Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFDHOWTO)
"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 Nov Dec Jan Feb Total
CfD 0 20 201 0 221
TfD 0 0 70 0 70
MfD 0 0 8 0 8
FfD 0 0 44 0 44
RfD 0 0 18 0 18
AfD 0 0 8 0 8

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

February 1

[edit]

Village (Georgia)

[edit]


This could refer to both villages in Georgia (U.S. state) as well as villages in Georgia (country); maybe disambiguate? Duckmather (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Astronomica

[edit]

Marked as an avoided double redirect to Astronomica (a disambiguation page), but I'm not sure whether it's plausible for any of the topics listed on the page to be referred to as "The Astronomica" (emphasis added), though this one seems like the most plausible one. I'm torn between keep and delete. Duckmather (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Javas

[edit]

Not mentioned in target, even when the redirect was created. Not sure if anything at Java (disambiguation) is worth retargeting to or if this redirect should be deleted. Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete since google doesn't suggest any clear standout meaning; the search results are split between coffee, the Java programming language, the island, a given name (???), and a word in Sanskrit. Though it should be noted that wikt:java suggests that coffee is the only pluralizable meaning Duckmather (talk) 22:39, 1 February 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blue-ribbon bisexual

[edit]

Not mentioned; misleading. Abesca (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Web search turns up a variety of related uses. It is not specific to or even clearly associated with lesbians. These redirects are indeed misleading or, at best, will confuse or frustrate readers seeking an explanation of this specific terminology. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are a variety of meanings with suitable targets mage a disambiguation page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]
    A search of Wikipedia reveals no suitable targets and in fact no mention of the phrase blue-ribbon bisexual anywhere except for these redirects. My external (web) search, referenced in my initial response, revealed a hodgepodge of similar phrases. None appeared notable and none used these specific strings of words. A Google search for "blue-ribbon bisexual" with quotes turned up only two hits: This RFD discussion and this seemingly inactive Twitter account of a non-notable individual with fewer than 700 followers. Two hits is staggeringly low. Even fairly niche LGBTQ slang and terminology will (often) have many page of Google hits from wiki-unreliable sources and often some coverage in RS. By all indications, the term blue-ribbon bisexual is essentially not in use but may be an occasional coinage with no consistent meaning and no wiki-verifiably notable meaning. And, again, no specific relationship to lesbians. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC) edited 23:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "It is not specific to or even clearly associated with lesbians"... "lesbians"? Do you mean bisexuals, or am I missing something? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Organhaver The current target is a section of the article Lesbian. I’m trying to be crystal clear that I can find no consistent association with the current target nor with any other target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this was originally a redirect to Gold star lesbian, which was merged within Lesbian and now it exists under another title for the general term Gold star; Blue ribbon says it's something that exists at high quality. Looking at the page historial, the term was mentioned, from this website, here's the meaning: Blue-ribbon bisexuals – have had multiple serious relationships with partners of different genders. What it appears to be: a proposal for an inverse counterpart to Gold star lesbian, and implying this would be a high-quality (blue-ribbon) bisexual. But as Myceteae found out, this term never really caught on. That website was probably one of the first shown via Google at that time, now it's faded into obscurity. Abesca (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trans gay

[edit]

Inconsistent with each other. I'm wondering if other redirects need to be retargeted or nominated: Straight trans man, Bisexual trans woman, Asexual trans woman, Straight trans woman. For reference, Cis gay man exists. Abesca (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, most of the redirects (probably not "Transmen attracted to men" or "Transwomen attracted to women"), have some possible value, although Trans gay men, Trans lesbian, Transgender lesbian, and Lesbian trans woman have a stronger case to be kept due to their mentions across pages. Trans dyke may have some value, as it refers to "tryke" I think. Otherwise, "Bisexual trans woman" has value in being kept, due to mentioned on pages on here, as does "Straight trans woman" (I used it on three pages: List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2010–2014, List of fictional transgender characters, and List of cross-dressing characters in animated series). I'm not sure about "Asexual trans woman", "Cis gay man", or "Straight trans man", though. Historyday01 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ethopharmacology

[edit]

I would delete this unmentioned redirect but this is an {{R from merge}} so I understand that is not to be done lightly. Note that the "Behavioral pharmacology" section no longer exists. Ethopharmacology was previously a poorly sourced stub that was merged into the main article in 2015. The content was reorganized and moved around and eventually removed in 2020 (Special:Diff/936612708) as part of an entire section that failed verification. Now the redirect only serves to frustrate, confuse, or mislead readers who will find zero coverage of the topic. The topic is probably notable, with over 4,000 Google Scholar hits, so WP:RETURNTORED applies. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term is mentioned at Human ethology#References and is confusing with Ethnopharmacology. Abesca (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion with Ethnopharmacology came up in several back-and-forth edits to Pharmacology over the years. Ethopharmacology is also mentioned in a reference at Tandospirone and an in the infobox at Ina Vandebroek. I found no mention in article prose and no description or definition anywhere on internal search.[1] If suitable coverage (more than a passing mention) is added back to Pharmacology or to Human ethology or some other article that may be a suitable target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

B'omarr Monk

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget to List of Star Wars species (A–E)#B'omarr monks.

Biochemistry Pharmacology

[edit]

Delete as WP:XY. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biochemical Pharmacology (SUNYAB-1973)

[edit]

Delete unmentioned redirect. The history provides no indication of what this is supposed to mean but apparently this has something to do with the redirect creator's dissertation.[2] —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Medical remedy

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

Macropharmacology

[edit]

Delete unmentioned redirect. This is an obscure term that does not have a consistent meaning. I found only three hits on Google Scholar that use this term and one other scientific paper. Two refer to Traditional Chinese medicine or herbal medicine. Another distinguishes micropharmacology within individual cells from macropharmacology‍: a deterministic or phenomenologic function of time. Regular Google thinks this is an error and returns results discussing the pharmacology of macrolides. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksepticeye2

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 15:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic Big? Watermelon

[edit]

Not only does the Suika Game page not mention the word "synthetic" anywhere, this is arguably WP:XY with the idea of flavoring. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin X

[edit]

As denoted by the page, Aladdin X is a company that is mainly focused on projection hardware; Suika Game's success happened by accident. I can see someone trying to look up information on this company and getting really WP:SURPRISEd when they see this. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beamflot

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

🥰

[edit]

I suggest retarget to love. If 😍 redirects to love despite also being a "love face", why is this one redirecting specifically to Romantic love? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 07:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, this emoji is used to express gratitude, agreeableness, or a thank you, and it's more similar to the use of 🤗 and care emoji]. Abesca (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#List of heart related emojis because I think the idea of retargeting re: the meaning of the emoji is running into way too many WP:XY issues. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#List of heart related emojis. This emoji does not map unambiguously to another encyclopedic concept. Consistent with the consensus described at WP:REMOJI, this is a suitable target that provides context for the emoji itself without declaring a primary topic such as Love or Romance. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:49, 2 February 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10.69469

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

President Silva

[edit]

Ambiguous with Artur da Costa e Silva, Aníbal Cavaco Silva, and probably more. Abesca (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS Seabird

[edit]

No mention at target or anywhere else on enwiki. A quick Google search brings up nothing about a paddle steamer with this name. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add mention and keep but mark as a {{R from misspelling}}. Most of my Google results were partial title matches for the "PS Seabird Survey" by the Washington Ornithological Society (I'm guessing that "PS" stands for Puget Sound here). However I was able to find [3] which states "In 1868, [paddle steamer] Seabird was engulfed in a fire and at least 100 people lost their life through fire or drowning." but I don't know how reliable that site is. This book is reliable and confirms the existence of the ship ("Among the other notable boats were the Seabird and the Eliza Anderson. The former carried immense crowds, but drew too much water for the river trade.") but doesn't say anything else about it. This Facebook post about a different shipwreck includes the sentence "The Alpena was purchased by Goodrich in 1868 From Gallagher to replace the Steamer Seabird which burned off of Waukegan IL in 1868." That led me to [4] which contains more than enough referenced information about the sinking of a paddle steamer named "Sea Bird" off Waukegan, Illinois on 9 April 1868 for an entry, indeed it looks like there is enough information to write an article. "Seabird" is very obviously a plausible search term for "Sea Bird". Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Palojarv

[edit]

Nonsense redirect that should be deleted. Categorized as "to the same page name with diacritics", referring to Palojärv, which got deleted in 2024.

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Network (mathematics)

[edit]

This redirect currently links to Graph (discrete mathematics). "Network" is sometimes used to mean "graph", but can have other meanings as well. This page was previously a redirect to Flow network; before that, it was an article. Since users could be looking for various different pages, and there's not an obvious primary topic, I believe this page would best redirect to Network, but there are other potential options, such as Network theory. The BooleanTalk 01:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Finagler

[edit]

Unmentioned in target. Someone who searches this word will get no information on what a "finagler" is. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft

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

Somehow this slipped past the radar quite recently and became a XNR. I thinking it's worth quoting the aforementioned essay here: Currently, the general consensus seems to be that most newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted, but that very old ones might retain their value for extra-Wikipedia links. It is true that this term is primarily associated with Wikipedia, but the policy when it comes to XNRs is that they are preferably (when they exist at all) not common search terms, as they are meant for editors, not readers. I think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is fine. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:06, 1 February 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 1 February 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 1 February 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was there a merge or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nom tagged this as {{R from merge}} before listing this at RFD. Like J947, I find no evidence that the merge procedure was actually carried out, despite the outcome listed at the AFD. The AFD closed on 14 June 2012 but this was not converted to a redirect until 27 December 2012.[5] The edit summary for the redirect does not say anything about a merger. There were no edits to Nick Jonas on the day Nick Jonas Promotional Concerts was converted to a redirect. The versions of Nick Jonas immediately before[6] and after[7] the redirect's creation make no mention of "Nick Jonas Promotional Concerts" and do not appear to contain any merged content per my spot check. My perspective is biased since I spend far more time at RFD than AFD, but this appears to be an all-too-common occurrence where an AFD is closed as 'merged' but no merger actually occurs. This creates confusion at RFD and can lead to the preservation of useless and misleading redirects. My understanding is that {{R from merge}} should only be used when content has actually been merged, and not solely based on a discussion that said a merger was supposed to have happened. Thus I would remove the {{R from merge}} tag if kept or retargeted unless I am mistaken. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:25, 1 February 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 1 February 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Intellect (videophone)

[edit]

...what? this doesn't seem to be a term in the context of telephony, videotelephony, or fraud, and even if it was, i found nothing that suggests that it would be a synonym for "fraud" or that this would be a grammatically correct disambiguator unless it's referring to a specific model of videophone consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally a redirect to Videophone#Other early devices, and the section it linked to is [here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Videophone&oldid=379811087#Other_early_devices:_1976%E2%80%931999] Or at least that's the section it was INTENDED to link to, the anchor seemed... malformed???
Anyways, after a merge in 2012 with Videotelephony that... happened again in 2017???... this redirect was pointed there by a bot, and then... the creator of the redirect saw that the reference to the Intellect had been removed as it was "fraudulent" and rather than getting the redirect deleted, retargeted the redirect to "Fraud"????
I am extremely confused but I'm pretty sure this should get deleted. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The retargeting is probably a protest from the creator, right? Abesca (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
let's make it weirder!! here are some details i found...
  • mentions of the intellect seem to have mostly been written/copyedited by this redirect's creator since its creation by someone else in 2007... but they also removed it in 2012, and vandalized the redirect (yeah i'm just gonna call it vandalism) in 2013
  • of the sources i could find for the intellect scattered across the history, some only mentioned the intellect in passing... and some don't seem to have ever existed in the first place. i couldn't even find proof of their existence in the internet archive. that said, this might just be a skill issue in my part
  • my fridge is broken (╬▔皿▔)╯
  • looking for results and stuff, i found nearly nothing of note. most mentions were either in passing or coincidental, and i also found nothing on its inventor being a fraudster or the intellect being a fraud. the only result i got that someone could maybe probably argue isn't as in passing as the others and might be reliable was this, but it's written in some sort of indecipherable glyphs, mentions of the intellect itself are still just kind of a sidenote, and it might have been written after the site turned into betting slop
  • i also found this. no idea what it's about
i really hope this is all just a really unlucky string of coincidences lol consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 02:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional misrepresentation

[edit]

this is a weird one, in that it can refer to any kind of misrepresentation, even beyond misrepresentation covers. this means fraud, sure, but it can also refer to seemingly any type of shenanigan in which the deceit is intentional, regardless of whether or not other details are, of the degree of the deceit, and of whether or not that degree has been calculated. in legal documents, guides, and other such stuff, this seems to apply as synonyms to either specific kinds or any kind of bamboozling, in court or otherwise

all of this is to say, i'm torn between retargeting to misreprentation as "close enough but maybe not actually accurate enough to what a reader should find", or to lie as "technically more true but maybe not actually what a reader would be looking for under this specific context" consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

[edit]

Estafa

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

vague as a word from spanish or portuguese, though it sees use as a loanword in english... in the oddly specific context of filipino legal jargon, which the target doesn't mention. gets plenty of views, presumably due to incoming links, so it seems better off soft redirected to wikt:estafa consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:55, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 23:22, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 22:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert The relevant content lasted quite a while, until November 2022. The editor, @ELdEL69:, appears inactive, but I'll ping anyway. They removed it since the Yaka only appear in "Legends", aka Star Wars elements that became non-canonical with the Disney acquisition. ELdEL69 also started a discussion on the talk page, so all in all I think the removal was fine per WP:BOLD, but from what I can tell, none of the lists exclude Legends content as part of their criteria. Some of it is explicitly included and marked. So I suggest we simply revert the removal. --BDD (talk) 01:47, 2 February 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 22:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Mean time to recovery and Mean time to repair and this and all other MTTR variants aren't majorly different and probably only warrant one article (though it appears someone disagreed in the past). I haven't found a source that delineates what all of these mean, and I suspect their meanings vary significantly depending on the company. But this one can be ably retargetted to the dab page at MTTR which says "we haven't got restore, but we do have repair or recovery". J947 ‡ edits 23:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thừa Thiên

[edit]

Malplaced redirect. Not sure whether disambiguation is needed for "Thừa Thiên", since Huế links to it and was used to be called "Thừa Thiên Huế". Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Huế. Based on the history, it looks like I meant to retarget it there after the move, but must have forgotten, and no one noticed it for over a decade. It's possible! But yeah, the hatnote at Huế also suggests that was the intent. --BDD (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmachemical

[edit]

I would delete. This was originally created as a redirect to pharmaceutical; the source listed for this terminology in the 2004 edit summary is a dead URL. Google finds no usage of this term and assumes it is a misspelling (or maybe a psuedo-eggcorn?) of pharmaceutical, which is now a redirect to Medication. So, maybe retarget there as an avoided double redirect? I'm not crazy about it but it is better than the current target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DELTARUNE

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

Amphisexual

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

Delete unmentioned redirect that is either an error or a very obscure someimes-synonym with an ambiguous meaning. wikt:amphisexual defines this as "Able to develop into either sex." The redirect appears to be a frank error but it's possible this is an also a very obscure synonym for bisexual or ambisexual which has multiple meanings. Internal search reveals that the word is used only twice, in references to this article which refers to paternal care of eggs in the insect Rhynocoris tristis—"bisexuality" is not a plausible reading of the meaning here. Note that Draft:Amphisexual was never a draft of Bisexuality but was a draft of Amphisexual. This was always a soft redirect to Wiktionary, which as noted does not define this as synonymous with 'bisexual(ity)' (!) before being redirected to the current target —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary:amphisexual. Appears to be transliterated from Greek. Abesca (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:SOFTSP or Template:Wiktionary redirect. Amphisexual is not commonly wikified—there are no links in article space to this redirect—and the word itself never appears in the body of articles. Pageviews are low which indicates readers rarely search Wikipedia for this word. (The spike in views on January 29 is best explained by my prior RFD listing and as many as half of those might be from me revisiting the history and usage of this redirect.) The original Wiktionary redirect appears to be the product of a well-meaning but over-zealous editor who is mistaken about the word's meaning. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ambosexual

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

Delete unmentioned, undefined redirect per WP:R#DELETE#8 and as ambiguous. wikt:ambosexual lists this as a rare synonym for ambisexual and defines it as "hermaphroditic, or unisex". Additional definitions of ambisexual do support bisexuality as one of several meanings but the term is ambiguous and neither ambisexual nor ambosexual are used at the target; ambosexual appears nowhere on en-wiki. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to wikt:ambosexual, which is a direct translation from Esperanto. Abesca (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See also my response above in the amphisexual discussion. Ambosexual has higher pageviews than amphisexual but also is not linked in articles and the word itself does not even appear in articles. This doesn't meet the criteria for a soft redirect pet WP:SOFTSP and Template:Wiktionary redirect. The Esperanto Wikipedia article on Bisexuality is titled eo:Ambaŭseksemo. wikt:ambosexual has no entry for Esperanto and only includes the (obscure) English meaning. Google gives ambaŭseksema as the Esperanto translation for bisexual and does not detect ambosexual as a word in Esperanto. I don't speak Esperanto and I realize that the sources I've consulted are not definitive, but I can't find any support for this assertion. Even if I could, this doesn't justify a redirect, 'soft' or otherwise. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

History of Huế

[edit]

This redirect as well as many redirects involving "Huế" either go to Huế or Huế (provincial city). Most go to the provincial city because a bot was fixing a double redirect. Other redirects that need different discussions are included below:

For my stance, I prefer a retarget to Huế#History. Mathguy2718 (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ambisexual

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

Delete ambiguous terms that are not mentioned or defined at the target. Soft redirect to Wiktionary may be an appropriate alternative. 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. An internal search reveals that ambisexual is used with different meanings on en-wiki; for example, as synonymous with intersex in a footnote at Gender symbol and as sexually ambiguous/ambiguous gender at Ursula K. Le Guin § Gender and sexuality. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in History of bisexuality, which address hermaphrodite meaning and other possibilities. Abesca (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The term is mentioned once at History of bisexuality § Kinsey reports:

The scale considered people between K=1 and K=5 as "ambisexual" or "bisexual".

The next paragraph in the same section includes this line:

However, Kinsey himself disliked the use of the term bisexual to describe individuals who engage in sexual activity with both sexes, preferring to use "bisexual" in its original, biological sense as hermaphroditic…

This passing mention is not enough to justify a redirect here and doesn't actually address the various meanings of ambisexual but instead provides one example of historical usage. This includes a now-obsolete meaning of bisexual but doesn't address current or historical meanings of ambisexual. Taken together, the descriptions in this section are more likely to mislead readers into thinking that ambisexual unambiguously maps to the modern meaning of bisexual, when the opposite is true. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's not clear, the quoted sentences do not appear next to each other in the article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to wikt:ambisexual per Myceteae Urchincrawler (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A1A Aleworks

[edit]

Delete, no longer mentioned in article. There was previously a section mentioning it ([8]) 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]

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) 17:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

World Heritage & Recognitions of Bangladesh

[edit]

Delete it, it is an implausible term. I know that WP:AMPERSAND exists, but I am not sure about the policy on ampersands in redirects (could someone inform me?) Regardless I don't think it is plausible User:Easternsahara 22:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data DK

[edit]

Retarget to {{Country data Denmark}} per ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 § DK. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Faunal turnover

[edit]

The target has been changed twice, with both edit summaries rather tentative in nature. The current target is a specific hypothesis that has been disputed whereas faunal (or any other biological) turnover in general is accepted as fact by everyone except perhaps Young-Earth Creationists. I think this should be deleted as RETURNTORED. — An anonymous username, not my real name 16:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless a suitable target is found or content is added to describe the term generally. I agree that WP:RETURNTORED likely applies as a substantive encyclopedic entry can probably be written. If not a full article, then a dedicated section or at least a paragraph-length treatment that provides a general overview with links to important subtopics and related topics. Prior unilateral retargets are of course not binding anyway, but I agree with the nom's assessment that the edit summaries appear tentative and don't provide robust support for any of the targets that have been selected in the past.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube community guidelines

[edit]

Follow-up from WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 23#YouTube's Community Guidelines which resulted in deletion of YouTube's Community Guidelines, and where this could have, but was not, bundled. Delete this, as anyone looking for the community guidelines would not find what they are looking for at the YouTube article. Jay 💬 14:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the same rationale as my previous comment. The section which it targets also just... doesn't exist, which you mentioned before. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Crash // Organhaver; info requested isn't here. If anyone has a better redirect target, please feel free to mention it, but without that we don't need this. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Litauen

[edit]

"Litauen" is the name of Lithuania in several Germanic languages, but we don't want redirects for all non-English names of countries. Case in point: Lituanie (French name of the country) was deleted yesterday with reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of country names in various languages (3rd nomination). Chrisahn (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - No strong feelings, but redirects are cheap, and if someone doesn't speak German, and comes across a reference to Litauen (maybe on a postage stamp) they might be glad of the pointer. It's different enough from the English name that people might not easily guess. Doric Loon (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable points. On the other hand: Where do we draw the line? On Lithuania (Q37), "Litauen" (whole word) occurs 29 times, "Lituanie" (the redirect that was deleted yesterday) occurs 17 times. I lean towards deleting both, but I don't feel strongly about it either. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant question here is WP:RLANG and the question of affinity. Is Litauen the name of Lithuania in a language *spoken by a significant number of Lithuanians*, or similar? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. "spoken by a significant number of Lithuanians" – Certainly not today, and probably not in the past either. Baltic Germans were up to 10% of the population of Estonia and Latvia, but not Lithuania. Some Germans lived in Lithuania, but not a significant number, as far as I can tell, roughly 2% or the population. See e.g. de:Deutsche Minderheit in Litauen, [9]. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, unless someone can bring up a method to establish that "Litauen" has affinity, Delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of African American philosophers

[edit]

Not linked from any articles. Incorrect redirect target. Used to be a list page, was turned into a redirect to Africana philosophy#List of Africana philosophers 15 years ago, but that list was deleted from the article two years ago, and "Africana philosophers" isn't the same as "African American philosophers" anyway. Maybe a list of African-American philosophers would be useful, but at the moment it looks like we don't have such a list. We should delete the redirect. Chrisahn (talk) 14:02, 31 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ydmund Fanning

[edit]

I am unable to determine why this recent redirect was created. "Ydmund" does not appear in the article. Pinging @WikiOriginal-9: and @Absolutiva:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Cañas

[edit]

Suggesting deletion. She is mentioned in a couple of dozen Wikipedia articles, but in a quite random fashion the page is currently a redirect to an article about an album in which she is only a guest on a single non-notable track and which says absolutely nothing about her. Ana Cañas is a prominent Brazilian Latin Grammy nominated singer-songwriter, and per WP:REDLINK a redlink would be more useful, as it would encourage editors to create the page. Cavarrone 08:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tonrug Saeheng

[edit]

So this was a botched nomination last year because twinkle glitched after I nominated way too many at a time. Anyways, same reason for these badminton redirects last year. Search results will give a much better overview of her rather than just the fact she is part of the Thailand badminton team. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Huế (city in Vietnam)

[edit]

Recently created, originally as a duplication of an existing page by a now-banned user. Unlikely combination of non-standard disambiguator and name with specific diacritics. FromCzech (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Unambiguous and harmless. This user is not blocked as a sock, but rather for 31 hours for unsourced content. So I don't think G5 applies here anyways. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As outlined in the nomination, it's implausible as a search term or link target, and I disagree that it's harmless. The page was created for the purpose of bypassing semi-protection at Huế, and for continuing the disruptive editing that the protection was meant to prevent. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect could also refer to Huế (provincial city), making this ambiguous. The original title of this page was Draft:Huế (city), but in the article space, it redirects to the former provincial city. I'm surprised there isn't a hatnote at Huế. Also, the disambiguator "city in Vietnam" seems unlikely since no other city has such a redirect formatted with the disambiguator "(city in country)". Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Servite et contribuere. The current target is the primary topic for "Huế" and is a city in Vietnam. I've added a hatnote to the former provincial city (which should be there anyway) so anyone looking for that will easily find it. The motivation of the creator is not relevant, what matters is whether someone using this search term will find what they are looking for. The answer to that question is clearly "yes". Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 1 February 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]
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) 03:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For Sweet Capn’ Cakes, since the Mike trio isn’t even mentioned in the article list of Undertale/Deltarune characters. That, to me, concludes why there’s no reason for that redirect to exist. If that redirect exists, then the Mike trio redirect should exist too.
Unless we get an insane plot twist, I can’t see SCC getting a redirect. For Jockington and Tasque Manager, they can be deleted. I don't think Jockington is barely notable enough to be included for a redirect, unless Jockington becomes massively relevant in Chapter 5 and is included in List of Undertale and Deltarune characters - Jockington may unlikely be subject to change, though who knows, since the game isn't finished yet.
Keep Carol Holiday, as she has potential later on and Old Man too. KrispyBlueJays (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure if I can vote in my own thing, but whatever. From this discussion, I vote:
Delete for Tasque Manager, Jockington, and Sweet Capn' Cakes as unmentioned.
Keep Old Man (Deltarune) as a mention got added in the section it targets.
Refine Carol Holiday to List of Undertale and Deltarune characters#Noelle Holiday (Per Lunamann's idea). That should be it. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:37, 1 February 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:48, 31 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]
    I do know that User:MEN KISSING is planning on something to tackle "Katamari Consensus" cases like this, where because we can't just target ALL of a large problem all at once, we can let consensus from a tiny part of the issue-- even when possibly non-applicable or initially misinformed 'cause we don't see the scale of the problem yet-- affect the entire rest of the issue as it slowly but surely comes in and floods RfD. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh! Hello, I've been summoned.
    (I had a long tangent typed out on what Katamari consensus means, but I'll just link to where I mentioned it first instead: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Redirect#c-MEN_KISSING-20260124192700-Lunamann-20260124190600)
    The thing is, I don't think we can say that redirects from typos in general are an example of a Katamari consensus, because it's a Katamari that stopped rolling a long time ago. Redirects from typos are a conversation that dates waaay back. A quick little Wikipedia archaeology trip shows that having redirects from typos [10] is... apparently about as old as I am! And we've had the R3 speedy deletion criteria and the entry at WP:RFDO for about as long as those have existed, too.
    All that is to say, we don't need to worry about an improper consensus about typo redirects having been formed. And as long as we remind nominators about {{db-r3}} and WP:RTYPO, I don't think we have to worry about overwhemling RfD.
    That being said, there is a discussion to be had about more precisely what separates a plausible redirect from an implausible one. And, funnily enough, that's the premise of a different essay I'd like to write one day! "Redirects from spelling mistakes prove their usefulness with their own existence: at least one person has already made that mistake." is a sentiment that rings particularly true for me. I also disagree that the line is exactly "one character off", because obviously, something like Sasparilla -> Sarsaparilla will be a lot more plausible and a lot more necessary than something like Bqoat -> Boat. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 09:41, 31 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) 03:48, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:47, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has this been relisted? It looks like there's consensus (minus one) to (re)target the correct spellings to the parody page and delete the others. Makes perfect sense to me, I support that choice. Or am I missing something? — Chrisahn (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another unusual name, hydrogen hydroxide, isn't in the list above. I just went ahead and retargeted it to the parody page. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK with deleting misspellings identified above. Otherwise I, too, am somewhat baffled by the relist and continue to favor Dihydrogen monoxide parody. Note to closer/relister: If relisting rather than closing, please include a relisting comment to clarify what it is that needs to be addressed. If it's not clear whether there is consensus to delete the misspellings, this could be closed without prejudice to re-nominating the misspelled variations for deletion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just by the numbers, no one has opposed deleting the misspellings, and six have endorsed it, so I don’t think that’s an issue. We now have seven (including nom) who support retargeting the parody and two who favor a different target. Looks like consensus to me. I2Overcome talk 23:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello"

[edit]

Delete per UNNATURAL Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:07, 24 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) 03:45, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:45, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:44, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:44, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Life in England

[edit]

Over specific, do we need any other like Fun in England? A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:44, 31 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]
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) 03:43, 31 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]
    Red XN No. To clarify, I'm sticking with Sock#Other uses of the word and slang since this is the only place where the specific use of vacation, hotel, or jail are used. This is the best and really they only place that discusses the specific redirect terms. I have updated Sock#Other uses of the word and slang to include an internal link to Sock#Non-slip socks for completeness. I would support another section if and only if these specific terms are used and defined within that section. If a reader searches or clicks a link to grippy sock vacation or one of these other terms, sending them to a generic description of non-slip socks that then links to another section where these terms are actually described wastes readers' time and is a disservice. If, at some point, the content is reorganized then these can be retargeted to wherever the terms are described. I can't think of any reason why we would send readers somewhere other than the specific place where the specific terms are described. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:52, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:41, 31 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]
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) 03:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nude skateboarding

[edit]

WP:RFD#DELETE point 8; reference is niche enough that the alleged controversy doesn't have its own section in the target article. Searching for "nude" gives 1 hit, "skate" only 2. Jotamide (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure on whether I think it should be deleted as the creator, but there are two other redirects involving the scene were created by me: The worst day of your life so far, a quotation/meme from the scene, and another quote, "Bountiful penis" (although only the word 'penis' is mentioned in the article) that could be added to this nomination.
If this does get deleted, someone can add this and the second title I listed to WP:DAFT on my behalf. Xeroctic (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking up a few other articles shows that the scene received a significant amount of press coverage; references dedicated at least partially to it also appear in British Board of Film Classification, Bart Simpson, and Nudity in film (The Simpsons Uncensored Family Album does as well, but only to mention other examples of nudity in the franchise). Xeroctic (talk) 18:08, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:18, 31 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

[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: [11] (linguistics website), linktr.ee/tugocoffee (company at Indonesia); [12] (magazine?). I also found it: [13] [14], 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]
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) 23:47, 30 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]
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) 23:46, 30 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]
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) 23:44, 30 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 30 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 30 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 30 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]
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) 23:33, 30 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. DAB or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 30 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]
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) 23:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to LGBTQ slang#cisqueer per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 31 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]
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) 23:29, 30 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a DAB draft.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 30 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:25, 30 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ivo

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

These should point to the same target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak preference for Professor Ivo, okay with a delete too. Let's not forget good old Ivo Shandor too. Only one of these three has Ivo as a last name, which is what would get paired with "Doctor", except in special cases, which don't seem to apply here. The only catch is that one is named "Professor" instead of "Doctor", but that's probably a more plausible error than "Doctor Firstname". Still, given the vague/incorrect nature here, a delete wouldn't be unreasonable either. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Gozer, I just looked at the text on Shandor, and it's a wall of (partially) in-universe, unsourced madness –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:10, 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! 22:36, 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) 23:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Malaisie

[edit]

Delete per WP:FORRED. No affinity to French. Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:32, 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! 22:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per J947, only thing titled 'Malaisie' mentioned on enwiki. Sign² (talk) 01:48, 27 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) 23:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Khachaturian

[edit]

This follows on from a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects#Redirect request: Khachadurian, Խաչատուրյան. Since both of us agree the redirects should exist in some form but disagree on the target I though we might bring it here rather than trying to figure out where WP:AFC/R appeals go.

To briefly summarize my position, as a result of Talk:Khachaturian (surname)#Requested move 18 March 2025, the index was moved to a title with disambiguator and Khachaturian was targeted to Aram Khachaturian as the WP:PTOPIC. My assessment is that all four variant transliterations of Խաչատուրյան, and the original Armenian string itself should point at the same target to reduce potential confusion, and that target should most probably be Aram Khachaturian based off of the RM. However, User:Timtrent did not reach the same conclusion and will hopefully be along soon to offer a different perspective. Hoping to gain some additional insight from more people as to the best target here. ~2026-39780-5 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As the AFC reviewer who reviewed the request linked to above (note that it will soon be archived, thus Old revision of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects will help us) I was aware and content that this discussion would follow. It is not a discssion to delete the redirects, but is one to determine the correct target. To be clear I oppose deletion of any or all of these.
Agree and Support that all the redirects should have the same target. Anythng else would be ridicuous. They are redirects from the surname.
no Disagree and Oppose that the surname redirects should link to the composer, since he is simply a well known gentleman of that surname. While the concept of not setting a precedent on Wikipedia is well understood, it is custom and practice to use the surname to disambiguate between even well known people.
Support that all these surname redirects link to the surname disambniguation page - Khachaturian (surname). That is what I would expect as a reader. Further, as a reader of Wikipedia, I would be very pleased when entering any of these into the search box and arriving at the surname disambiguation page, to see all the other people with that surname, and would enjoy disappearing down the rabbit hole of finding out more about them.
When accepting those I accepted I was in cordial discussion with the requestor / nominator. I also asked for eyes on this from other AFC reviewers at WT:AFC, hoping for advice, but none was forthcoming, thus I declared what I believed to be the correct outcome, and made it so after a pause to allow advice. I have no particular horse in this race except that I believe consensus needs to be formed. We can all work with consensus, never with uncertanity, nor inconsistency. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorganize redirects per Timtrent. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 20:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Khachaturian targets Khachaturian (surname) then it is WP:MALPLACED. Khachaturian (surname) would need to be moved to Khachaturian in that instance which would require not an RfD but an requested move overturning last year's RM. But I agree with Extraordinary Writ's comment in said RM: the composer is the primary topic for the search term "Khachaturian". Therefore Khachaturian should target Aram Khachaturian – keep.
    That's not the be-all and end-all of this situation, however. There's no need to aim for consistency here. The reader is not going to be confused when different search terms target different places since they're only going to search up one of those search terms. Editors might, but readers first. Vahagn Khachaturyan is Armenia's current president. It is silly to suggest that an alternative transliteration of the composer's name is the primary topic over the normal transliteration of the politician's name. So I suggest to retarget Khachaturyan to Khachaturian (surname).
    As for the other three redirects, my opinions are less strong but I recommend to keep Խաչատուրյան (the composer's probably not the primary topic for the Armenian name as opposed to the specific transliteration) and retarget Khachatourian to Khachaturian (surname) (given Leon Khachatourian). There is no one named Khachadurian on the surname page, so I am ambivalent about either target or deletion. J947 ‡ edits 02:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Khachaturian → Aram Khachaturian. That is the common spelling of the composer's name in English, and the composer is the primary topic for that spelling. I don't think the other versions all need to target the composer, though; J947's argument is very compelling. I'm not knowledgeable about Armenian romanization, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that each variant has different usage and a different/no primary topic. So, I'm undecided on the rest. Toadspike [Talk] 16:24, 23 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) 23:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzhou Fu

[edit]

No mentions of "Fuzhou Fu" in the target article. Sugar Tax (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"fu" refers to the "administrative division" definition, and fuzhou is mentioned in the list of fu prefectures of china. this isn't really a vote, just saving my ass the confusion when i read this again in a couple months consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:55, 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) 23:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pic (Star Wars)

[edit]

only mentioned in passing. doesn't have anything of note in the history either. it's also weird that gorc doesn't seem to have had an article or redirect, but this is really just a nitpickaroon c. boodle, since i would've also nominated that anyway consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep character is mentioned and only appears in this article. This is normal for people who are only notable in one film. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 20:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it's a game lol consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But the point still remains the same, regardless of what the work is. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 15:59, 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! 21:09, 13 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) 07:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Character is Of no plausible notability, and a single mention in the middle of a sentence at the target article doesn't at all make this useful.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I wish I could agree with the keep arguments as I would say I'm slightly more sympathetic to pop culture coverage than the average Wikipedian, but anyone searching the term is presumably looking for a full article or at the very least a brief character bio within an article, neither of which currently exists (whether the latter should exist is unclear to me as someone who hasn't played the game). Ultimately, my vote is only weak in case there is any chance of a character section being created to which this redirect might be targeted. — Anonymous 14:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per thetechie. No benefit in deletion, only harm. Imagine trying to search this three-lettered Star Wars character, in the whole of wikipedia. What would your search phrase be? Jay 💬 03:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jay. It's useful. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Archiveiya74codqgiixo33q62qlrqtkgmcitqx5u2oeqnmn5bpcbiyd.onion

[edit]

CSD declined, this is a difficult retarget to consider and it's not mentioned in the targeted article. – The Grid (talk) 21:50, 30 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area, but add a hatnote. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 05:52, 31 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:35, 30 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jukude languages

[edit]

"Languages" is an improper redirect here as it refers only to one language with no internal variation 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's also an isolate; there is no family of Jukude languages. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Duplantis

[edit]

Propose this redirect be deleted as there is no substantial page history, and search results will give a much better overview of him rather than a redirect to his brother, when we could also redirect to his sister, but his brother is far more notable. For example, he was named in the all tournament team for the 2017 NCAA Division I baseball tournament. Overview of search results giving better overview: [15] Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Schlatt

[edit]

The name, Jared Schlatt, comes from a joke between Anthony Padilla and jschlatt on Padilla's video from a year ago. Since then, the name Jared Schlatt is nowhere in the article and has no play into any of the paragraphs and I propose we delete this redirect. ConeKota (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Verdis

[edit]

This redirect should be deleted to allow the creation of a standalone article. The target article Croatia–Serbia border dispute only mentions "Verdis" in passing, while a fully sourced, comprehensive draft article exists at Draft:Verdis. The redirect is misleading and prevents coverage of a notable distinct topic. TeddyFazzber (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "Verdis" is a notable topic deserving its own article, and the draft includes substantial coverage from highly authoritative sources such as BBC, CNN, Firstpost, among others TeddyFazzber (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TeddyFazzber you might want to use twinkle for rfd noms, to avoid issues with indenting. also, regardless of the draft's current state (too many primary/non-journalistic sources tbh), where's the bbc source? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the RfD tag goes on the redirect page itself, not on the target article. If you can't place it there due to protection then don't place it somewhere else, just mention it in your nomination and someone who can edit the redirect will tag it for you. I'll fix this one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed historical context and for correcting the procedural issues, @Thryduulf and @Consarn. I appreciate the guidance.
  • Regarding past deletions (AfDs): I have reviewed the past deletion discussions. The new draft at Draft:Verdis is not a recreation of the previously deleted articles. It is built on a foundation of recent, substantial, and independent journalistic coverage (primarily CNN and The Guardian) that was not central or may not have been available during the previous AfDs. This new evidence directly addresses the core notability concerns that led to those deletions.
  • Regarding sourcing: Thank you for the catch, @Consarn. I misspoke regarding the BBC. The primary, high-quality journalistic coverage comes from CNN[1], The Guardian[2] and The Sydney Morning Herald[3]. The draft has been cleaned to rely on these authoritative secondary sources and removes promotional/primary material.
  • The core argument for RfD: The purpose of this RfD is not to judge the draft's readiness for mainspace (that is for AFC), but to decide if the current redirect is useful or harmful. The redirect "Verdis → Croatia–Serbia border dispute" is actively misleading. It implies the topic is synonymous with the border dispute, while reliable sources now treat "Verdis" as a distinct entity with its own narrative, goals, and media coverage. Keeping this redirect obfuscates information and directly prevents readers from finding the dedicated draft article where the topic is appropriately covered.
  • Proposed path forward: I propose a consensus to delete this redirect. Following that, I will immediately submit the improved Draft:Verdis for review via the Articles for Creation (AFC) process, where it can be judged solely on its own merits based on the current sourcing. This is the standard procedure for replacing an inadequate redirect with a proper article.
In summary, the situation has materially changed since 2022 with new, significant media coverage. The redirect now causes confusion and blocks access to a more appropriate treatment of the subject. TeddyFazzber (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
as a heads-up, "primary" has a different meaning in this context: it refers to sources directly related to the subject of an article, or that flat-out are from the subject. read wp:primary for more info on that, but the nitty-gritty is that you don't want an article that relies too much on its subject's own word consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh wow, now the micronation enthusiasts are coming back with AI-generated proposals? Who could have seen this coming... this would continue to be an WP:UNDUE WP:NOT#NEWS violation. Keep and salt. --Joy (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy "Keep and salt" is a contradiction - WP:SALTing is for pages that are deleted. The redirect is already fully protected. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I mean that as whatever we can do to stop these repetitive discussions about the latest stories from the fun section of the newspapers. --Joy (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    is it? despite the description, i haven't seen much that suggests that creation protection can't apply to pages that exist. so while it would be redundant and kind of useless here, it might not necessarily be a contradiction consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 22:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    while this nom is suspicious, from a suspishusly new account with a sussy streak of some (but admittedly not enough) knowledge of wikipedia's internal workings, on a subspeciously sock-filled topic, related to a draft suspisyphusly passed on by a handful of suspensefully single-purpose accounts, i'm not actually entirely sure it's ai. it could definitely be ai-assisted, but it's definitely missing a lot of the tells, like having a suspiciously human-like level of awareness of events that have happened more than a sentence ago consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 22:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks everyone for the feedback. I've heard the arguments, especially about the deletion history and the sources. I understand I rushed this. I won't push for deleting this redirect anymore. I'm ending my involvement in this discussion here TeddyFazzber (talk 05:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • As mentioned above, I think this is the wrong place for discussing this, as the issue here is the promotion of the draft article. This looks okay to me at a quick glance, and there's a new article about Verdis on ABC News (Australia) today, so I'll have a look at the draft later with a view to promotion, if someone else doesn't get there before me. Time to close this rfd now? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accession of Queen Victoria's

[edit]

Yes the discussion of possessive redirects is still ongoing, but unlike almost all the ones nominated previously this one actually is useless. The target article is about Queen Victoria's accession, not the accession of anything belonging to her, nor is it a mistaken plural as only one Queen Victoria acceded to the throne. The only way these words make sense is in phrases like "accession of Queen Victoria's son", "accession of Queen Victoria's grandson", etc. However (a) those phrases do not appear in any articles - indeed this redirect is the only occurrence of "accession of Queen Victoria's" anywhere in any namespace on en.wp (although this RfD will generate some new ones of course), (b) the targets would be Coronation of Edward VII and Alexandra, Coronation of George V and Mary, and so on down the generations, and (c) as a search term it's thus ambiguous between multiple articles, none of which are the current target. There are no incoming links, the creator's contemporary edits don't suggest they added one at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Monoxygenase

[edit]

There is a separate article titled "Monooxygenase". Also, the exact spelling is not mentioned in the target. I'm not sure if the two have different meanings, or if one is a misspelling. (I assumed that an "o" would be dropped from a double "o" in chemistry, but I'm not sure here.) Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gorenoise

[edit]

As I have removed the gorenoise section, this redirect serves no purpose anymore. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a source that talks about it, but I'll recreate that section when I have the time.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6 What source is it? Could you give me the link? Gaismagorm (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I found three sources that talk about it: [16], [17], [18].--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 21:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disco funk

[edit]

Genre re-directs to disco where there is no discussion of the genre. No indication whether it should link to funk or disco. On looking, I can't find any information regarding it being its own unique genre and there's no discussion about it. It appears to be just another hybrid genre name dropped by journalists without information on what elements are prioritized. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bazghanj

[edit]

no affinity with... northern afghan dialect? really? results suggest this might be a word in a couple assorted languages, but seemingly not any that are widely spoken in afghanistan or have affinity for the purposes of redirects, and even then, literally all but one of said results mentions it as a fruit from the... pistachio tree. i'll just assume implausible synonym/slang, and that anyone willing to search this would most likely already know what the other word is

it also seems to see some use as a surname, but i doubt that's important here consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 14:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect during my master degree studies of Tajikistan's Gorno-Badakhshan when I saw this term used in the local Shughni language, which is spoken in the Badakhshan regions of Afghanistan and Tajikistan. I don't recall the book or article that I saw it in. David Straub (talk)

Kandula Sreenivasa Reddy Memorial College of Engineering Ground

[edit]

Nothing about a ground is mentioned in the target page (where the college name is shortened to KSRM). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Film Critics Circle

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Barry, did you consider a batch nomination? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

North Texas Film Critics Association

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asean International Film Festival and Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN International Film Festival and Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Film Critics Association UK

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Film Critics Alliance

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Film Critics Association Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Film Circle

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Film Circle Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Critics Association Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Online Association of Female Film Critics Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

North Texas Film Critics Association Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Film Journalists Association Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film & Television Association Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Film Critics Association Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Western New York Film Critics Association Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Black Film Critics Circle

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film & Television Association

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DiscussingFilm Critics Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DiscussingFilm Critics Award

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Film Journalists Association

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Critics Association

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Film Critics Circle

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Film Society

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Music City Film Critics Association

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Entertainment Journalists Association

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Film Critics Association

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Film Critics Society

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DiscussingFilm Critic Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Film Critics Society

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Critics Association of Central Florida

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Film Critics Association

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Indie Critics

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Film Critics Association

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Circle Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Critics Circle

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Film Critics Circle

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Online Association of Female Film Critics

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Film Critics Association

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Film Critics Society

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Western New York Film Critics Association

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Black Film Critics Circle Awards

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Film Critics Circle

[edit]

Per WP:RDELETE item 10 Barry Wom (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leandra Vieiru

[edit]

Czech inflection of Brazilian name. Vanishingly unlikely search term. ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arena.site

[edit]

The arena.site domain name seems to have never redirected to any Arena domain name. (The Internet Archive snapshots I found show it redirecting to the domain gothiccostumes.com, which is actually currently for sale!) Thus, I suggest deleting this redirect. Duckmather (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They use arena.site for there coding agents YoureIronic (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Veleno (disambiguation)

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

Oracle (upcoming film)

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

Crémeux

[edit]

This should be deleted. Crémeux is French for 'creamy'. This is not a WP:FORRED nomination. The problem is that lots of things can be described as 'creamy', including a great many food terms that come from France or have been influenced by French: cream and other entries at Crème, crème fraîche, ganache, and many more. Custard is not a direct translation and anyone searching en-wiki for the meaning will be misled by this redirect. There is no primary topic for this French adjective on en-wiki. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(As creator) According to sources, the term crémeux is also used for a specific preparation made of crème anglaise and either gelatin or chocolate[19][20][21][22] - in other words, a form of custard. François Robere (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per... creator!? as both a french word and an english loanword, it's only one of the possible meanings. judging by results, readers could be expecting any kind of creamy food, regardless of whether or not it actually is cream or custard. a lot of the aforementioned results were also written in some indecipherable glyphs, but that at most implies wp-pt would have more use for this consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Before someone votes to make a DAB page with all creamy foods related to French cuisine I'll just say... don't do that. — Anonymous 12:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This has been getting a lot of traffic (over 300 hits last year), probably due to the incoming links:
    • List of desserts#Dessert sauces lists it (along with Crème anglaise (an article) and Crème pâtissière (also a redirect to custard but mentioned in the lead) as being types of custard. As "Crémeux" is not mentioned at the target this is clearly not helpful.
    • MasterChef Australia series 15 has two instances of the term:
      • In the "28/06-4" table row there is the sentence The dessert prepared by Ralph and Rue, a goat's cheese crémeux, beetroot consommé and poached pear was declared perfect by the judges. That sounds not at all like custard (and also disgusting). Googling goat's cheese crémeux the results suggest that cream cheese would be a more useful target (but as I'm allergic to cheese I could be wrong about that).
      • In the "50/11-1" table row there is the sentence ...which consisted of a cake containing a double chocolate chip cookie base, coffee hazelnut financier, vanilla bean coffee caramel, coffee cremeux, and a chocolate mousse, in addition to a sugar dome. (containing no links). Googling coffee crémux that looks closer to a mousse than it does to custard (it also looks misleadingly like chocolate, which. as someone who likes chocolate mousse but doesn't like coffee, should not be allowed).
    • Top Chef: Wisconsin has, in the table row "310", Maple Crémeux, Blueberry, Pistachio & Caramel. Google results for that term give what appears to be cream custard (also not a particularly helpful redirect to custard) with maple flavouring. This looks very tasty and is arguably going to the right target but in the absence of the term it's not that helpful.
    • Top Chef: Destination Canada (table row "328") has Corn Crémeux with Corn Ice Cream, Grilled Blueberry Condiment & Blueberry Crisp (Massimo). Google results for "Corn crémeux" were not particularly helpful, but what is "corn crémeux" eventually resulted in my understanding that it's just a creamy custard-like sauce made with corn in various forms.
    Overall it's clear to me that there is not one single thing being referred to here, and wikt:crémeux ((cooking) A smooth creamy sauce, custard, or pastry cream.) just reinforces that custard is just one of the things that it could be. It seems unlikely that there is scope for an encyclopaedia article about it, so in the absence of a glossary of cooking or similar (that I've found) I think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is the best we can do. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED per the current setup, delete per WP:REDLINK per creator's comment. Steel1943 (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: I still favor deletion. I was unaware that there is a somewhat prominent use of this word in English for a specific type of sauce or custard. (I'm not sure whether that is the context in which most English speakers encounter the word.) I don't see that the incoming links and pageviews justify a Wiktionary redirect per the guidance at WP:SOFTSP. The links in article space violate MOS:NOFORCELINK. These may be justified since cramming definitions or explanations of every dish into lists and episode summaries is probably unworkable. Still, I don't find the traffic or usage in articles overwhelming here. Given that these links appear in a handful of related articles, I suspect a single editor or small group of editors working in the Top Chef space are using these and I don't see any evidence of repeated re-creation of this redirect. Assuming these links are driving the traffic, they are being used inappropriately and the result doesn't actually help readers. Additionally, Wiktionary redirects are generally reserved for terms that can never be expanded beyond a simple dictionary definition and I'm not sure whether that is the case here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:58, 30 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wookiee Planet C

[edit]

A very obscure synonym for the Wookiee planet Kashyyyk that does not have a mention nor does it appear to warrant one. Note that the second one is also misspelled. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Out of context, it sounds like a poop-fisted attempt to extend real-life exoplanet naming to the Star Wars galaxy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grand River Avenue

[edit]

M-5 (Michigan highway) currently runs along Grand River Avenue in the Detroit area, as does M-43 (Michigan highway) in East Lansing and rural Ingham County. This should be changed to a disambiguation. 42-BRT (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Governor and Company … of fishing

[edit]

misnomer that is not only not mentioned in the target as of current, but also seldom mentioned outside of mirrors. while redirects are (usually) cheap, the title being almost triple the length of the content (at least before nominating, which made the page size over 10x what it was before nominating) makes it seem a slight exception. Oreocooke (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC) ; small update: this conversation isn't going anywhere so for now both of them are fine until that is no longer the case. Oreocooke (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

G5-623

[edit]

I actually already edited the redirect's target while doing some maintenance but I have now come to feel that this redirect is not helpful. It is a very obscure synonym for the Wookiee planet, Kashyyyk, and this term has no mention nor does it appear to warrant one. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of verse

[edit]

you can finish your words, i believe in you!

...also vague with different definitions of "collection" related to different definitions of "verse", and maybe with some unnotable books if you're in the mood, but the grammar part is my bigger concern her consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's the grammar part? "Collection of verse" seems perfectly acceptable to me, using "verse" in its sense as an uncountable noun meaning "poetry". Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ask results, they were really confused about the definitions, thinking i wanted to see compilations of "verses" (fights), albums by musicians known as verse (or it's a band, i can't tell), poorly edited stock sky pictures with bible verses slapped on them in low-contrast colors (yellow on white, yuck), haiku (i mean, i guess that counts?), and michael rosen youtube poops (no idea why). results related to non-haiku poetry were rare, and even then, it thought i wanted to see collections of verses. that's a sort of roundabout way of saying that this doesn't seem to be a case in which the uncountable form is plausible for... uh... some reason, probably
as an aside, if not deleted over this concern, the list of poetry collections exists and seems to be a better target, even if i think definitions of "collection" would still vary (ironically per the current target) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 15:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's fine grammatically -- "verse" can be a mass noun to mean "poetry" generally, but "collection of verse" would seem to refer more to...well, a particular collection of poems than the overall form. It's unclear what anyone using this would be referring to, or why anyone would search for it in the first place. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with others that verse can mean poetry and that the grammar is fine here. But the exact intended meaning of this phrase is unclear. My external search results almost all refer to poetry in some way, usually to specific works whose title is or contains Collection of Verse or generic use to refer to poetry collections. That might suggest List of poetry collections as a target but this is also a somewhat unusual, if attested, way to refer to that subject. This redirect has just 23 views since January 2025—and zero since October 3—which is consistent with this being an uncommon search term. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of poetry collections to align this with poetry collectionpoetry collection. - Eureka Lott 22:09, 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! 22:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oxydane

[edit]

that's... uh... a brand(?) of nutritional slop for horses...? chat, i think this might not be water consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:30, 15 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! 22:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low views and ambiguous Sign² (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs

[edit]

WP:XY: Psychoactive drug and Recreational drug are two different subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 15 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! 22:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
either Oreocooke (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to Drug#Classification where the relationship between the two is described. These psychoactive drugs have been proven useful in treating a wide range of medical conditions including mental disorders around the world. The most widely used drugs in the world include caffeine, nicotine and alcohol, which are also considered recreational drugs, since they are used for pleasure rather than medicinal purposes. Psychoactive and recreational drugs (accurate title casing) should also be created if this redirect is kept. Sign² (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

John McCarthy, computer scientist

[edit]

An old WP:RDAB that could stand to be cleaned out. Even back then, it was a fork when it was created and redirected mere minutes later. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you said. I don't need an "exception" to keep a redirect based off an essay that I do not subscribe to. It looks harmless to me which is all I need to know to keep it. -- Tavix (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cathriona White

[edit]

Even if she's mostly known for her relationship with Jim Carrey, she was a separate person and not Jim Carrey. It doesn't feel right that it's a redirect. The search results will likely show Jim Carrey at the top anyway, which is why it shouldn't be a redirect. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above arguments. Additionally, being uncomfortable with the redirect isn't a good reason to delete. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

George Kwali

[edit]

Apparently, this redirect represents a musician that is not the target musician (two different people). Though the redirect is mentioned in the target article, it is not synonymous with the target; delete unless a better target is found. Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and possible WP:RSURPRISE. The passing mention isn’t enough to justify this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

[edit]

Terrible secret of space

[edit]

This was originally directed towards The Laziest Men on Mars, which had been a page about the band that made both this song and Invasion of the Gabber Robots. The artist's page was BLAR'd in 2023 for lack of standalone notability-- apparently they were basically a one-hit-wonder as their only truly notable song was Invasion of the Gabber Robots, probably better known as... well, the "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" song. (Hence the BLAR target.)

Unfortunately, while it makes sense to direct searches for Invasion of the Gabber Robots or The Laziest Men on Mars there, it doesn't make sense to direct searches for Terrible Secret of Space there, as it is a song that has roughly nothing to do with this meme. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neither mentioned in, nor relevant to, the target or any other Wikipedia article. Note that there is technically an animation of the same name in the eleventh episode of Eye Drops, so retargeting there is technically an option, but I don't think it's a great one. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Geonosian style execution

[edit]

This was originally fancruft from over two decades ago. I don't the a redirect is necessary. — Anonymous 13:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cornflake family

[edit]

This was mentioned way back when it was created March 2006... but then, the mention of "cornflake family" as a term first got hit with the ol' [citation needed] template, then removed as per a discussion that I... cannot find. (This page's talkpage is an absolutely disorganized mess, but "cornflake family" doesn't show up there at all x3 Maybe it was discussed elsewhere?)

As a note, ALL of this happened before 2006 ended. So this redirect has been unmentioned for a good 20 years. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per my web search showing various possible meanings. Some are similar to nuclear family but others include a family with the surname Cornflake[28] and something related to JavaScript from a sketchy looking site that declined to open. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kideko

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

Apparently, this redirect represents a musician that is not the target musician (two different people). The nominated redirect targets where it does as a result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 11#Kideko retargeting the redirect to Crank It (Woah!), which in turn years later was converted to a redirect targeting the current target, thus the nominated redirect had its double redirect corrected. At this point, the redirect has outlived its usefulness; delete unless a better target is found. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dum Dum (Kideko, Tinie Tempah and Becky G song)

[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Without mention or identification in an article, the disambiguator of this redirect puts the redirect in a bit of a WP:XY situation due to not knowing if the redirect should target one of the other musicians' or their works' articles. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awakening (TV series)

[edit]

Another declined G8 not mentioned at target. Possibly a show that was announced but later cancelled or retitled. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians (TV series)

[edit]

Not listed at target, recommended after declined G8. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Knowers

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

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]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. While it is one of the regions covered in the shipping forecast, it is not coterminous with anything there is an article for on Wikipedia. Its current target is not appropriate as the Rockall Basin is far larger than Bill Bailey's Bank and the article does not mention it. There is probably enough for an article on Bill Bailey's Bank. Casablanca 🪨(T) 19:34, 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]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Post-close note: I have renominated these in three separate batches at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 31. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:39, 31 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]
  • Comment if we have an article on the concept of quoting exact words this could make a good redirect to it, but haven't found that we do. Verbatim is a dab page that starts Verbatim means word for word so someone using this search term would not be confused to end up there, however nothing on the rest of the page is helpful. My next thought was Paraphrase as a {{R from antonym}}, that would help some people but not all. Exact form came in the search results but that's a mathematics topic and so definitely not relevant. There is Signing Exact English, but while relevant that's a subtopic. I'm leaning deletion for no good target, but not far enough to bold that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 30 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]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

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]
I'd assume it depends on the stuffing. That said, cotton and wool both don't melt as it will definitely char and burn first; polyester does melt but will catch fire or decompose before it boils. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:49, 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]
@Organhaver, are you okay with refining the target to Teddy bear#Cultural impact, as Lunamann wants? Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that'd be good. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 02:52, 1 February 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]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

"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]

Delete as vague. I would actually think Cognition is closer to the meaning but this could mean any number of thinks from thinking to "brain games" like Sudoku and so on. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Myceteae; way too vague to be directed anywhere. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:58, 30 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]
  • Delete per nom. An AfD on Jan 26, 2005 resulted in a merge and keep decision, though it also could have gone full delete. No material was worth merging however and the non-admin closer said the redirect could be nominated for deletion in the future. Twenty-one years have elapsed with nothing relevant in the target article to justfy continuing the lengthy redirect and a WP:GTEST indicates no internal or external links to maintain. 5Q5|✉ 12:54, 31 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 is discussed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth noting that this redirect refers only to "personality"; in contrast, the discussion you linked to is about "bipolar personality disorder". A difference hare is that in the latter case, there is at least something to work with, such as, I assume, the relationship between bipolar disorder and personality disorder(s). However, "Ocd personality" does not even necessarily have anything to do with PD; rather, it could refer to what is thought or imagined to be the personality associated with having OCD, such as its signs and symptoms. Of course, it could be retargeted to the OCD article (no specific section), but I cannot imagine how that would be useful. BlockArranger (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget toper Myceteae. The best way we can avoid perpetuating common misconceptions is to take people search for them to a page that educates them that they are misconceptions, and the suggested target seems to be the place that best does that in this instance. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 30 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. [29] and [30]. 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.[31][32][33] The US State Department uses similar terminology.[34] 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]
    For the sake of completeness, I'll directly address the WP:RASTONISH concern: The likelihood of astonishment is low here given that Occupied Palestinian Territory(ies) is often used interchangeably with "Palestine". Additionally, as previously noted, the terminology is used and explained in the article. Palestine is currently occupied by Israel and has a long history of occupation. Thus the discussion at Palestine describes all of this with links to additional articles with more detail. The RASTONISH guidance is simply to Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place. I believe this is reasonably well accomplished for all the reasons I've described but a bolded Occupied Palestinian Territory could be added to the lead by any editor who is concerned about this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That usage is historical. The main name used by the UN, as seen on their member list page, is Palestine/State of Palestine, since its 2012 admission as observer. That's not debated here. The issue is whether the notion of occupied territories should be erased completely, as arguably it is not the topic of article the Palestine article (few mentions of the term and not even a section header). This specific point was not addressed in your copied-and-pasted comment.
    This notion of occupied territories is historically significant. It is not used interchangeably with "Palestine". It is addressed both at Israeli-occupied territories and History of Palestine#Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, which are therefore better targets. Place Clichy (talk) 15:08, 30 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]

Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:52, 31 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 after other famous artists.
    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]
    It should be {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} instead. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessary disambiguations need to be correct; I don't think the arguments for keeping them apply here. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:49, 1 February 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]
    Our goal is to get people to information, not away from it. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947 Why do you regard search results, that may or may not contain relevant results and which may be up to several clicks/taps away (depending on the user's search method, device, whether they can create pages, etc) as a better way to communicate the idea that Lady Gaga if a person not a band than taking people directly to an article that directly educates who Lady GaGa is? Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Lady Gaga shows up as the sixth search result for this search term with an excerpt that explains exactly what she is (a person and not a band). I'm weak because it would be more ideal if she showed up as the first or second result. I tend to think redirects, except those from obvious misnomers, imply to the reader one of two things: either (1) this term is an alternative name for the target, or (2) there is information on this term somewhere at the target. The reader should realise (1) doesn't apply from a skim of the lede, which may lead some readers down a false trail of trying to find (2): the band they thought they thought of. That's particularly true with readers who see this as a search suggestion. Deletion removes confusion. J947 ‡ edits 23:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And this is explicitly contrary to J947 et al. I can very easily see someone not knowing who Lady Gaga is, and searching this up because "hey, this band made this song that I heard and really like! I'd like to know more about them." We need to cater to readers who don't know ANYTHING about what they're looking for beyond what they're searching now-- and that includes people who don't know that Lady Gaga is one woman. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anybody somehow not knowing about her being an individual person shouldn't be treated as a valid excuse to maintain redirects that give the wrong idea about where something would lead to, and you carelessly ignored how misleading the target setup is. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:54, 2 February 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]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

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

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]

Keep redirect. Like it or not, this was released as a single, is currently not part of any album, and should be on the list of singles on his discography. Easy solution. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 19:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that the two redirects don't go to the same target when they're only one letter off?
Also, if it's unmentioned, either there's a good reason, or it should be added. One of the two. And that needs to be something that happens before a redirect points to the article; as per WP:RETURNTORED if we don't have the information, we shouldn't have a redirect that says we do. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the song gets appropriately mentioned on his bio or discography article, I'm inclined to say delete as implausible targeting. It makes no sense to redirect a page that doesn't even bring the subject up at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:28, 2 February 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]
  • Retarget to Type 0 per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 09:31, 31 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]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

In Soviet Russia Wikipedia browses YOU

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

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.")[41] 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]
100% Delete 🐈Cinaroot  💬 08:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asian nigger

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

Pârvuleşti (disambiguation)

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

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]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Administrator recall with a hatnote clarifying the earlier use, to avoid breaking discussion archives too much. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan is a country

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

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]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 25 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 24

Template:Wikipedia community

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1335931758#How_to_list_a_redirect_for_discussion"