Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

"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	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	80	29	109
TfD	0	2	28	4	34
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	9	1	10
RfD	0	0	31	11	42
AfD	0	0	0	11	11

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

Current discussions

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

• 10 December (Wednesday)
• 9 December (Tuesday)
• 8 December (Monday)
• 7 December (Sunday)
• 6 December (Saturday)
• 5 December (Friday)
• 4 December (Thursday)
• 3 December (Wednesday)

Old discussions

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

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

• Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD

• 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

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

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. 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

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

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

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

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

December 10

Father and Mother

• Father and Mother → List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes#Rescue Gaara arc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page should be retargeted to Parent or somewhere else. Maybe we can also treat different capitalizations differently. John Smith Ri (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

2023 Asian Beach Games

• 2023 Asian Beach Games → 2026 Asian Beach Games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "2023" in the article Vestrian24Bio 02:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep They were, for a period of time, planned to take place in 2023, but got delayed. I don't know if it's worth including every delay for these games as they are taking place 6 years after initial planning, but without a mention it is a bit odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casablanca Rock (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Weak delete - there is nothing currently in the article indicating that this event was ever planned to be held in 2023, it just says it was originally scheduled for 2020, then postponed to the following year, then postponed indefinitely, then announced for 2026. I'm not sure that the provided citation is good enough to establish official scheduling, seeing as it's about a different event entirely and just happens to mention these games in passing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

History of implants

• History of implants → History of dental treatments  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• History of implant → History of dental treatments  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/History of implants

Highly ambiguous; the term "implant" refers to much more than dental treatments; the redirect is a result of this page move. I should have thought to make this nomination a while ago, but we're here now. I was reminded of this situation by this bot edit to the article's AFD that I started. Graham87 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Graham87: I bundled History of implant here after discovering its existence. Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• It only was using those titles for a few days, so we don't need to keep because of other linking or attribution. The target originated more on the topic of body modification: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_dental_treatments&oldid=880427846 and so was more generically on implants. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of implants resulted in no consensus, but later the page was changed to just be dental. So overall I do not think these redirects are needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Kilgoreites

• Kilgoreites → Kilgore, Texas#Demographics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems like an implausible search term aaronneallucas (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be the demonym for the town and unambiguously so. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 03:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

December 9

Real Men Don't Buy Girls

• Real Men Don't Buy Girls → Human trafficking#Campaigns  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leave the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as this is underused. It is from when Boko Haram kidnapped 200 girls in 2014. It was a hashtag used then that went "viral".See here. No longer relevant. Ktkvtsh (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

List of notable double murder cases

• List of notable double murder cases → Homicide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list at the target. No such list at Murder (the target of redirect Double murderDouble murder) either. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as the target article does not lead to what the redirect suggests.Ktkvtsh (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Security in one's home from unlawful entry

• Security in one's home from unlawful entry → Home invasion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, implausible due to length, rather clunky. In fact, reading the phrasing of the redirect, the topic would more be about preventing the target from happening rather than identifying the target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Concocted charge

• Concocted charge → Frameup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Trumped up charge

• Trumped up charge → Frameup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Filial cruelty

• Filial cruelty → Child abuse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, it does not seem synonymous to the target. Apparently, "filial" refers to "son or daughter", which is not exclusive to the concept of "child". Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Dandelion child

• Dandelion child → Child abuse#dandelion children  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dandelion children → Child abuse#dandelion children  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned or adequately defined in the target article to warrant a redirection from these phrases to help our readers. At the present time, the only mention of the word "dandelion" in the target article is located at Child abuse#Psychological; per the content of that section, it does not seem as though these redirects are adequately defined there. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Non accidental trauma

• Non accidental trauma → Child abuse#Physical abuse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Non-accidental trauma → Abuse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects should both be deleted or synchronized. Per third-party search engines, this phrase seems to specifically refer to a type of physical Child abuse; however, the present time, this phrase is not mentioned in Child abuse, leaving readers arriving at the target potentially confused on why they arrived there. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Child battery

• Child battery → Child abuse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target does not mention "battery", and Battery (crime) does not adequately describe the subject of this redirect. At this point, deletion is probably preferable than keeping this redirect in existence. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Drubbing

• Drubbing → Assault  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Drubs → Assault  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Drubbings → Assault  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Drubbed → Assault  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Drubbers → Assault  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Drubber → Assault  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target contains no words that contain "drub" in them, leaving the connection between the target article and the redirect unclear. (Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drubbing exists as a discussion that took place in 2008, but Drubbing currently contains none of the page's former history prior to the AfD.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Political murder

• Political murder → Assassination  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is potentially ambiguous, with the caveat that its current target may not be the most proper anyways. For example, such a subject is also mentioned at Murder#Aggravating circumstances, which is an article that actually has the word "Murder" in its title. (Note: This redirect is a {{R with history}}; Apparently, it was a live article for about 10 years.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Take someone out

• Take someone out → Assassination  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Take him out → Assassination  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Take her out → Assassination  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Take one out → Assassination  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are all ambiguous/vague. For one, they could also refer to Dating. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Take them all out (delete all) as vague. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Take them all out per above. 77qq 💬 contributions 00:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Huang (animator)

• Draft:Michael Huang (animator) → Battle for Dream Island  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect has only trivial history, serves no useful purpose, and can be deleted. Alternatively, the appropriate target would be the recently published Huang brothers. However, there are no incoming links, very little traffic, and this is not a plausible search term so deletion is the best course of action. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Huang brothers - Since my opinion doesn’t matter, I’ll just say redirect to Huang brothers. Go ahead Wikiman2230 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  Wikiman2230 Why do you say that? Your opinion is welcome as much as anyone else’s in discussions. HurricaneZeta^C 23:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  Life Wikiman2230 (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Huang brothers, or Huang twins if that article ends up moved. It makes sense to point the reader to where Huang is discussed. Star Mississippi 23:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Huang brothers per above and nom because it’s a more specific target. Don’t delete per WP:RDRAFT and WP:CHEAP - just because it’s a redirect in draft space with little traffic doesn’t mean we need deletion. HurricaneZeta^C 23:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  Should we also redirect Huang bros to Huang brothers? Wikiman2230 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Do not delete per WP:RDRAFT since this redirect is a remnant of a page move to the article space. Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  I thought this only applied when the redirect was a draft of the page in question. In other words when Draft:АВС gets published as АВС, the old draft gets converted to a redirect. The RfC cited at WP:DRAFT concerns this, more typical, type of draft redirect. In this case, Draft:Michael Huang (animator) was published as Michael Huang (animator) which was then converted to a redirect to Battle for Dream Island per this AfD. It was never a draft of the already published Battle for Dream Island article and no content from Michael Huang (animator) or the draft was ever merged into Battle for Dream Island. If consensus is that we should also keep draft redirects like this then so be it, but this does not have the same type of page history as typical draft redirects. Not arguing, really trying to understand the precedent and rationale here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Myceteae: Without getting too far in the weeds: {{R avoided double redirect}} when the intended target is a {{R with history}}. (In fact, I went ahead and performed the respective edits: [1] & [2].) Steel1943 (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

  ...And I just realized that as a {{R avoided double redirect}}, I have to vote "retarget to Huang brothers" ... or more specifically "retarget to whatever Michael Huang (animator)Michael Huang (animator) targets". Steel1943 (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

  I see… redirects like this seem pretty useless and contrary to the established purpose of redirects, and the burden of maintaining all these BFDI redirects with ever-changing targets is costly but if the community has decided we need to keep these then oh well 🤷🏾‍♂️ —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Huang brothers. I don't really see the upside to deletion. I don't necessarily see a downside, either, to be honest, but sitting on the fence made me extra bureaucratic... If the Huang brothers article had existed at the time of the AfD, both this and the main space redirect would have likely targeted there. That's projecting, but on top of that, content was merged into the brothers page according to the attribution history recorded in Special:Diff/1325234774. Kind of roundabout to carry that to the Draft location, but it's possible it started there, and I need something to sway my opinion, so there it is... -2pou (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Huang brothers, or Cary and Michael Huang (depending on the move discussion).Ktkvtsh (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Call to commit a crime

• Call to commit a crime → Solicitation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect seems vague. It could plausibly refer to Criminal conspiracy as well. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as vague and implausible. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as it is very vague and could lead to numerous articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktkvtsh (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Mohamed Salih Ome

• Mohamed Salih Ome → Mohamed Salih Omer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete. Was page title for two minutes. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete due to very low use. If you search for even Mohamed Salih, the target page shows up. Also, if you Type Mohamed Salih O, the target shows up. No need for this one. Likely only exists due to typo by user who originally created the page and it was moved right after (in 2008). Ktkvtsh (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Wharton's rule

• Wharton's rule → Criminal conspiracy#Elements of the offence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Sudanese politicians

• Sudanese politicians → Mohamed Salih Omer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Was original page title for five minutes. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Politics of Sudan. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Politics of Sudan as having this go to one person does not make any sense to me. Ktkvtsh (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

3^0.5

• 3^0.5 → Square root of 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term. Created by user who has created lots of redirects, many of which have been deleted. Chrisahn (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, really not helpful at this point. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. 3^0.5 is the same thing as the square root of 3. It's also probably the easiest way to symbolize it without using non-keyboard characters. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirects are cheap, and this one has no issues. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 19:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  ...This discussion has nothing to do with disk space. (May want to read the contents of WP:CHEAP.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a calculator. People who want to know what ^0.5 does can ... creates it and have it target Square root if they want. (Kinda shocked ^0.5 doesn't exist, but am not going to create it myself. I mean, we have a redirect titled "Power 1/2Power 1/2", which targets Square root...) Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia can be a calculator when there is an article on the calculation in question... -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  But that's not what this is. Yeah, it equates to the same answer, but one is not the same equation as the other. It's like saying that "3 * 3" and "3 ÷ 1/3" mean the same thing ... yeah, the answer is the same, but the question is not. It's similar to powers vs. roots in math: a "2" root creates the same answer as as a "1/2" power, exactly as multiplying by "2" creates the same answers as dividing by "1/2". In a nutshell, the redirect isn't the Square root of 3, it's 3 to the 0.5 power. (And yes, I'm saying this knowing that 3^1/2 is clearly mentioned in the target article; I'm in belief that some of our math articles need to be reevaluated to not potentially confuse readers in this manner.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Going point by point on WP:RFD#DELETE I don't see any arguments to delete. (I have autocollapsed this to not seem like a WP:WALL)

Extended content

1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.

There has been no article this has arguably caused difficult finding, so this does not apply.

2. The redirect might cause confusion.

Similar to above, there has not been any identified possible confusion.

3. The redirect is offensive or abusive.

This is not the case

4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam.

This is also not the case

5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Banana".

This redirect makes perfectly good sense as pointed out by Tavix, as $3^{\frac {1}{2}}=3^{0.5}={\sqrt {3}}$ = 3^0.5.

6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace.

Not a CNR.

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.

Not broken

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.

It is not the result of original research and it is not particularly novel or obscure. It is specifically mentioned at the article as $3^{1/2}$, as $1/2=0.5$ (I do not think that accounts for original research per WP:OBV)

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.

No proposed move

10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Could not plausibly be expanded into its own article

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).

Does not end in disambiguation

With all that said, this should be kept. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 18:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per Steel1943. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Michalis Kalamiotis

• Michalis Kalamiotis → Stamatis Kalamiotis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

renominating on behalf of BEN917, who kinda broke everything, formatting-wise

the original text goes as follows

"Redirect from incorrect name. The footballer is officially known as Stamatis Kalamiotis and has never been known as "Michalis". This redirect is factually incorrect and misleading." consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

admittedly, i have no idea how many problems actually were in the original nom, but it was definitely more than one. for now, i'll recommend using twinkle for this stuff, since it'll boil the complicated part of the process down to pressing the button that does the thing consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Azag-Thoth

• Azag-Thoth → Azathoth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

consider this a weak nom, as this might just be a case where i'm being some sort of... how do i say this... sightless dolt? unseeing moron? visually impaired oaf? something among those lines, i'm sure

but instead of an alternate spelling, this seems to see use mostly as a stylization among one or two pieces of media not actually all that related to lovecraft's ethnically questionable shenanigans, or as the name of a potentially notable black metal band, so unless i'm missing some obvious details, this seems like a case of returning to red, or at least hoping someone is lucky to find something that could be worked into the current target (assuming it is actually a plausible spelling in some context directly related to the source material, that is)

also, some results suggested that it might've been a portmanteau, but they don't know the other half of it and if there's another half, so let's just ignore that consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Outwrest

• Outwrest → Extortion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Outwrests → Extortion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Outwrested → Extortion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Outwresting → Extortion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

None of these redirects are mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the target article and the redirects unclear. (These redirects would have been eligible for WP:X1 if the criteria was still active.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all. "Outwrest" appears to be a rare English word meaning "to pull out". "Extort" comes from Latin roots for the same thing. However, I see nothing that indicates that the former has ever been used to refer to the English sense of the latter. So it seems to be a novel. unused calquing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

TemplateWales squad UEFA Women's Euro 2025

• TemplateWales squad UEFA Women's Euro 2025 → Template:Wales squad UEFA Women's Euro 2025  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect from mainspace to templatespace. Vestrian24Bio 12:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• more than anything, delete as malformed. potentially even speedy as g6 consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Lipschitz norm

• Lipschitz norm → Lipschitz continuity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

per Wikipedia:RETURNTORED. Target article at the Moment does not concern itself with the Lipschitz norm. ~2025-33104-52 (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There's no information about it anywhere on WP (except a couple mentions with no definitions or anything in other articles), and there's potentially room to mention this somewhere (either a dedicated article or more likely, as part of another article). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Minneapolis-style hot dog

• Minneapolis-style hot dog → Hot dog variations#Minnesota  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Minneapolis-style hotdog → Hot dog variations#Minnesota  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such content at the target article. There was at one time, but it was removed in 2024 for poor sourcing. The article that was at the redirect in question did have one reliable source, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, but that article is about a "MPLS Dog" created by a marketing group for a single local restaurant in an attempt to create an "iconic" local hot dog. I can find no evidence that there is any such concept as a "Minneapolis-style hot dog" outside of this one eatery. --Sable232 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I₂Overcome ^talk 10:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history? Also bundled Minneapolis-style hotdog to this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not relevant to the target. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment regarding the relisting comment: since there was only one reliable source, and it really only established that the concept was a marketing ploy more or less made up one day, the pre-redirect history does not meet GNG. (Anecdotally, I'm not aware of a "Minneapolis-style hot dog" being a broadly-accepted concept.) --Sable232 (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: two weeks passed since the first relist. Relisting again so the discussion is not abandoned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, zglph^•talk• 07:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. 77qq 💬 contributions 14:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Occupations of Palestine

• Occupations of Palestine → History of Palestine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Perhaps it would be better to redirect to the disambiguation page Occupation of Palestine. I'm not sure, so I'm asking for other opinions. Hassan697 (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Definitely a better option as it will allow people to briefly scan and find what they are looking for, rather than wading through that very long article. Tiamut (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Retarget per nom 77qq 💬 contributions 13:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

China clay country

• China clay country → St Austell Rural District  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Answers in Creation

• Answers in Creation → Old Earth creationism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Answers in Creation

This organization is not mentioned at the target, which is a section that no longer exists there. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Mentioned at Creationism#Organizations Sting Kipu (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it suitable to mention the organisation in this section if it does not meet WP:GNG? The citation is the organisation's own page. Golem08 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing it. Sting Kipu (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete, probably not notable. I don't like returntored but this isn't mentioned and pretty vague to an uninitiated viewer. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 04:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Back when I was active in the skeptics movement I would encounter this org fairly often but my sense is that it's actually quite obscure. The redirect gets ≈1 view per day and has at times had more traffic. This is low overall but higher than many redirects we delete as obviously useless. The traffic is presumably due to the existence of the redirect itself and its appearance in a handful of articles; these links could simply be removed when this is deleted so as not to suggest there is a suitable article here. Regardless, since there is no description of this org at the target and only a passing mention in a list of org's elsewhere on-wiki, this does not serve readers and should be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Weak redirect to Creationism#Organizations Seeing a few secondary mentions, but all are pretty weak SPS and BLOGs. Its mention on Creationism#Organizations is borderline. Not really opposed to deletion tho. If someone else says keep, consider this a keep, otherwise no objection to delete. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Just notified of this discussion at the target and creator talk pages. Jay 💬 04:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Pizza boxen

• Pizza boxen → Pizza box  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems like a joke redirect with an unlikely plural. 77qq 💬 contributions 03:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• wikt:boxen Sting Kipu (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete because of the rare plural, but I'm kind of on the fence here. If anyone thinks otherwise and has a strong argument, I'll probably change my vote. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 05:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, boxen is a humorous plural for box, but that's all, and it's mostly in the sense of a computer as a box. No one's going to search for this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 07:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• delete as a bad pun grr consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Deletexen. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Obamabarack

• Obamabarack → Barack Obama  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Washingtongeorge → George Washington  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Lincolnabraham → Abraham Lincoln  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bidenjoe → Joe Biden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no Washingtongeorge, Lincolnabraham, or Bidenjoe article, so why have this? 77qq 💬 contributions 02:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Because someone decided to create this redirect but not the others you list. Do you have an issue with this redirect or would you prefer the other redirects be created? -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  probably create the others 77qq 💬 contributions 03:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all. Totally implausible sort name redirect without a space or comma. Steel1943 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  ...And the three mentioned in the nomination statement have been added to this discussion since the nominator created them. (In other words, the nominator's statement applies only to Obamabarack unless stated otherwise.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Alldelete -- implausible, useless, WP:UNNATURAL. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Common criminals

• Common criminals → Misdemeanor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Though Common crime targets the same target as the nominated redirect, I do not believe that readers are attempting to locate the target article when searching this redirect. If anything, they are probably looking for some sort of List of criminals, which we seemingly do not have. In addition, the singular form, Common criminal, does not exist (though Common Criminal does). Steel1943 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Felony and Misdemeanour

• Felony and Misdemeanour → Misdemeanor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY: Felony is a distinct, separate subject. Steel1943 (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is the seriousness of the crime. Retarget to Seriousness#Measuring degree of seriousness in crime where they are explained in this context. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Trial on indictment

• Trial on indictment → Indictable offence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There doesn't seem to be a clear target for this redirect, given that it could equally represent Indictment in general. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Concur

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

Given that this word has a strong connection to other topics, such as agreeing or understanding something, in addition to the target not mentioning the word "concur" even once without the "-rence" suffix, I do not believe that the current target is proper. However, seems like the only target we have for this is SAP Concur, which is where the original target of this redirect was moved to. With this information, I have no opinion between "retarget to SAP Concur" or "delete", but those are my two stances on this. Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Harboring a fugitive

• Harboring a fugitive → Accessory (legal term)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I do not believe that the target article is what readers are looking for if they are searching this term. Though the target article does mention "harboring a criminal/felon", not all criminals and felons are fugitives. I had originally thought to look at the article Accomplice for a potential target there, but cannot find anything. Overall, if a proper target cannot be found, this title most likely has WP:REDLINK potential. Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Fell off the Truck this Morning

• Fell off the Truck this Morning → Possession of stolen goods  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a common enough expression to refer to the questionable provenance of stolen goods (although probably without the "this morning" part), but there's no reason why it should target possession and not something like theft or sale or something instead. The capitalization is also weird. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per above. 77qq 💬 contributions 17:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as a double incorrect capitalisation is a weird typo regardless of whether this is mentioned at the target or not. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 18:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Adventure camping

• Adventure camping → Camping#Adventure camping  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Adventure camp → Camping#Adventure camping  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think this redirect is particularly helpful as it is not discussed at the target page. I could see reason retargeting it to Summer camp or potentially Adventure Camp. Golem08 (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Also bundle Adventure camping which is an older redirect from 2015. Jay 💬 10:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with Adventure camping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Benign variant

• Benign variant → Variant of uncertain significance#Benign  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

One can have "Benign variant"s of things other than mutations; phrase is to vague to redirect to one target and I don't think it makes sense as a dab. Rusalkii (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep — "Benign variant" is a common and specific term, almost exclusively used by professionals and non-professionals in context of clinical genetics (the only other usage being niche references in EEG interpretation). The ACMG–AMP 2015 variant interpretation framework defined "benign variant" as one of the five standard classes of gene variants. This is the standard vocabulary for clinical variant interpretation and patient education, widely adopted globally. Major resources and databases such as ClinVar, ClinGen, GeneReviews and webpages whose intended audience is non-professionals use the exact phrase—"benign variant"—in both professional and lay explanations. The redirect is useful and improves navigation to the relevant genetics content for our readers who are looking for the meaning of this term, which is an official clinical genetics classification rather than a vague expression, and is not commonly used in non-professional communication outside this context. — Strange Orange 14:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  It may not be vague in a genetics context, but it is used in other context as well. For instance, we use it 7 times, of which none seem to refer to the class of gene variants. Similarly, the first hit when I google the phrase is the EEG usage, and it represents a large fraction of the results. The three common usages I can see are (1) the gene variant, (2) a variant of a disease or other health issue (as expressed, not genetically) or (3) the EEG variant. Rusalkii (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  In addition to “benign variant” being one of the official classes of gene variants, it is also the standardized terminology used to describe variants in place of the older term "mutations". This has already been standardized in clinical genetics and there is clearly a spike in its popular usage after this terminology was adopted and started being used in science communication. While a Google search does return some EEG-related results, these represent a clear minority but that's besides the point. Of the seven instances you noted above (excluding the redirect title itself), one is the title of a 1981 journal article, one is the title of a 2010 journal article, and one is an unsourced usage referring to an Ender’s Game character—none of which represent widely used terminology in those respective contexts. Additionally, since 2015, the term is way more commonly being used in scientific literature to refer to clinical genetics than EEGs. While it is also used in EEG interpretation, I had to specifically look for it to show up in my journal search. Outside of clinical genetics and its niche EEG context, there is little evidence that the term is used elsewhere with any comparable frequency. We would be remiss to delete this when it seems easy to disambiguate—I believe you already did that with your response. — Strange Orange 04:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP

• Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP → Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term, alternative redirect Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh already exists. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep Appears to be unambiguous and harmless. This is a case of WP:CHEAP Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Alkes dinesh mody institute

• Alkes dinesh mody institute → University of Mumbai  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Miscapitalisation, misleading redirect, the article Alkesh Dinesh Mody Institute already exists, no redirect is needed. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Assists with navigation, is not ambiguous, and no "delete per WP:DIFFCAPS" argument is valid here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Steel1943. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 21:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Space movie 1992

• Space movie 1992 → Gayniggers from Outer Space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Thinking that this one might be inappropriate given that there are plenty of space movies from 1992; I don't know if someone types that in the search box that they would be expecting this movie in particular to come up. aaronneallucas (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep (maybe refine to §Reception?). It's apparently a search term to trick unsuspecting folks into getting search engine results for the film, and it's talked about at the article, so it seems fine to redirect there. Any other usage would be horribly vague, but this is pretty specific. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Refine to Gayniggers from Outer Space § Reception where the meme is explained. This is an implausible search term for any other "space movie" that may have come out in 1992. (I somewhat question the importance of this meme and whether it really deserves a mention in the article, but it's there and if the content hasn't been challenged then this redirect is reasonable enough.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

December 8

Knockoff

• Knockoff → Dupe (product)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Knock-off → Dupe (product)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It needs to be discussed where this page should point, as there are several possibilities - Counterfeit, Counterfeit consumer good and Dupe (product). This Wired article uses knock-off in the sense of a counterfeit good. A DAB page may also be required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that I had also opened an RM on Talk:Dupe (product) that is not due to close until the 27th, so people may also want to comment on that discussion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I have mentioned this discussion over at the RM. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 15:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/pittsburgh-cbp-officers-seize-573k-knockoff-rolex-watches-and-luxury

https://www.cpsc.gov/Warnings/2025/Consumer-Safety-Alert-CPSC-Issues-Urgent-Safety-Warning-to-Labubu-Collectors

Above government agencies use Knockoff for Counterfeit consumer good. So i think it should redirect to Counterfeit or Counterfeit consumer good Cinaroot (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

That is a definition contrary to one you would find in any dictionary, and nothing in that article addresses them. You can find just as many people using dupe and knockoff (which you insist are entirely unrelated) as synonyms. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• I already brought this up on Talk:Counterfeit_consumer_good#Proposed_split where it formerly redirected, with the general consensus that "knockoff" does not mean counterfeit and should not redirect there. Dupe and knockoff are virtually identical concepts referring to legal imitations of products, so whatever that article ends up being renamed to, the other should redirect there. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Dabify Knockoff and redirect Knock-off to Knockoff. "Knockoff" is used ambiguously to refer to either counterfeit consumer goods or cheap imitations similar to dupes. I₂Overcome ^talk 00:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  I also would support a full article at Knockoff; I think there’s enough history and notability there for knockoffs, dupes, and counterfeit goods to each have their own articles. I₂Overcome ^talk 23:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Counterfeits are not knockoffs, and neither page in question addresses them. So just delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  How about creating a separate article or a dab page for Knockoff so we’re not left with nothing if the RM fails? I₂Overcome ^talk 23:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  What happened was this:

  Someone opens a split request on counterfeit because knockoffs and counterfeits are different things and knockoffs are completely different things (they claim).

  Someone later opens a merge request for dupe to counterfeit because it is (they claim) the same thing.

  I execute both of these by splitting the content at counterfeit to to have one article on the concept of "product clearly trying to be another product though not exactly and it uses a different name", as that is what both knockoff and dupe mean.

  After this, Cinaroot (the creator of the dupe article) argues that these are totally unrelated things, and completely rewrites the scope of the article to be on dupes and not knockoffs and remove any mention of them (but keeps the half of that article's sourcing which was about knockoffs, not dupes, and did not even mention dupes, but just rewrites it to be on dupes, which I have since removed because we cannot say they are different things and then treat them as synonyms)

  So, we now have no article that addresses what a knockoff is, and we are simultaneously arguing that it is and is not the same thing. Just delete it. Anything else is more confusing. Maybe someone will make another article. Maybe someone won't. Better than an incorrect redirect. A dab makes it worse because you do not actually get any content about a knockoff at either of these articles, and if it is notable, that is not what a dab is for, WP:RETURNTORED PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Yikes. I totally agree with PARAKANYAA on this. First off Dupe (product) should be moved to Knockoff because knockoff is the legally recognized name in courts for that type of thing under the law; original (legal), counterfeit (illegal), knockoff (legal under certain circumstances). Courts/lawyers use the term knockoff. Not dupes. That's pretty standard. this and this explains the difference. Whoever did this made a mess of things. 4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Knock off, which was a similar redirect but converted to a dab more than an year back. Jay 💬 10:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to disambiguation and add wiktionary box. I originally created this years ago as a redirect to counterfeit consumer goods, since that is the primary topic and the items that seem mostly in question that use the term concern those watches and handbags. I don't understand the difference between that and the dupe jargon. You can make a case to add Replica to the counterfeit consumer goods "see also". AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Surface transportation

• Surface transportation → Road transport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Surface transport → Road transport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Surface transport is a broader category than just road transport. Here's the definition from Cambridge Dictionary (emphasis added):

the movement of people or goods by road, train, or ship, rather than by plane

What should we do? That's a good question. Land transport would definitely be an improvement over status quo, since it includes rail. It doesn't include maritime transport, but it seems to me like we don't have a better option since there is no article about the two concepts lumped together.

So I'd suggest retargeting to Land transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberkitten (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support retargeting both to Land transport and retargeting Surface transit (another redirect to Road transport) in the same manner
  If transit = transportation (as explicitly stated in introductions to related articles such as Public transport), and surface = land, then this should be retargeted as well. Surface transit currently has 14 article-space links that should probably be changed to Mass transit, which currently redirects to Public transport, or perhaps something else more specific/appropriate. Jdaloner (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  Surface is not land, the definition provided in the nom includes ships. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Create dab page at Surface transportation, redirect Surface transport and Surface transit to that page, and link to various forms of surface transportation. Oppose retarget to Land transport because surface ≠ land. I₂Overcome ^talk 11:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Land transport with hatnote The majority of sources I could find used surface transport to refer to specifically transport over land. However a minority include the sea, specifically in the context of freight, eg: [3], [4]. Therefore I would suggest including a hatnote to Maritime transport to acknowledge potential ambiguity. Golem08 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

√−3

• √−3 → Square root of 3#Square root of −3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target of the page no longer exists, (the redirect was last edited 12 years ago) and it now targets to just the page. What action should be taken to this redirect? 2550 69 11hne (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Tagged redirect since it wasn't tagged by the nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• The target section was removed 4 years ago in this edit [5] by Danstronger. Personally I think this was a mistake, because the article now lacks any link to Eisenstein integer, and the content was verifiable (if not actually sourced). I propose to reinstate the target section, whose content is certainly verifiable. --JBL (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for now at least. I'll mostly remain agnostic about whether or not the material should be re-added to the main square root of 3 article (it maybe seems a little off topic, but I dunno). But it's not there now, so until it is, the redirect shouldn't exist. And even then, this requires typing two unusual characters: the square root symbol and the minus sign (not a hyphen, as keyboards generally produce), so the utility of this seems questionable at best regardless. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Procedural comment The nomination was malformed and did not use {{subst:rfd2}}, so I have fixed it. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete since the answer is 3i. Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  ...Or what Casablanca Rock said since I haven't dealt with this type of math in almost a decade. 😂 (I'm still "delete" though since the target does not fully encompass the subject of this redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I am troubled as this is mentioned at Eisenstein integer to some extent as $i{\sqrt {3}}$ which is in $\omega ={\frac {-1+i{\sqrt {3}}}{2}}=e^{\frac {i2\pi }{3}}$; however, it is a bit surprising as it is not the only use of $i{\sqrt {3}}$. I largely think that this should be kept with the content restored as noted above by JayBeeEll, but I am unsure if that's a conclusion that RfD can come to. If so, count this as a !vote for keep. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 23:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  it is a conclusion rfd can come to. it's not like it's forbidden from ever interacting with article content (ever) or anything consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You know, fair enough. Restore and keep is my !vote. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 14:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• for what little that's worth, delete unless sources are found and then added. the section that got removed was just unsourced cruft, so restoring it really wouldn't help the article or a reader. the mention at eisenstein integer is indirect at best, so it wouldn't help matters much either consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

g Tauri

• g Tauri → Kappa Ceti  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

g Tauri is usually recognised as the optical double Kappa Tauri, but the List of stars in Cetus states EL Ceti as g Tauri. I just intend to find out the correct star, and the possibility of retargeting. MisterSpacee (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The redirect was untagged. I have tagged the redirect. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep, there is a source for the identification of g Tauri as Kappa Ceti ([6]), but List of stars in Cetus does not cite a source for g Tauri being EL Ceti. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Ethernet cable

• Ethernet cable → Ethernet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ethernet Cable → Networking cable  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ethernet cable and Ethernet Cable redirect to two different articles; they should both redirect to the same article. Which one, I am not sure at the moment. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep the lower-case version, since its target does go into quite a bit of detail about the various cables used for ethernet specifically, while the networking cable page is more generic. And since we're here, delete the upper-case version, since it's not a proper noun, and the search function will already match case differences (which would have avoided this situation in the first place). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Target Ethernet, also I see no justification for having the Title Case version. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep the lower case version and if keeping the upper case both should redirect to network cabling. As the term is commonly used, ‘Ethernet cables’ can be used on non-Ethernet networks and Ethernet can run over fiber, which is not considered to be an Ethernet cable. Because of this it is not appropriate to redirect either phrase to Ethernet. Ngriffeth (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

See Ethernet over fibre and https://www.cablesandkits.com/learning-center/fiber-optic-vs-ethernet-cables/ Ngriffeth (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

so... is this a "keep if the other is deleted, but retarget if it's not"? or is that supposed to be "keep as opposed to deletion"? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep the lower case version

Delete or retarget the upper case version Ngriffeth (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I got this backwards, I meant keep and retarget the lower case version to networking cable.

Anyone referring to Ethernet cables is almost certainly referring to the twisted-pair version. The Ethernet article has extensive discussion of the historical use of coax cables but that’s less relevant to anyone interested in Ethernet cables.

The observation that the networking cable article doesn’t have as much discussion of Ethernet cables is correct, but that’s not actually a problem since it links to a main article with extensive discussion of each kind of cabling. It also points out that twisted pairs are commonly used for Ethernet networks and that coax was used in early Ethernet networks. This gives a much clearer picture of the situation for Ethernet cables. Ngriffeth (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

ah, okay. those "keep and retarget" votes actually just mean "retarget" in practice lol

this small confusion aside, though, results for "ethernet cable" still mostly gave me whatever cables could be used for ethernet shenanigans. this included coaxial cables, but it also included twisted pair, ethernet crossover cables, cable of marvel vs. capcom 2 fame and not much else, usb-c cables, lists of cables used for ethernet hijinks, and a bunch of assorted color-coded square stuff i can't tell apart to save my life. this, along with other cables the results i got before google lost track of itself didn't cover, is information i think is better communicated in ethernet than networking cable, as a reader would be looking for somewhat more specific info, even if about this oddly nonspecific topic. this also doesn't mean i think either article covers it that well, but that's besides the point for now consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• retarget the titlecase one to ethernet. networking cable would definitely be on the surprising side, as they'd be specifically looking for one type of cable that isn't mentioned in enough depth there consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• I just discovered that there's also a separate redirect for Ethernet cables. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

2027 Louisiana gubernatorial election

• 2027 Louisiana gubernatorial election → 2027 United States gubernatorial elections#Louisiana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No need for a redirect to this next election. Red Links encourage article creation. This moved from draftspace, but was redirected to preserve history as an ATD, but quite frankly, there is really no valuable content in the history. It basically just says the basic fact the incumbent one term governor is eligible for a second term. The details on the jungle primary in history don't really justify keeping it as this information can be found on other election articles such as the more broad Elections in Louisiana. Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, since there's information about the upcoming election at the target article. This is standard procedure when there's no separate article for a given election. The redirect can always be overwritten with an article. - Eureka Lott 15:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

ISIRTA songs

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Interstate 99 (South Carolina–Delaware)

• Interstate 99 (South Carolina–Delaware) → List of future Interstate Highways#Interstate 99  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are no plans for Interstate 99 from Delaware to South Carolina. Also the section it redirects to doesn't exist. Felicia (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Retarget to U.S. Route 17 in North Carolina § Interstate proposals (Changed at 14:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC) after reading Tavix's comment). This was proposed as a concept and even analyzed by VDOT; however, it was never implemented. The report from VDOT can be seen here. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 23:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• U.S. Route 17 in North Carolina#Interstate proposals is one place that still mentions it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I missed that, thank you! Changed my !vote to RT there as it provides at least some context and is likely better for the reader than nothing. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 14:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

That is a better redirect target and I support it. Felicia (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Handing

• Handing → Door#Swing direction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Odd one here. The target clearly mentions this redirect as an alternative name for the target subject/section, but this is clearly a WP:RSURPRISE per third party search engines ... which define the primary topic for "handing" as the verb to give someone something via hands. I did some searching around the English Wikipedia, specifically looking for options such as variations of Giving, but could not find an alternative target. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Tyre rating

• Tyre rating → Tire code  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Newly created redirect; no mention of this as a "rating" as the target, and ambiguous with other possible targets, such as Uniform Tire Quality Grading, and possibly other sorts of things that might be referred to as a rating, like for weather, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• By all means replace it with a disambiguation page. You could just have done that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC).
  

  A dab page would still be inappropriate here; I'm arguing for a delete if that wasn't clear from the nom. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Seems fine to me. I tweaked it to redirect to the more specific section Tire_code#Speed_rating, which matches the name and meaning of the redirect itself.  Stepho  talk  23:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I've undone your change; please don't change targets mid-RFD until it concludes with a consensus to do so. That aside, I think this is an even worse idea, as this isn't called a "tire rating", and as I mentioned, there are other things that could just as well be sought after. A "code" isn't a "rating", and the UTQG would at least make a little more sense, but still, no one calls it a "tire rating" so much as ratings for the individual qualities. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree with everything you just said. The redirect is called "tire rating" and the section Tire_code#Speed_rating lists all the tyre ratings - which is exactly what a typical reader would expect. Whereas your suggested link to Uniform Tire Quality Grading explains nothing about tyre ratings, so it is a poor choice that does not help the reader.

  Also, Tire_code#Speed_rating is used internationally and is suitable for the majority of international readers, while UTQG is an American only thing that is not suitable for non-American readers.  Stepho  talk  14:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Chrome paint

• Chrome paint → Paint  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

uh... does this count as an unnecessary color redirect? was redirected in afd as an unsourced stub, so that's not worth worrying about consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Yellow paint

• Yellow paint → Paint  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

moved from yellow paint debate and then retargeted. i thought yellow paint (the material that makes stuff yellow) would've been the primary topic, but it seems that yellow paint (the unsubtle signposting) seems to beat it by a relatively decent margin. not that this is worth worrying about much, but i do think it would be better off retargeted back to the debate consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to the debate; which seems uncontroversial. I'd almost rather see that page simply at "Yellow paint", but that's a separate issue. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  WP:BOLDMOVE of the debate article to "yellow paint" was contested per talk; I have left there a link to this RfD. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Retarget per above. 77qq 💬 contributions 21:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment "yellow paint debate" is pretty niche. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC).
  

  eh, not quite. it's a somewhat widespread recent argument regarding game design, it really just happens that the article is a tiny wee bit fucking raw at the moment. it's definitely not up there with "graphical fidelity vs. art style" (which is obviously a binary choice, you can never have both, ignore the split fiction-shaped hole in this argument) or "make big money vs. make good game" (which is obviously a binary choice, you can never have both, ignore the balatro-shaped hole in this argument), but it's at least well past being niche consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Black Paint

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

funnily, this one actually has a reason to be in titlecase. that being that it was from a move of a redirect to year of the snitch, as a song in that album. for whatever reason, the common noun version was previously speedied as a pile of fancruft for an unrelated, seemingly unnotable rap trio

that's all besides the point, though. per redirects like red crayon (see rfd), there doesn't seem to be any need for redirects for specific colors, and results don't seem to have implied that the death grips sound thingy would be a primary topic for the search. i guess if kept, the common noun version should be recreated consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. 77qq 💬 contributions 21:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Black where black paint is pictured. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  not feeling this one, honestly. this will be a little too similar to pandora for my tastes, but it would be just as valid an argument for red, green, yellow, yellow, purple, brown, and cthulhu help me, blue. on a more serious note, this and all those other articles also aren't really about paint of those colors, nor do they have the kind of info readers would be looking for under a title like that, so they'd be surprising consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom & as unnecessary, especially with the capitalization. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 04:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Move Protection

• Move Protection → Wikipedia:Protection policy#Move protection  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is not an appropriate or justified cross-namespace redirect, no matter if it's new or old. Also, here is a link to another discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 25#Permanent protection.

Move protection in the real world could mean that you are protecting a physical object from moving elsewhere, but I'm not sure if we should have a redirect for that, and which target if so? Also, even if the reader may know about move protection on MediaWiki, it's not exclusive to Wikipedia, maybe a bit of self reference. This may be undesirable to the reader and may be a bit annoying for unjustified CNRs to show up in the search.

Note: We could retarget to MediaWiki#Groups and restriction of access, but I don't think we should do that, but rather create Move protection (MediaWiki) as a redirect to MediaWiki#Groups and restriction of access maybe. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 20:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as noted not Wikipedia specific and Google doesn't return anything for Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Tav (number)

• Tav (number) → Absolute infinite  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of it in the target article. Apparently there used to be but a discussion led to its removal so the redirect no longer makes sense. Largoplazo (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The content was moved from Tav (number) AIUI. It was then pre-emptively deleted in a discussion in August, but User:Farkle Griffen has commented on the talk page explaining the history of the tav character in the absolute infinite article. Presumably the content will be restored , or at least enough of it to allow the redirect to remain in place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC).

Fast Infinitesimal Time Coalescent

• Fast Infinitesimal Time Coalescent → Evolution  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not mentioned at the target. Tomato potato burrito (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

FitCoal

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

not mentioned at the target. Tomato potato burrito (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete The creator cited a specific article [7] that isn't cited in the target, and while I can access this one I still cannot see the connection. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Altona murder

• Altona murder → Murder of Curtis Klassen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an implausibly vague name that was the article's earlier name (and its current name on Wikidata). Without substantial evidence to the contrary, we don't have evidence to support holding this as a redirect. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. You might want to mention that this had been sitting at the title for a couple years before you moved it just now before this nomination. If this had just been created, I would have said delete without hesitation, but it's been a couple years, so it might make sense to let this sit for a little bit first. There's also some cleanup -- existing links and mentions in articles as "the Altona murder". All that being said, I did see one source use the phrase "Altona murder", but it was fairly generically, and didn't seem to indicate that this was some special name that this is widely known by. The very same town was (according to its page) the site of Canada's first school shooting too, which could be intended instead. Not only that, but there are apparently a lot of other Altonas around the world, which also increases the vagueness. So meh, call me neutral for now...being an R from move gives me pause, but there's otherwise no reason to keep and good reasons to delete. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Deacon Vorbis: While I still think deletion of this redirect is the right call, I actually didn't realize that the article was two years old and thought it had been created today. That mistake must have been the result of me seeing that this article was created on 8 December, just not realizing that this was 8 December 2023. Funny coincidence, I suppose. Thanks for the comment, and consider revisiting this if you find that you're willing to offer a firm !vote one way or the other. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep. We don't appear to have any other articles about murders that have happened here, this article was at this title for several years. Location isn't that vague. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per PARAKANYAA. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Politics of Palestine

• Politics of Palestine → Politics of the Palestinian National Authority  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Politics of the Palestinian territoriesPolitics of the Palestinian territories → Politics of the Palestinian National Authority  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Politics of the State of Palestine → Politics of the Palestinian National Authority  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Politics of the West Bank → Politics of the Palestinian National Authority  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Politics of the Palestinian Territories → Politics of the Palestinian National Authority  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This should be deleted because the PNA is only a player in the broader subject of Palestinian politics. This is like redirecting Politics of Canada to Politics of the Conservative Party of Canada or Politics of America to the Democrat Party. It is misleading and, per WP:RETURNTORED, should be turned into a redlink. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Palestine and Politics. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 01:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Palestine#Government and_politics seems like a reasonable target for these. Politics of Palestine could be tagged as a {{r with possibilities}} and the other redirects tagged as {{r avoided double redirect}}s of the former. - Eureka Lott 22:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

December 7

Gongomtshane

• Gongomtshane → Plebeina armata  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a malformed, unattested Ndebele-language term for the mopane fly. The correct term would be "ingongomtshane". This likely comes from a misinterpretation of a dictionary entry such as this, where words are listed alphabetically from the root rather than the full term, and are thus seperated from their prefixes. Delete as an unlikely search term. ArcticSeeress (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Katiedevi (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This is what Scientologists actually believe

• This is what Scientologists actually believe → Trapped in the Closet (South Park)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While this quote is used in this episode and is associated with it, it is potentially misleading, as it seems like the target would deal with Scientologists' beliefs and practices, not a South Park episode. aaronneallucas (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. 77qq 💬 contributions 01:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Add an anchor to the paragraph that discusses it and send the redirect there. No one looking for Scientology information is going to type "This is what..." as a search term. Don't think of a redirect backwards.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Grorp. This is really strongly tied to the South Park episode. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Any confusion can be mitigated by actually reading the article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Nixer (playing card)

• Nixer (playing card) → Blank (playing card)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, and no evidence I can find that a Blank is called a "nixer". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: a search returned nothing, not in any of the dictionaries I checked. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep Did a deep dive on the origin of this page. The creator is retired, which doesnt help, but the edits made around the creation of this redirect seem to back it up. Nixer appears to be based on the German word nichtser, 'nothing', which is used for cards that have no value (ie blank). Its usage predates Bermicourt's work, and existed on a few German card game articles, which they seem to have wanted to have a link for due to the oddness of the term. See mainly Blattla and Schafkopf. Looking for actual usage of either term off wiki is a bit thin, but I do think there is enough grounding for it. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

that's a tidbit i think would require at least a mention first. to avoid being surprising. if you found something that could work as a source, i'd be happy to see it, but i didn't find anything myself consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Metallurgist's findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with consarn. If the link requires such an in-depth deep dive it's not an obvious link. Since there don't seem to be any obvious sources mentioning the term in the article in order to preserve the redirect doesn't seem to be an option. Katiedevi (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Mimi Lieber

• Mimi Lieber → The Thing About My Folks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Restore article and send to AFD. Geschichte (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Restore article and consider AFD for proper assessment. The article was recently BLAR'd (May 2025). It was getting >700 monthly pageviews pre-BLAR and continues to get ≈400 views per month post-BLAR. Quite possibly just an artifact of being linked in a few high-traffic articles. Linking to a random movie she appeared in doesn't make any sense. Even if this is her most high profile role, the article (appropriately) contains zero biographical information and doesn't even discuss her performance. If found non-notable at AfD this should not be made to redirect back to the film. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  or Delete per my comments below, post-relist. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• ugh... delete and do not restore unless someone actually thinks the sources are usable. as is, citation 1 is a filmography and not usable for notability, citation 2 only mentions her in passing in the context of one random episode of friends where she's one of two actresses for the same character, citation 3 only mentions her in passing in the context of a one-off appearance in seinfeld, and seems to be from a blog, and i have to wonder what the hell citation 4 is doing there because it seems to be nothing but the headline followed by a picture of her and who i'm assuming is her husband. as is, i found some seemingly usable sources for her, but they're not in the article, so a closer would be restoring a filmography with effectively one source that doesn't prove notability, meaning she unambiguously doesn't meet gng as is, and if an article were to be made from those sources, it would be under wp:tnt, whether the creator wants that to be the case or not. honestly, people saying that it should be taken elsewhere without actually assessing the stuff they want taken elsewhere should stop, since it only actually means they want someone else to deal with a potentially really simple case consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 22:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Nominator comment: Geschichte, Myceteae, consarn, any chance the three of you could work out your differing stances? As the nominator, I'm neutral between restoring and sending to AfD and just deleting, but without further engagement, this will end up being closed as no consensus and kept as a redirect, which doesn't seem to be an outcome anyone wants. Thanks. — Anonymous 19:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  I prefer deletion over keeping. I think it's inappropriate to BLAR articles that don't have a suitable redirect target and that have some content worthy of evaluation at AfD. That said, I agree that this the content and sourcing in the history is essentially unusable so either she is not notable of this is WP:TNT and can be deleted either way. I will also amend my bolded !vote above. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  i could dump some of the aforementioned sources i found, if that'd help with creating an article in the future, but as is, i still don't think there's anything worth restoring in there consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  @An anonymous username, not my real name: without further engagement, this will end up being closed as no consensus and kept as a redirect This is not true; the competent experienced closers (and all the admin ones at least) know better per WP:NCRET and will close a "no consensus" with a functional outcome of the prevailing non-delete option if there is no consensus to delete. If a closer does what you describe, please ask them to modify or vacate their close, and if that fails raise it at WP:DRV whereby it will almost certainly get overturned. There's no reason for a redirect to be kept if no one votes to keep it. Left guide (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Restore article and send to AfD. Deleting the now-redirect would be tantamount to bypassing AfD; don't just turn articles into redirects and then delete them using RfD. CapnZapp (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Having a redirect titled Mimi Lieber would be fine if we had an article actually discussing her. I agree The Thing About My Folks isn't that article; it contains only a trivial mention with no details. Still, that doesn't mean we should delete this redirect because it used to be an article which received no AfD. CapnZapp (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

here we go again...

@CapnZapp please cite a policy, guideline, or even essay that says blars have to go to afd despite the lack of arguments that there's something worth restoring consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 01:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Restore or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

this seems like a good time to mention this afd from a blar no one in rfd had any actual arguments towards restoration beyond a procedure that doesn't exist, and no one in afd could prove was notable enough to improve or "re"create. similarly, no one voting to restore this has made any actual arguments towards the content being restored, with the closest to one being the exact thing that was mistaken for an assumption of incompetence way back in this afd and proven ineffective in a couple others consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete since nobody advocating for restoration has been able to make any arguments that the subject may be notable. Without evidence of notability, the subject article should not be restored (and it is inappropriate to ask AfD to try to find that evidence for you, that's not the purpose of that forum). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems split right down the middle, and seems to need a WP:BARTENDER unless consensus eventually sways in either direction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Agudela

• Agudela → Graciela Agudelo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear why Agudel-a redirects to Graciela Agudel-o (emphasis mine), as there are no mentions of "Agudela" in the target article. Redirect should be deleted as it appears to be a typo but WP:R3 is not applicable as the redirect has been in place for over 12 years. Shazback (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment one of the two sources in the article (the dictionary of composers) reads "Graciela Agudela", but this is likely to be a typo (perhaps someone who thought Spanish surnames are gendered?)

Possibly redirect to Matosinhos, as there is a beach there with the name "Praia da Agudela" [8] that can be added to the article, but I'm not sure if it would fit anywhere on there. Katzrockso (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment I think this could be an ok option. Information about beaches in Matosinhos could be easily added either in the Geography section or under Attractions. See link below from the municipality’s webpage.

Beaches in Matosinhos FilipeMRGouveia (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate Agudelo and make this page a redirect to that. As User:Katzrockso stated above, this is a very reasonable misnomer for someone who thinks that Spanish surnames are gendered. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  A disambiguation page has been made at Agudelo (disambiguation), pending outcome of this discussion it can be moved / amended / completed Shazback (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Vague as a misspelling of the composer's last name or Agudelo grapes or a correct spelling for the Portuguese beach. The misspelling for her name does appear in two en-wiki articles: List of women composers by birth date and List of women composers by name (I will correct these). It's also seemingly misspelled in another person's name in the references at Freddie Records. "Graciela Agudela" has just 318 hits on Google, including, I think, en-wiki mirrors or sites that may otherwise be influenced by the misspelling on a couple of pages here. The misspelling also appears in a citation on her es-wiki page which is a clear error (I plan to fix this, too). The beach, Praia da Agudela, is mentioned at List of beaches in Portugal § Porto metropolitan area. Redirects from last names are not standard but are sometimes justified. The fact that this is a misspelling, which I find to be rather uncommon, makes it less likely to be useful. We do have Graciela Agudela but the correct spelling of her lat name, Agudelo, redirects to Godello. I have updated the hatnote at Godello to include the composer. Search results will reveal the correct page Graciela Agudelo, via the Graciela Agudela redirect, as well as the Portuguese beach and any other uses that might sneak in. The full-name misspelling gets more traffic although both are low. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Matosinhos. Although it's an implausible typo for the composer or the wine, it's a plausible correct spelling for the beach User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 00:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to List of beaches in Portugal § Porto metropolitan area, as Matosinhos doesn't have a mention and will not be useful as a target. Weak because the beach doesn't seem to be important enough for even Matosinhos to have a mention. Otherwise delete to favour search results, or the wiki search bar to suggest similar spellings. Jay 💬 08:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Socer

• Socer → Association football  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspelled, name for Soccer Destinyokhiria 💬 18:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Kep. It's not too unlikely for someone to miss an R. 77qq 💬 contributions 20:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  You mean a "c"? Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  yeah i meant c 77qq 💬 contributions 01:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. In addition, the misspelling could be a phonetic match for Saucer, making the misspelling ambiguous anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per the others; about the same distance away from Sokar. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Simon Reed, (commentator)

• Simon Reed, (commentator) → Dancing on Ice  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:UNNATURAL, Simon Reed (broadcaster) already exists but the correct title Simon Reed (commentator) doesn't but the broadcaster/commentator appears to be the only notable person anyway so disambiguation doesn't seem necessarily. Otherwise redirect to Simon Reed (commentator) (or the base name if that article is moved to the base name). This could perhaps also have been moved to "Simon Reed (commentator)" without leaving a redirect if it wasn't for the fact that it has existed since 2022. This is similar to X3. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I'll assume this as a malformed modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious error. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Brandi Jackson

• Brandi Jackson → Jackie Jackson#Personal life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target page, therefore confusing for readers. The subject was formerly mentioned at the target but that information was removed in 2024 under WP:BLP with the rationale "highly inappropriate: poorly sourced information based on gossip sources and websites". Therefore, also delete the redirect as there is no valid target. Golem08 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Domer (meme)

• Domer (meme) → Bart Simpson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The meme in question does not seem notable right now (Google hits are mostly Know Your Meme or social media). There are also other potential targets as well, such as Homer Simpson (the meme's namesake), or Lisa's First Word (the origin of the quote). Xeroctic (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete we are not an indiscriminate collection of memes --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Munshi family

• Munshi family → Template:Zamindars of Chaugachha  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No reason to redirect from what could be an article to a template that is a navbox... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

First/second/third/fourth quarter

• First quarter → Lunar phase#Phases of the Moon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Second quarter → Calendar year#Quarters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Third quarter → Lunar phase#Phases of the Moon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fourth quarter → Calendar year#Quarter year  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

First, second, third, and fourth quarter are obviously ambiguous, as evidenced by their current pointing to separate sets of articles (not to mention the commonality of "quarters" in sports games). BD2412 T 04:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• I guess weak delete all since the Quarter disambiguation page would be best target, but not all meanings are included there, and none of these redirects have a clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target. (Otherwise, if someone can figure out how to disambiguate these titles properly, I'd be supporting that instead.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943: My initial thinking was to disambiguate all four titles, but there really isn't anything to add for the first three that isn't at Quarter. For Fourth quarter there is at least a political movement called The Fourth Quarter, so that one could be disambiguated. BD2412 T 17:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Quarter. Just too ambiguous. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per above 77qq 💬 contributions 14:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

George w

• George w → George W. Bush  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• 2017 March 9 § George W. – keep
• 2019 June 28 § George W. – withdrawn

There are more George Ws, this is not even the only "George W" president, there's George Washington. 77qq 💬 contributions 03:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@77qq: I unbundled this from the nomination for John's since I do not see the similarities between the two nominations at all to a point where a WP:TRAINWRECK is completely plausible. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep The arguments from the last RfD definitely make George W. Bush seem like a PTOPIC for George W.; however, this one the w is not capitalized and there is no period, so only a weak keep. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 15:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

John's

• John's → Saint John's College  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

For the John's one, that should be Retargeted to John. 77qq 💬 contributions 03:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@77qq: I unbundled this from the nomination for George w since I do not see the similarities between the two nominations at all to a point where a WP:TRAINWRECK is completely plausible. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete's per precedent to delete redirects that are structured as "NAME's" when the best plausible target is "NAME". Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete's the right thing to do here, just like with many similar ones. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete's per Steel1943. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, not because it's an error, but because it's a WP:PTM for over 1800 titles, from Saint John's to Papa John's to Elton John's Greatest Hits Volume II. - Eureka Lott 21:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, that too, and it makes no sense to retarget this to Saint John's (which would probably be the primary target for the partial title match). Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Host Plant Resistance

• Host Plant Resistance → Reginald Henry Painter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redundant with Host plant resistance and both show in the search box due to the caps. It currently incorrectly redirects to a BLP that was a major researcher on the topic. Was going to redirect to Plant defense against herbivory, but given the redundancy in the search box with both terms showing, probably better to just delete this term. KoA (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with nom's analysis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Amir Talai

• Amir Talai → Alastor the Radio Demon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Amir Talai

I know Amir Talai has been very notable for portraying Alastor in Prime series Hazbin Hotel, though considering that he has also acted in several other popular media before and well after Hazbin Hotel's release, it seems to me out of bias to select on Alastor the Radio Demon for a redirect spot, leaving me to think that the Amir Talai redirect should be deleted. ConeKota (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete @ConeKota: Which media? If he meets WP:NACTOR, there shall be room to create an article. Otherwise, WP:XY. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

See Draft:Amir Talai ConeKota (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I'm honestly not too familiar with other popular media he's been in (I barely even know Hazbin Hotel from scattered things online), but I would support article creation if that is possible. Otherwise, I support deletion. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 16:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. It's annoying when voice actors get redirects created that link to one specific voice role they've played. Makes no sense when they've played many different roles. Blubewwy (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

didn't thom huge have his page redirected to jon arbuckle, its not common for vas to be redirected to the characters pages, I agree with you however TheRandomfanguy (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Jon Lord album

• Jon Lord album → Sarabande (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems to be a typo from an old move. Impausible. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• i got a talk page message about this because presumably i edited it once, though i don't remember. i agree it's as you describe. Not useful. tomasz. 04:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Jon Lord#Discography. Steel1943 (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Jon Lord#Discography per Steel --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Voice pitch

• Voice pitch → Vocal register  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• I guess weak delete since though it could be considered synonymous with the current target, it is not sufficiently described there. In addition, I could not find a good section or paragraph in Pitch (music) which describes the topic of the redirect either (which, I must admit was a bit shocking to me). Steel1943 (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

December 6

SnadBox

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

DleEte. Snadbox would make sense, but not SnadBox. ‮qq77 💬 00:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The nominated redirect was not tagged until the day after the nomination was made. Steel1943 (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• DleEte per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Fuck ICE

• Fuck ICE → June 2025 Los Angeles protests against mass deportation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; NPOV. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 23:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC) fixed nom statement 21:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. No deletion rationale provided, and WP:CHEAP. guninvalid (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: There isn't anything to predominantly tie this specific phrase/slogan to the specific protest(s) covered in the article June 2025 Los Angeles protests against mass deportation. There are multiple articles that cover opposition to ICE & mass deportation in the US, and none of them stand out from the rest as having unique warrant to be the target for this redirect. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm fine with disambiguating or pointing to a DAB page instead. guninvalid (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. "Happy Editing" isn't a reason. qq77 💬 00:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• @IAmChaos: Any chance you could provide your rationale here? The issue is apparently not inherently obvious. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, sorry, looks like my nom got lost in posting. Probably my fault. I'm fixing now. @Guninvalid @77qq each mentioned lack of nom. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 21:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Jamie. Yeah, the nom is certainly lacking, but I agree with the followup assessment. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete, is this even used in RS? User:Easternsahara_{review this} 20:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It's a pretty common slogan, including being used by celebrities, [9][10][11][12][13] so yes it is used in RS. It probably warrants some mention at Abolish ICE or United_States_Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Criticism. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Polytypic taxon

• Polytypic taxon → Taxon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Angry mustache man

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kurdish genocide

• Kurdish genocide → Kurds  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This currently redirects to Kurds. I was going to change it to Anfal campaign, but wisely (or stupidly) looked at the history to see its been long battled over, and used to be a disambiguation page. I think it ought to point to something more relevant, but there have been a number of events that might be called a Kurdish genocide. I also consider anti-Kurdish sentiment. It might be worth restoring the dab. It also may be worth looking at mentions in scholarly literature, but I have not done so yet. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Al-Anfal genocide (see Kurds § Iraq). SeaDragon1 (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget, I didn't immediately find any targets for disambiguating, but genocides which the Kurds had a role in, like the Assyrian or Armenian ones, may also be plausible search targets. However, I think a hatnote for these is enough. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 04:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Easternsahara generally X genocide would refer to the purported victims of it. As another example, targetting Gaza genocide to October 7 attacks would seem rather silly to most people. The reason I posted this to RFD is to obtain consensus for the Anfal campaign, which is the most likely example in my view. And I found a few other possibilities, but Anfal is the most likely intention. Most of the Google scholar results in a cursory check look like they refer to the Anfal campaign. There probably is enough for a full article. I found a whole book on it, but Ill work on that post RFD. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The Flash (2016 film)

• Flash (2016 film) → The Flash (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• The Flash (2016 film) → The Flash (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 2 § The Flash (2016 film) – keep

It never had a 2016 release date. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Porcedural keep per my rationale below and at the prior RfDs. This still serves as a viable search term for unfamiliar readers and was planned for a 2016 release by the studio, even though no formal release was ever scheduled. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. It was apparently released in 2023, not 2016, making this misleading/confusing/incorrect. It's a fairly implausible/useless search term unless someone really needs the specificity, which isn't the case here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Films get various release dates through out their lifecycle all the time. This redirect isn't helpful and is misleading. We can just as much say that any year from 2016 to 2023 would be a valid redirect. Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as misleading --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Per The Flash (film)#Filming, there is virtually no possibility that the film could have been originally targeted for a 2016 release date. Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete User:Easternsahara_{review this} 04:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as the originally targeted release date. Per the article: Warner Bros. was planning a new shared universe of films based on DC characters by July 2013 and had tentative plans to release a Flash film in 2016. In February 2016, the film's release date was moved forward to March 16, 2018. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with Flash (2016 film).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete misleading release date. ‮qq77 💬 00:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - unless we want a redirect for "Flash (every year of the 21st century)"...? But really, why was this re-listed when there was a clear concensus to delete? - \\'cԼF 00:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: It was relisted because of the bundling of other similar redirects. Did you even read the relisting comment above? CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Not having the discussion in duplicate. - \\'cԼF 06:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Outdated speculative redirects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The Flash (2018 film)

• The Flash (2018 film) → The Flash (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• The Flash (2020 film) → The Flash (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• The Flash (2021 film) → The Flash (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 18 § The Flash (2021 film) – keep

Four years since the last CfD, it didn't release in 2021. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural close as keep: While consensus can change, per the prior RfDs on these redirects, these prior release dates still serve as viable search terms for readers who may not be familiar with this film's release, considering the sheer amount of delays it had. I was just making some routine maintenance on these redirects and was not expecting anyone to care about them anymore, but here we are... — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Procedural close on what grounds? 2 vs 1 in the last discussion isn't even a consensus. Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  There is nothing wrong with these redirects and they serve as helpful search terms. It is not our duty as editors to "fix" something that isn't broken. That is the sole purpose of WP:NOTBROKEN. Just because something is seen as insufficient nowadays does not mean it warrants outright deletion because it didn't pan out. Many of the delete arguments' rationale is that these are misleading, but they still point readers to the article for the film that was previously planned to release in these given years, so the redirects are doing what they are supposed to: bringing readers to the intended target, regardless of factual accuracy, especially considering things change over time. Is the goal here to rummage through every single redirect for title changes, delays, name changes, etc. and delete what is perceived to no longer be necessary? — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. It was apparently released in 2023, not 2021, making this misleading/confusing/incorrect. It's a fairly implausible/useless search term unless someone really needs the specificity, which isn't the case here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Films get various release dates through out their lifecycle all the time. This redirect isn't helpful and is misleading. We can just as much say that any year from 2016 to 2023 would be a valid redirect. Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as misleading --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Not sure. Per The Flash (film)#Filming, there may have been a possibility that the film could have been originally targeted for a 2021 release date. Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Also, The Flash (2020 film) exists and targets the same target as the nominated redirect. (Guess I'll ping Kailash29792 regarding this since it may have been overlooked.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  ...Wow, also, Flash (2016 film) (which may need to be bundled with this nomination) and The Flash (2018 film) exist. Someone may want to examine the list of incoming redirects towards "The Flash (film)" depending on what happens with this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete and bundle all User:Easternsahara_{review this} 04:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as a targeted release date sourced in the article: The Flash was aiming for a 2021 release at that point. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with The Flash (2018 film) and The Flash (2020 film).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - unless we want a redirect for "Flash (every year of the 21st century)"...? But really, why was this re-listed when there was a clear concensus to delete? - \\'cԼF 00:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: It was relisted because of the bundling of other similar redirects. Did you even read the relisting comment above? CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yup. - \\'cԼF 06:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Outdated speculative redirects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  What is "speculative" about them? They were for previously scheduled release dates that did not pan out. They still serve a purpose as viable redirects. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Taipo

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

During the Wang Fuk Court fire, I noticed some news using the term "Taipo" to refer to Tai Po (example: [14][15]. And as a Hongkonger, we sometimes use the term without the space. Also, "Taipo" may refer to Mozambican politician Maria Helena Taipo. So I am wondering if it should become a disambiguation rather than a redirect to a page about the rivers in New Zealand. Or should it be redirected to Tai Po (disambiguation) and add the current target in the list? Sun8908 _Talk 08:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tai Po (disambiguation). Possibly add some of the places and people called Taipo onto the disambiguation page too. GarethBaloney (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Dabify per above 77qq 💬 contributions 21:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• No objection to creating Taipo (disambiguation), but strongly object to redirecting Taipo to Tai Po (disambiguation). Nurg (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment if Taipo is made into a disambiguation page then Taipo River should just be redirected there as opposed to making readers click through two dab pages to find what they want. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  To be honest, per WP:SMALLDETAILS I think Taipo River (Westland District) should be moved to Taipo River and Taipō River (Buller District) should be moved to Taipō River, but that's a separate discussion. Turnagra (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Dabify per nom. the move/ redirect for discussion for the other articles can be set on another discussion. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Israeli torture in Palestine

• Israeli torture in Palestine → Israeli torture of Palestinians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think the phrase "Israeli torture" is more likely to mean torture of Israelis (as in Torture in Palestine § Israelis) than torture by Israelis. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Torture in Palestine#Israelis, I read the phrase the same way you did. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate or hatnote, its ambiguous. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 18:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per Frank. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate, without a doubt, 100%. It's a deeply ambiguous title that could easily mean EITHER of those two very different topics, and so the safest bet is to have a disambiguation page at the basename, so users can go to the article they intend to go to. (Especially since the page that used to have this title JUST finished its move, and people might still be visiting its old title or using it as a search term). Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Torture in Palestine#Israelis. A frustrating deficiency of English grammar not disambiguating nominative vs accusative clearly, but this usage would commonly be taken as Israelis being the object. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Why would it be taken as so? User:Easternsahara_{review this} 20:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

0141

• 0141 → Glasgow  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous number. 0141 can refer to many things other than Glasgow A1Cafel (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate between Glasgow, the Province of Asti in Italy (which also uses this as their dialing code), Ł (which is encoded as U+0141), 141 (number), and AD 141. Duckmather (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. It's also 97 as a C (programming language) numeric literal because of its dumb octal literals, but I find neither that nor any of the proposed dab targets satisfactory. The number and the year are implausible to have a leading zero, and the things like dialing prefixes and postal codes get pretty ridiculous with their open-ended nature -- this isn't really what redirects are for. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguate we have numbers redirect to years, but glasgow is also a candidate. If not, only retarget to the year(s) User:Easternsahara_{review this} 04:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete Too vague to merit targetting or DAB. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguate per nom ‮qq77 💬 22:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to 141 (number) or disambiguate. guninvalid (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

White nationalist terrorism

• White nationalist terrorism → Right-wing terrorism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While the target article is definitely Eurocentric, there's not discussion of white nationalist terrorism outside of specific country-by-country events. Perhaps that's enough. JayCubby 02:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Article does not discuss it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and tag as a {{r with possibilities}}. The right-wing terrorism article includes 12 mentions of "white nationalism" or "white nationalist" (not counting the ones in references), so it's an appropriate target until an article on the topic is created. - Eureka Lott 22:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Lott User:Easternsahara_{review this} 04:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to white nationalism. Some of what is on right wing terrorism should probably be moved over there. White nationalism isnt strictly right and right wing terrorism isnt necessarily white nationalist.

← Metallurgist (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely a better target. JayCubby 20:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Interim housing

• Interim housing → Interim Housing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn't necessarily have to refer to the Chinese type of housing. Can also mean Transitional housing, Boarding house, Dormitory, etc. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Reverse redirect. Wikipedia articles preserve title casing, so the actual title should be moved to Interim housing. guninvalid (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

That would intensify the problem given that the article is not a broad concept page on Interim housing. At best it should be "Interim housing in China" if the proper name was removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Womens football

• Womens football → Women's association football  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Women's football, There are many football in women A1Cafel (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy retarget per nom. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Immediate retarget per nom. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 00:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Retarget per nom. ‮qq77 💬 00:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Quantum radio frequency

• Quantum radio frequency → Atomic radio receiver  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A result of a page move. There is no "quantum radio frequency" and it is not a synonym for this or any other topic. It was simply a misunderstanding of a title for one of the papers. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Arta Rama

• Arta Rama → List of Albania women's international footballers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Arta Rama

Redirected to List of Albania women's international footballers, but also played for Kosovo national team. Svartner (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

A.s.l.

• A.s.l. → American Sign Language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is this a common abbreviation for the target? Might be more appropriate to redirect to above sea level or ASL (disambiguation). 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to ASL (disambiguation). Could refer to a variety of topics but I see no reason to delete. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Keep as an avoided double redirect to ASL. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - It's not the most common abbreviation but it is used. And as noted above, we don't need a double redirect. I see no harm in keeping it. Sundayclose (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as harmless and consistent with the current target being the primary topic for ASL. Some readers might reasonably insert periods even though it's less common. People often search all lowercase and a.s.l. automatically converts the first letter to a capital. I don't think we need this redirect—I would not have created it—but it's here now and is unproblematic. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Part of my argument was that it is probably more likely to refer to "above sea level". See also m a.s.l.m a.s.l.. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Gotcha. I did see your original suggestion but did not realize there was an explicit argument that lowercase a.s.l. is substantially more likely to have this meaning. The use in a small number of articles tells us something but is not definitive for usage or search behavior. WikiNav for ASL (disambiguation) shows that 50% of traffic comes from American Sign Language and all outgoing traffic goes to American Soccer League and Age/sex/location; none goes to Above sea level or any of the other locations on the dab page. WikiNav for American Sign Language shows that ASL (disambiguation) is not among the top 10 pages readers navigate to. Clicks and traffic aren't necessarily definitive for primary topic/WP:SMALLDETAILS but overall this does not indicate a navigation problem. a.s.l. gets about 7 views per month; I suspect most come from clicks in articles but some may be typed. The current use of m a.s.l. in articles is inappropriate per MOS:NOFORCELINK—meters above sea level should be spelled out on first usage rather than using an abbreviation and forcing readers to click a.s.l. for a definition. The abbreviation can be defined on first usage if it is going to be used again, e.g. meters above sea level (m a.s.l.). My solution is to fix the current usage in articles, maybe update the {{Redirect}} hatnote at American Sign Language to explicitly address a.s.l., and maybe monitor WikiNav and Pageviews for a few months to see if there is any indication that this redirect needs to be revisited. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Height above mean sea level. That is the meaning currently used by all 4 articles linking to this redirect. I note that it is also the meaning used by 2 of the 3 links coming to AslAsl (the third, which does refer to American Sign Language, includes the markup [[Asl|ASL]], which could be effortlessly changed to [[ASL]]). Mgp28 (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Notified Talk:Height above mean sea level and Talk:ASL (disambiguation) of this discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on Mgp28's retargeting proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Height above mean sea level (avoiding the double redirect from above sea levelabove sea level) per Mgp28 and WP:DIFFCAPS, and add "a.s.l." to the {{redirect}} hatnote there. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
• Also bundle A.s.l * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
• I changed the current usage in articles from m a.s.l. to m a.s.l. in Bogʻiston, Clithon spinosum, Monte Cavallo (Bellunes Alps) and San Pellegrino in Alpe per Myceteae's suggestion, and from m asl to metres asl in Oaxacan coral snake, Craugastor sandersoni and General Juan N. Álvarez National Park as pointed out by Mgp28. Jay 💬 02:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A1Cafel (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to ASL (disambiguation), no obvious primary redirect location. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Retarget per string of letters User:Easternsahara_{review this} 20:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hotel California (2008 film)

• Hotel California (2008 film) → Hotel California (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This article about a specific film shouldn't have been redirected to the disambiguation page. Go to AfD, or retarget to Erik Palladino? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Send to AFD. A retarget wouldn't work either since it's not mentioned there; the targeting to the dab page was definitely not right, and I guess we can call it a contested PROD and send it to AFD as a procedural thing; or maybe let the PRODder, Donaldd23 do so himself if he wants to write a more fleshed out rationale for it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I agree here too - there was an article, mostly plot, which was BLAR'd without explanation by an IP, but given the lack of sourcing I think that may have been justified. That said, this is more than just a redirect and may deserve an AfD. ASUKITE 16:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or restore, I don't understand why it was redirected to the DAB by User:~2025-38537-34 when it appear to be the only 2008 film, was there another they were thinking it is ambiguous with? Otherwise it makes no sense to redirect to the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Now mentioned at Erik Palladino, where it can be retarget’d to, as suggested as alternative solution by the nominator.@Deacon Vorbis ~2025-38537-34 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Asukite pinging you for same reason. ~2025-38537-34 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  @~2025-38537-34, I think in this case AfD should be a first stop, with the possibility of retargeting being an option there, if only to give the original article a chance. AfD tends to focus on notability first, so if the sourcing is inadequate but there are sources somewhere it can still be saved. ASUKITE 01:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• For the record, I'd still oppose a retarget to the Paladino article (and confirm still support sending to AFD). While it's mentioned there, there's no significant detail, other than to say that this guy was in it. If this film is truly not notable (which I haven't looked into), we probably shouldn't be mentioning it there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Since it shouldn't have been redirected to the disambiguation page, the correct response is to undo that redirection. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Amargi

• Amargi → Ama-gi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Amargi is a notable Turkish social collective and former feminist magazine, plus also a new media website (theamargi.com) and album by music group "The Sympathy of All Things". (the latter two likely aren't notable, yet). This redirects to an alternative transliteration of a Sumerian word, that while the probable origin of these other names, is not the most notable version of it. Katzrockso (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. "Amargi" is a common orthography for the Sumerican concept of Ama-gi. Its edit history's edit summary showed this usage in the New York Times. The redirect's existence does not preclude articles about other notable concepts by the same name. czar 23:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Czar (although I'm not sure "common" this is, and it would be good to have this mentioned as an alternate spelling at the target). Anyone is free to write an article on the other topic, which can happily be moved over top of the redirect while keeping a hatnote. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

MoonPieTown

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

The name is from [16], a joke tweet. I don't think a mention of this name is warranted in either Florida or in Moon Pie and without a mention, a reader would be surprised. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

oh

lmao i thought you could add related stuff without target mention but i know you can add from a related meme to the redirect SandSerpentHiss (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Has the joke tweet trolled enough people, or otherwise gotten into reliable sources? If yes, then refine with mention. If no, then delete. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unmentioned, obscure. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Football's

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• 2020 January 21 § Football's – keep

• Football's → Football  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely to be useful, also align with other " 's " RFD A1Cafel (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete's I see no reason why the generic meaning would use this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. this unlikely misspelling most likely would refer to Football (ball) rather than this.

‮qq77 💬 22:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete's the right thing to do here, just like with many similar ones. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, useful for linking. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Scream Or Dance (SOD)

• Scream Or Dance (SOD) → Scream Or Dance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

What's the point of having the music festival's abbreviation as an ambiguator here? The search engine is going to find the full name of the festival before this title. Jalen Barks (Woof) 02:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Katiedevi (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete (D) per nom ‮qq77 💬 22:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Djakarta Warehouse Project (DWP)

• Djakarta Warehouse Project (DWP) → Djakarta Warehouse Project  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

What's the point of having the music festival's abbreviation as an ambiguator here? The search engine is going to find the full name of the festival before this title. Jalen Barks (Woof) 02:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Agreed, delete per nom. Katiedevi (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete (D) per nom. 77qq 💬 contributions 13:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

4/3

• 4/3 → Four Thirds system  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 8/10 → 8b/10b encoding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 5/10 → 5th Battalion, 10th Marines  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm requesting for the above redirects to be turned into disambiguation pages, firstly to match other ambiguous number month-day and day-month date notation disambiguation pages like '4/1' and '5/1', and secondly becuase I'm not sure if the respective target articles are considered the primary topics for the current redirect titles, number/number, or are well known out of their respective fields. Note that '5/10 (disambiguation)' already exists as a disambiguation page, but I'm only listing the redirect '5/10' here for the sake of centralising discussions about these redirects. PK2 (talk; contributions) 02:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Nv8200pa talk

• Delete I vote for deleting the redirect for 8/10 to 8b/10b, as I don't believe anyone uses it or expects it. Gah4 (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Alpha 4 (Power Rangers)

• Alpha 4 (Power Rangers) → List of Power Rangers characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unsure if this redirect is worth keeping. While the character is listed in the target article, it has no information besides its name and the character was an extremely minor one who only appeared in a single scene in one episode, so it is unlikely a popular search term unlike his successor. ~2025-38809-39 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Cary Huang

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

K.E Ganavelraja

• K.E Ganavelraja → Studio Green  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

He is K. E. Gnanavel Raja. And this is a spelling mistake with no incoming links. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Israhell

• Israhell → Legitimacy of the State of Israel#Rhetoric of delegitimization  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• 2023 December 26 § Israhell – delete

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 26#Israhell, though the target has changed from Israel to the current one. Still not mentioned at target. Toadspike [Talk] 00:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Soft retarget to Wiktionary wikt:Israhell. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• I don't know that much about redirects but I'd think this can just be deleted. No one is searching for "Israhell" on an encyclopedia. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Soft retarget per Thepharoah17 --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Soft retarget per above. CNC (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with IOHANNVSVERVS that nobody is going to be searching for Israhell on an encyclopedia so we should just delete the redirect. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

December 5

Isnotreal

• Isnotreal → Legitimacy of the State of Israel#Rhetoric of delegitimization  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• 2024 March 30 § Isnotreal – delete

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 23#Isnotreal, though the target has changed from Criticism of Israel to the current one. Still not mentioned at target. Toadspike [Talk] 23:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Soft retarget to Wiktionary wikt:Isnotreal. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Soft retarget per Thepharoah17 --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Soft retarget per above. CNC (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Isn'treal

• Isn'treal → Legitimacy of the State of Israel#Rhetoric of delegitimization  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, unclear if this has any encyclopedic value, and per precedent at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 26#Israhell and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_30#Isnotreal. Toadspike [Talk] 23:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Soft retarget to Wiktionary wikt:Isn'treal. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Soft retarget per Thepharoah17 --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Soft retarget per above. CNC (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Apple bottom jeans

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

Sandbelt

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

I could also see Belt sander as a potential target, but didn't want to make the change unilaterally. Alternatively, could just add a hatnote at the target. Thoughts? Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 21:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep And leave hatnote saying not to be confused with. A search result here showed it overwhelmingly coming up with results that appear similar to this region: [17] Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and hatnote per Servite et contribuere --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "sandbelt" would be an accurate term for a belt sander. It would more so refer to the sandpaper-belt within the belt sander. I'd venture that "sandbelt" is also uncommon in reference to the belt, which is more often a "sanding belt". NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

System Exclusive

• System Exclusive → MIDI#System Exclusive messages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

weak nom, so don't worry too much. also, don't remove the first two letters of "sysex", worst mistake of my life

while it's mentioned in the target, results imply that midi isn't really that prominent when it comes to this term, as a common or proper noun. most of what i got was a potentially notable band and any form of "exclusivity" to any form of "system" (so, say, stuff exclusive to the dreamcast, to any given operating system, or to capitalism, not just to midi software) consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

in out through (and all around)

• In, Out, Through → MIDI  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• In-Out-Through → MIDI  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

refers to midi-playing hardware's input (key presses), output (sounds), and throughput (middle management), and(/or?) the funny holes that you plug other stuff in to make them happen. ignoring that said hardware is apparently really consistent in labeling it as "thru", this just isn't something the article explains beyond having a section about the thru port and passing mentions of the in and out ports in a single footnote
this is to say, regardless of whether or not this is a plausible search term (i think it might be), and of whether or not the much more prevalent definitions regarding the words' uses in this weird scary thing called "grammar" would take priority (fwiw, it seems they do), it's going to be surprising if the article has no meaningful info on that consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

2028 Women's Twenty20 Asia Cup

• 2028 Women's Twenty20 Asia Cup → Women's Asia Cup#Twenty20 cricket  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2026 Women's Twenty20 Asia Cup → Women's Asia Cup#Twenty20 cricket  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No details about the event are known - TOOSOON. Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note I've merged these two redirects which were nominated with an identicla rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Lenticel ^(talk) 21:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete WP:CRYSTAL WP:TOOSOON. And even when there is some news, it is best to leave it as a WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. There is also no worthy page history whatsoever. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Bangladeshi disinformation in India

• Anti-Bangladeshi disinformation in India → 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence#Disinformation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Anti-Bangladesh disinformation in India

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Anti-Bangladeshi disinformation in India

Procedural delete. Recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Bangladesh disinformation in India (which the creator participated in). The AfD result was a deletion not a redirect, creating a very similar redirect and then linking it from mutiple articles runs counter to the process. Gotitbro (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment redirection was not discussed at the AfD so there is no violation of process. I don't currently have an opinion on the merits of the redirect, but there is no procedural action to take. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Right midfielder, Winger

• Right midfielder, Winger → Midfielder  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The title contains two different football positions, thus it is an implausible and confusing redirect. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral I feel like Midfielder #Winger could be possible. But a winger could also play as a forward or a defender. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete seems to be WP:XY --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Defender, Midfielder

• Defender, Midfielder → Defender (association football)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The title contains two completely unrelated football positions, thus it is an implausible and confusing redirect. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete It can only target one of the two positions, so is better not existing. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 21:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Weak Delete Very confusing. I guess a redirect to Midfielder#Defensive midfielder could be fine, but only if that would not be confusing. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete seems to be WP:XY --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Defender,Second striker (association football)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

The Visioneers

• The Visioneers → Zay Harding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I do not see a mention of this title in the target article. Z. Patterson (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Weak disambiguate between Marc Mac's music project, the Harding programme discussed at CBS WKND#Current, and the W. Patrick McCray history, which I think have sufficient information to warrant it. Second choice delete. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try - disambiguate or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Weak disambig. I agree with J947. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Dabify per J947 --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
•  Disambiguation draft requested. Left guide (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

2029 ICC Champions Trophy final

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas (Meghan Trainor song)

• It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas (Meghan Trainor song) → It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas#Meghan Trainor version  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should've retargeted to A Very Trainor Christmas for the Trainor cover not notable enough to be mentioned in the current target article. ~2025-35520-66 (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy retarget to A Very Trainor Christmas per nom. ~2025-35520-66, for future redirects like this where it is not likely to be controversial, you can change the redirect without RfD. Thank you for contributing! Casablanca 🪨^(T) 15:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to A Very Trainor Christmas per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 21:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Jrvvschōlajim

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

Found zero results for this term in various search engines. Zzz plant (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete It seems to be an incredibly odd romanization of "Yerushalyim" Assuming J makes a Y sound and v to be u (although uu is odd) it does render as "Y'ruusholayim", but unless there's anywhere this is found to be used, it's just an odd romanization that should be deleted. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 15:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• best to get this from the source. hey, @Cobblebricks, what language is this meant to be from? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Casablanca Rock seems to be a obscure synonym/romanization at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnatural title without significant history, so maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm rather inclined to keep because it isn't doing any harm and may well be useful for something or contain history that doesn't look valuable but in fact is. Almost certainly it isn't useful, but I don't see any danger in keeping it around. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete It looks like the sum total history is "With Wikipedia:Votes for deletion currently broken -- no one seems to have a way to add edits, see Village Pump for discussion -- I have set up this page as a temporary location for the usual work of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I've made a remark to this effect on the Village Pump. Once WP:VFD is fixed, all this should be merged." over 20 years ago, with the following edit turning it back to a redirect with the summary "oops". No incoming links. If someone digs up an actual reason to keep this I have no objections, but might as well clean up whatever this old mess is. I somewhat concur with Cremastra's assessment that this is harmless, but since it's up for discussion let's mop it up. Rusalkii (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep It was really useful ~20 years ago as it was the only way to contribute to VFD. It's still useful even today as an archive of posts from that aforementioned time. Deleting it now would only get rid of ~20 year old posts. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 00:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep Per @Someone-123-321 Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't have historical value. Some pages from long ago should certainly be kept, but we don't put every iron nail from the 1800s in a museum solely because they're old. It has to have actual importance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• delete, technically per nom. it might just be me having smallbrainitis, but i couldn't actually find any evidence of this being used as a temporary substitute for vfd that hasn't already been cleaned up and/or never actually existed. no history, no logs, no incoming links, nothing. it also seems to have lasted a little under a month as a thing that isn't a redirect, so the estimate of 21 years of history going down the drain seems kind of exaggerated. considering the rationale for redirection, the creation could've also just been a mistake or something consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete no important page history is contained here. Might as well clean it up since we're here. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep no harm. I don't see a WP:DEL-REASON for deleting it. Sun8908 _Talk 08:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Irrelevant noise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep old history is neither irrelevant nor noise. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  does this mean you found the history? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:List with serial comma

• Template:List with serial comma → Template:Enum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect: Template:Enum does not allow the insertion of a serial comma (the presence of a page history is not an issue, since the template it once was has already been voted for deletion). Grufo (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, it does allow it, in the sense that you can use it with |and=, and to add one. But it's not by default. I'd be happy to see this pointed wherever or turned into a wrapper; my main concern is discoverability, since I had a hard time finding {{Enum}} when I wanted to make a list with an Oxford comma, and these redirects should be available so that future editors looking to do the same don't have to search so hard. So I oppose deletion for them, but no preference beyond that. Sdkb ^talk 19:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I opposed deletion too, since I am the author of the old {{List with serial comma}} template. But a decision has been taken and we must follow it. Or you can request to undelete it and I will support your request. But the fact remains that if you find {{Enum}} via Template:List with serial comma you are being mis-redirected. Supporting a serial comma requires being able to output “a and b” but “a, b, and c” (i.e. the template needs to distinguish between lists of only two items and longer lists). Hence giving the possibility to write |and=, and manually does not correspond to supporting serial commas. Otherwise we could also have a redirect to {{Enum}} named {{Comma-only list}} and tell people who come here protesting that to obtain what they want they will have to write manually {{Comma-only list|and=, }}. --Grufo (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't read through that TfD in much depth until now. Many of the delete !votes on it seem to reflect a combination of (a) some editors who just don't like Oxford commas, which is a fine opinion to have but given MOS:VAR is not a reason to delete the option, and (b) some editors who mistakenly believed that {{enum}} faciliatated Oxford commas and then just became obstinate when you showed it didn't.

Given that, my view is that the result should be challenged and overturned. I'm not sure that WP:RFU would be the right venue for that, given that I already technically undeleted it to make the redirect, so perhaps we can just have the discussion here. Sdkb ^talk 21:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

There are many problems in general with TfD. One—which is probably unsolvable as long as we centralize deletion proposals—is that many people who find pleasure in regularly monitoring and intervening in such places tend to be deletionists, whereas most editors find the whole thing non-constructive or boring. Where I come from there is a proverb: the more you let the barber talk the more they will trim. Another problem is that we lack a policy concerning new templates that did not have enough time to be discovered yet; recently I proposed a time window of six months that must be granted to new templates, but the proposal did not reach much consensus so far. Another problem, specific to the case in question, is that a user decided to bomb all the templates I created, and that is probably the main reason this template was nominated for deletion. I am not sure this is the right place to overturn a voting. But I am not expert enough about WP:Wikilawyering. --Grufo (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep as per User:Sdkb, it is possible, just not default. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Then let's make it default and let's undelete the template as proposed by Sdkb, what do you think? As explained above, the {{Enum}} template does not support serial commas, not even optionally. You are free even to write {{Enum|One///|Two///|Three|and=, }}, but that does not mean that the template supports ///, as separator. --Grufo (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:List with Oxford comma

• Template:List with Oxford comma → Template:Enum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As above, misleading redirect: Template:Enum does not allow the insertion of an Oxford comma. Grufo (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep as per User:Sdkb above, it is possible, just not default. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Oxford list

• Template:Oxford list → Template:Enum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As above, misleading redirect: Template:Enum does not allow the insertion of an Oxford comma. Grufo (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep as per User:Sdkb above, it is possible, just not default. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

December 4

People Power Uprising

• People Power Uprising → 8888 Uprising  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to People Power Revolution. "Uprising" and "Revolution" can be easily confused/interchanged. A hatnote from People Power Revolution can distinguish. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Retarget - I just did a review of the 8888 Uprising as I had not heard of 8888 being called the "People Power Uprising" in Burmese or in English. When trying to search for any sources for the attested Burmese translation of People Power Uprising every result led me to the People Power Revolution in the Philippines. From my search it seems to be a misreading of this one source which is not using it as a proper noun and puts "people power" in quotes and lowercase. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 23:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

/)

• /) → Slang of the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom#Examples  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• (\ → Slang_of_the_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_fandom#Examples  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Proposing Deletion, The example at the target page is "/) (\", not /). So if anything, the redirect should be there. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 21:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Update Bundling (\ Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 17:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Black New World Order

• Black New World Order → wiktionary:Black New World Order  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• BNWO → wiktionary:BNWO  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An obscure topic (mainly a series of (self-published?) books which haven't gotten any attention in WP:RS it seems) which would never get an article on Wikipedia, but for some reason a redirect to an unsourced Wiktionary entry is created (also for the abbreviation BNWO). I can understand having Wiktionary redirects for words or common sayings, but when they are more like spam for something obscure instead of actual dictionary entries, then I don't think Wikipedia is the place to have an entry for it, even it is just a link to a sister project.

Also nominated: BNWO. Fram (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fram the term has increased in usage particularly in social media over the past year or two (that's why it hasn't showed up in RS's quite yet), and the entry has received a lot pageviews (compare Google Trends) as people look up slang, so a redirect would be useful in my opinion. note that I am currently working on adding quotations to the entry and note also that the types of sources that Wiktionary accepts goes beyond what is reliable for Wikipedia but what is for language use. Juwan (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't trust Wiktionary pageviews at all though, they are extremely bizarre often. The 10th most viewed page is revolutus, a Latin term? Right... The 20th most viewwed page isn't any better[18], as are many of the other entries. Fram (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

note: had to renom the abbreviation over technical issues. if you want to nominate multiple redirects at once, it's best to use massxfd to do so consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't understand why this can't use the same method AfD uses, would be a lot less confusing (yes, I know, one page per day instead of one page per AFD, but still). Fram (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Modi's Media

• Modi's Media → Godi media  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Uncommon search term, article covers the generic nature of state affiliated media in India regardless of a political party. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep while I do agree that it is created regardless of political party, the term itself is derived from Modi. If an uninitiated person were to hear this, probably in India, they might think they heard Modi. Also, Modi and his supporters are kind of infamous for this, and the article itself mentions "x jihad" which also originates from Modi and hinduvta. Modi is mentioned 15 times in the article; the BJP is mentioned eleven times. There was also a move request to change it to media coverage of Modi, showing that it could be confused. Ergo, I'd keep. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Project DIVA movie

• Project DIVA movie → Colorful Stage! The Movie: A Miku Who Can't Sing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target doesn't mention Project DIVA except as a navbox link to Hatsune Miku: Project Diva. The movie is "based on the mobile game Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage!", which is in turn a spinoff of Project Diva. Rusalkii (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Archax

• Archax → Japanese robotics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target, and no otherwise context to what it is Rose Abrams (T C L) 20:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Archax (company) or move company's article to this redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

A crappy bundle

• Little crappy ship → Littoral combat ship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Little Crappy Ship → Littoral combat ship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Little crappy ships → Littoral combat ship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Little Crappy Ships → Littoral combat ship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target, Delete. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support deleting. See also pinned discussion at WP:AFC/R. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 20:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• I'm neutral. I accepted/created the first two because there are sources to support it is a nickname for the ship such as the ProPublica article in the Further Reading section, this NYT article (ProQuest 2772233502) among several other publications (National Review, The Economist, etc.) so likely should be mentioned in the article but it's not. S0091 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep There's an article linked from the Littoral combat ship § Further reading section with the title The Inside Story of How the Navy Spent Billions on the "Little Crappy Ship": How the Navy Spent Billions on Failed Littoral Combat Ship Program (emph mine), so not really not mentioned at target. And google searching finds many sources using it? Not sure we needed all four variations but tag all with {{R from non-neutral name}} if kept. Skynxnex (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  They were requested at AFC, the plurals are at least {{R from plural}}{{R avoided double redirect}} onto the singular forms which were the first accepted at AFC. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 01:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you amendment

• Thank you amendment → Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target and I can't find any indication that this is a common name. Google hits are mostly for phrases like "Thank you. Amendment whatever is...", I have found one hit so far for a reference to the 19th and that's not using it a name, just "thank you amendment 19 for allowing me to vote". Rusalkii (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The only place I've found reference to this phrase being related to the 19th amendment are in the AI summaries when I do google searches for "Thank you amendment" "19th" or "Thank you amendment" "19th amendment" (or equivalents with "nineteenth"), it lists four sources that allegedly support this, none of which actually do:
  • The target Wikipedia article, which doesn't use this phrase
  • Two that don't include the phrase "thank you" (and one of them is a collection of student essays)
  • One is the transcript of a meeting of a 2015 meeting of the Senedd (the devolved assembly for Wales) The Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee discussing amendments to the Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Bill. The transcript has a lot of people thanking each other and includes one speaker making reference to the 19th century. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Missing Number

• Missing Number → MissingNo.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

alas, this doesn't seem to be a plausible search term for missingno. results were pretty much all math problems where numbers are missing (whoa), so it would most likely be surprising. as is, though, i haven't been able to find a more fitting target, as articles on specific math activities don't seem to mention unknown values other than the result in any depth, or at all. other topics this could apply to definitely exist as well, but not to the extent that they'd be plausible targets or worth a dab

also, i'll note that missing number (common noun) doesn't exist, though it could be created if this isn't kept or deleted consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment It's used in a few publications according to Google Books, and a few papers. It is what its US name is abbreviated to, so it'd be kind of weird to *not* consider it a valid search term.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

in all the contexts i could find that do include missingno, it's specifically in the context of explaining the name and nearly always preceded by it, so i don't expect that someone would somehow only find out about the unabbreviation, and even in scholar and books, they're vastly outnumbered by general results (8 on books and 11 on scholar to ~1m and ~11.8k respectively). thus, i don't actually think this would change things much, aside from the weirdness of how few sources actually explain it

as an aside, even some of the sources in the results you presented, and in the according accented searches, seem to refer to literal missing numbers in the context of pokémon, which would be pretty funny if they weren't paywalled :( consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this is a case where there is plenty of theoretical ambiguity but not much in practice. Sure one can rattle off plenty of instances where numbers could be missing in some form or another, but are there any other notable usage where this is specifically called "Missing Number" (note the caps)? -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

weak keep for now Oreocooke (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as noted it seems to be the only usage especially given the sentence case title is a red link. Given the abbreviation and the unusual lack of a space "Missing Number" would likely be a normal way to search for the creature. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

ProTEXT

• ProTEXT → Transcript (law)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article does not mention "ProTEXT", and neither is it mentioned anywhere else in that context, that I can see. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• delete. this used to be a stub about a transcript-condensing software thingy, but it was unsourced (and kind of unhelpful) then and is unmentioned now, so there's no need to worry about it consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  as an aside, there seems to be a different company with this same name, for which i found a bunch of results... but they were mostly of the "promotional slurry" variety, so no need to worry about its notability either consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Gaza's hunger games

• Gaza's hunger games → Gaza Humanitarian Foundation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 November 18 and consensus that the speedy was contested. I am neutral and this is a procedural nomination as DRV closer. Star Mississippi 03:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Should be Speedy deleted, fairly offensive as is. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: can you explain what is offensive about this? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

A comparison to a fiction book when there is suggestion this is fact, suggestion that the conflict and allegations are just games, etc.

If the term had caught on in media perhaps the value would outweigh the weirdness. I have never heard of this set of words though outside of this redirect. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman but there are reliable sources that have used this term and reported on this comparison. Remember, that redirects aren't required to be neutral WP:RNEUTRAL.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

do you have refs? I can't seem to find any on an initial serach. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman I posted them below, but here they are again: [19][20][21][22] and is also used by Jean-Pierre Filiu[23] (who is a historian that specializes in the History of the Gaza Strip).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as offensive without encyclopedic value. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as offensive. BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep—WP:Wikipedia is not censored and it’s a valid redirect with RS noting that it has been referred to as such. إيان (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect to 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings. The use of the term "hunger games" in relation to Gaza has appeared in many reliable sources:[24][25][26][27] and is also used by Jean-Pierre Filiu[28] (who is a historian that specializes in the History of the Gaza Strip). WP:RNEUTRAL says "In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term." The redirect here is non-neutral, but definitely verifiable and should point to a neutrally titled article like 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. إيان (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  that's typically called a retarget. Oreocooke (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings per VR's WP:RNEUTRAL argument. It's the farthest thing from being neutral and it is certainly offensive, but given it has been referenced in reliable sources it can stay. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 08:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for the following reasons:

• There are four citations in the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation article that have "hunger games" in the title. There are also a fifth citation present in the 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings. The first four appear in the lead for Gaza Humanitarian Foundation & all five appear in the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation § Killings and other access incidents section due to the inclusion of the other article by using {{Excerpt|Rafah aid distribution killings|hat=no}}.
  1. Reiff, Ben (2025-06-20). "'The Hunger Games': Israel's aid death traps for starving Gazans". +972 Magazine. Archived from the original on 2025-06-20. Retrieved 2025-09-17.
  2. "A Real-life "Hunger Games" is Unfolding in Gaza Before the World's Eyes". UNICEF Gulf Area. 2025-08-28. Archived from the original on 2025-09-16. Retrieved 2025-09-17.
  3. "'The Hunger Games' in Gaza". Le Monde. 2025-07-08. Archived from the original on 2025-08-07. Retrieved 2025-09-17.
  4. Al-Wawi, Taqwa Ahmed (2025-06-29). "In Gaza, the Israelis are staging Hunger Games". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-09-17.</ref>
  5. "Israel's aid distribution program being run like the Hunger Games, says whistleblower". www.aa.com.tr. 1 August 2025. Retrieved 17 September 2025.
  • None of these sources use the phrase "Gaza Hunger Games". The couple of places that I have been able to find it online are editorials.
  • Three of the sources, & the article itself, put hunger games in quotes. To quote the scare quotes article, Writers use scare quotes for a variety of reasons. They can imply doubt or ambiguity in words or ideas within the marks, or even outright contempt. They can indicate that a writer is purposely misusing a word or phrase or that the writer is unpersuaded by the text in quotes, and they can help the writer deny responsibility for the quote. (Omitting references from that article)
• Since there is no reliable source using the phrase "Gaza Hunger Games", we can conlude that it is a neologism. The Wikipedia policy on neologism states Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.
• The editing guideline governing Reasons for deleting states 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. "Gaza Hunger Games" is certainly novel & is not listed in the article.
• The Neutrality of redirects editing guideline states 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. I would argue that "Gaza Hunger Games" is not neutal as the phrase is not found in any reliable source.
• I had tagged {{Db-g10}} before the redirect was speedily deleted & then subsequently revived because of the contest of the deletion. Since Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is a humanitarian organization that has been accused, but not proven, of complicity in the 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings, the Gaza Hunger Games redirect arguably fails WP:G10 as an attack on an organziation. It certainly fails Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Intuitiveness as the Israel Army is directly responsible for the killings, not the GMF.

Peaceray (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

"Hunger games in Gaza" is a term that is exactly covered by many sources: [29],[30],[31],[32]. So would you be ok with Hunger games in Gaza redirecting to 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings?

Secondly, you're being too narrow by dismissing sources that say "hunger games" in Gaza but not necessarily "Gaza hunger games". We have redirects like ISO 4 (redirect), where "ISO 4" can be found in many RS but not necessarily "ISO 4 (redirect)" exactly.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is what those sources state:

• Le Monde: 'The Hunger Games' in Gaza
• MSN/Sky News: 'hunger games' in Gaza
• Responsible Statecraft: 'hunger games' in Gaza
• Sky News: "Hunger Games" in Gaza

None of those sources state Hunger games in Gaza & they are all put in quotes. See my bullet point about quotes above.

So, no, your statement above is unconvincing for any neologistic redirect for Hunger games in Gaza. Peaceray (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I also reject that my opposition to neologisms is too narrow. Peaceray (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Again you're being too narrow, but fine, then would you support 'Hunger games' in Gaza (whether with single or double quotes shouldn't matter)? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that my opposition to neologisms should be clear by now. No, I do not support this in any way. I think that as aid is reestablished in Gaza, this will become more obscure phrase anyway, especially with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) going defunct as of 24 November 2025. Peaceray (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Peaceray. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Myceteae:, I'm curious why you !vote delete given you !voted for keep here. There are RS that have used the term "hunger games" in relation to the 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see my comment below about the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay. Just because one article or redirect is valid does not necessarily justify another. Each needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Peaceray (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent this is a fair question. I found the evidence sufficiently convincing that the specific term Gaza holocaust is used with essentially the same meaning as the topic covered by the article Gaza genocide. That was reason enough for me but, as I noted in the prior discussion, the history of repeated recreation and discussion about the appropriate target for those redirects also put more weight on the side of not deleting. To be clear, repeated recreation or retargeting of redirects that have been discussed at RfD is often disruptive and should not be done as a way to game the system to 'prove' how common or useful a redirect may be. But sometimes this contributes to the assessment of a redirect's appropriateness. I find the evidence in support of Gaza hunger games unconvincing, essentially for the reasons Peaceray and others have spelled out. The use of quotes in the set phrase (the) "Hunger Games" in Gaza does not show that Gaza hunger games is a name that is commonly used to describe 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings or Gaza Humanitarian Foundation or the topic of any other article. It is too-great a leap from a few sources making the literary reference "Hunger Games" in Gaza to using Gaza hunger games as a name or synonym for the particular incident. It is obviously not an appropriate link to use in articles and it is not a plausible search term. If I read a number of sources that describe an event as a Shakespearean tragedy or Kafkaesque or reminiscent of Dune or whatever, I am not going to use those terms to search for the even but rather something more specific to the name or description of the event itself. Or if an actress named Jane Doe is repeatedly referred to as the blonde bombshell Jane Doe or Jane Doe, the blonde bombshell, that does not establish Blonde Bombshell Jane Doe as a nickname for the actress and does not justify a redirect from Blonde Bombshell Jane Doe to the article about the actress. I understand that you disagree and are unlikely to be persuaded by my arguments, which largely restate points that others have already made. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Disparaging to GHF; exact terminology not used in citations/article. — ERcheck (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Redirecting this to 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings is not disparaging to the GHF. In any case, causing offence is not a reason to delete something.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  I respectfully disagree. This redirect to the GHF article clearly casts shade on the GHF, despite that they are not responsible for the killings of Gazans. Peaceray (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, it was agreed on above that it should not point to Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, but rather to 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings. Pointing it to GHF was my mistake. Pointing it to the 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings isn't disparaging to anyone.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  @VR: This thread is below my "delete" vote. To be clear, I did not agree to a re-direct to "2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings". (Your comment "it was agreed on above...") I am only weighing in on the redirect to GHF. — ERcheck (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Peaceray. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
• Can we also consider this closure (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_September_5#Gaza_holocaust): "editors overall did not agree with the argument that a non-neutral redirect must be mentioned verbatim in the text of the target so long as it was clear to the reader that they are getting content on the subject that of the redirect". Peaceray and others, do you agree that a non-neutral redirect need not be mentioned verbatim in the target article? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  Not when it comes to establishing a neologism. Gaza holocaust is an established phrase, & this redirect is not. I believe the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay is applicable here. Peaceray (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Hunger games in Gaza is either mentioned verbatim or in some variant form at the following sources: Reuters[33][34], CBC News[35], BBC News[36][37], Haaretz[38][39], The Providence Journal[40], Le Monde[41], CNN[42], ABC News[43], The Guardian[44][45], NBC News[46], France24[47], Vox (media)[48], +972 mag[49], USNWR[50], India Today[51], Almajalla[52], Al-Jazeera[53], Prospect (magazine)[54], Responsible Statecraft[55], Sky News[56], Amnesty International[57], Le Temps(in french), The Intercept[58], LA Times[59], Derry Journal[60], TheJournal.ie[61], Church Times[62], The Daily Telegraph[63], The Independent[64], Al-Ahram[65], UNICEF[66], Oxford Mail[67], Cyprus Mail[68], Japan Times[69].
  • Peer-reviewed academic journals have also used the term, including The Lancet[70] and Peacebuilding(article published just 2 days ago). There is now even a scholarly book The Future of the Occupation of the Palestinian Territories after Gaza (published by Palgrave Macmillan) that uses this term[71].
• I really hope the above 34 media sources + 3 scholarly sources will be enough to settle to show that this is an established term.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  I encourage editors to look through all the sources that VR (Vice regent) has posted. I went through all the sources not behind a paywall, & I found that the verbatim Gaza Hunger Games is mention only once, in the India Today piece, "Reality of Gaza hunger games explained as starvation kills scores"., where the phrase only appears in the title. A single source for the phrase absolutely fails WP:COMMONNAME.

  VR seems to believe, & seeks to convince us, that any article that mentions both Gaza & Hunger Games justifies the creation of the Gaza Hunger Games neologism. As I have outlined above, this is contrary to WP:NOTNEO, WP:R#DELETE, WP:RNEUTRAL, & MOS:SUBMARINE.

  The barrage of sources that VR posted that fail to mention the phrase Gaza Hunger Games buttresses the argument that this is a neologism. Peaceray (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  As mentioned above, 5 of those sources explicitly write "Hunger Games in Gaza" (with or without accompanying quotes): LeMonde, Sky News 1, Sky News 2, Sky News 3, Responsible Statecraft, Canal 26 (Argentina)[72].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  Several mentions of 'The Hunger Games' in Gaza or variations fail to justify the creation of the neologism Gaza Hunger Games as a redirect. That is the deletion we are discussing here, not other phrasings in the press. Peaceray (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  But on the bigger point I concede that "hunger games in Gaza" doesn't appear verbatim in most sources that actually talk about this. I don't see any policy that requires it. I'm an avid reader of wikipedia and when I search for a term I will just type in the major words and the wikipedia search bar is smart enough to pull up a relevant article or redirect. A reader is likely to type in either "gaza hunger games" or "hunger games gaza", which would be served by Gaza's hunger games and Hunger games in Gaza respectively. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap so it is not clear what is benefit of deleting this. And NPOV concerns have already been resolved by agreeing that it should not point to Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, but rather point to 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  This deletion nomination is for Gaza's hunger games specifically, which fails for reasons outlined above. More generally, I still believe that Hunger games in Gaza still fails WP:NOTNEO. I think interested editors should read the Wikipedia:Too soon essay. As aid increasingly makes its way into Gaza, the "hunger games in Gaza" phrase will likely fade away quickly as a metaphor 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings. Peaceray (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the references posted by Vice regent, which show “Gaza Hunger Games,” or some variant thereof, is used. Not having this redirect is a slap in the face of WP:NOTCENSORED. Frank Anchor 01:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Frank Anchor: There is more than one policy involved here. WP:NOTNEO applies & pointing at Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is both WP:RNEUTRAL & MOS:SUBMARINE. Are you arguing that one policy trumps all other policies & guidelines? Peaceray (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  NOTNEO applies to articles, not redirects. Also, RNEUTRAL explicitly states 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.. Other users have established that multiple sources use “Gaza’s hunger games” or variations thereof, in their title and prose thus making this redirect okay. Lastly, based on this term having some use in the aforementioned references, users would not be surprised that this title leads to to Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Frank Anchor 19:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: This RfD is specifically for the redirect of Gaza's hunger games → Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Much of keep discussion based on the usage of the term itself. Some of the keeps, then mention re-target to 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings; while some clearly say redirect to another target. To make the consensus clear, I recommend that the "keeps" make clear what they want the redirect to point to. — ERcheck (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep with hatnote to the aid distribution massacres. While people have stated that the Gaza homicide foundation isn't confirmed to be complicit with these crimes, they have obvious been called this. Also, of course it isn't confirmed yet, that happened just this year. And since WP:OR doesn't apply to discussions, I request everyone to use their brains a little: notice how the Gaza peace plan doesn't mention the GHF? Why is this? Aren't the GHF good little smol beans who were just trying to help the Palestinians? Well, it sure doesn't seem so if other humanitarian foundations were chosen to give aid the Palestinians. And why'd the organization close so quickly after being accused of these crimes? Shouldn't they have been more committed to the Palestinian cause as a genuine humanitarian foundation? User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete offensive 77qq 💬 contributions 02:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Prime Minister of the United States

• Prime Minister of the United States → President of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of the United Kingdom – delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of the United Kingdom (2nd nomination) – speedy delete
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 20 § President of the United Kingdom – speedy delete per WP:G5
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister of the United States – keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister of the United States (2nd nomination) – no consensus
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister of the United States (3rd nomination) – delete
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 28 § Prime Minister of the United States – keep
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 6 § Prime Minister of the United States – keep
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 22 § Prime Minister of the United States – no consensus

Now that President of the United Kingdom has been deleted and WP:SALTED, I think we can get rid of this one too. We shouldn't have redirect for something that doesn't exist, since the existence of that title may cause confusion. I₂Overcome ^talk 10:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, no such office exists unless in fictional form. Similar to 'Governor of England' or 'Potentate of Russia'. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I disagree with the logic here, a big falacy. The redirect will not, in any way, confuse someone and make them think the US has a Prime Minister. In the unlikely even someone types that in, it would take them to the proper article, with the proper title, then they would know the office is President, not Prime Minister. I doubt it gets much use, but there is at least a little logic to the redirect, as it is plausible that someone would type it in out of habit of using that title rather than President. Marginally useful is not the same as harmful, and it isn't harmful. It's managed to be here almost 12 years without incident. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support, as no such office exists and as it is an extremely unlikely search term. Drdpw (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• delete and competitive game community per nom Oreocooke (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per the recent precedent for President of the United Kingdom. If consensus emerges not to delete, then retarget to match Prime Minister of the United States of AmericaPrime Minister of the United States of America, namely Presidential systems without a prime minister. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  admittedly, i don't think the consensus there was necessarily to delete as implausible, just as created by a sock. this means that it would probably be fine if someone who isn't footwear recreated them consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, tag appropriately as a wrong name. The G5s used during the previous RFD are disappointing for reasons explained by Shazback in this comment. I also think linking to 20 year old AFD listings for other topics is a bit overkill for an RFD listing. Redirects do not need to be for exactly correct titles, and it is often beneficial when they appear for incorrect titles (see {{R from incorrect name}}). Anyone who searches for this term will be taken to an article that shows the correct term. Those who think it is innate knowledge that the US has a President but not a PM may be being too Western-centric. We shouldn't ignore users who are looking for information on a topic just because they don't know the exact term for it yet. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
• No clear rationale for deletion has been outlined. Contrary the insinuations above, pageviews demonstrate this is an extremely well-used redirect. The easy response to it causing confusion is retargetting to List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Presidential_republics_without_a_prime_minister. However, the reader likely wants to access the POTUS page, and that retarget has no link to it. So keeping is IMO preferable. Either that or the disambiguation proposed last RfD, which explains that the U.S. has no president nicely and also links to other United Stateses. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The United States does not have, and never has had, a prime minister. It's impossible to know what people using this redirect want, but anything other than an article that says very clearly, up front, "The United States does not have, and never has had, a prime minister" is misleading the user. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirects should be created for one of the purposes listed at Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. This does not meet any of those purposes. DrKay (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  That list is inclusive, not exclusive. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Textbook WP:POPE. The nomination is literally correct about President of the United Kingdom, though the most recent deletion was specifically a G5, and the salting and quick close of that RfD look overzealous to me. I would both keep this one and see President of the United Kingdom recreated, though I'm fine keeping the variants from the other RfD deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Keep. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, and we do that best when we take people to the articles why their plausible but inaccurate search terms are incorrect rather than leave them guessing in the face of mostly not relevant search results. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm also OK with retargetting to List of countries by system of government#Presidential republics without a prime minister per Tavix below. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• If kept, it should be retargeted to List of countries by system of government#Presidential republics without a prime minister where it's noted that the United States does not have a prime minister. The current target does not make that distinction, which could be especially confusing for those familiar with a system that has both a prime minister and a president. Failing that, delete it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm also okay with any other target that explicitly notes that the United States does not have a prime minister. I noticed this is mentioned a couple of places at Prime minister (and there could be others?). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Weak Keep as there is no reasonable doubt as to what the person is looking for - the primary political office in the United States. WP:RPURPOSE is clear that Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include: [...] Likely mixed-up technical names (for example, Oxygen chloride redirects to Chlorine oxide).. That the US does not and has not had a PM is not a strong argument on this basis. PM or President are effectively technical names for a political office. Furthermore this redirect is WP:CHEAP and we should not penalize users or make it harder for them to find the information they want when this is a good example of WP:POPE. The page title they arrive at clearly states "President of the United States" and from there they can search more about the executive function as well as titles of political roles in the US if they so wish. Shazback (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete, while oxygen chloride could be mixed up with chlorine oxide by anyone who doesn't know chemistry very well, the UK and USA's governments are rather common knowledge. We should let the search engine handle this. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I can see someone searching this, same with President of the United Kingdom. Someone might not know that it's a president and not a prime minister. Retargeting would also make sense. ‮qq77 💬 22:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and restore President of the United Kingdom as valid {{R from incorrect name}}s. The other RFD was deleted as G5 despite keep !votes in the RFD, so it holds no precedential value here. Both are plausible search terms for people confused about what the office is called especially if they live in a system where the position that holds the government's actual executive power has the other title. Anecdotally, as a Canadian, I have heard people incorrectly use variants of this. Tavix's proposal is also acceptable, but would be my second choice. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Heylin Plant

• Heylin Plant → List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes#Season 2 (2004/05)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• 2007 June 13 § Heylin Plant → List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes § Season 2: 2004-2005 – keep

Delete not name of episode, just a minor character. Thepharoah17 (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep ... true, but it is mentioned there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• delete. there's no proper context for what the plant even is there, so readers who know that name will only find that there's no info besides "is in s2e20". if there was context somewhere, it also wouldn't be in the list of episodes, so this target is surprising regardless consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

2026 CPL season

• 2026 CPL season → 2026 Canadian Premier League season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's also 2026 Caribbean Premier League. Should be disambiguation page instead. Vestrian24Bio 09:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Because there isn't a 2026 Caribbean Premier League article (it's a redirect), another solution is to add a redirect hatnote on the 2026 Canadian Premier League season article.

E.g.,

"2026 CPL season" redirects here. For the 2026 Caribbean Premier League, see Caribbean Premier League.

It depends on whether the 2026 Canadian Premier League season is the primary topic. I am wordsmyth (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per wordsmyth. GiantSnowman 21:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Bypass mail

• Bypass mail → Mail  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term is not mentioned in the target article. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Transportation in Alaska#Bypass Mail Service, where it discusses this topic. From what I could find, bypass mail is most commonly used in Alaska. Golem08 (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment — The discussion thus far leads me to believe that neither participant browsed the page's revision history. For 9½ years, this was a standalone article that only discussed bypass mail in the United Kingdom. An editor added {{Globalize}} at one point. Another editor responded by blanking the article and turning it into a redirect, yet another example of the recent trend of tearing down the encyclopedia while calling it building the encyclopedia. Bypass mail in Alaska has received significant coverage by the state's news outlets, but I doubt Google is going to hand you those sources on a silver platter. I'd call it a dilemma. If you delete the redirect, you've completely backdoor-deleted an article with zero discussion on its merits as an article-worthy topic (and we know there are editors who see no problem with that, based on past practices). If you accept Golem08's suggestion, you continue to effectively backdoor-delete the content related to the UK and project a belief that bypass mail in the two places are islands unto themselves (there's no real difference that I see between the two). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

'Bypass mail' does not appear to be standard terminology for this in the UK. The concept is usually described as 'direct delivery', or 'end-to-end delivery'. ([73], [74], [75]). I won't comment on the WP:BLAR of the article which was unreferenced for 9 years, but I don't think the information should exist under this name. Postal services in the United Kingdom could do with expanding (if information can be reliably sourced). I have tagged with R with history. Golem08 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Gabriel Baaba Gwanga'mujje Eri Yesu

• Gabriel Baaba Gwanga'mujje Eri Yesu → Martin Ssempa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shall be deleted as there seems to be no connection between those two ~2025-36639-88 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep, as an alternative name. I found a source which notes that he refers to himself as this (with no apostrophe) [76], and a number of twitter posts where an apostrophe is included. It seems helpful and harmless. Golem08 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

2025 United Kingdom general election

• 2025 United Kingdom general election → Next United Kingdom general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• 2024 June 20 § 2025 United Kingdom general election – no consensus
• 2024 September 13 § 2025 UK general election – no consensus

This is a confusing and rather useless redirect, given that there was never any chance of a general election happening this year. It's far more likely that the reader typing this in means 2024 United Kingdom general election and either mixed up the years or missed a key. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete There was no election this year. It looks like it was previously linked to the 2024 election because January 2025 was the very latest day it could have been, but that is really stretching it - the latest date of what became the 2017 United Kingdom general election was May 2020, but we wouldn't redirect 2020 United Kingdom general election into that, not least because it would make no sense so close to the 2019 United Kingdom general election. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2025 United Kingdom electoral calendar– that page would easily let the reader know that there was no general election in 2025 whilst informing of the elections that did happen in that year (helpful for if a reader confused local elections or by-elections with the general election). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-existent topic with no likelihood of expansion that does not match any of the purposes of redirects. DrKay (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • That list is explicitly not exhaustive. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per Chessrat. Capturing plausible search terms and taking those using them to articles that are directly relevant is an important purpose of redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. DrKay put it perfectly. It's impossible to know what readers might intend if they search for a non-existent election but pointing them to a list/calendar that does not and cannot include the search term is unhelpful. It is likely to confuse or mislead. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Skibidi senator

• Skibidi senator → Fatima Payman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this should be deleted, it seems unlikely someone would search for that rather than similar names, but i can't think of any alternative name. i was thinking things like "brainrot speech senator" but those seem unlikely too. ‮qq77 💬 17:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep per WP:CHEAP. The redirect sees pageviews and a quick google search suggests the target is unambiguous. Golem08 (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• delete as unmentioned. easy as it technically is for someone who's already found the target, someone looking for this will either have to figure out for themselves why she'd be called that or have already known beforehand, which isn't enough to warrant a redirect. i'm also pretty sure i've seen this name used for senator armstrong, but don't quote me on this consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep this from the Guardian calls her the skibidi senator. Many people may not remember her name, so they may just search up skibidi senator. I think this BLP politician, who is called this by a RS, is the primary source rather than senator armstrong who has only been called this by memes. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

good, then that should definitely be added first consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Juan (Suikoden)

• Juan (Suikoden) → Suikoden#The 108 Stars of Destiny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was once an article, which in 2007 SnowFire merged to List of characters in Suikoden IIIList of characters in Suikoden III, which, in turn, in 2015 Czar blanked and redirected to Suikoden III#Plot, which does not mention this character. Then a few weeks ago Homechallenge55 changed to the current target for want of mention, but the current target also does not mention this character. The original article would have no chance of being kept if restored and sent to AfD, and SnowFire rewrote the prose in the process of merging, so I don't think this is needed to preserve attribution of anything (and if it were needed, this could be moved to a talkpage subpage rather than left in mainspace). So, delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• 2024 October 16 § Unmentioned Suikoden characters – keep because of a trainwreck

• Comment. It's true that on merge, this became just one & a half sentences in the List article. I do not think it is likely that the full article for the list of Suikoden III characters is going to come back soon (the sourcing standards WP:VGC expects are stricter these days and it would require diving Japanese-language sources). By the standard many prefer of "must be mentioned at target", this should probably be deleted. I don't personally agree with said standard, though, and prefer WP:CHEAP and WP:RFD#KEEP 1. Even if the odds of the list article coming back with a mention of Juan are 0.1%, it's harmless to keep the redirect for merge attribution reasons. But I know that my opinion is not shared by many of those who show up at RFD, and it's true that the content was largely discarded anyway, so take it as you will. SnowFire (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Ninja death star

• Ninja death star → Shuriken  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

results mostly gave me assorted edgelords and ai slop based on that other death star, so it doesn't seem to be a likely synonym consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Age alone isn't a reason to keep a redirect, but this one goes back more than 20 years! The even older Ninja starNinja star seems a more common colloquial name. Are there other likely uses for this term, though? It seems (ironically) harmless. --BDD (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I don't feel like Googling "ninja death star" in public, and I've never heard shurikens referred to by this name, but BDD's comment makes me think that it might be a legitimate term. No mention on Wiktionary, but I don't feel like a lack of specificity is a good argument for deletion here. No opinion thus far, since I do not know if this is a legitimate term. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  the results i got imply that it definitely is a very slightly plausible search term... but only for the two oddly specific groups that are ai "clipart" companies (it's not clipart if it's an entire image, you boltbags!!) and people likely to pick usernames like XxX_-Death_Killer_666_Demon_Blade_Edge-_XxX on club penguin. and even then, most of the results actually referring to shuriken (that is, exclusively from the latter group) also had the text string "ninja star" nearby. that is to say, it's not even actually a plausible search term among the small and dwindling demographic to which it is actually a plausible search term consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I can only assume this is someone confusing "ninja star" and "death star" and putting them together. Fairly implausible, and borderline WP:XY. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This strikes me as a highly plausible search term for someone who vaguely remembers what these are/how they are used in (western?) popular culture but does not remember the name. That no evidence of this causing any harm in the past 20 years just makes the case for keeping even stronger. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  support this Oreocooke (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  if a point of reference is needed... yeah, the origin of the term kind of has to be western by the term's nature, even ignoring how it's somehow only limited to naruto fans who somehow miss the multiple mentions of shuriken. this is mostly just to say that europe seems to know what it's doing in this area, so it ain't them this time. that i still stand by my comment that the demographic in question is "small and dwindling" is besides the point for now, though consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think this is limited to naruto fans. I've heard of the weapon in multiple different contexts over the years and I've never read/seen a single edition/episode of that (or indeed most) manga or anime. I don't recall hearing the term "Shuriken" before this RfD so I'd definitely be relying a redirect or search results to find the article. I suspect my term would more likely be Samurai throwing star, Ninja throwing star or Japanese throwing star (or their plural forms), but the redirect is absolutely an equally plausible search term for someone like me. I'm fairly certain I've never written down these search terms previously, and certainly nowhere Google would find them, because like most people I am not in the habit of writing down vague search terms I use - if the purpose of my is writing something about the subject then I would use the correct term that I discovered after searching. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Nesbitt, Minnesota

• Nesbitt, Minnesota → Eden Prairie, Minnesota  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Original article was an apparent hoax; no such settlement existed. Minnesota does not have "boroughs" as the article indicated, and the supposed borders of the area can't exist as described. --Sable232 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Nesbit Township, Polk County, Minnesota as {{R from misspelling}}. Reason for existing redirect is probably Nesbitt Preserve Park in Eden Prairie, but that's not a town. I₂Overcome ^talk 11:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Nesbitt Preserve Park also isn't even mentioned at the current target. I₂Overcome ^talk 11:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I considered retargeting it to Nesbit Township, but given the hoax content, felt it would be better to delete the page entirely so that isn't hanging around in the history. --Sable232 (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per above. If the history is sufficently problematic that deletion would benefit the encyclopaedia then it can be revision deleted, if it isn't then there is nothing to worry about. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm confused - what purpose would revision deletion serve as opposed to simply deleting it? Almost the entire article history is the hoax content - the only revisions that aren't are the one turning it into a redirect and the two related to this RfD. --Sable232 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Bicycle hat

• Bicycle hat → Bicycle helmet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Google hits are overwhelmingly for hats one wears biking, not helmets; I don't believe we cover this topic anywhere. Rusalkii (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Casquette, a hat traditionally worn by cyclists, or potentially Bicycle clip hat, as a search term. I'm leaning towards the former. Golem08 (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Casquette - it appears most likely to be what the term would refer to. --Sable232 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

CAT:AI

• CAT:AI → Category:Administrator instructions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think Category:Wikipedia and artificial intelligence is the primary topic now. This shortcut is used on 5 pages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

retarget per nom Oreocooke (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom although im fine with a hatnote in the current target pointing to the proposed target cat too --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Catherine Sinclair's

• Catherine Sinclair's → Catherine Sinclair  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I thought there was longstanding practice not to create redirects from possessive forms as they pointless. See e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 9#Mozambique's. DrKay (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

2 moths ago is not longstanding. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC).

I only chose that one because it was the most recent. I had other examples going back years but chose not to show them, e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 18#India's and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 12#Kingston's, etc. DrKay (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, it's useful for linking. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete's the away to go here. Need precedence? See the list of incoming links to "Delete's"; per that list, history of precedence extends back to at least August of this year. Steel1943 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I see a long list of mistakes that the community made by deleting useful redirects and that we shouldn't continue to repeat those mistakes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per my reasoning at the similar possessive one below. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete you can still ink it regardless. These are not going to be searched unless there is affinity with the subject, and here there is not. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete's per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete's per nom. 77qq 💬 contributions 02:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Carl Guttenberg's

• Carl Guttenberg's → Carl Guttenberg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I thought there was longstanding practice not to create redirects from possessive forms as they pointless. See e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 9#Mozambique's. DrKay (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, these redirects are useful for linking. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete's the away to go here. Need precedence? See the list of incoming links to "Delete's"; per that list, history of precedence extends back to at least August of this year. Steel1943 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if Tavix is correct that these are helpful for linking (which is a somewhat debatble), recent MOS discussions have demonstrated that consensus has been leaning toward the position that such links should not be made. I.e., that the 's part of the text should explicitly not be part of the link. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  If a redirect is useful for any purpose then it should be kept per WP:RFD#K5. As for the MOS, are you thinking of the recent change to MOS:PIPESTYLE for plurals? That guidance is explicitly not for any punctuation or non-printing characters (which MediaWiki considers apostrophes to be punctuation) because it breaks the link when included. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  The point is that there's been an emerging consensus at multiple MOS discussions (see the previous similar RFDs for links) that the apostrophe-s should NOT be part of the link text. This has nothing to do with plurals or piping, and everything to do with how a link should appear. It so happens that this consensus agrees with MediaWiki's behavior. Creating these sorts of redirects explicitly goes against that consensus. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete please bundle similar nominations next time User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete's per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete's per nom 77qq 💬 contributions 02:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Dooor

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

Delete as an unlikely misspelling that, per third party engines, is ambiguous with a potentially notable company that makes ... doors. Steel1943 (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• deelete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Deelete per nom. 77qq 💬 contributions 02:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Knocking up

• Knocking up → Canvassing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, ambiguous. Also a colloquialism for Impregnation, which targets Fertilisation. Steel1943 (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Disambig. When a plausible search term is ambiguous but there is no primary topic then in almost all cases readers are best served by a disambiguation page rather than a redlink and search results (which might be several clicks/taps away, depending on multiple factors). Knocker-up should also be included on the dab. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  ...That seems like a disambiguation page that will be full of WP:PTMs, which we tend to avoid doing. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  If people use this term to mean those things, and they do, and Wikipedia has content about those things, and we do, then there is no reason to not take them to the content they are looking for. The purpose of redirects and disambiguation pages is to help the reader, not to stick rigidly to arbitrary rules. I'm also not certain why Fertilisation, Canvassing or Knocker-up would be partial title matches for this phrase? Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to fertilisation from avoided double redirect. I've never heard it used for canvassing, though sources could be provided to contradict me User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Easternsahara sources are trivially easy to find, including [77], [78] and [79]. Thryduulf (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the sources, I don't change my vote though. First two point out that it is has two meanings or use it intentionally to be funny. In short, I think the primary topic is fertilisation because that is what people who search that up would want to find. A hatnote would be enough because it only has 1 other use (perhaps knocker-upper as well, but 3 is doesn't necessitate a disambig and it can be mentioned in the hatnote) User:Easternsahara_{review this} 03:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• First choice retarget to Knocker-up as (an admittedly kind of useless) alternative verb form. Second choice, delete as generally vague with other possible targets, not really in need of disambiguation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Door knock

• Door knock → Door knocker  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Just retargeted this redirect to where it currently targets (the knocking object on some doors), but now I'm not sure if it should target Door knock or Canvassing, the target of Door knocking (which I believe is properly targeted, thus I'm not nominating it here). I guess I'm keep and weak retarget to Canvassing since I think "knock" in this sense is an object and not a verb/action, but have no quarrel if consensus sways towards Canvassing. Steel1943 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: This feels like it should be a disambiguation page, but I don't know if there would be any other articles to disambiguate. guninvalid (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a disambiguation page is appropriate here, given that neither of the proposed targets are known by this name. If anything, a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target should be established, and then tagged with a hatnote referring to the other article. Steel1943 (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

weak support this either in addition or as an alternative to retargeting Oreocooke (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

retarget to canvassing through door knocking per nom (or semi-disambiguate per above)

(hopefully this discussion doesn't contain any of the other canvassing)

Oreocooke (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Door And Door-post

• Door And Door-post → Door  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The phrase "doorpost" and its variations are not mentioned in the target article. In addition, this redirect is malformed (odd use of capital letters) and has WP:XY issues since Door-post redirects to Jamb. Steel1943 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or create an article. A door and surround can be bought in a kit for example - indeed it is a common way to do it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC).
  

Interior door

• Interior door → Door  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Though the phrase "interior door" is mentioned in the target article multiple times, the target article doesn't seem to identify of describe the topic in a manner which validates the redirect targeting the target article. In other words, readers search this term are probably looking for a specific topic regarding doors used in interiors of structures. (In other words, WP:REDLINK due to topic potential.) Also, the existence of this redirect could have readers believe that the opposite concept, Exterior door, exists when it does not and never has existed. Steel1943 (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Inged door

• Inged door → Door  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm guessing this is considered a misspelling for "hinged" ... but alas, it's just a guess since it's the closest title match I can fathom and I cannot find evidence of this misspelling being common or likely at all. But, either way, "inged" is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep and retarget to Door#Hinged Hinged doors are the default. (We have sliding and revolving in separate articles.) Dropped h is a widespread language feature, as well as a possible typo, and there's no harm in supporting it with this redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC).

• Delete per nom. DrKay (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Mephit (*Shattered Galaxy)

• Mephit (*Shattered Galaxy) → Shattered Galaxy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "Mephit" is not mentioned in the target article, and even then, the disambiguator is malformed due to the "*" in it. Steel1943 (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• *Delete as unmentioned and an WP:RDAB at the very least. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete due to malformed/misspelled modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• I'd say (*Delete) per nom. 77qq 💬 contributions 02:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Dance (genre)

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

I don't think this target is correct, Dance is about the "art form consisting of body movement" rather than a genre of music. I'm not sure however whether Dance music, Electronic dance music or Dance (disambiguation) is better? My first thought was electronic dance music, but I don't know whether that's just because that was the article I was looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Dance music - Electronic dance music is a sub-genre of dance. Dance is to broad. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC).

• Retarget to Dance music. That does seem like the most likely topic. What about other media? In video games, there's Category:Dance video games/Rhythm game; in TV, Dance on television; and in film, Dance film. Unlike music, however, they're unlikely to be referred to as "dance" alone, and indeed aren't given on the disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Dance music per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Refernce desk

• Refernce desk → Reference desk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A little on the boundary for R3, so bringing here. Delete as a random typo, especially unlikely for a two-word title. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. These kinds of typos are easily dealt with by all search engines and are unnecessary for any search purpose. If anything, they are damaging because if an editor makes a typo by mistake in a wikilink e.g. "on visiting a refernce desk", it is more difficult to spot. DrKay (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above. 77qq 💬 contributions 02:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Seventh Shi?a Imam

• Seventh Shi?a Imam → Musa al-Kazim  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems like a Eubot failure to undiacriticise Seventh Shīʻa Imām. That "?" in the title is unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete, I do not think the ? is used in the romanization of Arabic like some numbers are. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

December 3

Surya Namask?r

• Surya Namask?r → Sun Salutation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm assuming this redirect refers to Surya Namaskar, a redirect targeting the same target as the nominated redirect, but the "?" is both not plausible and not a "with" or "without" diacritic version of the aforementioned other redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as above, seems an attempt to use a wildcard which isn't needed and we don't do it anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - all I can think of with these is masking, where people mask letters in words that are expected to trigger automated content filtering on some social media platforms (for example if you write "sex" on Instagram you'll get a content warning or even have your account shut down, but not if you write "s3x" or "seggs" or "xes" instead). I don't know why this title would trigger an abuse algorithm, but there could be some valid cases for titles like this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Keep WP:RFD#K5 per below. It would be better if Legobot could be fixed to handle titles with diacritics, but we can't do that from here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The reasoning behind it is none of the above. I created this redirect when Sun Salutation was up for GA. At the time (the page has been moved twice in the meantime) its name was Surya NamaskārSurya Namaskār, and the GA review, which is now at Talk:Sun Salutation/GA1, was therefore at Talk:Surya Namaskār/GA1. Legobot - which sends out messages for GA reviews and RfCs - has difficulties when page names contain diacritics, hence the need to create redirects like this whenever Legobot sends out a notification containing a redlink that itself contains a question mark. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8#Redirects for Legobot no longer linked to: since then, nothing has changed - Legobot has not been amended, and this problem does still crop up occasionally. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Seems that's one of the reasons why we have WP:SALT ... to avoid keeping trash, recreated titles. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Which one was recreated after deletion? Please provide an example which was either (a) SALTed; or (b) where delete/recreate occurred multiple times. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Either you misunderstood my point, or I misunderstood your point, but meh. Steel1943 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RFD#K5 as Redrose64 has illustrated a use. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This is not a plausible search term and seems a bit odd to use a redirect as a patch for fixing technical issue. Asteramellus (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Lenticel. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Q?disiyyah

• Q?disiyyah → Al-Qādisiyyah  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are several similar redirects that target the same page as this redirect, but the odd, implausible use of a "?" in this redirect essentially makes it itself implausible and WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - seems like something like a UTF encoding error. We deleted a few thousand of these when eubot screwed up, this should go too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Ivanvector. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Klinefelter?s Syndrome

• Klinefelter?s Syndrome → Klinefelter syndrome  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The "?" in this redirect's title makes it implausible. We already have Klinefelter's Syndrome and Klinefelter's syndrome, which serve the same purpose (assuming the "?" should actually be an apostrophe). Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Tuta (Suikoden)

• Tuta (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• 2024 October 16 § Unmentioned Suikoden characters – keep because of a trainwreck

Delete. Character not mentioned in any Suikoden article. Was an unreferenced stub article in 2007 until it was redirected. Mika1h (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Mala?i

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Deleted as G7

@Rsjaffe: This was created in 2007, how would that be "recently created"? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It should’ve been G6, result of XfD. Fixed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: G6 is also incorrect. You're looking for WP:G7 because the author !voted for deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It can be either. We've shied away from G7 when there was a deletion discussion because that makes it harder to detect that others wanted it gone when we are asked for a refund. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: Who's we? G6 for deletion discussions are for pages where a consensus to delete has been previously reached via deletion discussion, but which were not deleted. That's not the case here, the discussion was still open when you deleted it and it was only closed after that due to the speedy deletion. And three deletes in about a day doesn't make this a WP:SNOW situation. WP:G7 is the only correct criterion and the way to "detect" the deletion discussion is by including a link to the deletion discussion in the 'additional reason' field of the deletion page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the sequence of events incorrect. The we was referring to a discussion on the Discord server admin channel about G7 being problematic when a deletion discussion has run its course (and yes, including the deletion discussion link when deleting it earlier).

I messed this one up in two ways: one, I misread the date of creation: stopped reading after I saw "2 August", and two, in responding to your first ping, thought the discussion was closed before I made the deletion. And, redirects are different from regular articles in that a "refund" is really superfluous--it's easy enough to just recreate it. Will change to G7. My apologies. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oregon Route 67

• Oregon Route 67 → U.S. Route 30 in Oregon#East of Portland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• OR 67 → U.S. Route 30 in Oregon#East of Portland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect target has no mention of a numbered route 67, only an internal highway number. The internal numbers aren't treated as route numbers and as such the redirect should be deleted as it is confusing. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• I went ahead and bundled these because you have the same rationale for them. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Tavix! thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

History of pottery in Palestine

• Pottery in PalestinePottery in Palestine → Levantine pottery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  retargeted to Palestinian pottery
• Pottery in the Palestinian territoriesPottery in the Palestinian territories → Levantine pottery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  retargeted to Palestinian pottery
• Palestinian archaeology → Levantine archaeology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  former article restored
• Archaeology of PalestineArchaeology of Palestine → Levantine archaeology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  retargeted to Palestinian archaeology
• History of pottery in Palestine → Levantine pottery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• History of pottery in the southern levant → Levantine pottery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• History of pottery in the Southern Levant → Levantine archaeology#Ceramics analysis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Syro-Palestinian archaeology → Levantine archaeology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Syro–Palestinian archaeology → Levantine archaeology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As a result of a complicated history split and re-merge to a set of old articles, these redirects might now need to be retargeted to topics that make more sense. There is some more background at Talk:Palestinian pottery for anyone who's interested. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• It's rather obvious that Pottery in PalestinePottery in Palestine and Pottery in the Palestinian territoriesPottery in the Palestinian territories should target the restored Palestinian pottery, and the two Southern Levant titles should point to the same place but I'm not sure which. I'm not sure about the "archaeology" titles at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

If there are obvious targets for those two, why nominate them here? Shouldn't you just boldly retarget them? -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps they want others' opinions? I'm just guessing, I don't know their actual reasoning. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It is clear that Ivanvector wants others' opinions, he wouldn't have brought these redirects here if he didn't. My question is why he wants others opinions specifically for the two redirects that have obvious targets. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Mostly I was going through all incoming redirect links to the three articles I was merging and splitting, and finding more impacted redirects as I went, and it was helpful in organizing my thoughts to list them all out. The two obvious ones became obvious after I listed them out, if that makes sense. Happy to just speedy retarget those and remove them from this discussion if it's causing trouble, though. I always post here because I want others' opinions - if I had an obvious solution I would just do it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion Ivanvector. I created & develop d Palestinian pottery & Palestinian archaeology. Both were moved to different titles on the rationale that they overlapped with Levantine pottery & archaeology. As I explained to you while trying to restore the former (which was successful with your help), these are really sub-topics of the more broadly titled articles. I would note that there is an Archaeology of Israel in addition to Levantine archaeology, so there should be an Archaeology of Palestine or Palestinian archaeology too. I suppose the reason Palestinian archaeology became Levantine in general is because it can also be considered a synonym for Syro-Palestinian archaeology and when people challenged me as to what reliable sources discussed the topic in these terms, I added it as a synonym and expanded the article scope accordingly. However, there should be an article of narrower scope concerned with archaeology practiced by Palestinians in Palestine. There is much information on the subject not included in any of the articles we currently have, which don't reflect the efforts of figures like Stephan Hanna Stephan or current archaeological efforts by Palestinian national institutions. Tiamut (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This is an old revision of Palestinian archaeology that could perhaps form the basis for a restored article. Though I would alter to clarify the more strictly delimited scope of this article and point to the other articles where more info on broader or other sub-topics could be found. Tiamut (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Think Pottery in Palestine & Pottery in the Palestinian territories should be disambiguation pages maybe? Offering a choice between Palestinian pottery, brief history of pottery making behind the still living art practised by Palestinians & Levantine pottery, overview of the history of pottery making & archaeological artifacts (pottery shards) & their use to historical study & timelines of the region 11:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC) -signed Tiamut

We have a guideline that recommends against creating disambiguation pages with only two topics. Usually how we would handle a situation like this is set the redirects to target the subject that is most likely what readers are looking for (the primary topic) and use hatnotes to suggest other possibilities. We could add a note at the top of Palestinian pottery that says something like "This article is about pottery in the State of Palestine. For the history of pottery in the Levant region, see Levantine pottery", or "'Pottery in Palestine' redirects here. For pottery in the Levant, see Levantine pottery". There are a variety of templates for this depending on what works best for any particular situation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Fine with hat notes offering the alts. But to clarify Palestinian pottery will also include Palestinian potters outside the narrowly defined State of Palestine, like those in areas occupied by Israel in 1948 and in exile. So the hat note should read something like "This article is about pottery produced by Palestinians". Also regarding Palestinian archaeology, I would like to restore very pared down version for expansion and development. Tiamut (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion thus far I have restored am in the process of restoring Palestinian archaeology to Tiamut's proposed revision (and added various notes for attirbution), and retargeted the titles that were fairly obvious, so as to focus discussion on the remaining "history of" and "Syro-Palestinian" redirects, which aren't so obvious to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Date Movie 2

• Date Movie 2 → Date Movie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of sequel at target article. Presumed hoax. Jalen Barks (Woof) 19:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - original submission was vandalism; no such film, and no discussion of a sequel at the target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as potential hoax / vandalism --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy delete as G3 blatant hoax if applicable, if not delete. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hidden sockpuppet comments The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Delete, no sequel found. 2550 69 11hne (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment 2007 article with content only “eg nwde ruqlucnimkldxmhfodup9io;mcl;xf dd its a movie”, got turned into a redirect with multiple edits after. 2550 69 11hne (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk shot in the neck

• Charlie Kirk shot in the neck → Assassination of Charlie Kirk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is unnecessarily specific to the point of insensitivity. Charlie Kirk shot is enough. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, this seems inappropriate and too graphic. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Slatersteven. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - weirdly high pageviews, obviously points to the right article, factual and not so gratuitous that it should override WP:NOTCENSORED. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

For clarity, my rationale does not at all imply nor do I advocate for censorship. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood, and for clarity I did not intend to suggest that you did, it's just a relevant guideline. If not for the pageviews I would completely agree with you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: useless. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or rename to "Charlie Kirk shot". I think the nomination is correct, that this is unnecessary and insensitive, but given Ivan's point about its usefulness as a search term, I think shortening it to "Charlie Kirk shot" (that is, omitting "in the neck") would work well as a redirect. It's a plausible search term, and anyone looking for the full "in the neck" version will find the shortened version presented to them as they type it into the search box. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Charlie Kirk shot is already a redirect. Also, for what it's worth moving redirects that don't have history is not recommended. If there's a redirect you want to exist, it's trivial to just create it yourself. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. That means I'm now a delete. I hadn't checked if the shorter redirect already existed, but I felt I should raise that possibility as a workaround for the "useful search term" issue. But since that redirect already exists, there's no reason to keep this one, because anyone looking for this one will automatically find the shorter one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Tavix and I have a long history of disagreeing on this point but I'll make it again anyway. There are other ways readers arrive at a page besides the search engine. Pageviews suggest people are arriving at this redirect, but we cannot see how they're getting there, nor can we control if some external website is linking to an old URL that leads to a substandard page title, but we can control whether those readers get to the information they're looking for or get to an error message instead. Absent a better reason that the title is problematic, I prefer the former. Readers arriving at the URL would be redirected to the article mostly without seeing the redirect's title at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There's not a single thing you said in that reply that I disagree with. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Ivan, you make a good point, that I hadn't previously thought of, about people getting here from external URL links. As I try to wrap my mind around it, I'm trying to balance "redirects are cheap" against my feeling that there is a limit to how much we need to accommodate errors at other websites. I don't think there's a cut-and-dry answer. But, per a comment about a related redirect just below, I think that the extremely high pageviews for the target page in recent weeks may lead to exaggerating the importance of pageviews via the nominated redirect, which makes me reluctant to move off of "delete". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as improbable search term. I₂Overcome ^talk 23:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Why would this redirect be deleted? I created it because the phrase "Charlie Kirk shot in the neck" is self-explanatory. I created this redirect so people would be redirected to what they are looking for. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Assassination of CJK

• Assassination of CJK → Assassination of Charlie Kirk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• CJK assassination → Assassination of Charlie Kirk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are implausible redirects, Charlie Kirk was not known by his initials. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, I doubt anyone is going to be looking for this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - pageviews highly suggest these are not useful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete both, since his initials are not plausible search terms. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, he was not known by his initials. I₂Overcome ^talk 23:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Charlie Kirk

• Attempted assassination of Charlie Kirk → Assassination of Charlie Kirk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A follow-up to the now closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 26#Attempted killing of Charlie Kirk. This wasn't an attempted assassination but an actual one. Note that this one started as a parallel article on the day of the event that was quickly redirected to the established article. There was no merge that occurred. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Erroneous title and unlikely search term for this highly publicized assassination. The history is trivial and can safely be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Whilst inncacuate, is this what redirects are for, likely mistakes. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - I had made this before the news had broke of his death, at this point everyone should know he was killed. JaxsonR (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - that the attempt was successful does not make it not an attempt. Has well above noise-level pageview activity, likely stemming from it being the original title. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This was not the original title of the article. It was created as a parallel article within the same minute as the main article and was redirected there a few minutes later. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

An original title? I mean to say it's a title where some readers are looking for content because there was content there originally at some early point in the timeline of the incident. I mean, I'm just guessing why it's getting pageviews. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, the target is one of the most viewed articles of the year. I'd think with the sheer volume of views any redirects with a similar title are going to receive hits. I just don't think that necessarily translates to usefulness though. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm finding it hard to believe that now, or going forward, anyone is going to search for this wording (even if people did in the past). I just don't envision anyone typing "attempted" into the search box at the beginning. If there were really a strong case for using it as a redirect from a mistake, then we should also overturn the Nov. 26 discussion about similar mistakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as inaccurate and possibly misleading. A successful assassination is no longer an attempted assassination. I₂Overcome ^talk 23:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep as a plausible mistake, especially if someone doesn't know it occurred. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Ted Turner Pictures

• Ted Turner Pictures → Ted Turner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I came across this thanks to a WatchMojo YouTube video about “certain decisions leading to the bankruptcy or the decline of operations of movie studios”. Upon getting to this title, the video brought up “Gods and Generals”, the only film that this title has brought out. Maybe, it can be re-targeted there or be deleted outright. So I’ve brought it over here for a discussion as it hasn’t fallen into one before! Intrisit (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Turner Entertainment Co. where Turner Pictures redirects. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Ties (disambigation)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy deleted

Essence & Rare 82-92

• Essence & Rare 82-92 → Everything but the Girl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Essence & Rare 82–92 → Everything but the Girl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Album not mentioned at target. The second redirect was an unsourced stub which was subject to a BLAR about a year ago. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Sur-

• Sur- → Lithuanian name#Glossary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• -vil → Lithuanian name#Glossary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Not used, not mentioned in the target article, and even absent from Wiktionary. Misleading. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, retargeted to correct place, Glossary of pre-Christian Lithuanian names. Not used, because I forgot about them when I created this new article.--Altenmann >talk 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  I've reverted your changes. Retargeting a redirect in the middle of an active RfD discussion and removing the {{rfd}} tag is extremely disruptive. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  • And reverting correct targets, where these stems are explained is against the very spirit of wikipedia and misleading. --Altenmann >talk 17:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • And having signatures half page length is a disruption for discussions; I spent several minutes finding where to insert my answers. --Altenmann >talk 17:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

    My signature conforms with the applicable P&G and community norms. Unilaterally changing the target and untagging redirects in the middle of an active discussion does not. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Highly ambiguous strings of letters that are common in many English words and names. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • If they are common and you know more meanings, make a disambig page. All words are "string of letters" and many are really ambiguous, such as bug or kor. --Altenmann >talk 16:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

    A disambiguation page for what? For variations of sur and vil/VIL which already exist as dab pages? If anything, we could redirect towards them. But it makes no sense because there are no pages using these isolated sequences with a hyphen. And take a look here: sur- is mainly an English prefix of French origin. We could have a soft redirect to Wiktionary on that page, but -vil remains absolutely useless. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

    • Ignorance is not an argument. --Altenmann >talk 17:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

      Read again because I argued very clearly and you ignored the main point I raised. And besides that, someone typing -vil on enwiki will almost certainly never be looking for an obscure Lithuanian root used in a handful of names. You care about that? Provide links for all of those roots from their respect dab pages, or else let us just delete the absurd redirects—and that apparently also includes -mant-, now that I look more closely. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

      "Absurd" is telling about your attitude to and knowledge of linguistics, as well as the ways how Wikipedia works (I cannot link a dab page if I want to mention this term in an article). --Altenmann >talk 18:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

      I meant listin every root in an equivalent dab page. And it still doesn’t change that the redirect is utterly useless or even confusing. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

      And I meant what I said above: in my opinion you are mistaken on both counts. --Altenmann >talk 19:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: I updated the listing to correctly reflect that these both target § Glossary. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

technicality; resolved

• • And disrupted Wikipedia and confused people, and wasted their time, by removing correct targets. --Altenmann >talk 17:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Per WP:RFD: 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

    Just so we are clear, all I did was revert your disruptive edits[80][81] and add #Glossary to the targets in the listing to accurately reflect the current target of each nominated redirect.[82] My sole intent is to facilitate a civil and transparent consensus-building discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

    Sure thing, an epithet "extremely disruptive" applied to me is a very civil consensus-building. And extremely friendly, too. --Altenmann >talk 18:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

    I have struck "extremely". I apologize for the unnecessary flourish; I agree it was counterproductive. I maintain that the behavior was disruptive. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

    I accept your criticsm on technicality. --Altenmann >talk 19:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Towns in the Former RSK

• Towns in the Former RSK → Republic of Serbian Krajina  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect. Left behind after an AfD, it was just some weird nationalist soapboxing, author long blocked as a sockpuppeteer. Joy (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep and refine target to Republic of Serbian Krajina#Towns, where all of the information we have on this topic can be found, although the list is entirely unsourced. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, there are no real readers who are going to type "towns in the former rsk" in the search box. Even if someone somehow managed to do that, the search engine would find the right articles. There is no value to the redirect for the average English reader. It just preserves history of yet another editor flamewar in a contentious area, which is fairly pointless. --Joy (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Cold freezer

• Cold freezer → ULT freezer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Cold refrigerator → ULT freezer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Cold refrigeration → ULT freezer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inherently, all types of refrigerators and freezers are cold, so these terms are not specifically associated with ultra-low temperature freezers. Delete as vague, but if kept for some reason, retarget to refrigerator or refrigeration as appropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep cold freezer - all freezers are cold sure, but this type is specifically cold compared with a common household freezer, and so I think it's valid. "Cold refrigerator" is nonsense though, a warm refrigerator is broken. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete all three. Agree with Ivanvector about "Cold refrigerator" and same argument can be for "Cold refrigeration". All three I think are vague - and I don't see any target page that would be not misleading. Asteramellus (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete seems like an attempt at advertisement for a specific type of freezer. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Murmur

• Template:Murmur → Template:HTML comment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused and unreasonable redirect. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Totally unlikely to be used with the intention of transcluding its target, sprinkled in with a bit of WP:RSURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing I can find online suggests that "murmur" is recognized jargon for an HTML comment. Not that it's evidence but I've been writing HTML code since the mid-90s and I've never heard of this use. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Christopher Savoie

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Moot

2023 Asian Beach Games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 10#2023 Asian Beach Games

1.73205...

• 1.73205... → Square root of 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. See 1.732 below. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, I don't see any issue with this redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Ivanvector who has identified an issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm back to keep. That wasn't sitting well with me so I went to Ellipsis#In mathematical notation where it says that Ellipsis is sometimes used where the pattern is not clear. For example, indicating the indefinite continuation of an irrational number. So this is fine. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't think anybody is going to use these specific digits. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Huh? These are the specific digits that begin the square root of 3. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe not these specific digits, but it certainly is common that people will type something like 1.7320... or 1.73205... or 1.732050...

  Having decimal expansion redirects for each amount of digits up to a certain point is not uncommon. MEN KISSING (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - as I recall from engineering school, the ellipsis following the decimals implies that those specific digits repeat; see Repeating decimal#Notation. √3 is not a repeating decimal, therefore this title is incorrect. Unless it's a common error, it should be deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  And I too am switching to keep based on Tavix' findings. My 25-year-old memories cannot argue with reliable sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Redirects for decimal expansions are fine. Having ellipsis makes it more correct, if anything. MEN KISSING (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Titles with "+" instead of spaces (again)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Paul Gazzolo

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

1.732

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

Well, that's 1 and 732 thousandths. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Similar redirect 1.73 has been deleted. There's no reason to have redirects for all approximations of certain numbers. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Also see 1.73205... above. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, it's an approximation of the square root of 3 and no other noteworthy use has been presented. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Tavix. √3 is a well known irrational number which can only be approximated in decimal form; this approximation is valid. No competing uses. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep: per Tavix and Ivanvector. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Typing the partial decimal expansion of a non-whole number should send you to that number. This is how it is with pi, other square roots, and e. MEN KISSING (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

hydrocortisone brand names II

• Ficortril → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Fiocortril → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Foille Insetti → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Genacort → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Heb Cort → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Heb-Cort → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hidalone → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hidro-Colisona → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hycortol → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hycortole → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hydracort → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hydrasson → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hydrocortal → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hytisone → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hytone → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hytone lotion → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Incortin-H → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Incortin-hydrogen → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Komed HC → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lacticare HC → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lacticare-HC → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lubricort → Cortisol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 19 § hydrocortisone brand names – no consensus - retarget
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 18 § Malamar 50 – delete

Delete (slight preference) or retarget to Hydrocortisone. Hydrocortisone and cortisol are two names for the same molecule. 'Hydrocortisone' is the name used for the pharmaceutical product while cortisol is the name used for the endogenous hormone. These are valid {{R from trade name}}'s but these are fairly obscure drug trade names. These were mass created by User:PotatoBot presumably from a comprehensive list of brand names. Consensus has been mixed as to whether we should keep obscure trade (brand) names for drugs and other chemicals. See ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Umbrium and the two discussions linked in the Old RfD list template. Do not keep since 'cortisol' is not the proper name for the pharmaceutical. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. I would imagine all are listed on PubMed as "user supplied synonyms" for hydrocortisone, but without mention at target, it's not very helpful to have redirects from these obscure trade names, and these are too many to mention at target. I have good faith that the nom has vetted the list of tradenames and nominated the obscure ones that are not clearly associated with cortisol/hydrocortisone. Concur that if kept, these should be retargeted to hydrocortisone as a more appropriate target. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget all to hydrocortisone per nom and the outcome of the first RfD, although I think there could have been consensus to delete if more people had participated in that discussion. No objection to deletion except for consistency's sake. I₂Overcome ^talk 22:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  @I2Overcome there are many more of these and we can establish a new consensus to delete these redirects now… 🙃 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hydroskin

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

December 2

Yellow fly

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hydro-colisona

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hi-cor

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hemsol-HC

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gyno-Cortisone

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Glycort

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Flexicort

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Starcker

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

The target surname page has no entry for a Starcker, and enwiki has no article about one. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep I often find myself accidentally spelling names with a ck instead of just a k. I don't know how common this is. In additional, someone who merely heard the name might think that it's spelled Starcker. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep Plausible misspelling.—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the first keep !vote is "weak".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Plausible and apparently unambiguous. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• There is abother surname d:Q83440414 (with a diacritic) so maybe there should be a separate article though the item is marked as said to be the same as the target so maybe it is an alternative name and should be kept Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Umbrium

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

Not mentioned at target. I rather expected to end up somewhere like Umbria. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, NIH lists "Umbrium" as one of many trade names for diazepam. Omphalographer (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This is a standard {{R from trade name}}. Some drug articles have dozens of brand name redirects though, appropriately, only one or two prominent brand names will be mentioned in the article. I question the wisdom of creating all these redirects but it is an established practice. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per @Myceteae. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. We should not have redirects from every obscure trade name, especially when the terms are not most commonly associated with the drug. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, upon further consideration. This is one of the many drug trade name redirects created seemingly indiscriminately by PotatoBot in 2011. It's an obscure name for a fairly well-known drug. The redirect has <200 views in the last 10 years which does not demonstrate usefulness. All that plus points raised by others are reason to delete. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

W457KW

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Soccer Team

• Soccer Team → Soccer Team (band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Malplaced redirect. Retarget to Football team or move? ArthananWarcraft (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I would retarget to Football team. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 22:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• "Soccer Team" doesn't appear in the current target so wouldn't at least a DAB (maybe move the band to the base name) make sense per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• DABify per User:Crouch, Swale. Both are reasonable targets for the term. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Move Soccer Team (band) to the base title per WP:MISPLACED, WP:DIFFCAPS, and WP:TWODABS. The article already has a hatnote that directs readers to the football team article. - Eureka Lott 17:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Move Soccer Team (band) to Soccer Team per Eureka Lott. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Move Soccer Team (band) to Soccer Team per others. Primary topic of the capitalized title. Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Dabify per Crouch - Red Meat is a similar example where we do exactly this. Or else retarget to Football team, per above. Typing Soccer Team in the search box and landing on the page for a slightly obscure band would be a violation of WP:ASTONISH. Strong oppose moving the band to the base name for similar reasons. The band is emphatically not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC  — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Don't move Soccer Team (band) to base title per Amakuru. Either retargeting to Football team or dabifying is fine, with slight preference for the latter per WP:DIFFCAPS. 9ninety (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Move Soccer Team (band) to Soccer Team. Red Meat is not a similar example because there are multiple all-caps things called "Red Meat". AFAICT, the band is the only all-caps thing called "Soccer Team". -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Move to Soccer Team. 77qq 💬 contributions 01:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Transaltantic cable

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Teratodes monticollis

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn by nominator

Radar Homing and Warning

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Malaysian State Route Redirection Leftover

• Perak state route A11 → Perak State Route A11  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Perak state route A132 → Jalan Kampung Poh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Perak state route A180 → Perak State Route A180  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Perak state route A151 → Jalan Sultan Abdullah, Teluk Intan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

For road naming, should capitalise each words DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Malaysia Federal Route R-- → Malaysian State Roads system  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Malaysia Federal Route SA-- → Malaysian State Roads system  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is not following the Malaysia state roads naming format. The correct naming format is [State] State Route [Code][Number]. Refer to here DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose the "Perak state route" redirects. Two of them are just redirects from an alternate capitalization, so they should be kept. (The nomination rationale is invalid on that basis.) The other two are alternate capitalization of alternate names, so they should be kept as well. Remember, redirects are cheap. As for the other two, I'm not sure that they are needed, so they can be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 07:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep all four Perak state route redirects - perfectly fine alternate capitalization redirects & as noted by Imzadi1979, WP:CHEAP (especially for redirects that are up to 15+ years old). Leaning Keep for the two Malaysia Federal Route redirects mainly because of WP:CHEAP for 15+ year old pages despite very low pageviews, and the fact that despite being technically incorrect, these redirects provide a good target to an unambiguous search. Shazback (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC) - Edited to replace "Oppose" by "Keep" for clarity Shazback (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment Please refer back to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Malaysia Federal Route Group 2, October 11 and November 6, the similar redirects are deleted. I have no problem for Perak State Route redirects, just only the Malaysia Federal Route redirects, In state route level, either Perlis State Route R-- or Sabah State Route SA-- are used commonly, they don't use Malaysia Federal Route naming for state route. DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep all the "Perak state route" redirects as completely normal and harmless {{R from other capitalisation}} redirects. No opinion about the other two. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mainly for the Malaysia Federal Route redirects, they could use more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Even more questionable redirects to Absement

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Questionable redirects to Absement

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Deleted

Greatest non-radioactive difference

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Deleted

3^0.5

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#3^0.5

Springfield, USA

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Santa Clause

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Fearnhead College

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Social media ban

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

SD Worx

• SD Worx → Team SD Worx–Protime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shouls be deleted to encourage the creation of an article on WPen for SD Worx, WP:RETURNTORED. Veverve (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment An attempt at an article was BLARed back in May after being tagged for A7 and G11. Rusalkii (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Israeli airstrikes

• Israeli airstrikes → Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Highly ambiguous. Gaza Strip is not the only place receiving Israeli strikes --MikutoH ^talk! 20:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@MikutoH: I redirected this page to List of the Israel Defense Forces operations before FourPi changed the redirect. Jarble (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as pointlessly ambiguous and let the search function recommend specific articles. I₂Overcome ^talk 06:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Category:Airstrikes conducted by Israel where one can find any notable Israeli airstrikes they may be looking for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
•  Question: if the category gets renamed, does the redirect get deleted? Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

No, renaming and deletion are separate processes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Israeli Air Force. Seems like the most reasonable target. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Israeli Air Force.4meter4 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to category per tavix, israeli air force does not have much information about airstrikes, but the template is entirely about airstrikes. Thus, it WP:ASTONISHES less User:Easternsahara_{review this} 22:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Vacating and relisting with agreement from closer at Special:Permalink/1325209660#Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_23#Israeli_airstrikes close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Israeli Air Force. 77qq 💬 contributions 01:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

December 1

RKM codes

102 entries

• 0V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 0V5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 0V8 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 0V9 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1V2 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1V8 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1V5 (voltage) → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2V4 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2V5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2V7 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2V8 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 3V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 3V3 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 3V5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 3V6 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 3V8 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 3V9 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 4V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 4V3 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 4V5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 4V7 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 5V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 5V1 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 5V5 (voltage) → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 5V6 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 6V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 6V2 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 6V5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 6V8 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 7V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 7V5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 8V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 8V2 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 8V5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 8V7 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 9V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 9V1 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 9V5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 10V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 10V5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 11V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 11V5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 12V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 13V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 14V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 15V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 16V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 17V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 18V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 19V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 20V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 22V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 24V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 25V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 27V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 28V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 30V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 33V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 36V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 39V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 43V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 47V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 51V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 56V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 60V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 62V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 68V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 75V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 82V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 87V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 91V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 100V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 110V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 120V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 130V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 140V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 150V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 160V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 170V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 180V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 190V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 200V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 220V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 240V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 270V0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 0P82 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 0P85 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1P0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1P05 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1P2 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1P3 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1P5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1P8 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1P24 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2P5 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2P85 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2P96 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 3P0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 3P1 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 3P3 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 5P0 → RKM code#Similar codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

An unhelpful mass creation of specific codes that all redirect to a section where they may be possible examples, although they're not listed. A quick web search spot-check of a few of these shows all sorts of other things that use these also, which isn't surprising given the terse numeral-and-digit combination that they're made up of. Strong delete all. of these as ambiguous and nearly limitless. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note. For a little more detail, the target article has over three hundred redirects, the vast majority of which were all created by a single user. This nom just takes care of ones to one section (and there are some more that I didn't bother with)...other sections have some large numbers like this too, but this was the most egregious. I've seen some other large batches from this user at RFD before, and I fear there may be boatloads of similar cleanup. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I created 3V3 before many of those redirects and I consider it sourced adequately. fgnievinski (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, yeah massxfd did show a talk page notification for you, and I figured it was a situation like that. However, the main gist of the rationale still stands. A web search for "3v3" for example overwhelmingly comes back with all sorts of things that are played three versus three, so this is still pretty ambiguous. And while it's true that this specific example is mentioned at the target, it's just one code of many possible, and there doesn't seem to be any prticular reason to single this one out. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  Other notable concepts could be disambiguated if needed, but at the moment I fail to see any. And circuit and battery are manufactured at standard voltage values, they are not limitless. PS: there's also 2P5. fgnievinski (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  Added to the nomination, thanks for the heads up. I'll note, though, that an in-wiki search for "3v3" finds a ton of matches for other stuff, almost entirely for sports played 3 vs 3...but I also found a match for some taxon identifier code for Ploima (whatever all that means exactly). I'm not sure that the voltage code is particularly special here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

2000s internet

• 2000s internet → Y2K aesthetic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

General term which could refer to many properties of the 2000s internet other than the aesthetic (my first though was Web 1.0/Web 2.0). I don't think this would be a useful dab, though I'd prefer that to this target. Rusalkii (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to 2000s in science and technology#Information technology. Left guide (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Support. This redirect in my opinion is much better and showcases events in personal computing and the internet during the 2000’s much more clearly. Y2K is a design language and aesthetic of the early 2000’s but doesn’t explain the whole picture about the 2000’s internet and computing. Dylan240 (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  My second choice would be to retarget to Timeline of computing 2000–2009. Left guide (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  As nom, I think I still support deletion, but this target seems vastly better than the existing one and my preferred option if it isn't deleted. Rusalkii (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose this redirect. Conflating "2000s internet" (a chronological/technological period) with "Y2K Aesthetic" (a specific design style) is historically inaccurate and fails the fundamental purpose of a descriptive redirect.

As an editor heavily involved in documenting aesthetic history on other platforms (like the Aesthetics Wiki), attempts to define an entire decade's internet culture as a single "aesthetic" have proven vague and inevitably inaccurate. Redirecting to just "Y2K Aesthetic" ignores the later, equally dominant half of the decade and will mislead readers searching for the general historical or social context of the 2000s online experience. The redirect should either be deleted as too broad ¡or targeted at a high-level historical page. Miiversal (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

What about "2000s internet culture" or is that too broad? I was gonna make pages on these topics later on Aradicus77 (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as vague. Everything proposed so far is at least plausible-ish (the current target being by far the worst) but the intended meanings are too numerous to count. What comes to mind for me first is the rise in social media and changes to news and media consumption but I am in no way suggesting there is a primary topic here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to History of the Internet. There are sections for 1990–2003 and then 2004 onward so it could probably be refined to the earlier one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  This target is less precisely specific to the 2000s compared to the one I suggested above. I disagree with retargeting this title to a section that starts at 2004, or encompasses 1990–2003. Left guide (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  ✓ agreed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

2027 Louisiana gubernatorial election

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 8#2027 Louisiana gubernatorial election

Vertical interval

• Vertical interval → Vertical blanking interval  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

weak nom and not about deletion, so don't worry too much

although mentioned in the lead, this is a little bit of a strange case, as most results i got seem to refer to just about every other type of interval that is vertical, with the primary topic being the intervals between contour lines, which is also the definition wiktionary goes with (if without citations or quotes), with a distant second being the vertical interval timecode, and somehow nearly no results actually related to vblank. that is to say, what do?

also, incoming links seem to refer to both the cartography definition and vblank, which is annoying consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete : this is really ridiculously unhelpful. Much as city might redirect to Chicago, it is simply a generic term redirecting to one very specific case. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

√1

• √1 → Root of unity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31 § Square root of 1 – delete

Similar to the preceding mass nom, but this one's target was later changed, so nominating separately. I still question the utility of this one, as someone typing "√1" is almost surely not going to be helped by...anything, let alone being taken to a page on the roots of unity. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete This is at a new level. It's actually very confusing, since normally root(x) for integer x refers to the positive root; so -root(2) is not normally written as root(2). It is easy to say "But it doesn't hurt", yet it will get misinterpreted sooner or later and be used as part of an argument that [something silly]. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, the discussion below, and a previous discussion that I've linked above for Square root of 1, which was deleted in 2019. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, other comments, prior discussion, and discussion below at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 1#Square root redirects. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete because 1 is the answer. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep or retarget to section. √1 is, by definition, either square root of unity (1 or −1). That article is detailed and technical, and its specific discussion of square roots is brief (the only primitive second (square) root of unity is −1). However, unlike other square root redirects which were correctly mass deleted, Wikipedia does hold information on the topic, so it seems reasonable to redirect the reader there. A section redirect to Root of unity#Explicit expressions in low degrees might be an improvement. Certes (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think technically you are wrong. The notation √1 normally refers to the positive root, which is why we write +-√1 to refer to both of them. Since the positive (square, or any other) root of 1 is 1, this is a very strange hypothetical search term. But see my comment above. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  There seems to be a consensus to delete, and I doubt that may readers will miss the redirect. Certes (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Square root redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ethernet cable

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 8#Ethernet cable

Thug Shaker

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

√ ̅

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Germna invasion of Russia

• Germna invasion of Russia → Operation Barbarossa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This kind of simple typo is not useful. All search algorithms are capable of dealing with simple letter transpositions. It is not necessary to create redirects of this type. If you type in 'Germna' by mistake, the search algorithm will still show results for 'German'. DrKay (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a likely typo and easily resolved. AntientNestor (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, random typo with no affinity to the target. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above, and we don't even have a Germna redirect. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and 'Retarget to German invasion of Russia
  • Simple typo redirects absolutely are useful - this is the reverse of the normal "common typos only" argument put forward by the delete !voters.
  • It's a mistake to think that search is a replacement for a redirect. It is not, it is a fallback when titles and redirects (and one or two magic tricks) fail.
  • Claims that it's not likely based on gut feel are reasonable, but there are currently two examples of this typo on English Wikipedia articles (which I will correct once I have posted this).[83] [84]
  • I don't understand "no affinity to the target" from Deacon Vorbis. Operation Barbarossa is the German invasion of Russia in WWII, and where the latter link redirects. I have now made the correct spelling a dab.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC).

Additional note: You will find far more occurrences of "Germna" on non-project pages, where people have been not been fixing typos. One editor's assisted typo fixes are stored on-wiki and include this typo. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC).

It's damaging because typos in links like Germna invasion of Russia in article space should be corrected by correcting the typo not by using a redirect. DrKay (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear if you are privileging typos in links above other typos, and if so why. Or on the other hand if you think this was created as a result of a typo in an article. Can you clarify please? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC).

It has no affinity to the target because it's a simple letter transposition -- a generic mechanical error that applies equally well to any word. Such possible redirects are endless and should not be made without some sort of specific reason for each instance. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The specific reason is that I made this "improbable typo" and moved the redirect to the correct spelling. While the threshold for ab initio creation might not have been met, it does not follow that the threshold for deletion is met either. (OEIS distinguish these states by "more" or "less", which I have thought for some time might be a useful procedure here.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC).

"keep and retarget" just means "retarget" consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note to closer, please review the reasons for keeping and deleting, rather than just courting !votes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC).
  

  Oh for fuck's sake. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Rich Farmbrough: Duh? As a regular closer, it's insulting that you think that's a necessary comment to make. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I apologise for insulting you by thinking that. The comment below indicates that this is a widespread and supported practice these days. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC).
  

  last time someone suggested "giving a think towards the votes' content", it was in an rfc where the votes opposing a certain action outnumbered the votes in favor of it by (just) over 3:1, and where no argument was actually made towards the former votes having weak or invalid arguments beyond "it could happen". unsurprisingly, the rfc was closed as "do the thing the vast majority agreed on" not long after, so i really don't think this will bolster anyone's case

  with all that said, delete, technically per nom. this isn't a plausible tyop to not notice at least halfway through writing "invasion" or looking for the results, and it's definitely not a plausible instance of this being the only redirect with it, so it's on the harmful side consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  • It's interesting to me that people say that something that happened is not plausible.
  • Especially when they make exactly the same type of typo in their comment in the word "typo".
  • I think it's important to look at the evidence that this is indeed a common typo. I know people usually don't bother with this, and I normally wouldn't, but I have grown tired of seeing so many deletion nominations which seem to be without any serious consideration, and result in wasting everyone's time. It's nice to see a new argument advanced by Dr Kay above, even if it is weak.
  • All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC).
    

    yes and no, but mostly no

    • that it happened or didn't isn't what's being discussed, or a point anyone has brought up, if it was, it would be over "german invasion of russia", which is a dab as of surprisingly not long ago. the arguments are over the plausibility of this ytpo, which people are arguing is not there
    • the tpyo thing is intentional. don't worry about it
    • if you can accuse other people of not having bothered to consider this, i guess i can accuse you of... uh... something, i guess. i'm out of ideas at the moment, though. regardless, it's a weird thing to get hung up about in a typo this ultimately inconsequential, for which nothing of value would be lost in deletion and questions would be had by readers in keeping or retargeting, and assuming that people just aren't bothering here isn't a really good showcase. if people say they don't think something slides, and stand by it on further argument, this usually doesn't imply they're half-assing it or anything of the sort

    i guess the tldr would be "redirect no plausible" consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I had a good laugh, but Germna isn't a very common typo. Felicia (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Uxnionville

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

November 29

Crashpad

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Answers in Creation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#Answers in Creation

2028 United States House of Representatives elections

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Exergue

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Seth and Mary Eastman

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cary Huang

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#Cary Huang

Nixer (playing card)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 7#Nixer (playing card)

Yoylecake/Yoyle Cake

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

The First Ever State

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Israeli torture in Palestine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#Israeli torture in Palestine

Taipo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#Taipo

Light room

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

0141

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#0141

UTV Software Communications

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Bah humbug guy

• Bah humbug guy → Ebenezer Scrooge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

this is going to be a bit of a weird one, as there are technically two reasons for this, but i'm only really sure about one

firstly, does proxy editing count towards g5? i'm admittedly not sure if the timeline would match in this case (it's a lot to go over, and i'm not good at this chronology stuff), but if it does and counts, this could probably just be speedied

secondly, implausible search term lol consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep Not G5, since the editor was blocked after the redirect's creation. It also seems like a somewhat reasonable search term. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

yes, they're often blocked after creating stuff, that's kind of how it works. unless you meant that the stuff he was blocked for happened after, in which case... yeah, fair consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

As G5 says:

To qualify for a ban- or block-based speedy deletion, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted or expired will not qualify under this criterion.

jlwoodwa (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep ...I mean, Ebenezer Scrooge is the 'Bah Humbug' guy? And also the editor behind the redirect was only blocked AFTER the redirect was made, so it's not G5 worthy. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

the problem is that that's as much a viable argument to keep this as it would be for "gotta go fast guy" as a redirect to fast the porcupine. that's just not a thing people would search for without already knowing the context of the catchphrase, and not something those people would likely search for anyway, judging by all the numbers this doesn't do consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 21:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Pending Looking through WP:G5. SeaDragon1 (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the text for the section:

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, as well as pages created in violation of general sanctions, and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions.

• To qualify for a ban- or block-based speedy deletion, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted or expired will not qualify under this criterion.
• For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban, and must not include contributions legitimately about some other topic.
• For general sanctions, the page must have been created in violation of creation restrictions, such as the extended confirmed restriction, and the remedies must specifically permit deletion as an enforcement measure.
• When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5.
• G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or populated categories unless they have been transcluded or populated entirely by the banned or blocked user; these edits need to be reverted before deletion.
• {{Db-g5|name of banned user}}, {{Db-banned|name of banned user}}, {{Db-gs|contentious topic code}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users (0), Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created in violation of general sanctions (1)

Let's look through thoroughly:

in violation of their ban or block

# They weren't banned or blocked.

The rest can be ignored, because condition #1 failed (i.e. was false).

Hence, I vote Keep. SeaDragon1 (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Didn't bother to consider the G5, which is maybe a stretch anyway, but this strikes me as a rather vague term. We already have an article at humbug (to which "bah humbug" redirects), where someone can get further info with more context to help determine what they're actually looking for. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete slippery slope, not known as guy User:Easternsahara_{review this} 04:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Although this is unambiguous, I find this rather implausible. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Qws

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Index shifting

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

Kurdish genocide

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#Kurdish genocide

White nationalist terrorism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#White nationalist terrorism

Hambro'

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Flash (2016 film)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#The Flash (2016 film)

The Flash (2021 film)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#The Flash (2021 film)

November 28

Aiysh

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

what language is that even from? unmentioned, and it doesn't have a wiktionary entry either, so i really can't see any possible affinity consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• weak keep i dont know what language it comes from either, but name suggests romanisation of the word for bread from some obscure language egyptian term for bread source1 source2 -- .nhals8 (puhLEASE ping when responding) 13:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  @.nhals8 and does it have it affinity? the one mention of egypt is as an image's caption, in passing. this is a reocurring issue with redirects: a word existing in another language doesn't automatically make it a plausible search term in wp-en. it's what wp:forred is all about

  as is, i think neither of the sources you mentioned would prove affinity. source 1 mentions it in passing as an example of a sentence (and as a translation of bread, which is no longer dough), and source 2... also only mentions it in passing in the general context of bread. as an example of why sources are needed to properly establish a concept as significant enough in any given culture (such as serviette), i could provide just as much evidence of ovo frito being a plausible redirect for fried egg with passing mentions, despite the usual lack of cultural affinity between fried eggs and portuguese-speaking places consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Consarn i'm thinking that this is an alternative spelling of eish (sounds like aiysh), which is largely popular in Egypt and might be a synonym for bread in general, hence explaining this redirect, though I think you can ask egyptian users to confirm -- .nhals8 (puhLEASE ping when responding) 14:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  eish baladi would definitely be a more plausible redirect... but it'd then be exactly as plausible as eish shamsi and eish fino. i don't think eish merahrah would be in that list, since it doesn't seem likely to survive an afd. i don't think this would be all that fit for a disambiguation either, but i will draft something later anyway, most likely at draft:eish consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, WP:FORRED. No special affinity between dough and Egyptian Arabic. Per discussion above it's not clear that this even is Egyptian Arabic. A Google search reveals mostly people with the last name Aiysh and a user-submitted recipe for something called "aiysh congealed poridge [sic]". An Eish dab page is uncalled for since we have only partial title matches and it's not at all clear that Aiysh should redirect there if it did exist. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete No use. If this is a legitimate foreign term for bread it would violate WP:FORRED, and it's a possible hoax. Not enough to qualify for G3, but I see no reason to keep. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Egyptian cuisine#Bread which discussed what "eysh" means Sting Kipu (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FORRED and that it appears to be a misspelling of the non-English term at that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's not a misspelling just a different transliteration, that's why .nhals8 found it. Would seems to have an affinity with Egyptian bread. Sting Kipu (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

St Paul's Shipwreck

• St Paul's Shipwreck → Collegiate Parish Church of St Paul's Shipwreck  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a partial title match which makes much more sense to be retargeted to Acts 27, where Paul's shipwreck redirects, since the church is certainly not more notable than the biblical story. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 15:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:SMALLDETAILS distinguishes the church from the biblical passage. Put an explanatory {{redirect}} hatnote at both. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  WP:SMALLDETAILS does not distinguish the church from the biblical passage, as the church is not known as "St Paul's Shipwreck" in short, even the article describes its short name as "Church of St Paul's Shipwreck".

  In fact, WP:SMALLDETAILS actually states:

  "And a well-known concept may still be the primary topic for a variant styling or incorrect spelling [emphasis added], even if a much less well-known subject uses that spelling"

  As stated previously, the church (the "less well-known subject") is clearly less notable than the biblical event (the "well-known concept"). 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning disambiguate. There is also, by the way, the wreck of the SS Saint Paul (1895), and numerous historical shipwrecks associated with the various places named St. Paul. BD2412 T 00:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget - I think "Paul's shipwreck" and "St Paul's shipwreck" are similar enough (and the meaning reasonably clear for the former) that it's logical for them to lead to the same place. I'm not sure making it a dab page is the best option - the phrasing isn't how one would typically search for a wreck of a particular ship or in a particular location. --Sable232 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Circleboard

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

Not particularly seeing notability for this. It redirected to a section that was very quickly removed 8 years ago, the site has been down since at least 2017, and I can't find any information about it except for a closed-down subreddit and a YouTube video. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

X (née Twitter)

• X (née Twitter) → Twitter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible as search term. It was only used on one page, which has since been removed. I cannot reasonably think of a scenario in which someone would search an incorrect term like this. X (formerly Twitter) perhaps, but not née. – {{u|hekatlys}} ^WOOF 03:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Used in a variety of places, including Ars Technica, Gizmodo, Kotaku, and a New York Times op-ed. This is only a weak keep, though, because it's not clear to me from these sources that the phrase is more meaningful than the sum of its parts; i.e., it's not so much an alternate name as just one way to phrase the fact that X was previously called Twitter. That said, it's not inconceivable that someone in one of these contexts could think that "X (née Twitter)" is the name, or not understand the referent and search it by those exact words, so I see some benefit to the redirect. (Sidenote, it should be né, since "X" is not feminine, and also technically X' original name is "Twttr", but at RfD we don't care whether the term is right, just whether it's used.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Tamzin - sources are using the term to refer to the topic. No harm in keeping. BugGhost 🦗👻 10:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator needs to broaden their vocabulary: wikt:née. wikt:né is an uncommon, usually italicised form used when giving the former name of a man. I'm unsure whether Twitter is a man or a woman. The feminine form is more common because women commonly take the name of their man, not vice versa. If, one of these days, the community finally agrees to move Twitter from its former to its current name, and it doesn't become the new primary topic for X, the title will need some form of disambiguation, and the parenthetical "née" is more concise than "formerly". The common usage in sources cited by Tamzin show that not only is this title plausible, it's a good candidate for the new title of the article, whenever the page finally moves. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly pointless. Just because it's been used in a cutesy fashion by others doesn't mean we need this as a redirect. It really stretches credulity that anyone is going to search for this who just wants to get to our main article about it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PANDORA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep contra Crouch, Swale. It's a helpful redirect as Tamzin demonstrated so it doesn't make any sense why or how PANDORA would come into play. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Except it's not a helpful redirect. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Except that it is a helpful redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  ...titles that turn articles or article subtopics into questions, like What is the current name of Twitter?

  ...whose existence might encourage the few readers who stumble upon them to assume that there exist redirects of the same type for other targets as well (opening a "Pandora's Box" of user expectations, e.g., expectations that Wikipedia might actually title the name of an article about a product by its current name, rather than its former name...

  • Category:Redirects from former names (29,349 pages)
  • Category:Redirects to former names (397 pages)

  Users expecting that former names redirect to current names might be _surprised_ by this outlier example, leading them to think that maybe Wikipedia is biased against the current product.

  Given the strong association of the former name with the current product, why wouldn't a parenthetical with (Twitter) be more recognizable than any of (app), (online service), (platform), (service), (social media), (social network), or (website) – wbm1058 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep Very much unambiguous. WP:CHEAP Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment It does appear to be unambiguous with nothing else showing it: [85] Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete useless redirect of a highly unlikely search term and per WP:COSTLY. Frank Anchor 22:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• delete. it's unambiguous, sure, but that doesn't make it a plausible search term, unless a bunch of theoretical readers are really into somewhat archaic french loanwords related to the former names of women and/or think the bird app is itself any mix of french and woman. even then, readers who already know what "née" means will necessarily also know what "formerly" means, and readers looking for this will unfortunately already know what a twitter is, so even the demographic that would be most likely to search it would benefit from not having this. also, "né" would be the masculine form, though people apparently don't tend to anthropomorphize the my little pony brainrot porn ad app as male for some reason, so i guess "x (né twitter)" isn't worth considering. the argument of readers finding this in a source and looking for it would also most likely require that they not know what "née" means, which would be a dictionary's job, so i don't think it works either. shouldn't hasbro have carpet bombed those ads already? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Dawans

• Dawans → Sigismund-Helmut von Dawans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This does not seem like a useful redirect - only one "Dawans" currently on en:wikipedia, and although it is a relatively rare name, there are multiple articles on other persons with this name on other language wikipedias, including one with a highly similar name to the current target (see Wikidata, fr:Adrien Dawans, de:Sigismund von Dawans). If not redirect, could be a short disambiguation page. Shazback (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation with interlanguage links seems the best solution. -- Reconrabbit 18:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep The purpose of redirects from a surname is to assist the reader who can only remember the surname or who does to wish to type out the full name. They are used either when Wikipedia has only one article about a person with the given surname (this case) or because one individual is the most likely topic sought by this surname. See WP:RKEEP #6. Greenshed (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone might be looking for the Atoni people, also known as Dawans. Sting Kipu (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a disambiguation page would be best then. Greenshed (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Would the following be OK as a disambiguation ?:

Dawans may refer to:

The Atoni people, ethnic group on the island of Timor

Sigismund-Helmut von Dawans (1899–1944), German general

~See also~

Dawan (disambiguation)

Shazback (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC):: Davan

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Dawan (disambiguation)? After all, if we are to accept Dawans having two major meanings here (the Atoni people, and Sigismund-Helmut von Dawans), then it's instead a case of WP:ONEOTHER. Perhaps we can instead list the Wehrmacht general within the Other uses or the See also sections in that disambiguation article? Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 13:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguate Dawans and convert the redirect to a disambiguation page, per Shazback's proposal above. Err on the side of the reader entering Dawans correctly wanting some Dawans and not singular Dawan, but "see also" can handle misspellings.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Gaza massacre

• Gaza massacre → Casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gaza Massacre → Casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 16 § Gaza massacre – retarget

Retarget to Gaza war or Israeli invasion of Gaza --MikutoH ^talk! 03:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Gaza war to match Gaza Massacre (2008)Gaza Massacre (2008) → Gaza War (2008–2009), Gaza massacre (2012) → 2012 Gaza War, and Gaza massacre (2014)Gaza massacre (2014) → 2014 Gaza War disambiguate Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
•  Note: I bundled Gaza Massacre Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Gaza war per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Gaza War (2008–2009) as alternative name in boldface, and/or otherwise create disambiguation page for this term. There is no mention of "Gaza massacre" in the Gaza war article like there is for the 2008-2009 war, so oppose this. For context the following "Gaza massacre" redirects include; Gaza Massacre (2008), 2010 Gaza massacre, Gaza massacre (2012), and Gaza massacre (2014), thus there is a logic to a disambiguation page that includes not only the war articles but also outliers such as 2010 Gaza flotilla raid. Courtesy ping to editors above.​​​ CNC (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate: Make this a disambiguation page pointing to the various articles people have been suggesting here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguate this is a concise description of many events that have unfortunately happened in Gaza. While this is a very likely search term, its also pretty ambiguous since Israel has created no shortage of such events. User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 10:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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! 08:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Gaza war per nom -- .nhals8 (puhLEASE ping when responding) 13:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguate due to the ambiguity of such a term. There is, regretfully, no shortage of such atrocities within the Gaza Strip. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 13:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Gaza genocide or disambiguate. Yung Doohickey (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate: I think the fact that we have four different target options suggested here (five including the current target) illustrates that there is likely not a clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, which naturally strengthens the case to disambiguate. Left guide (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
•  Disambiguation draft requested. Left guide (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete this and all other similar redirects It is overly vague and can refer to numerous possible things. Since DAB pages are not a search index, disambiguating it would be out of the question. Rather, it should be deleted to let the search function take over. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Gaza massacre (2012) is also at RfD - WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 19#Gaza massacre (2012). Jay 💬 14:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Cinaroot did you try to end this discussion? It's waiting disambiguation. --MikutoH ^talk! 19:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  what ? Cinaroot (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• What's wrong with the current target? 9ninety (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate due to the term's ambiguity. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 22:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Povery and Un-British Rule in India

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Samurai & Shogun (2025 Edition)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Who Are You: 40th Anniversary Edition

• Who Are You: 40th Anniversary Edition → Who Are You#Re-releases  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I removed this from the target, as I could find no sources for it and the creator has created hoax articles. Fram (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Who Are You § Track listing still has 2018 Japanese CD & DVD bonus tracks 40th anniversary edition. Jay 💬 14:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

History of Ultramens

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Ultra Q monsters

• List of Ultra Q monsters → Ultraman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Ultraman Taro monsters → Ultraman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of Ultra Q monsters

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of Ultraman Taro monsters

Was redirected to a page that no longer exists, but wasn't deleted for some reason when the target page was. Not mentioned on the current target page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

CachyOS

• CachyOS → List of Linux distributions#CachyOS  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/CachyOS

Page redirects to a specific section for CachyOS which doesn't exist on the list of Linux distributions (specifically the Pacman based distribution part of that article as a derivative of Arch Linux) as the distribution is not deemed notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are only two other articles which mention CachyOS which have no relevance to the distribution. --tgheretford (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Reasonable redirect as per arguments to redirect at the AFD linked above (noting the target from that AFD has been refined to the list article. I am okay with the redirect to either target being kept). The only reason this was not mentioned at the target page is because sourced content was erroneously removed about a week ago based on the topic not having its own article. I have since restored this sourced mention. Frank Anchor 13:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  The removal was not in error, it was in keeping with longstanding consensus on that list that the selection criteria is that entries must have a standalone article to warrant inclusion. The redirect target was changed from Arch Linux#Derivatives, which doesn't (but could) mention CachyOS, to List_of_Linux_distributions#CachyOS, which cannot have such an entry without a standalone article, meaning it is not a valid redirect target. - Aoidh (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  There is no such rule, nor is there global consensus, that a topic who is not quite notable for a standalone article can not redirect to a list and have a small amount of information on the list. This is actually a very common method of handling these “not quite notable” topics. Frank Anchor 19:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  This is not the place to debate that consensus (which is per WP:CSC 1). Use the article talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Changed to retarget to Arch Linux#Derivatives as per consensus at the 2023 AFD and per discussion at Talk:List of Linux distributions#Inclusion criteria`. Frank Anchor 22:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Change redirect to Arch Linux#CachyOS and add a vanchor template to the distro name at Arch Linux#Derivatives. Turn the redirect into an article with sufficient WP:RS that establish WP:N once/if available. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

MoonPieTown

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#MoonPieTown

2008-2009 influenza vaccine

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 5#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp

Camp Bragg

• Camp Bragg → Camp Bragg (Arkansas)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It isn't right that this redirect should point to a disambiguated title. Fort Bragg was first called "Camp Bragg". The disambiguator at Camp Bragg (Arkansas) would seem to indicate it is not the primary topic, so retarget Camp Bragg to Fort Bragg and put a hatnote there. (If the Arkansas place really is the primary topic, the article about it should be moved to the base name instead). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Move Camp Bragg (Arkansas) to Camp Bragg per WP:PRECISE. The WP:COMMONNAME for Fort Bragg is exactly what it currently is, and I've never heard it referred to otherwise (in recent times) by reputable third party sources. Adjust the hatnote on the current target article after the move. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate A minor Confederate encampment from the Civil War is not the obvious primary topic. There doesn't seem to be a clear primary topic here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The Visioneers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 5#The Visioneers

Handbook of the Mammals of the World Alive

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Vaa Vaathiyaar (actor)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chinese Muslims

• Chinese Muslims → Islam in China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect has attracted "controversy", and has pointed to Islam in China (the current target), and also Hui people. In addition, it got converted into a disambiguation page recently with these 2 articles listed. Bringing to RFD to get a clearer consensus. Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep There are 10 ethnics groups in China that are majority Muslim. While the Hui people are the largest, there's barely more Hui people in China than there are Uyghurs. The current target is a far more comprehensive view. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 01:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep While, in the strictest sense, "Chinese Muslims" might refer to Hui people exclusively, Islam in China is probably a better target, even though many of the peoples discussed in said article are not ethnically Chinese by some definitions. The term "Chinese people" is contentious in general, and it would be best to just keep the redirect as it is. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Casablanca Rock. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget The word "Chinese" in the English world is more predominately used under its ethnic meaning (anything related to Chinese (Han)) instead of its civic meaning (anything related to People's Republic of China). You won't say Vladimir Putin is an overseas Chinese, even if ethnic Russians are definitely one of the 56 ethnic groups recognised by the People's Republic of China. However, you definitely will say that Lawrence Wong is an overseas Chinese, because Lawrence Wong is of Chinese (Han) descent even if he was not born in China and has no Chinese citizenship.

China is not like a country like America, where the world "American" only has civic meaning without any ethnic meaning.

It is true that the Communist party of China attempts to repurpose "Chinese" to make it be a word of pure civic meaning and make China become a country less associated with ethnic Chinese (Han), because of the political influence from Soviet Union. For example, ethnic Chinese (as opposed to ethnic Uyghurs, ethnic Tibetans, etc.) was renamed "Han". For another example, Chinese (Han) Muslims were separated to be a new ethnic group "Hui".

Nevertheless, in practice, mainstream English usage still uphold the ethnic meaning of "Chinese" even in new books.

For example, the book published in 2017 by Brill said "Non-Chinese people, mainly Manchus, Mongols, Tibetans, and Turkic Muslims, (Uyghurs), have not been considered as important factors in the history of early Chinese nationalism so far. But Chinese nationalist and historiographical discourses tell not only a lot about the Chinese image of the Other, but also shed new light on the images of the Chinese Self and its assumed ability to assimilate and integrate other ethnicities."

Citation: Schneider, Julia. Nation and ethnicity: Chinese discourses on history, historiography, and nationalism (1900s-1920s). Leiden series in comparative historiography. Leiden: Brill. 2017: 85. ISBN 978-90-04-33012-2.

For another example, the book published in 2013 by Yale University said "The father of the revolution, Sun Yat-sen, had seen the fall of the Manchus as a victory for the ethnic Chinese or ‘Han’ over a foreign empire. The new Chinese Nationalists spoke of the union of the five races: Chinese, Manchu, Mongol, Muslim and Tibetan."

Citation :Van Schaik, Sam. Tibet: a history. Yale University Press. 2013: 193. ISBN 9780300194104.

In Encyclopaedia Britannica, it says "The Hui are Chinese Muslims (i.e., neither Turkic nor Mongolian)", which makes it clear, "Chinese" in "Chinese Muslims" is of its ethnic meaning instead of its civic meaning, because Turkic or Mongolian are not Chinese.

Citation: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hui-people

We all understand that the People's Republic of China wants to remove the ethnic meaning of "Chinese", but in practice, the mainstream English usage still upholds the ethnic meaning of "Chinese"

I refer you to Talk:Macau/Archive_1#Macau → Macao, Talk:Macau/Archive_1#Page move, Talk:Macau/Archive_4#Requested move 8 July 2018, Talk:Macau/Archive_5#Requested move 24 June 2024, where the Macau government changed the official English name of Macau to be "Macao", but Wikipedia kept its traditional spelling. Why? Because the English language is not definied by a particular government, but defined by English speakers all over the world

In fact, calling Uyghurs and Kazakhs "Chinese Muslims" is somehow offensive, because it makes them feel you are saying they are part of ethnic Chinese, even if by the definition from the People's Republic of China, they are part of the new "Chinese ethnicity" (Zhonghua Minzu) Quickphoto (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Casablanca Rock @~2025-31416-56 @Mx. Granger @Natg 19 Quickphoto (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

If the term is common, it should function as a redirect to its most common target, since "Chinese Muslims" refers primarily to Muslims in China. Similarly, Amazigh people redirects to Berbers, even though the term Berber is sometimes proscribed, simply because "Berber" is much more common than "Amazigh" in English. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Casablanca Rock How do you even reach the conclusion that Chinese Muslims refers primarily to Muslims (regardless of their ethnic backgrounds) just physically living in China instead of being ethnic Chinese? Uyghurs and Kazakhs are not even Chinese. They only have citizenship from China instead of being Chinese. How can they be called Chinese Muslims? Will you be a Chinese if you just live in China? Will I be an Arab if I live in an Arabian country even if I get the citizenship from the UAE? Of course no. I will not be an Arab because I cannot change my ethnicity, regardless of my citizenship.

I already tell you how Hui people is defined on Encyclopedia Britannica, it says "The Hui are Chinese Muslims (i.e., neither Turkic nor Mongolian)". That means the Turkic or Mongolian Muslims are not Chinese Muslims. The word "Chinese" in the pharas "Chinese Muslims" only refers to the ethnic meaning of "Chinese" instead of the civic meaning of the People's Republic of China.

Let me show you how Hui people is defined on other dominant Encyclopaedias.

> World Book Encyclopedia

In Article "Ningxia" of World Book Encyclopedia, it says "The Hui (Chinese Muslims) are the largest of these groups".

In Article "Uyghurs" of World Book Encyclopedia, it says "Ethnic tension between Chinese and Uyghurs contributed to unrest in the early 2000’s, and the government responded by arresting thousands of Uyghurs".

It is quite clear, Uyghurs are not Chinese, but Hui are Chinese. "Chinese" is of its common ethnic meaning.

> Collier's Encyclopedia

In Article "Qinghai" of Collier's Encyclopedia, it says "Mongols, Tibetans, Hui (Chinese Muslims), and Kazaks are the largest ethnic minorities".

If "Chinese" is of the civic meaning of People's Republic of China, how can the Kazaks here are not annotated with "Chinese Muslims"?

> Encyclopedia Americana

In Article "Sinkiang (Xinjiang)" of Encyclopedia Americana, it says "Migration into the area by ethnic Chinese fluctuated through the second half of the 20th century, but by 2010 the Chinese exceeded the Uigurs in numbers. Other minorities include the Hui (Muslim Chinese), Mongols, Kirghiz (a Turkic people), Tajiks (Iranian), and Sibo (Tungusic)".

Still only Hui are annotated with "Chinese"

Remember Wikipedia:No original research, we are not here to make up a civic meaning of "Chinese" in the phrase "Chinese Muslim". We need to follow its primary usage in English Quickphoto (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if I lived in China I would consider myself Chinese regardless of my ethnicity, which is not Chinese. I think the term refers to nationality, especially within this context. It seems we disagree on this, and that's fine. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 17:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

China is an ethnic country not a civic country. One won’t be a Chinese just by a cheap piece of paper. There is an ethnic language called Chinese. There is no ethnic language called American or British. That is the difference Quickphoto (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with you on this. People with a Chinese passport are Chinese. The usage of the descriptor "Chinese" can be used in both an ethnic and a civil way, to refer to ethnic (Han) people or to people who are citizens/residents of China. Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

1: You forgot Wikipedia:No original research. This is Wikipedia not a blog

I have provided autoritative sources from Britannica, Americana, Collier's, World Book Encyclopedias, all of which are the top encyclopedia sources in the English world

None of them use the civic meaning of "Chinese" when they describe the phrace "Chinese Muslims"

They all differentiate Chinese and Uyghurs

Show me your citations

Remember Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

2: I suggest you also initiate a discussion about Greek Muslims, where Greece is a country even less homegeneous than China, where only 91.6% of Greek population are ethnic Greek

"The usage of the descriptor "Greek" can be used in both an ethnic and a civil way, to refer to ethnic (Hellenic) people or to people who are citizens/residents of Greece" Quickphoto (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep There are non Uyghur Muslim Chinese. I suspect the CCP wants to delete the redirect and related pages on the English Wikipedia. We shouldn't bow down to the CCP. Felicia (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

British undegraduate degree nicknames

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

November 27

Campusj

• Campusj → List of The New York Times controversies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• CampusJ → Steven I. Weiss  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/CampusJ

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Campusj

Delete. The NYT article's section on the Campusj controversy was deleted in mid-2020 citing WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Tagged redirect since it wasn't tagged by the nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
•  Note: I bundled CampusJ Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment: Rulue changed the target to the founder's page in this edit. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

British degree nicknames

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural keep

British undergraduate degree nicknames

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close

Premier Kolodnicki

• Premier Kolodnicki → Danielle Smith  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A nickname in the "Drumpf" vein, it was the surname of her great-grandfather. Not mentioned in target; doesn't seem commonly used. Rusalkii (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 04:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Canadian politics websites

• Justlikejustin.ca → Conservative Party of Canada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Delducawynneliberals.ca → Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

URLs of random websites related to these parties. Neither the official websites nor prominent ones, these seem to be opposition sites. Rusalkii (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete I did looked up these webs and they both appear to be totally fake and made up. Don't know what specific criteria, but if an expert could apply the criteria that is correct, that would be helpful. Here is the evidence BTW: [86], [87]. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

These seem to be campaign-related websites, so it's possible they were real at the time and haven't been kept up. If they're complete hoaxes they'd be G3 eligible, but here's a reference to justlikejustin.ca: https://www.conservative.ca/carbon-tax-chrystia-is-just-like-justin/, and there's three social media posts I can referencing Delducawynneliberals.ca, so it seems at least possible these were real websites when the redirects were created. Rusalkii (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Carbon Crombie

• Carbon Crombie → Bonnie Crombie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Carbon tax Crombie → Bonnie Crombie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Pejorative nickname not mentioned in target. A Google search suggests this isn't a common nickname either, just a few instances in transcripts of assembly meetings. Rusalkii (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Benign variant

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#Benign variant

6/8 time

• 6/8 time → Time signature  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 6/8 Time → Time signature  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

this isn't about deletion, more so a matter of "don't keep but what do ?? ?"
i wanted to just retarget to triple metre, but as it oddly singles 6/8 out as "not REAL triple meter", so... uh... make an anchor at the compound time signature list and refine to it, or just to #beat and subdivision, where it's first explained? definitely don't retarget to duple and quadruple metre, though, as i don't think that article could survive an afd consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, there's plenty of discussion of this time signature at the current target so there's no need to find a fancier target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Metre (music)#Compound metre, which goes into greater detail about 6/8 as compound duple meter. I would oppose retargeting to triple metre, as that would be inaccurate: 6/8 indicates "two beats per measure, subdivided into thirds" whereas triple meter is defined as "three beats per measure" (3/4 is simple triple, 9/8 is compound triple); the article on metre also resolves this potential confusion. Failing that, refine the current redirect with an anchor in the relevant section or table entry. ^Complex/_Rational 21:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - 6/8 is discussed at the target and has the most basic information on it, and I think it's more likely to be what a reader is searching for. Maybe it could specify § Frequently used time signatures, but I don't think that's necessary. --Sable232 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Project DIVA movie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Project DIVA movie

Vladimir Motin

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

March for Arakan

• March for Arakan → International reactions to the Rohingya genocide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/March for Arakan

Redirect name do not match the content of the target article to which the redirect points. The term itself causes misconceptions, as it may have multiple meanings (as pointed in AfD). Additionally, the information implied by the redirect is not present in the redirect target article itself. WinKyaw (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – No direct mention in the target article of the 2025 event, which I contended in the AfD was not a significant event (happens annually under different names). The name "March for Arakan" in English has has also been used by other groups for other events, so the original topic is not the primary topic either. Yue ✉ 17:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete - As I mentioned in the AfD, the actual event that the original article was made for was not even called the "March for Arakan". The materials for the protest I could find online and coverage of it called it "March for Rohingya" (মার্চ ফর রোহিঙ্গা) or "Rohingya Solidarity Day". The name is most likely WP:OR. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 23:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Health care in Guinea-Bissau

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Adventure camp

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#Adventure camp

Nafugan Modi

• Nafugan Modi → Berefet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fails WP:GNG. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:GNG does not apply to redirects; however, the subject of this redirect does not mention the redirect in the target article, leaving readers scratching their heads to why they may have been redirected to the target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
• maybe close per nom to take the target to afd? i could find nothing about berefet itself, all the results i got seem to instead be referring to a foni berefet, and i'm not entirely sure that's not just an alternate spelling (or misspelling) of foni brefet, which seems equally unnotable. as for the contents of the results, they seem to just be miscellaneous news about stuff that happens in there. hardly anything that i think would help it meet gng

if not that, then don't delete the redirect per nom, as the rationale is invalid for redirects. instead, i'll vote to delete it as unmentioned, unclarified, and so unnotable that google had nothing consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Modi Significandi

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Srce nije u modi (2000)

• Srce nije u modi (2000) → The Old Oak Blues  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Alternative redirect Srce nije u modi already exists, duplicate redirect is not needed as there's only one movie with this name. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not likely that any appreciable number of readers will look for this specific syntax. --Joy (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

comment: target taken to afd consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP

Emperor modi of jin

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Modi Stadium centuries

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Deleted

Dayawati Modi Public School, Hapur road

• Dayawati Modi Public School, Hapur road → Modinagar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fails WP:GNG. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:GNG does not apply to redirects; however, the subject of this redirect does not mention the redirect in the target article, leaving readers scratching their heads to why they may have been redirected to the target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Steel and the unsourced pre-BLAR content needn't be retained as well. Jay 💬 06:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Kalpen modi

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Alkes dinesh mody institute

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#Alkes dinesh mody institute

Programs renamed by Modi Government

• Programs renamed by Modi Government → List of schemes of the government of India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Uncommon search term. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems vague in its wording. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
• It has been 8 years since the AfD and no attempt was made to merge content to any article as recommended in the AfD close. A suggestion to rename the redirect title immediately after the AFD, never came up at RfD. Delete as a not useful redirect title. Jay 💬 09:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Modi's Media

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Modi's Media

Derogatory remarks towards Narendra Modi by Maldivian Ministers

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rahmanullah Lakanwal

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Delete

Black New World Order

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Black New World Order

54 Pickup

• 54 Pickup → 52 pickup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, and hasn't been mentioned since 2005. No history worth sending to AfD, created by an editor repeatedly blocked for vandalism that month.[88]

Nominated for speedy deletion as nonsense back in 2005 & merged into 52 Pickup by a different editor as an ATD (Special:Diff/15210784). All merged content was removed a few edits later, in Special:Diff/15878957, for being nonsensical.

If this were to be deleted, to satisfy the attribution requirements, I believe we have three options: an admin or pagemover could move the content into something like 52 Pick up then re-do my WP:RIA and point to that article instead, somebody could follow the alternative RIA path and add a dummy edit noting the author of that text was 68.170.0.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#List of authors for why that's valid), or an admin could revision delete those five revisions for which the content was present. There was no creative material added or removed in those other four revisions, so we don't need to worry about attribution for them. (This is my favourite solution) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom's detailed analysis. Jay 💬 10:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Bicycle hat

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Bicycle hat

Nesbitt, Minnesota

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Nesbitt, Minnesota

Ninja death star

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Ninja death star

Juan (Suikoden)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Juan (Suikoden)

Appalachian trial

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bats at 37 Military Hospital

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

November 26

Christopher Paul Davies

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Ommish

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

MySpace.

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dinsmore, Arkansas

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Future Sky Paradise

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gaza massacre (2012)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Extreme North

• Extreme North → Far North (Russia)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think there's a primary topic for the term "Extreme North". In addition to Far North (Russia), there's also Far North Region (Cameroon), and also google search reveals that it's the title of several books as well. I initially tried retargeting, but then User:Altenmann reverted me, so per WP:BRD here's an RfD instead Duckmather (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is primary topic: who cares about Far North Region (Cameroon)?

Anyway, this has nothing to do with wrong redirect I reverted: only a few of Far North called Extreme North. Yu may want the disambig page, Extreme North (disambiguation). --Altenmann >talk 19:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep. A quick look, does suggest that the current target is the the primary topic (although I absolutely do not endorse "who cares about Cameroon"). I've added a couple of things to the Extreme North (disambiguation) page, which should be linked in a hatnote from the Russian region if this redirect is kept. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  • re: "who cares": <sigh> sadly, the West has little attention to genocide in Cameroon (by the way, in the discussed area) and in Africa in general. I dont see students' protests similar to these about Gaza or Ukraine. --Altenmann >talk 19:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Far North where Cameroon may get the extra attention it deserves. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  • You cannot retarget to the term which is vastly different. YOu failed to notice Extreme North (disambiguation), where "Cameroon may get the extra attention it deserves" and has no redundant content. --Altenmann >talk 21:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
    • "Far North" and "Extreme North" are simply translation differences, they aren't "vastly different". I didn't fail to notice Extreme North (disambiguation), you created it after this discussion began (and can be redirected to Far North). -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
      • There is some overlap between the Far North and Extreme North disambiguations, but whether merging the disambiguation pages (note not simply redirecting) would be better than two separate ones is a matter of opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
        • In case I didn't make it obvious: I am opining on the matter. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
      • are simply translation differences, no they are not: the terms are diferennt in native languages, see eg, ru:Дальний Север and ru:Крайний Север. --Altenmann >talk 21:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• I agree. I would see "far north" in terms of distance, and "extreme north" in terms of difficult living conditions. Move Extreme North (disambiguation) to Extreme North. If however, the dab is modified to make Far North (Russia) the primary topic, Keep. Jay 💬 16:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Skibidi senator

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Skibidi senator

Virtual Markets

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2025 United Kingdom general election

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#2025 United Kingdom general election

Attempted killing of Charlie Kirk

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Noakhali Express

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Gabriel Baaba Gwanga'mujje Eri Yesu

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Gabriel Baaba Gwanga'mujje Eri Yesu

Bypass mail

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Bypass mail

1Sa.

• 1Sa. → Books of Samuel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems implausible, unnatural as search term, and if anything, a web search of it turns up other targets. Currently only other redirects and some obscure hatnotes direct here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: My guess here is that the redirect is intended to be a {{R avoided double redirect}} for 1 Samuel1 Samuel. We also have redirects "2Sa.2Sa.", "2 Samuel2 Samuel" and "2nd Samuel2nd Samuel", but no "1st Samuel". (I currently have no opinion on the nominated redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The redirect was created to target Bible citation, and that article too doesn't talk about this naming convention. 2Sa. may be nominated separately, or bundled here. Jay 💬 10:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Amargi

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#Amargi

President Joe

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Parkton, Minnesota

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Judas hatch

• Judas hatch → Peephole  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no explanation on the target page of what a "Judas hatch" is or any mention of this elsewhere on Wikipedia either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I must have added the redirect when I found it on the web. Examples of use:

https://www.theunmutual.co.uk/inverlair.htm

>Richard reveals who might have been held in Room 13 with its sliding Judas hatch, and the infamous SOE trainer who left the bullet holes in the staircase.

https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3440&context=cq

> In a poem for Paul, "Stilts," the carpenter who comes from another town to manufacture "playthings for the soul" has a kinship with

> St. Joseph. In the last poem in this book he watches himself, his own worst enemy, through a Judas-hatch.

https://parliament.nt.gov.au/business/tabled-papers/13th-assembly/13th-assembly-2016-tabled-papers/october-2016/79.-Office-of-the-Childrens-Commissioner-Northern-Territory-Own-Initiative-Investigation-Report.pdf

page 24

>22 Judas hatch - a hatch within the cell door which folds down to allow things to be passed through the hatch without the need to open the cell door. 84user (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be welcome on Wiktionary, regardless of whether the redirect is kept. lp0 on fire () 14:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Examples of usage given above describe something very different than a peephole. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to wikt:Judas-hole? Katzrockso (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Perhaps bundle Judas (peephole) which was created earlier than the redirect under discussion? Jay 💬 04:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

November 25

Satellite planet

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Umbrium

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Umbrium

RSS (Political)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Super hedgehog

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

St Peter.

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

BS (video game)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Yadult

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ford Research and Innovation Center

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Yellow fly

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Yellow fly

Moomers

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gossam

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

12 Leonis

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Starcker

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Starcker

Ahillya Harjani, Yeoh Kay Ee

• Ahillya Harjani → 2015 BWF World Junior Championships – Mixed doubles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Yeoh Kay Ee → 2015 BWF season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ahillya Harjani
• Articles for deletion/Ahillya Harjani (2nd nomination)

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Yeoh Kay Ee
• Articles for deletion/Yeoh Kay Ee (2nd nomination)

Search results will give more information on the subject than these redirect targets. zglph^•talk• 11:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep Deletion discussions on these two articles were recently closed with consensus to redirect. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Afd is a separate branch so i don't see how is it going to impact the outcome here. zglph^•talk• 19:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Note from AfD closer: This was oddly raised at ANI, where the admin closer there suggested this as a possible way forward. As the closer of those AfDs, I have no issue with the value of the redirects being brought here for broader community discussion, since the delete vs. redirect debate isn't really what AfD is for. I'd be fine with whatever the result is here. Left guide (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  all you argue about is the "venue" for discussion when it is least of the problems. I just hope you listen to Salvio and don't do closes like that, leave it to the admins. zglph^•talk• 19:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I am an admin @Zglph and I'd have closed this the exact same way @Left guide did. Please focus on the (lack of) merits to the redirect, not your opinion of whether the close was correct or not. Star Mississippi 03:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  better that way if an admin closes the Afd. Of course there are WP:SNOW cases as well, but it was clearly not the case here. So one can't say it was purely my opinion. zglph^•talk• 07:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both, it makes little sense to redirect people with a career (linked from multiple pages) randomly to one of these pages. E.g. Yeoh Kay Ee is redirected to the 2015 season where they are mentioned once in a table, but they are also mentioned the same way in 5 other articles. Now, when you click on their name in one of these articles, you seemingly at random get transported to another article where they are mentioned somewhere. This makes no real sense. Fram (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep both per WP:R#KEEP#1. Choosing a redirect target, I tried to pick the one that was the most important for the athlete's career. Yeoh Kay Ee is mentioned in four other articles, two are about other badminton players, and another is the 2015 Chinese Taipei Masters Grand Prix. I didn't choose the Grand Prix because Yeoh Kay Ee performed poorly there. For Harjani, another optional target was the 2017 BWF season. I didn't choose it because the World Championship looked more solid. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  You cited WP:R#KEEP (shortcut to WP:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting, guideline) #1. Would you explain how the page histories of these redirects are useful? Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  To preserve the information in the articles until someone is actually willing to search for sources, or, more realistically, until the 2022 RfC is overturned. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

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! 10:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both, I agree with Zglph that the search results return everything on Wikipedia about each athlete without presuming what the reader is seeking. The behavior of the links pointed out by Fram is undesirable and potentially confusing.
  1. The search results are usable:
     1. Searching for Ahillya Harjani returns the redirect and four relevant articles.
     2. Searching for Yeoh Kay Ee includes irrelevant results, but the six pertinent ones – the redirect, a disambiguation page, and four articles – are in the first seven. Compare to "Yeoh Kay Ee".
  2. I appreciate Kelob2678's effort to select the primary targets, but the best choice not being obvious is a warning sign.
     1. Harjani's team was eliminated in the second round at the 2015 BWF World Junior Championships – Mixed doubles, but her team was the runners-up at the 2017 BWF season's Bulgarian International Championship (BWF Future Series). On the other hand, the Future Series is the lowest level listed at Badminton World Federation#Tournaments.
     2. I agree with Kelob2678's assessment that Yeoh's team's runners-up at the 2015 BWF season's Bahrain International Series (BWF International Series) seems to be a better finish than his first-round elimination at the 2015 Chinese Taipei Masters Grand Prix (BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix).

  Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Is the approach to delete redirects when there are multiple possible targets policy-based? This is not intuitive to me. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per all. Jay 💬 10:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

VFR Tourism

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

November 24

TOURIST HOTSPOT

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Travel destination

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Radar Homing and Warning

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Radar Homing and Warning

Say Hello to My Little Friend

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Joe is Biden

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Minneapolis-style hot dog

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#Minneapolis-style hot dog

The devil

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Target both to Satan

Beszterce (disambiguation)

• Beszterce (disambiguation) → Bistrița (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

At present, Beszterce redirects to Bistrița (disambiguation), though the spelling Beszterce is not mentioned at the target DAB. The only page that links to Beszterce is the 'See also' section at Bistrica, which names this as a Hungarian spelling. However, no Hungarian locales are listed at Bistrița (disambiguation). As such, I'm curious if this redirect makes sense. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe weak keep? There are two real disambiguation pages linked from Beszterce (Q340208), namely on dewiki and huwiki, and those seem (at least on a cursory first glance) to be pretty similar to our page Bistrița (disambiguation). Duckmather (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a spelling match. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Hungarian term. Since some of the locations discussed in the Bistrița (disambiguation) page have the Hungarian version of their name mentioned due to being located in Transylvania, it's reasonable to keep the redirect. See Bistrița Bârgăului as an example, which mentions that the Hungarian name for the commune is Borgóbeszterce. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia, especially the English Wikipedia's disambiguation pages, is not a translation service. Since this is the English Wikipedia, there should be no expectation that translations of disambiguation page titles should target a title of a disambiguation page in another language. In other words, unless there is validation to overwrite the nominated redirect with a disambiguation page with subjects known as the title of this nominated redirect in English text use, it should be deleted as the current setup does not help English readers. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  Considering that many of the places named Beszterce are in Transylvania, it's likely that English sources referred to them as such prior to World War I. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Unlike what the nomination says, Beszterce redirects to Bistrița. Beszterce was created a redirect in 2004 and made a dab in 2010, which Sgeureka reverted without explanation. Maybe restore... this dab version of that page? Jay 💬 08:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Don't restore old dab version, neutral on rest. User:Jay, this was part of the large WP:SU cleanup efforts back in the days. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Thanks, struck. Jay 💬 13:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Omoikane (Nadesico)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

FORD

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

November 22

Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Calls of the void

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wandering Husk

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Answers in Creation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Answers in Creation

Social Research Center

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Surface transportation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 8#Surface transportation

Isha Malviya

• Isha Malviya → Udaariyaan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Isha Malviya
• Articles for deletion/Isha Malviya (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Isha Malviya (3rd nomination)

Delete Search results will give a much better overview rather than just a simple snapshot of her career: [89]. And if notable, a red link would encourage article creation per WP:RETURNTORED. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: And restore to article version. Most of the delete advocates are now blocked. Might have been the same user socking. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  If we also ignore the keep votes from the IP and the blocked user, the rough consensus still remains delete. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Not necessary to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCDD (talk • contribs) 11:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete in favour of search results. Targeting to one TV series is wrong. Jay 💬 10:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Leftover Xiaolin Showdown redirects

• Minor Xiaolin Showdown characters → Xiaolin Showdown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Changing Chopsticks → Xiaolin Showdown#Shen Gong Wu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Known Shen Gong Wu → Xiaolin Showdown#Shen Gong Wu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• 2025 September 2 § Sheng gong wu redirects – delete

Delete these leftover redirects. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the history of Minor Xiaolin Showdown characters?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Explicit:: that one's fine. the others aren't however Oreocooke (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

What did you mean by that one's "fine"? And what does it mean by others "aren't"? Jay 💬 18:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• delete all per nom. the history was just fancruft that didn't even bother to pretend it had sources consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Oct 7th.

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Prime Minister of the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Prime Minister of the United States

Oct 7th

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

0141

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#0141

Light room

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Light room

Corrido (song)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Weigh Count

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Israeli torture in Palestine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Israeli torture in Palestine

在日同胞

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

White nationalist terrorism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#White nationalist terrorism

Chance to win a prize

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Undemocratic

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

Crashpad

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Crashpad

Qws

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Qws

Nick Jr. (Polish TV channel)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

November 15

Beszterce (disambiguation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 24#Beszterce (disambiguation)

List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 24#List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll

Omoikane (Nadesico)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 24#Omoikane (Nadesico)

Template:Lang-fr

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Quirrel (Hollow Knight)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Surface transportation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Surface transportation

Co-founder of Wikipedia

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Isha Malviya

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Isha Malviya

2025 Squash World Cup

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

The devil

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 24#The devil

Cindyana Santangelo

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

在台ベトナム人

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Handegg championship

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Electrooptical Effect

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

It's a snap

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Index shifting

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Index shifting

Antler sleeve

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:BetaWiki

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Fall Weiss (1943)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Fall Weiß (1943)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Fall Weiss (1942)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Corrido (song)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Corrido (song)

Leftover Xiaolin Showdown redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Leftover Xiaolin Showdown redirects

Best songs of the decade

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pinacoteca Provinciale di BaRI

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Russian invasion of Ukraine

• Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was left behind when the article Russian invasion of Ukraine was recently moved to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) as a result of this RM, which found consensus that it is incorrect to describe events beyond the initial attack as an "invasion" but rather a phase of the larger "war". Hence, the current redirect target contradicts this consensus, as the RM had explicitly rejected the characterization of the "war" as an "invasion", and defeats the corrective purpose of the move.

The other logical target would be 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was recently split from the main page after the RM, since it is the only article that bears the title "Russian invasion of Ukraine". However, it would only be a valid target if it were deemed to be the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine", in which case the article should simply be moved to remove the unnecessary qualifier per WP:TITLEDAB (only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used [...] if the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification) and WP:OVERPRECISE (titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that).

There was actually already consensus for this being the primary topic back in 2023, but editors argued that it had been nullified by the most recent RM, so a new RM was initiated. Unfortunately, that discussion has just been closed inconclusively, with the closer finding an absence of consensus here as to the primary topic of 'Russian invasion of Ukraine'. Hence, we must now disambiguate. Our options are:

1. Retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine
2. Retarget to Russo-Ukrainian War
3. Restore Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation)Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation)

InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• I've maintained throughout several successive RfDs that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" can refer to several major invasions historically and that it is recentist to treat the current one as primary. It's worth noting that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a partly disambiguated title (the base title being just "invasion of Ukraine"), meaning that there is a higher bar to consider any one invasion primary. While I respect that this argument failed at previous RfDs, the fact that we now have two articles on recent things that are both called the Russian invasion of Ukraine (the invasion proper and the ensuing war), not to mention earlier aspects of the war that also constituted Russian invasions of Ukraine, I think the case is even clearer to retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, which disambiguates these and more. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retain the current target Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) – As the proposer discloses above, Russian invasion of Ukraine was recently moved to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). As a result, the vast majority of the myriad links to Russian invasion of Ukraine across the encyclopaedia are intended for the current target, Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). Therefore, I oppose any change until this situation is remedied. Adopting any of the alternatives proposed here will result in a great inconvenience to the reader. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  WP:DEADHORSE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  The horse is very much alive. Take a look at the links. In any usual situation, I would support Tamzin's argument, and I agree that List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine is the most appropriate target. However, the link situation remains, just as it was a month ago, without any obvious evidence of amelioration. The onus is on the proposers of this change to take up the work of minimising any negative outcome for our readers. Until there is evidence that this problem will be addressed, I cannot support this change. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  Redirecting to the war article is not a tenable position. As has been explained to you several times, the August RM was closed with consensus that it is not correct to call the war an invasion. Therefore, continuing to point the "invasion" redirect to "war" blatantly disregards that consensus. It has also been explained to you several times that the links are not a big deal because they can be fixed en masse. I will gladly mass-convert all the incoming links from Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), but the only reason I have not done so is that other editors have said that some links should point to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine instead of Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), which would necessitate a manual comb-through, but I do not have unlimited time to edit Wikipedia and there are currently 11,811 incoming links — impossible for one editor alone to inspect each and every of them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

As you are most likely aware, we have Template:R from incorrect name. Redirects from 'incorrect', but commonly-used titles are common across the encyclopaedia. I am not going to comment on whether I think this specific use of 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' is incorrect, nor do I think this is a particularly useful argument to make in this specific case. All I ask is that you think of the reader. I am opposed to any mass-conversion without manual consideration, as this will also inconvenience the reader. Our most important goal in this endeavour is to make sure that our readers are directed to the article for which they are looking. If you do not have the time to perform the massive clean-up of nearly 12,000 links that will be required to implement this change, you should not be proposing it in the first place. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 08:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Redirects from 'incorrect', but commonly-used titles are common across the encyclopaedia – If "invasion" were a common or acceptable name for the 2022–present phase of the war, then what was the purpose of the move? To create a needless headache for editors and confuse readers by having a separate article titled "invasion"? This logic doesn't add up; clearly, the consensus was that the war is not commonly called an "invasion".
• If you do not have the time to perform the massive clean-up of nearly 12,000 links that will be required to implement this change – You are confused, the problem of some links to Russian invasion of Ukraine being intended for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and not Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) was created by the previous RM, not this RfD. There is already a present need to clean up those thousands of links, primarily to disambiguate between those two articles, and retargeting will not add to the burden.
• I am opposed to any mass-conversion without manual consideration – Mass-converting all incoming links to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) is equivalent to maintaining the status quo of pointing all links to the war article, so your opposition to such an action is inconsistent with your !vote. That said, I noted that I too do not think this is an ideal solution and only mentioned it because you demanded that all links intended for the war article be "fixed". Tamzin below has outlined ways to semi-automate the clean-up process, and I am sure there are other editors we can enlist to help.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the point of this argument? I don't care whether 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' is a 'correct' name for anything, I only care that the reader gets to the right page. From your first proposal, you have continued to go on and on about the bureaucratic necessity for a change without any thought about how to implement it in such a way that does not negatively impact the reader. This is precisely the same mistake that was made by the RM proposer. All I have asked for was for a clear plan for resolving the obvious issue that exists. You never provided such a plan, but I am grateful to Tamzin for providing one below. Provided that we agree, here, to implement this solution, I will support retargeting the article per Tamzin. That means that you and other editors will need to help resolve this issue. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 21:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, the links issue was created by the RM that moved Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). Contrary to what you have repeatedly suggested, neither this RfD to retarget Russian invasion of Ukraine nor the failed RM to move 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine will exacerbate the situation. In fact, disambiguating is more beneficial to readers because they will be able to find both articles, whereas pointing the redirect to one or the other will only benefit half. It's not out of a "bureaucratic necessity". InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The vast majority of existing links are clearly intended for the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) article, not the new article about the 2022 military operation, irrespective of whether that article is truly the primary topic of Russian invasion of Ukraine. If there were evidence that half or even many of these links were intended to link to an article limited in scope to the military operation that took place between February–April 2022, then perhaps disambiguation might benefit the reader, but there is no such evidence. For this reason, disambiguating will not benefit 'half of readers'. I agree that retargeting to a de facto disambiguation page (List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine) will eventually be helpful when the link issue is solved, because I agree that there is no clear primary topic of Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, as Wikipedia decided to maintain an article about the 2022–present war at Russian invasion of Ukraine for many years, our existing articles are designed with the expectation that Russian invasion of Ukraine is the article about the war, i.e. what is now titled Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). Any retargeting that does not take this fact into account can only be called shortsighted. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure it's correct that "The vast majority of existing links are clearly intended for the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) article". I just scrolled down to an arbitrary point in that list and looked at a selection of twenty articles in a row:

• Likud - target would be 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Patti Smith - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) for first use, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for second use.
• COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine - either works
• COVID-19 pandemic in Russia - either works
• Joko Widodo - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Edward Snowden - target would be 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Playing card - can't tell immediately, would have to look up sources (currently unsourced)
• Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Catherine, Princess of Wales - target would be 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• SBV Vitesse - target would be 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• University of Kent - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Large Hadron Collider - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Peak oil - can't tell immediately, would have to look for sources (currently unsourced)
• Bernabéu Stadium - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Russia–United States relations - targets would be both Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (several instances of each)
• Salvador Allende - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• 2021–2023 global supply chain crisis - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Armed Forces of Ukraine - targets would be both Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (several instances of each)

A majority yes, but not a vast majority. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 07:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Just on a technical note, if links are the concern, one thing I've done occasionally as a closer for RfDs like this is temporarily create a DAB at the title, dabfix all the backlinks, and then turn the DAB into a redirect to wherever there was consensus to target. It's a little hacky, but it gets the job done well. If the exceptionally large number of backlinks here means that that process takes a week or several instead of the normal hour or several, so be it; that said, there's a decent number of strings like 2022 [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]] and full-scale [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]] that could probably be blitzed in an AWB/JWB run, significantly speeding things up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I am much obliged for your response, and what you have proposed seems like a reasonable solution. I am ashamed to admit that I have no experience with such automated tools, but if there will be a collaborative effort to fix this problem, I should be happy to help in any manner that I am able. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 10:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The Move+ extension also allows one to update links in fairly quick succession. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine per the arguments from InfiniteNexus and Tamzin, as there have been several historical Russian incursions into Ukraine. That target already has a hatnote for "Invasion of Ukraine" pointing to the current overall war, so there is no harm in expanding upon it with this redirect to ensure readers locate what they are looking for/ I would say the Russian invasion was the more common term in 2022 and 2023, but since it has continually perpetuated as an ongoing war, that is likely to have more long-term significance than the starting invasion of said war. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine – by far the most logical option as that page functions as a disambiguation page and easily directs the reader to the article they want. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 07:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to "List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine". Given that no particular event is currently regarded as being the WP:PRITOP of this title, redirecting to an article ("Russo-Ukrainian war") that merely happens to encompass some information about two or three of the most significant events to which the title may refer would probably be unhelpful. Readers likely would not understand why this title redirects to the article of a conflict that is not an invasion in itself. A separate disambiguation page is also unlikely to be necessary given the presence of the "List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine" article. The high number of incoming links to this title may be an issue, but it is clearly a fixable one. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 17:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retain the current target Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC both per usage and per long-term significance. The latter is evidenced by the fact that the term was almost never used prior to 2014. Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) has five times more daily pageviews than 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and readers of the latter article typically navigate to the former[90], the opposite movement almost doesn't happen[91]. This proves that they're mostly interested in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) article. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  I will pose to you the same question I did to another user above: If there's no problem with calling the war an "invasion", and the war is commonly called an "invasion", then what was the point of moving that article away from Russian invasion of Ukraine (thereby breaking thousands of links) and creating a separate sub-article entitled "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine"? To create a needless headache for editors and confuse readers by having two separate articles with similar titles? The status quo means Russian invasion of Ukraine and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would co-exist but point to different pages — that is confusing to readers. The pageview comparison is irrelevant because the 2022 invasion article was just created two months ago. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Consensus can change. The RM that brought us here determined that there is no consensus for the primary topic of Russian invasion of Ukraine, so the past discussions are irrelevant.

  Retaining the redirect wouldn't lead to any problems with broken links, in contrast to retargeting. Having multiple articles with similar titles is standard practice for Wikipedia, the year in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine acts as a natural disambiguator. Pageviews are relevant as they are stable, WP:PT1 refers to the current usage, not a hypothetical future one. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Retaining the redirect wouldn't lead to any problems with broken links Yes, it would. There is currently a large number of links to Russian invasion of Ukraine that need to be retargeted to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine instead of Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present); Chessrat has provided a list of examples above. This was caused by the RM in August/September, not this RfD; disambiguating would help both readers looking for either article get to their desired target. "Consensus can change", yes, but unlikely in the span of just two months, and this RfD obviously cannot override larger consensus on another page (WP:CONLEVEL). The most recent RM also did not contradict the consensus of the RM before that. I will reiterate that pageviews are not useful in this instance because we have a significant number of backlinks to the three-year-old article compared to the two-months-old article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that for some it would be better to redirect to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I disagree that they are "broken", as they somehow managed to serve their purpose before the creation of the separate article on the invasion. This is a community discussion, so it can easily override local consensus formed on the talk page. The most recent RM overturned the past consensus, had it been otherwise, the RM would have been closed with "moved".

  I don't understand your argument with respect to pageviews. If you want to say that the problem is that we don't have enough links to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, then this is not the case, as a five-fold difference cannot be explained by this. 30% of incoming views at Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) are from other articles. Let's say that one-third really should be targeted at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In that case, pageviews for the war would drop by 10%, and for the invasion article, they would increase by 50%. We will still get a three-fold difference, which is large enough to satisfy WP:PT1. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Chessrat's list is somewhat tangential; as for why, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article is an inferior article, that consists largely of content copied out of Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), with very little original material. See Cinderella157's analysis. An editor that ends up at Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) from a link to Russian invasion of Ukraine will never be inconvenienced, because this is a comprehensive article that contains all of the relevant content related to the 2022 military operation, as well as broader events. On the other hand, any editor mistakenly directed to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article will have to wade through irrelevant content before arriving at the more comprehensive article. At present, the 2022 invasion article offers very little to the reader. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Responding to both Kelob2678 and RGloucester: The RM in August resulted in consensus to move this page to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), alongside a consensus to create a separate article about the 2022 invasion. This was a very well-attended and highly contentious RM, with the closer writing a lengthy and thoughtful closing statement in their assessment of the community's consensus, so it is bold of you to suggest that a handful of editors unhappy with the outcome of the RM and/or the present quality of the split article (remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress) can somehow override, ignore, or overturn hard-fought community consensus obtained in a high-profile RM. I think I've said this elsewhere, but I personally have no opinion on the outcome of the RM; however, I do care that consensus is enforced, and if the community has agreed that the approach most beneficial to readers is to have an article titled "war" about events post-2022 and another article titled "invasion" about the initial attack, so be it. If your argument is that the distinction between "war" and "invasion" does not, in fact, benefit readers, and the split article was a terrible idea, then please challenge the consensus by opening a new RM or RfC. As for the pageviews matter, I am struggling to understand why Kelob2678 keeps going on about PT1 and whatever — the point I was making is that the "2022 invasion" article is brand-new, hot-off-the-press, so of course it is not going to have very many pageviews compared to a much older and longer article! This is essentially a form of WP:RECENTISM argument. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  No one is contesting the original page move, or the creation of the invasion article. All we want is to make sure that readers get where they want to go. Based on your attitude here, I do not think I can support a retargeting, because it seems like you are attempting to make a WP:POINT, rather than trying to improve the encyclopaedia. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Enforcing community consensus is not disruptive behavior to make a point, and falsely accusing others of doing so is itself disruptive and not WP:AGF. As I wrote above, it seems we are in agreement that whatever we do should benefit readers, and yet your proposal (i.e. the status quo) does not align with what the larger community thinks is best for readers. If you think the community is wrong, this is not the appropriate venue to challenge that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  The August RM was extremely voluminous, and the discussion about primary topic wasn't central to it. However, the October RM centered around this issue and concluded with, I would find that there is an absence of consensus here as to the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine". The closing statement also said, a well-argued request might yield a different outcome at RfD i.e., the point of this RfD is to reargue the October RM. In these discussions, "No consensus" usually means retaining a long-standing status quo, in this case, it means sending readers who type "Russian invasion of Ukraine" to the article that covers the war as a whole. Here, readers should be especially put first, as the redirect itself gets more views than 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I also don't think language such as "hard-fought" is appropriate for this discussion. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  The August RM came to the consensus that "war" and "invasion" describe two distinct topics, while the October RM found no consensus on the primary topic for "Russian invasion of Ukraine". The former strikes off Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) as a possible target because editors agreed that the article should be called a "war" and not an "invasion" (the nominator's rationale was: The word 'invasion' is used only in reference to Russia's initial 24 February act of invasion, and is not used to describe the current war, and the closer wrote that the word "invasion" creates a mismatch between title and scope), while the latter strikes off 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as a possible target because editors did not agree it was the primary topic (which I disagree with, but respect and accept). This seems like a fairly clear reading of consensus to me, and I am not sure why some editors disagree. Do you agree with this interpretation of the two RMs' consensus? (P.S. "Hard-fought" means "achieved through a large effort", as in it was very difficult to come to a consensus on what to call the war, but a consensus was eventually achieved, and it was to call it "war" and not "invasion".) InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree with this interpretation. The August RM didn't rule on the primary topic, the quote from the closure you provided was a summary of the argument, not the closer's verdict. "No consensus" in the October RM means that the current redirect should be retained, as usually happens in "No consensus" RMs, AfDs, and RfCs. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  When did I suggest the August RM "ruled" on the primary topic? I said it found consensus that the war article cannot and should not be referred to as an "invasion". That is quite literally what the closer wrote. Yet the status quo does just that, continuing to call the war an "invasion" via a redirect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  It did not find this. That was an argument made by one side of the debate, which the closer accurately summarized. The closer found that Consensus to move this page to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), alongside a consensus to create a separate article about the 2022 invasion No one challenges this, we are not at RM or AfD. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  This is irrelevant. As I said above, redirects from incorrect but commonly-used names are common across the encyclopaedia. This discussion is about the redirect, not about the article title. Again, no one is relitigating the article title. The presence of a redirect from Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) cannot in any way be considered equivalent to 'calling the war an "invasion"'. Redirects are for navigational purposes only, and the existence of a redirect in no way legitimises the accuracy of the name used by that redirect. In fact, redirects are, by default, names that the Wikipedia community chose not to use as an article title for one reason or another. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Consensus is determined by comparing the arguments of supporters with those of opposers and determining which is best supported by PAGs and benefits the reader the most. In this case, the closer found consensus in favor of the proposal, meaning they found consensus in favor of the arguments presented by the supporting side. If the closer found consensus for the proposal but not for the reasons presented, you would think they would say so as this is unusual (and dubious, as it would likely be a WP:SUPERVOTE). InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retain the current target Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), per the reasons of the previous comment. Lklundin (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retain the current target or Re-target to Russo-Ukrainian war – There is only one conflict that is widely referred to as the 'Russian invasion of Ukraine': the currently on-going conflict between Russia and Ukraine. There are two phases in that conflict that are referred to by that phrase in reliable sources and those are the incursion in 2014 and the 'full-scale' invasion in 2022. If there is any need to disambiguate then that can be done by re-targeting to the wider scope article which covers these and has a reasonably large readership as well. Directing readers to a page that has less than a hundred daily views and that lists only one conflict that can be described as being between Russia and Ukraine anyway exacts a pointless tax on the readership. We'd be leading probably 99.5% of the readership to a page where they would ask: Ummm... Why'd you lead me here? and the majority of those will continue I just want to know what's going on in the conflict. There's only one target for that: Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present).
  I stated in the linked RM discussion that I am indifferent as to the title of the article limited in scope to the invasion period. It can hold the title 'Russian invasion of Ukraine', but with the precondition to resolve the issue that the majority of links to 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' are intended to direct the reader to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) before such a move. There are underlying issues with the structure and coverage of this conflict on Wikipedia. Too many to condense into a brief paragraph. There are hundreds to thousands of interrelated articles affected by major changes to the overarching parent articles. The proposal to move '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine' to just 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' should not on its face be controversial, but it has to be because it has consequential knock-on effects, and the links are simply one of the more noticeable problems.
  In the present circumstance, considering that the purpose of the encyclopedia is to benefit the readers the status-quo remains as the best outcome. The invasion article substantially duplicates the main war article, though it offers more detailed coverage of that phase of the conflict. Misdirecting the reader to the war article where the invasion article may have been more desirable has limited consequence. The reverse is less true particularly considering that most readers want to know what is happening rather than what has happened. Both are served by one article, whilst only the latter is served by the other. A weaker, but still functional choice would be to re-target to the main main war article which covers both plausible targets for a 'Russian invasion of Ukraine'. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Comment – "World War II receives substantially more pageviews than Invasion of Poland, and there have been many other invasions of Poland by many countries at many points in time throughout history, so Invasion of Poland should be moved to 1939 German invasion of Poland and the redirect left behind should be retargeted to World War II because readers would not be inconvenienced by being sent to a broader article that also discusses the 1939 invasion, is more well-written, and has more information overall." InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  The parent article is titled World War II not German–Polish War. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retain current target - That would seem to be the target sought by a user making the inquiry. Carrite (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retain current target A random person searching on Wikipedia for "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is almost certainly looking for the currently ongoing war - as I was when I was redirected and got to the redirect page that is currently 'broken' because of this request for deletion. Redirecting to a disambiguation page or to the 2022 invasion is just going to confuse people, and the faster this closes the better. Hentheden (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retain current target per Mr rnddude. --Minoa (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Russo-Ukrainian war. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began in 2014 with the seizure of Crimea and the intervention in Donbas. In 2022, this was expanded into a full-scale invasion. The article Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) deals only with that later phase. Therefore:

  Full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)

  Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (broader topic covering both 2014 and 2022) Hassan697 (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retain the current target Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) (as subtopic) or preferably (the main topic where there's a hatnote to the sub) Retarget to Russo-Ukrainian war. There's a clear PRIMARYTOPIC, but the choice of topic or subtopic isn't important. We don't bother readers by forcing extra clicks via a dab when (currently) this is clear. Widefox; talk 23:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as-is. I agree the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) would be the topic most likely sought by readers. It also has the expectation of being the target due to that being the title of the article for so long. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There have been other invasions of Ukraine by Russia, this is clearly the most notable currently at the moment. Redirects should be used to help our readers, this is the most specific information about the page. There, readers can clearly move on to more specific information about the war at large. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retain current target - That seems to be the target most users would think of .. The Seal F1 (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support either option 1 or 3 – Indifferent as to whether or not to restore the disambiguation page or redirect this to the list of wars and invasions involving Ukraine article. But I am certainly against having the ongoing war as the target. At the very least retarget to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The current war is overwhelming the most likely search target for readers, and likely to meet both prongs of the primary topic test compared to other invasions that could be titled this. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retain - I just googled "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" as I was trying to find out some detail about it. This was the phrase I (someone who is not an expert in the subject) thought to search for, and I imagine it'll also be the case for many other people, so it makes no sense whatsoever to delete the redirect. Davidprior (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

X (née Twitter)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 28#X (née Twitter)

Undemocratic

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Undemocratic

Șaaru River

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Crashpad

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Crashpad