalk me up as a "neutral" for this option, I guess.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's definitely an appropriate target. It explains what this is for anyone looking for information on it and also explains that it can be confused for something else. -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I feel like it's a bit of a "bait and switch" problem: It's like a redirect targeting a page because of something mentioned in a hatnote ... the material is not there, and in this case, it's almost a dead end. Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Master of Advanced Studies#France and francophone countries per Tavix. I've added a link to MPhil at the target to provide a little more context. I understand the bait and switch concern since the proposed target explicitly describes a different degree, but by also describing the distinction, this provides some useful information to readers. In this case, I find the description more useful than search results which mostly just show articles that mention someone having this degree. Sometimes the best place to describe a topic is in an article or section where it is contrasted with the main subject and that may be the case here. If there's another article or section that could describe this better, (future) retargeting may be appropriate. What's nice about this target is that it at least attempts to cover global francophone usage rather than just being a section on France, which has been a problem with finding a single appropriate target for similar redirects in the past.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Peter II of Kongo

[edit]

This seem to be a novel – per WP:R#DELETE 8 – anglicization of this name that is not found elsewhere, at least from internet searches. Would likely be best being deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 01:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying to avoid a "no consensus" close, considering votes seem to be 1 "delete" and 1 "weak keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisc

[edit]

Random typo, no more deserving a redirect than any other; this is unhelpful, as a normal search will already suggest this (if the dropdown box doesn't get you first). A reasonable person shouldn't otherwise expect this to work. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per auto-fill and precedent of redirects like this getting R3'd (though this one was declined). HurricaneZetaC 23:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delet per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delet per nom.–DMartin (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pressing enter before the last letter is one of the most common typos. This is exacerbated when the target is so well-viewed: out of 43,000 searches monthly, a few will make this typo and it costs virtually nothing to save them each 5 seconds. See how well viewed Donald TrumDonald Trum is: [30]. J947 ‡ edits 08:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per auto-fill. Squawk7700 (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per J947. Vorbis, we get it, you think we need to change WP:RTYPO to "Typo redirects should always be deleted", but that's not what prior consensus re: typo redirects is. Typo and misspelling redirects are explicitly helpful and can be fairly plausible.
    Re: HurricaneZeta: Auto-fill shouldn't be an instant trounce, given the actual search bar is not the only place people dive into Wikipedia from; Wikipedia articles can be reached from the address bar, from on-site links, from off-site links, and from outside search providers like Google or DuckDuckGo. While on-site links should simply be repaired if found, and search providers are expected to help typo searches, that's not the case for off-site links (where we can't expect Wikipedia editors to be able to fix the links to Wikipedia standards) or address bar searches (which delve directly into the redirects without touching our search bar). 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was deserving of a redirect because Luka Maglc thought it was useful enough to create it. And now that it has been created, it's more harmful to delete it than to keep it. Last letter omission is a natural typo to make and San Francisco is a popular topic making this a likely typo to make or encounter. -- Tavix (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Luka Magic has created hundreds of bad redirects, and this is one of them. "And now that it has been created, it's more harmful to delete it than to keep it." This is utter nonsense; no harm comes from deletion whatsoever. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is... MOSTLY incorrect. As per Meta:DDR and WP:RHARMFUL, deleting a redirect CAN be harmful; partially because A: we can't ever guarantee that it's not being used SOMEWHERE, and B: there may be important history we might lose if the redirect is deleted. (DDR has more examples of ways that deleting redirects may be harmful; they're mostly not applicable here.) Thus, we should only delete a redirect if the redirect itself is harmful (i.e. it causes confusion, it goes to the wrong place, it goes to a place that doesn't discuss whatever it's talking about, WP:NOT issues, et cetera)....
    OR, as WP:RHARMFUL points out, if the redirect is sufficiently recent, that in and of itself minimizes the harm deleting the redirect may cause, by minimizing both the history that could be deleted and the chance that someone might have linked to it from on-site or off-site. And indeed, checking the history page for this redirect, this was put at RFD the same day it was created, which does indeed shoot in the foot any discussion of the idea that deleting this redirect is harmful. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From redirect's talk page: This redirect should not be speedy deleted as an implausible typo or misnomer, because... User:Luka Maglc/RedirectLastLetterTypo --Luka Maglc (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC) Abesca (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LRBM

[edit]

I did not find the string "LRBM" in the article text nor an explanation of its meaning at the redirect target "Intermediate-range ballistic missile". -> Rational 8 per WP:R#DELETE. Grand-Duc (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Long-range ballistic missile redirects to Intermediate-range ballistic missile, I'm guessing LRBM is an R from Avoided Double Redirect to Long-range ballistic missile. My question tho is why LRBM is this rathr than Intercontinental ballistic missile. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- LRBM is not a term in common usage with regards to ballistic missiles, which are categorized by widely recognized range bands of "Intercontinental-range", "Intermediate-range", "Medium-range", and "Short-range", with a few specialized categories aside. These terms are used because they equate to internationally defined range brackets in arms control treaties. Long Range Ballistic Missile, and LRBM in particular as an acronym thereof, do not have any such basis and are not used in the military or arms control communities. Incidental usages, i.e. "long range" as an independent modifier from the term "ballistic missile", rather than being meant as a specific categorization, are not referring to the same concept and would not merit inclusion here.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Soviet MRBMs, IRBMs, and LRBMs are mentioned in the BGM-109G Gryphon article. Also, if LRBM is not applicable for missiles, then shouldn't it retarget Maramureș Airport which is hatnoted from the current target? Jay 💬 13:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC, the BGM-109G Gryphon article is where I actually noticed the redirect and what prodded me into opening this DR. It's actually currently the single real link from the main namespace, so I'll proceed to remove it. Your find of the use of LRBM as ICAO short is more than enough reason for me to change the redirect target. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Origaming

[edit]

made-up gerund, potentially a bad pun, apparently the name of two unnotable brands consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
y'know, i should probably have explained that the bad pun results weren't about origami. most were about gaming, and a couple of those were specifically about ori, but hell if i can determine what the others were about beyond "not origami". this is probably only somewhat useful to establish that i don't think this would be a plausible target if it was a plausible redirect consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I Must Scream

[edit]

consider this a weak nom if you want. or don't, i'm not your cfo

i thought this would be a plausible shortening of the title, but it actually seems to mostly see use when referring to the trope in tv tropes, so would it count as surprising if it relates to the trope namer? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and optionally add an external link to the target. As consarn says, this is a plausible shortening of the title (in fact, I Have No Mouth exists, too). I don't see a good reason to delete it, and a retarget to TV Tropes would be inappropriate since it's not mentioned there. If readers are looking for the trope, it's the second result on my search engine. Maybe an external link to the trope should be added for readers searching internally. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Childlove movement and its talk page

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

Raadkamer

[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 06:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to both close an old long day and since I cannot perform the consensus I see per WP:NACD. Reminder that per WP:RELIST, if consensus is determined, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly redirects

[edit]

WP:Friendly, WP:FRIENDLY, WP:FRIEND, WP:Fdly, WP:FDLY, and WP:FREINDLY are all redirects to WP:Twinkle. I updated the target of this page to match but was reverted in Special:Diff/1330976808. I see no reason why this friendly should redirect somewhere else. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should stay the same thing that it is, because the Teahouse is a help page and Twinkle isn't. (Tbh I'm not really sure why the other ones redirect to Twinkle, but I think that the Help one definitely should stay to Teahouse.) SomeoneDreaming (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The other links redirect to Twinkle because Friendly used to be a set of scripts that was later folded into Twinkle (see e.g. Special:Permalink/410035412 and this later RFD). Primefac (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see! Some Wikihistory!
I still think the Help one should go to Twinkle but the context is useful. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle the other six shortcuts, 'cause I'm also not sure why it redirects to Twinkle. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
​ Feel free to read my comment immediately above yours. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by bundle? Sorry, I don’t use RFD a lot but came here from teahouse talk. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ user:SomeoneDreaming: If you look elsewhere in RFD, you'll see plenty of times where a whole batch of redirects are nominated all at once in a 'bundle'-- this is usually because they're being nominated for the same reason, and often either already share a target, or the nominator thinks they SHOULD share a target. I suggested the other FRIENDLY redirects be bundled in because...
@ User:Primefac I hadn't seen Primefac's comment, because the page hadn't refreshed yet on my end. Whoopsie. I still feel the bundle should happen, just in case someone comes up with a convincing argument that the FRIENDLY redirects should be moved off of Twinkle; but at the same time, I can see it not being necessary especially given I'm going to officially be the first one to !vote for retargeting to WP:Twinkle as per Primefac. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling with the other six shortcuts, as suggested by Lunamann.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to a different page (possibly a beginner getting started page, though I'm not sure which). I don't think Friendly's folding into Twinkle is that common enough to warrant this many redirects, and the Teahouse being "Friendly" seems subjective. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 02:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last few comments seemed to muddy consensus a bit, hoping for clarification via additional comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dabbling

[edit]

Should redirect to dabbling ducks (dabbling is the characteristic behavior of these very common birds), rather than a single obscure episode. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. When I created the redirect I wasn't aware of the duck article. If that's the primary topic for that word then I agree it should redirect there. I have created Dabbling (The Vice), which I can update to serve as the main redirect for the TV episode. --Jameboy (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cis LGB

[edit]

Nothing really helpful at the target; does not seem to be a likely search term either and potentially an WP:XY situation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a WP:XY situation; presumably someone searching for "Cis LGB" is referring to a person who is lesbian, gay, or bisexual but not trans (i.e. LGB but not T). CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially Refine to LGBTQ people#Drop the T. LGBTQ_(term)#Drop the T (edit at 11:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as XY with no clear target. While the query is about people who are both cisgender and lesbian, gay, or bisexual, it doesn't imply a broader trans-exclusionary view (one could equally search for trans LGB without a similar implication), so I don't think LGBTQ (term)#Drop the T is a good target.--Trystan (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 06:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the concept is also defined in LGBTQ slang#cisqueer. The ones from #DroptheT movement typically refuse to use the word cis, so this isn't related inherently with trans-exclusionary activists. And this is also defined in the variants list. ZNático (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to LGBTQ slang#cisqueer per ZNático's idea. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

25Live

[edit]

I propose that this page be converted to a disambiguation page that also links to CollegeNET, which produces the 25Live classroom scheduling software. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 06:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the current target is referred to with the space between 25 and Live. Retarget to Skunk Anansie discography, the same target of 25Live@25. Morrissey: 25 Live may be hatnoted from 25 Live though, which is the primary topic for 25 Live. Jay 💬 03:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gouine

[edit]

Disambiguate with LGBTQ slang#gouine, and add wiktionary entry. Abesca (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also used in Gouines rouges Abesca (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on creating a dab at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as {{R to diacritic}} and add a hatnote to LGBTQ slang#gouine per WP:DIACRITICS and WP:ONEOTHER. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with hatnote as per voorts, although I will support a dab in the case that we have a WP:NOPRIMARY issue; that said, I highly doubt that an obscure French LGBTQ slang term is anywhere close to primary topic over an admittedly probably just-as-obscure town in Ivory Coast. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per voorts. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 03:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per voorts, town is primary over a French term with only a dictionary definition. Sign² (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Islamization of Economy

[edit]

Delete as too broad and vague to be useful. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Islamic economics is probably the most appropriate target we can offer, though the redirect implies something slightly different, i.e., moving towards Islamic economics. I don't feel strongly enough to specifically recommend retargeting there. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very well used redirect – so much so that the article Pakistan actually links to it. That's because "Islamization of economy" or "Islamisation of economy" appears to be a very popular term to describe what the current target is talking about. Keep as this term appears to be used overwhelmingly in Pakistan contexts rather than referring to any other country. The current target mentions Islamisation or Islamization 20 times; Islamic economics mentions it only once, when referring to Islamic economics in Pakistan. J947 ‡ edits 00:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per history this is apparently an {{R from move}} to Islamisation of the economy in Pakistan in 2012; that is now a redirect to Islamic economics in Pakistan. This should be tagged accordingly. The wording sure seems ambiguous but usage in articles shows consistent association with Pakistan. The redirect gets a fair bit of monthly traffic, probably owing to its appearance in so many articles. Given the awkward phrasing and the capitalization of Economics, I think this is a somewhat implausible search term for someone looking for the broader topic Islamic economics. It also seems rather unlikely that editors are typing this redirect fresh expecting a different target; I suspect most of the use in articles has been in place for a long time or is put there by editors who are active in this subject area and know where it points. (I have not dug into the history of the redirect links in individual articles.) The seeming ambiguity does not appear to have materialized into a real-world problem for readers and editors and seems unlikely to. If there is evidence to the contrary, this can be revisited for deletion or retargeting. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 06:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Waterie

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Only mention on Wikipedia is at Wateree people. Merriam-Webster does define it as an alternative name for the wagtail, especially the pied wagtail.

Look up Waterie in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wiktionary defines it only as an archaic form of watery (which just redirects to water). The bird does appear to be the primary use, if a sourced mention can be added- probably at white wagtail with the redirect being retargeted there. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aww, that's a cute bird! I looked up "waterie" on both Google and Marginala, no results for any birds of any sort. Mostly just dictionaries that either agree with it being an archaic form of "watery" or citing Webster. I figured there'd at least be some birdwatcher forum that calls them wateries, so I think Webster might just be wrong? Delete since I think targeting to water is a stretch. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 06:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, disambiguate, something else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Masters

[edit]

Suggest disambiguating. There are many other 2021 Masters tournaments there could be, which are all linked in the article instead of being a disambiguation page, which are see 2021 Masters (snooker), 2021 Masters (darts) and 2021 Masters (curling). FantasticWikiUser (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to create the requested disambiguation page(s)? It should not be de facto up to the closer to do this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur intelligence

[edit]

This was BLARed a few years ago following a rather brief discussion at WP:DINO. It seems the main concern was simply quality, and although the page's content was poorly sourced, the amount of literature on the subject should easily justify an entire article. BLARing might have been a cheap way to avoid a discussion at AfD, but this is no good as a redirect, as it simply targets the dinosaur article (it was later refined to "intelligence" which does not currently exist and information on intelligence in general is scarcely mentioned anywhere in the article). I don't love the idea of deleting this redirect and losing the potentially valuable history, but I do find the idea of returning to red appealing. Maybe restore and draftify? — Anonymous 22:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Revolution

[edit]

These 2007-era redirects go to a nonexistent section name. While "Infinite spin" as a term does still show up at Tetris#Versions, the term "Infinite rotation" does not appear in the article at all. History dive indicates that the section in question was removed during an overhaul to the larger Gameplay section it was parented to, in February of last year. I also question exactly how unique these terms are to the concept of Tetris...? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth is Really Flat

[edit]

title suggests the name of a book or something, but nah, it was just conspiratorial quackery. implausible search term regardless consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

flerf

[edit]

where i come frorf, we call french bread "frerf bread", or we call it "fred", or we call it "my beautiful dress", or we call it "chef jonathan lonathan", or we caac

unmentioned meme, seemingly sees more use in youtube poops consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plausible search term, unambiguously refers to a flat-earther (wikt:flerf). Sign² (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
holy engie mother of canadian sputnik cyclops wizard maggot painises, we need some sauce in that fuufcking entry
which is to say, i'm not really willing to put too much trust in an unreferenced wiktionary definition, be it to keep or to soft redirect. also disagree with the alleged unambiguity per results consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bpesin

[edit]

Misspellings with a tiny amount of pageviews over the past 5 years. Delete as unhelpful for the reader. "Bpesin" especially seems implausible, but I'd argue both should go. TNstingray (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Israel R. Bird

[edit]

I can't find evidence anywhere of his middle name starting with R. https://historicnewspapers.sc.edu/lccn/sn93067705/1878-01-26/ed-1/seq-3.pdf at this link it starts with S. KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube's Community Guidelines

[edit]

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED - I don't think anyone looking for the community guidelines would find what they are looking for at the YouTube article. Squawk7700 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In a quick search, the YouTube article does say "the platform has been criticized for its ... inconsistent implementation of platform guidelines" and

In December 2024, YouTube introduced new guidelines prohibiting videos with clickbait titles to enhance content quality and combat misinformation. The platform aims to penalize creators using misleading or sensationalized titles, with potential actions including video removal or channel suspension

but nothing major and meaningful about it. Without any more context, I'd vote delete. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Subservients

[edit]

Subservience is a broader category than D/s. For example, subservience includes maids and slaves but D/s doesn't. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 14:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • On balance, probably delete. "Subservient" as a noun is barely even a word, and even then it's got an ambiguous definition. I would also be happy with redirecting it to a new disambiguation page for the concept of "subservience" or "submission". I would definitely be a subservient if anyone could turn up any more specific definitions, however. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 18:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Teleoconch

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: moot: a solid artice was created. --Altenmann >talk 19:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral shell

[edit]

this one's a little weird, since it's an r from unicode emoji thingy related to 🐚, but the target itself doesn't focus on spiral shells, or even mention them at all. however, other articles related to similar shells, like mollusc shell and gastropod shell do, and spire (mollusc) is all about those. should this just be a dab? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 14:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle-Tacoma

[edit]

"Seattle-Tacoma" is a common term for the Seattle–Tacoma metropolitan areaSeattle–Tacoma metropolitan area. It doesn't always refer to the airport. More broadly, the term can also refer to the Seattle–Tacoma combined statistical areaSeattle–Tacoma combined statistical area, a census-designated place approximately corresponding to the larger Puget Sound region. The airport isn't really known as "Seattle-Tacoma"; it is often called "SeaTac" or "Sea–Tac" or even "Seattle", but it isn't really called "Seattle-Tacoma" very much. I suggest disambiguating the term; there is a dab page at SeaTac (disambiguation) that already lists these topics. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Danish Realm

[edit]

Retarget to {{Country data Kingdom of Denmark}} per Danish Realm. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-since

[edit]

This specific redirect doesn't seem too useful. Given that the name is an extension of Template:Cleanup, it's most likely never going to be stumbled upon or be confused with the aforementioned template. The redirect itself seems to never be used and has received barely any views, whereas Template:Cleanup has received significantly more than it. 8BitBros (talk page • contributions) 06:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beach tree

[edit]

This could be confused with any tree found on the beach. Image search showed a mix of beech trees and palm trees, so there is ambiguity on what readers are more likely to look for. This redirect is similar in style to the redirect for discussion on frozen desert. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Beekeeper (upcoming film)

[edit]

The Beekeeper 2 has existed since the film was announced in February 2025. Other than a small spike on March 30, 2025, pageviews for this redirect have been fairly consistent since May 2024 (four months after the first film was released). At no point was this redirect used for the second film. So here's the question: what are readers looking for when they use this redirect, information about the first film or the second one? The Beekeeper 2 would certainly be the accurate target. But what if readers are still following old external links expecting to learn about the original movie, as the static pageviews would seem to suggest? Should we keep, then? Retarget to The Beekeeper (2024 film)#Sequel as a compromise? Or just delete it since we have no way of knowing what the readers are actually looking for? No matter what we do, it is possible that some reader will at least be minorly inconvenienced. I2Overcome talk 02:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget (as the technical creator of the redirect?) to The Beekeeper 2. Anyone looking for The Beekeeper (the first) would presumably type that in, not the parenthetical. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

City (Georgia)

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

also a page called List of cities and towns in Georgia (country). Jq 💬 contributions 22:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To disambiguation page List of cities and towns in Georgia. From an ambiguous term. Not everyone is aware of the difference of a city and a town and could be searched by people searching for both targets. I also think expanding the DAB page would be a good idea. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Special:PermanentLink/1334358056#City (Georgia) deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Village (Georgia) redirects to Village (United States) without a mention of Georgia. I do believe that this redirect should be discussed as well. (It may or may not be bundled.) However, I don't have a definite decision on the discussed redirect since every existing "Type of place (U.S. state or country)" redirect seems to go to a different type of article. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the current target is exactly what anyone clicking on this link (which is used in about 10 articles and could probably be used in many more) would want and expect to see - an explanation of the meaning of 'city' in the US state of Georgia. There are similar redirects for most other US states, because they often have their own definitions of terms such as 'city', 'town', 'village' etc. If the state doesn't have its own definition, these redirects go to the corresponding article for the US as a whole (as noted above). This is helpful to readers, and not in any way a problem. It doesn't need to be changed or removed. If we really think that there might be confusion with the country of Georgia, disambiguation could be added, but absent strong evidence to the contrary I don't see that as necessary. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible search term. --Altenmann >talk 07:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:: Several respondents have observed that it's an implausible search term. That's true, but that's not the purpose of this redirect. It's to be used (and is used) in articles about cities in Georgia, to take the reader to a location that explains the significance of the term 'city' in Georgia. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambigate per Lunamann. First of all, definitely do not keep target as it is ambiguous with Georgia (country). Prefer disambiguation over deletion since this is a valid and commonly used way to find what a 'city' means in a certain region (compare City (Florida), City (United States), etc). The disambiguation page should have links to the existing information sufficiently explaining what a 'city' is in Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country) [add link or merge with List of cities and towns in Georgia if neccessary]. Sign² (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

John Harris (English cricketer, 1740s)

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

Joseph Harris (English cricketer)

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

Eleanor (ship)

[edit]

These should probably target Beaver (ship), Dartmouth#Ships, and Eleanor (disambiguation)#Ships, respectively. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Eleanor (ship) and Dartmouth (ship) per nom. Delete the other three - no sources state that any of the ships at Boston had "The" as part of their names. Tevildo (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. G

[edit]

Dr. G could also refer to Doctor G, which gets about triple the page views. In addition, I'm sure some of the pages from the prefix index at Dr. G and Doctor G use the abbreviation. Not sure if Dr. G should be retargetted to Doctor G or disambiguated, but I don't prefer the current target. Mathguy2718 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep the primary topic in my google results is for a brand of "dermacosmetic" skincare creams and related products that we don't have any content about (that I've found). Neither the reality TV series (current target) or film (Doctor G) appear in the first three pages of my search results, the TV series gets one hit on page 4, but that's it to the end of page 6. However, when searching for "Dr. G." -Wikipedia -skincare -moisturiser -cream almost all the results on the first three pages are for either the current target or for a soundcloud/youtube artist who doesn't seem at first glance to be notable. I would suggest adding a hatnote from Doctor G to the TV series though (one already exists for the opposite direction). Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

VESDA

[edit]

Apparently, "VESDA"/"Vesda" is a trademark/product of Xtralis (now part of Honeywell, but Honeywell doesn't mention "VESDA" or "Vesda" in its content) so I'm recommending that these redirects be retargeted there. (Note: VESDA is a {{R with history}} due to a WP:BLAR which occurred in 2008.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reckon they both retarget to Xtralis given that VESDA is mentioned in that article as one of Xtralis' products. This should honestly be a non-controversial task, so you could always be WP:BOLD amd WP:DOITYOURSELF instead of starting a discussion. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
retarget both to Xtralis It only seems fair to Xtralis - they are at risk of their trademark becoming genericized anyway, so we might as well do our bit to avoid that. — The Anome (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it potentially controversial since the current target also mentions VESDA. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions VESDA specifically in the context of Xtralis. Otherwise, it's like having Kleenex redirect to paper tissue. — The Anome (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@The Anome: I guess you aren't aware of what happened at Velcro... Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 22 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 21 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 20 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 19

Template:Wikipedia community

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1335395990"