🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFDHOWTO
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFDHOWTO)
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For the reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 0 2 87 0 89
TfD 0 3 33 0 36
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 0 9 0 9
RfD 0 0 46 0 46
AfD 0 0 1 0 1

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

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

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

Current and past redirects for discussion (RfD) discussions

[edit]

Current discussions

[edit]

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

Old discussions

[edit]

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion

[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When to delete a redirect

[edit]

Shortcuts

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

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

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

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

Reasons for not deleting

[edit]
Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes

[edit]
Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list

[edit]
Shortcuts

December 6

[edit]

Hotel California (2008 film)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Amargi

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

MoonPieTown

[edit]

The name is from [1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Football's

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

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

Scream Or Dance (SOD)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Djakarta Warehouse Project (DWP)

[edit]

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)[reply]

4/3

[edit]

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)[reply]

Alpha 4 (Power Rangers)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Cary Huang

[edit]

Battle for Dream Island, also created by Cary and Michael Huang, now also finally has its long-awaited own page. I am RedoStone (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards either a full-fledged article (which is probably unlikely) or a set index article. AlphaBeta135talk 00:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is something navigation pages proposed to do, but the community do not have consensus for such type of page. GZWDer (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I was not aware of this. This would seem to address a recurring issue at RfD. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A similar (and perhaps even better-thought-out) concept is that of directory articles, which were proposed by Theleekycauldron. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this, I'd say? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Generally, if editors think an article should be written at a redirect title, they !vote to delete per WP:REDYES. RfD is not the place to discuss creating an article or whether a topic is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (without prejudice to an article being created) as XY with multiple possible targets and no reason to prefer any one of them over the others hence best left to search. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Pppery. These do not fit the guidelines for a set index article (as described previously) or dab page and there is currently no community-wide consensus to create directory or navigation pages. Editors are free to suggest innovative solutions but !votes that go against P&G and accepted practice should be down-weighted if not dismissed entirely. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be a disambiguation page IF they do not have sources.
- Cary Huang, American-Chinese animator and educator, who created Battle For Dream Island and The Scale of the Universe
- 10003 Caryhuang, planet named after Cary Huang.
if we have sources, they get their own page.
N51 DELTA TALK 11:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have drafted a dab page at Cary Huang per the suggestion by @N51 Delta —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on the Cary Huang dab page, @AlphaBeta135 @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan @GZWDer @I am RedoStone @MrPersonHumanGuy @Not-cheesewhisk3rs @Paintspot @Trade? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why cant we just have a draft instead? Trade (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine as a DAB to me. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the redirect being converted into a disambiguation page, but I've just started Draft:Huang brothers even though Draft:Michael Huang (animator) already exists. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This thought just popped into my head: If Cary Huang isn't a redirect anymore, isn't there a way to somehow partially close this RfD so that the RfD tag can be taken off of Cary Huang whilst still keeping the tag on the other two redirects being discussed here? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrPersonHumanGuy the dab page at Cary Huang is merely draft proposal. It is still a redirect in limbo. Consensus here will determine whether this gets published (converted to a live dab page aka "DABified") or the redirect meets some other fate. Editors frequently suggest converting a redirect to a DAB page. I drafted this and tagged participants to move the discussion along and give editors something specific to respond to. Editors are free to edit the draft dab, update !votes, and provide other input. Editors can suggest different fates for each redirect, like deleting some and converting another to a dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, deciding on what to do with Cary Huang and the others now won't prevent updating the redirect target if a Huang brothers article is eventually published. If folks want to wrap this up to restore navigability while other drafts are worked on, the quickest path is probably for everyone to agree to delete Huang twins and Cary and Michael Huang and DABify Cary Huang, with the understanding that these can be recreated and retargeted to Huang brothers as soon as that goes live. So far, we mostly have comments and !votes for a type of page that doesn't exist (directory), which is likely to prolong this discussion… —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose converting Cary Huang into a disambiguation page. Cary Huang should just redirect to the same target as Michael Huang (animator) until Draft:Huang twins becomes a live article, by whence it can be the new target for both redirects. If readers are looking up the minor planet Caryhuang, a hatnote can be placed on whichever article Cary Huang redirects to. Having Cary Huang be a disambiguation page is like having BFDI be a disambiguation page that simply includes BFDI and the BfDI. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caryhuang is typed differently, so it seems inconvenient to have Cary Huang be a disambiguation page just because of that, as there are no other notable Cary Huangs to confuse the animator with. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the draft dab page. From the edit history it looks like some editors were confused by it and I see you eventually removed it. Your objection is entirely reasonable, and actually rather persuasive, but the draft should remain at Cary Huang for the duration of this discussion. 'DABify' remains a valid option for editors to support or oppose and the purpose of the draft dab page is to have something in place for editors to evaluate when !voting here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, I'm fine with theleekycauldron's directory article. In practice, that's similar enough to a disambiguation page, which I support. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 20:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If Draft:Huang twins is to become a live article, it ought to be moved to the unused title Huang brothers, which could be a target for all three redirects. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~
Delete creators are known for other things, as in mentioned in reliable sources. Whether these reliable sources meet GNG (not that much, mostly passing coverage) is up to debate. However, these redirects are then ambiguous, but a disambiguation page wouldn't make sense. Thus, I advocate for deleting all of them, retargeting if the draft is published User:Easternsaharareview this 04:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How much longer will these three redirects remain stuck in RfD limbo for? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

K.E Ganavelraja

[edit]

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

Israhell

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

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)[reply]

December 5

[edit]

Isnotreal

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

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)[reply]

Isn'treal

[edit]

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)[reply]

Apple bottom jeans

[edit]

I boldly retargeted the first one to match the second but the hatnotes on both the current and previous targets (Low (Flo Rida song)) would need to be modified. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbelt

[edit]

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)[reply]

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: [2] Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

System Exclusive

[edit]

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)[reply]

in out through (and all around)

[edit]

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)[reply]

2028 Women's Twenty20 Asia Cup

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Anti-Bangladeshi disinformation in India

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:
Previous AfDs for this article:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Right midfielder, Winger

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Defender, Midfielder

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Defender,Second striker (association football)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Speedy Delete Very confusing. Not an Association Football expert, but I my assumption for "second striker" would be either the second best striker on a team, or changing the lineup to a formation that adds a second striker. Like uh... Very very... Actually, this term is like uh... Confusing to the extreme. WP:G5 please. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Visioneers

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

2029 ICC Champions Trophy final

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

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

Jrvvschōlajim

[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep Per @Someone-123-321 Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep no harm. I don't see a WP:DEL-REASON for deleting it. Sun8908 Talk 08:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:List with serial comma

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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=,&#32;}}. --Grufo (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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=,&amp;#32;}}, but that does not mean that the template supports ///, as separator. --Grufo (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List with Oxford comma

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Template:Oxford list

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

December 4

[edit]

People Power Uprising

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

/)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Black New World Order

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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[5], as are many of the other entries. Fram (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 21:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modi's Media

[edit]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 21:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Easternsaharareview this 00:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project DIVA movie

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Archax

[edit]

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

A crappy bundle

[edit]

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

  • Support deleting. See also pinned discussion at WP:AFC/R. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 20:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Thank you amendment

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Missing Number

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

ProTEXT

[edit]

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)[reply]

Gaza's hunger games

[edit]

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)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman: can you explain what is offensive about this? VR (Please ping on reply) 07:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Bluethricecreamman I posted them below, but here they are again: [6][7][8][9] and is also used by Jean-Pierre Filiu[10] (who is a historian that specializes in the History of the Gaza Strip).VR (Please ping on reply) 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peaceray (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hunger games in Gaza" is a term that is exactly covered by many sources: [16],[17],[18],[19]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I also reject that my opposition to neologisms is too narrow. Peaceray (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:Easternsaharareview this 00:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of the United States

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:Easternsaharareview this 00:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heylin Plant

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

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

2026 CPL season

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Bypass mail

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Gabriel Baaba Gwanga'mujje Eri Yesu

[edit]

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

Keep, as an alternative name. I found a source which notes that he refers to himself as this (with no apostrophe) [60], and a number of twitter posts where an apostrophe is included. It seems helpful and harmless. Golem08 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

2025 United Kingdom general election

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Skibidi senator

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:Easternsaharareview this 00:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
good, then that should definitely be added first consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan (Suikoden)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ninja death star

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    support this Oreocooke (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Nesbitt, Minnesota

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Nesbitt Preserve Park also isn't even mentioned at the current target. I2Overcome talk 11:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Bicycle hat

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

CAT:AI

[edit]

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)[reply]

retarget per nom Oreocooke (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Sinclair's

[edit]

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)[reply]

2 moths ago is not longstanding. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:Easternsaharareview this 00:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Guttenberg's

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Keep, these redirects are useful for linking. -- Tavix (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Delete please bundle similar nominations next time User:Easternsaharareview this 00:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dooor

[edit]

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)[reply]

Knocking up

[edit]

Delete, ambiguous. Also a colloquialism for Impregnation, which targets Fertilisation. Steel1943 (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Door knock

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
weak support this either in addition or as an alternative to retargeting Oreocooke (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Door And Door-post

[edit]

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)[reply]

Interior door

[edit]

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)[reply]

Inged door

[edit]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Mephit (*Shattered Galaxy)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Dance (genre)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Refernce desk

[edit]

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)[reply]

Seventh Shi?a Imam

[edit]

Seems like a Eubot failure to undiacriticise Seventh Shīʻa Imām. That "?" in the title is unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do not think the ? is used in the romanization of Arabic like some numbers are. User:Easternsaharareview this 00:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

[edit]

Surya Namask?r

[edit]

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)[reply]

Q?disiyyah

[edit]

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)[reply]

Klinefelter?s Syndrome

[edit]

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)[reply]

Tuta (Suikoden)

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

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)[reply]

Mala?i

[edit]
Delete 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)[reply]

It should’ve been G6, result of XfD. Fixed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Oregon Route 67

[edit]

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)[reply]

History of pottery in Palestine

[edit]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Date Movie 2

[edit]

No mention of sequel at target article. Presumed hoax. Jalen Barks (Woof) 19:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Kirk shot in the neck

[edit]

This is unnecessarily specific to the point of insensitivity. Charlie Kirk shot is enough. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, my rationale does not at all imply nor do I advocate for censorship. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete: useless. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There's not a single thing you said in that reply that I disagree with. -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Assassination of CJK

[edit]

These are implausible redirects, Charlie Kirk was not known by his initials. -- Tavix (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted assassination of Charlie Kirk

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete as inaccurate and possibly misleading. A successful assassination is no longer an attempted assassination. I2Overcome talk 23:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Turner Pictures

[edit]

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)[reply]

Ties (disambigation)

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

Essence & Rare 82-92

[edit]

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)[reply]

Sur-

[edit]

Delete. Not used, not mentioned in the target article, and even absent from Wiktionary. Misleading. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Towns in the Former RSK

[edit]

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)[reply]

Cold freezer

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Template:Murmur

[edit]

Unused and unreasonable redirect. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Savoie

[edit]

This redirect points to the Specific Cases section. The Specific Cases section was removed on 12 March 2014. There is one reference, in the Japanese support for the convention section, to Christopher Savoie, which says to see the "Specific Cases" section, which is no longer in the article. Either delete the redirect as no longer being in the article, or add language to the article describing the Savoie case. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwwv: I can't say that I disagree with this, but I would like to draw your attention to my comment above explaining why I did not close the discussion, in case you hadn't seen it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I will admit that I didn't see that comment. I understand that you may have been IARing (rfd's closing notes don't allow discussions to be open after the redirect has been speedy deleted) so I'll reopen. mwwv converse∫edits 17:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Asian Beach Games

[edit]

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

  • 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.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casablanca Rock (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Teqball to be demonstration sport at 2023 SEA Games in Cambodia". 16 July 2022. Retrieved 3 December 2025.

1.73205...

[edit]

Delete. See 1.732 below. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ivanvector who has identified an issue. -- Tavix (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Titles with "+" instead of spaces (again)

[edit]

Another batch of redirects where their respective target articles have no affinity to replacing spaces with "+" symbols; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 6#Titles with "+" instead of spaces for the most recent previous discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who moved the Gwen Moffat article from this ridiculous title in the first place. Back then - 18 years ago - all redirects appear to have been kept. A completely senseless redirect - delete. Grutness...wha? 03:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think these are the result of some long since fixed interaction between broswer rendering and Wikimedia software that resulted in them being created by accident. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of these seem to be original page titles created by some misbehaving semiautomated process, but over a wide time frame: the oldest I found was 2005 but a couple are as recent as 2019. All of those were moved away from the improper title within minutes, and I think qualify for WP:R3. Others were created as redirects in the first place, which is odd, but there was a time when the move function didn't exist and pages could only be moved by cutting and pasting, and maybe that's what these are. But none have substantial history, they can all go. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none appear to contain any useful history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Easternsaharareview this 00:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gazzolo

[edit]

Delete. Old, unused and no longer mentioned in the respective target artices, and as such misleading. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. delete.Irish Melkite (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While we’re at it, there are a few dozen names that also point to Our Lady of the Angels School fire without being mentioned there. They should also be deleted. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.732

[edit]

Well, that's 1 and 732 thousandths. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Tavix and Ivanvector. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hydrocortisone brand names II

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

Hydroskin

[edit]

Delete. Most often HydroSkin refers to a brand of wetsuits[64] and related apparel. There are a few other results but none for hydrocortisone or cortisol on the first page of Google. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: it might be better created into an article of the wetsuits if they're notable. Then add a hatnote that sends people to hydrocortisone or cortisol. If not, delete. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The apparel brand doesn't appear notable but I haven't dug into it much. The proper title for the wetsuits would be HydroSkin. My main reason to delete initially was that Hydroskin appears to be a fairly obscure brand name for hydrocortisone. Initially I found no prominent Google hits for the drug. I did a second search for hydroskin+hydrocortisone and did find results variously styled HydroSkin,[65] HydroSKIN,[66] and Hydroskin.[67] I suspect someone searching for any capitalization variant is more likely to be looking for the wetsuit brand, based on my Google results, but neither brand appears super notable. This redirect has only 129 "all-time" pageviews showing near-zero search interest. An on-wiki search shows one use of HydroSKIN at CTBUH Awards that, given the context, appears unrelated to the wetsuits or the drug. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

[edit]

Yellow fly

[edit]

Retarget to Diachlorus ferrugatus, since most Google search results for the term "yellow fly" use it to refer to Diachlorus ferrugatus. In addition, Diachlorus ferrugatus isn't a deer fly. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'OK with me, I didn't know species. I knew that yellow flies and deer flies were similar. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or definitely leaning there. It's already a pretty generic term, and I'm not seeing it being used much in relaible or non-WP:CIRCULAR sources either. The only one that really had anything was this one. In Florida, the name yellow fly is commonly used to describe a group of about a dozen different yellow-bodied biting flies in the Tabanidae family. However, Florida tabanid experts recognize only one species, Diachlorus ferrugatus (Fabricius), as the true yellow fly. In short, being used for only a dozen species means Tabanidae (much less deer fly) really isn't a good target. However, that means a single species also isn't a good target, especially since the source is specifying they are really only focusing on Flordia for the use of that name. In terms of WP:COMMONNAME, the term has a fundamental WP:PRECISION problem I don't think we can't redirect our way out of. KoA (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hydro-colisona

[edit]

Delete (strong prererence) or retarget to hydrocortisone. Miscapitalization of seemingly obscure brand name for hydrocortisone; hydrocortisone and cortisol are identical molecules but the former name is the one used for the pharmaceutical product while the latter is the endogenous hormone. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-cor

[edit]

Delete. Hi-Cor (capital C) appears to be a fairly obscure brand of hydrocortisone. Variants HICOR, HI-COR, HI COR, High COR, etc. have a variety of meanings.[68][69][70] —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemsol-HC

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

Delete. This is a drug trade name for a combination product containing hydrocortisone (or hydrocortisone acetate) and pramoxine HCl. We don't have an article on the combination drug and arbitrarily redirecting to one of the active ingredients is inappropriate. We deleted the similar case of Epifoam. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gyno-Cortisone

[edit]

Delete. This is possibly an obscure, obsolete brand name for a hydrocortisone product. Google suggests it may also be a misspelling of gynecomastia which is related in some way to other steroid hormones. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glycort

[edit]

Delete. Glycort is a brand name for a combination of dexamethasone (a different corticosteroid) and gentamicin while Gly-Cort appears to be a brand of hydrocortisone. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flexicort

[edit]

Delete as ambiguous. Most web searches suggest the active ingredient in this drug is deflazacort but there are some results for hydrocortisone and Google also suggests this may be a misspelling of/confused for Pulmicort Flexhaler and several other products that refer to different corticosteroid medications. Definitely do not keep since cortisol is no the name used for the molecule when it is a pharmaceutical product. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starcker

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep Plausible misspelling.—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Umbrium

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. I rather expected to end up somewhere like Umbria. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, NIH lists "Umbrium" as one of many trade names for diazepam. Omphalographer (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

W457KW

[edit]

The only mention of this at the target was an unsourced addition by the redirect creator that I reverted out. This appears to be a purported FM translator, supposedly on 104.5, but it would not have this call sign — the number within it refers to the FM channel number, which would be 283 in this case. Not sure if this is sufficiently implausible (or new enough) to meet any speedy deletion criteria that might otherwise apply. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Team

[edit]

Malplaced redirect. Retarget to Football team or move? ArthananWarcraft (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would retarget to Football team. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 22:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Transaltantic cable

[edit]

Unlikely misspelling, no incoming links. If not deleted, this should at least be retargeted to the correctly spelled Transatlantic cable dab page rather than one of the two dab topics. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teratodes monticollis

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

Radar Homing and Warning

[edit]

Ever since first created in 2007, this redirect targeted Radar#Radar functions and roles. It seems as late as 2016, that section still existed in the Radar article, but today it does not. I think it was mistargeted to begin with when considering common definitions and use of the phrase. The definition of RHAW comes from the military use of the term labeling Radar Homing and Warning Systems (RHAWS). According to the DoD's Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (April 2011), RHAWS is a "radar homing and warning system". According to another JTTP for Joint Suppression of Enemy Defenses document (July 1995), RHAW systems are used "to determine the location of active SAM sites". It is not a "radar" system, but a system that warns of active radars targeting the aircraft allowing the aircraft to defend itself. Since an article doesn't really exist that directly relates yet, and the closest candidate being radar warning receiver, I recommend redirecting this one to that article instead of radar. Considering there are only 6 pages that currently link to this redirect, maybe even deletion? — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk-Email) 19:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? Or retarget to Radar warning receiver?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian State Route Redirection Leftover

[edit]

For road naming, should capitalise each words DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Even more questionable redirects to Absement

[edit]

These made-up words are very likely WP:OR or plain vandalism. Target section was deleted in February 2024. See Talk:Absement#Higher integrals notability, Special:Diff/1209176113, Special:Diff/1209178042. Chrisahn (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable redirects to Absement

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

Greatest non-radioactive difference

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

3^0.5

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

Springfield, USA

[edit]

I don't know why it points to The Simpsons if it is a common name in USA. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 08:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clause

[edit]

Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, due to the "e" at the end of these redirects, I'm proposing these redirects be retargeted to The Santa Clause. Steel1943 (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The contents at Talk:Santa Clause#RFC: Where this redirect should point are basically a makeshift RfD which took place in 2012. Steel1943 (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the film. There's maybe some wiggle room here -- if we're going to resort to SMALLDETAILS, these are both missing the "The" (and one is capitalized wrong), but I still think the "e" on the end makes this a more likely target. Someone who truly misspells the other can get pointed there with a hatnote. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fearnhead College

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. A cursory google search suggests that, while it may have existed in the early 21st century in the the town of Warrington, England, or thereabouts, it's not around anymore, it's probably not related to any other institution (unlike what the redirect suggests), and it's definitely not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article (the old article was never sourced to begin with). Maybe deletion unless someone has an explanation? Duckmather (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social media ban

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

SD Worx

[edit]

Shouls be deleted to encourage the creation of an article on WPen for SD Worx [nl], WP:RETURNTORED. Veverve (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli airstrikes

[edit]

Highly ambiguous. Gaza Strip is not the only place receiving Israeli strikes --MikutoH talk! 20:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Delete as pointlessly ambiguous and let the search function recommend specific articles. I2Overcome talk 06:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, renaming and deletion are separate processes. -- Tavix (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Easternsaharareview this 22:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

December 1

[edit]

RKM codes

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment: I created 3V3 before many of those redirects and I consider it sourced adequately. fgnievinski (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

2000s internet

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

2027 Louisiana gubernatorial election

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Vertical interval

[edit]

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)[reply]

√1

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

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)[reply]

Square root redirects

[edit]

A mass of fairly recently created redirects of the form "√<perfect sqaure number>" to their respective square roots. These are highly useless, consisting of a difficult to type character, and violate various principles, like not treating the search function as a calculator. Given the large volume of number articles we host, WP:PANDORA applies strongly here. Strong delete all –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethernet cable

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Target Ethernet, also I see no justification for having the Title Case version. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
See Ethernet over fibre and https://www.cablesandkits.com/learning-center/fiber-optic-vs-ethernet-cables/ Ngriffeth (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep the lower case version
Delete or retarget the upper case version Ngriffeth (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Thug Shaker

[edit]

Not mentioned on this page or Wiktionary. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

√ ̅

[edit]

Delete. This page title consists of two characters: U+221A √ SQUARE ROOT and U+0305 ̅ COMBINING OVERLINE. This is a highly implausible way for someone to search, especially considering that it's really an abuse of unicode since the combining character (the overline) has nothing following it. the overline is combined with the square root symbol, which makes no sense. There's a noncombining overline, which would be a little better, but event that's a stretch. There are also plenty of other similar-looking symbols, like the macron. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak don't delete per nom. although it's definitely something no one would type, it seems a little more plausible that they'd copy and paste it from somewhere else thinking it's only one character, and to my surprise, i've seen a concerning amount of people (more than one) who don't know what this symbol actually refers to despite already knowing what a square root is. that said, i still don't think it's all that plausible that my proposed scenario would actually happen commonly enough or that people wouldn't notice that they're two characters in selection, so this isn't really a keep either consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mistaken on the order of combining characters in my nom...please see my updated rationale. Even an unreasonable, but valid rendering would be something like √3̅, which cannot be copied like this (and renders poorly anyway). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ah, fair enough, delete as malformed, then. even √¯ (using a macron) would be less janky consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OK, so the story is that someone incompetent manages to put this essentially incorrect sequence of characters in a document; someone else clueless manages to copy it and paste into WP. They will then presumably search for this sequence in the page, and it will not be there. There's spreading the light of knowledge, then there's throwing shit against a wall to see if it looks like the Virgin Mary. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Germna invasion of Russia

[edit]

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)[reply]

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"keep and retarget" just means "retarget" consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 14:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
    Oh for fuck's sake. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Uxnionville

[edit]

This name is not mentioned in the article, nor can I find it in any sources that aren't derivative of Wikipedia. Google insists that I mean "Unionville" but Unionville, Connecticut is a different place about 50 miles west and isn't mentioned in the Moosup article. It would also be a very unusual typo for a qwerty keyboard user to make and seems completely implausible as a misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

[edit]

Cluster A personality disorder

[edit]

While I am not entirely sure about what exactly the guidelines say in this situation, I believe that the existence of these redirects causes a certain issue, namely that it has resulted in links such as cluster B personality disorder instead of cluster B personality disorder. MOS:SPECIFICLINK is seemingly not specifically about this kind of situation, but contrary to many other cases, I think it would perhaps actually maike sense to link clusters separately from the main article on personality disorder, as clusters are merely a specifier relating to a certain system in which specific, categorical personality disorder diagnoses are grouped together. Perhaps my reasoning is incorrect; feel free to inform me about the relevant guidelines. Otherwise, I support the hereby proposed deletions. BlockArranger (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, these redirects are already targeted in the manner that you suggest; I didn't come to think of it when submitting this nomination. BlockArranger (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the targets to reflect reality. BlockArranger (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in that case. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the nom rationale, cluster B personality disorder – [[cluster B]] [[personality disorder]] – would be inappropriate per MOS:SEAOFBLUE (and borderline per MOS:OVERLINK since cluster A/B/C are a subset of personality disorders). If editors want to link to both the discussion cluster A/B/C personality disorders and to the main article Personality disorder, they should reword to avoid the construction [[cluster B]] [[personality disorder]]. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Myceteae's arguments. These are fine redirects. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 03:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

√−3

[edit]

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)[reply]

g Tauri

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The redirect was untagged. I have tagged the redirect. mwwv converse∫edits 14:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is a source for the identification of g Tauri as Kappa Ceti ([74]), 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)[reply]

Template:Nonstandard list end

[edit]

closing template for template:Nonstandard list (deleted 2025-10-31) — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should be taken to WP:TFD. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a redirect — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 07:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the page contains a redirect and does not have a template, so procedurally, this is a valid use of RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkification

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:

This redirect was an article that got taken to AfD; the AfD closed as redirect to Charlie Kirk. However, Kirkification isn't mentioned in that article, whereas it is mentioned in and discussed in Assassination of Charlie Kirk#Use of artificial intelligence on social media; thus, this redirect should be retargeted there. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 11:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we even have it, is this more than just a flash in the pan? Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming sentiment from the AfD was delete entirely. My view is there was no consensus to make this a redirect to any page. The sourcing for the mention in the Assassination article is flimsy. Mikewem (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the term itself no longer appears in the section of the Assassination article where the meme is discussed because the term lacks reliable sourcing. Mikewem (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be an entire article about the meme with deepfakes, but then got redirected to the person by someone else. It wasn't originally about him, it was about the trend. 2550 69 11hne (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Assassination of Charlie Kirk#Use of artificial intelligence on social media. microTato(🗯️) (✍🏻) 18:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth approximation

[edit]

This redirect is very unhelpful and a bit misleading since the target article doesn't discuss the topic, various approximation results, at all. Just deleting the redirect is probably better since that would encourage someone to start an article on the topic. Taku (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a possible alternative target is Mapping_space#Smooth_mappings as it at least mentions the approximation theorem. -- Taku (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki

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

Unlikely redirect. I should note that the properly formatted form, Why on earth would I want to contribute to a wiki? doesn't exist (nor should it). Also, history doesn't really save an article (as many of the pages on Wikipedia:First_100_pages have redlinks). User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Why on earth would I want to contribute to a wiki? 2550 69 11hne (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also, Wikipedia:Why on Earth would I want to contribute to a wiki already Exists 2550 69 11hne (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's useful to WikiArcheologists as a relic of Wikipedia's primordial era. I'd also argue that it is properly formatted when considering how CamelCase worked at the time. -- Tavix (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia namespace. It doesn't belong in the main article namespace. Usually I'd recommend deletion, but others seem to feel the page's history should be preserved. OK, let's keep the history, but let's clean things up anyway. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nivrut

[edit]

What is 'Nivrut' and why does it redirect to retirement? ~2025-37389-11 (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox name module/attribution

[edit]

Despite their names, these redirects do not contain any meaningful page history (which was wisely moved to live at a more helpful redirect title). They also have no real incoming links, and can safely be deleted for being confusing. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirects with the actual history still exist. We don't really need to preserve for eternity every strange redirect someone has created. This for example is pointless. Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No longer needed. UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan (Harry Potter)

[edit]

Very minor centaur character not mentioned anywhere in the target article or any other Harry Potter book or film-related articles. Only linked at the Rónán set index article, but points to nothing useful for readers. This was previously an article that was redirected to List of supporting Harry Potter characters (itself upmerged into List of Harry Potter characters) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronan (Harry Potter) back in 2006, and since then, it was spun off into the target article, which has removed any material on this minor feature and yields no merit for inclusion in this encyclopedia, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 03:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

[edit]

Crashpad

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

Answers in Creation

[edit]

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)[reply]

Mentioned at Creationism#Organizations Sting Kipu (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have no objection to removing it. Sting Kipu (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete, probably not notable. I don't like returntored but this isn't mentioned and pretty vague to an uninitiated viewer. User:Easternsaharareview this 04:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

2028 United States House of Representatives elections

[edit]

Elections for the United States House of Representatives happen every 2 years in which all 435 seats are contested on the same day. The nominators rationale at this RFD is also a good reason to delete and I agree. Same thing here. Redirecting to Elections in the United States #House of Representatives elections is not a good idea and red links encourage article creation. It is also too soon considering the previous elections are still (At the time of me listing this) 11 months and 4 days (340 days exactly) until the elections to determine who the incumbents will be for the 2028 elections (This could still change if someone leaves office, whether that is due to death or any other reason, but even then, there will need to be a special election to determine the incumbent). It is too soon for an article, and the redirect isn't very useful, neither is the target, and there is no significant history. So especially considering the fact that every single seat has an election before this one, and red links encourage article creation, just Delete. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Strong Delete TOOSOON. We arent even at 2026. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under what CSD Metallurgist? Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I meant strong delete. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not as good of a point as you might have thought as I literally thought you meant speedy delete. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exergue

[edit]

only mentioned in passing, and without a source. used to be an equally unsourced stub until being "megred" in 2007. it does big numbers, though, so i'll suggest soft redirecting to wikt:exergue consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might recommend that the redirect go to Glossary of numismatics#exergue; however, the current redirect does give a fuller description, so the glossary entry would need to be beefed up with that text. I'm not keen on linking to Wiktionary except when matters of orthography, etymology, or grammar are at issue. Exergue is not such a common term that the general reader might be expected to know it, and yet it's a standard term in numismatics and shouldn't be avoided when employed in the sources. It needs more explanation than a dictionary definition, and less than would make a meaningfully independent article, which ideally is how glossary/list articles work, to my mind. Another "however" in support of the glossary entry: exergue isn't a term applicable only to Coin#Modern features, as that section heading implies — I just linked to it from the description of a 1st-century BCE coin. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im inclined to agree with Cynwolfe. Im not even sure that belongs on Coin#Modern features. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seth and Mary Eastman

[edit]

This used to be an article covering both people. It was split in 2020, with the article at this title moved to Seth Eastman and a new article created for Mary Henderson Eastman. I don't know that one is more notable than the other and I don't think a redirect covering two people serves much (if any) purpose. There are a number of links to this page, which are undoubtedly problematic in any instance where Mary Eastman is the subject intended to be linked to. I don't think it's a very plausible search term either, and a search would likely turn up both articles regardless. --Sable232 (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC) Note: all article-space links to this title have been corrected. --Sable232 (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And none of the links in are mainspace articles, so losing them likely doesnt matter. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Huang

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 5#Cary Huang

Nixer (playing card)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yoylecake/Yoyle Cake

[edit]

This redirect was created originally for Michael Huang (animator) (Yoyle Cake was an alias for him) but it now redirects to BFDI. Nowhere is anything about the name "Yoyle Cake" said at the BFDI article, so I propose that these redirects be deleted. ExcitedA (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The First Ever State

[edit]

This is an ambiguous term that could mean the first ever polity, the oldest nation in the world, the first state in a nation, or (as this redirect's creator means) the first state in the US. I'm unsure what to do with this, so I'm bring it to RFD. The First State exists but it doesn't make sense to redirect there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of first states probably has potential as a full list article, but this redirect is not it. WP:RETURNTORED guninvalid (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone finds a really suitable redirect. Too ambiguous to exist. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too ambiguous to redirect to anything. No links to it from main space either. Ultraodan (T, C) 13:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think "the" is also discouraged in redirects, can't remember exact policy. "Ever" is also not needed. Regardless, per above User:Easternsaharareview this 04:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The First State makes sense, but adding "ever" is unencyclopedic in this case. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above statements. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. keep in mind Australia and Germany also have subdivisions known as states. JuniperChill (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli torture in Palestine

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Taipo

[edit]

During the Wang Fuk Court fire, I noticed some news using the term "Taipo" to refer to Tai Po (example: [75][76]. 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)[reply]

Light room

[edit]

I believe this should target Adobe Lightroom, but I cannot figure out why it targets Photographic processing in the first place, so I am not 100% sure that there’s not something I’m missing… — HTGS (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom although im fine with Delete too. I think it's because photographs are processed in a darkroom and this is some sort of R from antonym? --Lenticel (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an ambiguous term without a clear target. Wikt:lightroom and other dictionaries define a lightroom (with no space) as the room at top of a lighthouse, but Lighthouse#Building doesn't use the term, and instead favors the term lantern room. Lantern room is a redlink, though. Search results show that several articles about lighthouses use the term light room or light-room. Other articles use the term to refer to a photography studio, but it's not mentioned at the photographic studio article, either. Plus, as noted above, it's an incorrect name for the Adobe software. I don't see a good place to point this. - Eureka Lott 20:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

0141

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
Disambiguate we have numbers redirect to years, but glasgow is also a candidate. If not, only retarget to the year(s) User:Easternsaharareview this 04:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague to merit targetting or DAB. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UTV Software Communications

[edit]

This title has a category of more than 4 subcategories and more than 6 entries, but no article, surprisingly! Per the page history, this title was created as a redirect to UTV Motion Pictures and has been subject to re-targeting between it and Disney India; the latter of which this has been designated as its subsidiary in its current page revision. I see it as an WP:ASTONISH factor for readers, newbies and editors alike, so I've brought it over here for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Created the rd due to the cat some years ago, looks like the target was changed shortly thereafter by an IP. And I don't necessarily disagree as the film division was but a part of the larger company (I had rd'd to what I felt was the most apt target then). I don't think astonish applies as mention of rd is clear there in the target. FWIW, the Disney Wiki also rds this to the same target: [77]. Gotitbro (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bah humbug guy

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Pending Looking through WP:G5. SeaDragon1 (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Delete slippery slope, not known as guy User:Easternsaharareview this 04:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qws

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

Index shifting

[edit]

The redirect is, at the moment, rather confusing since there are several quite different kinds of indices which one might say are shifted, and several kinds of shifting that may be indexed. XabqEfdg (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Index shifting is a well-established topic for cycling and could plausibly be a primary topic, but this article doesn't really help someone looking for "index shifting" in its current state... Not sure what alternative targets are or if there's enough material to make a DAB / dedicated article. Shazback (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish genocide

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Redirect to Al-Anfal genocide (see Kurds § Iraq). SeaDragon1 (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Easternsaharareview this 04:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

White nationalist terrorism

[edit]

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)[reply]

Delete. Article does not discuss it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep per Lott User:Easternsaharareview this 04:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Hambro'

[edit]

Confused with Hambro (surname), suggest retarget to it A1Cafel (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnatural, more redirects like this shouldn't be created which is where I usually draw the line for redirects. User:Easternsaharareview this 01:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as... vague!? regardless of how much no stuff i found for this specific spelling, it seems to also be a very, very plausible misspelling of "hambró", which has a couple too many unnotable definitions, apparently. for the keep vote above to actually work, i think we'd at the very least need a mention of "-bro'" as an alternate spelling of "-borough"... uh... anywhere? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Flash (2016 film)

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

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

Delete User:Easternsaharareview this 04:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

The Flash (2021 film)

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

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

Delete and bundle all User:Easternsaharareview this 04:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

[edit]

Aiysh

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    @.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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retarget to Egyptian cuisine#Bread which discussed what "eysh" means Sting Kipu (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

St Paul's Shipwreck

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Circleboard

[edit]

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)[reply]

X (née Twitter)

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin - sources are using the term to refer to the topic. No harm in keeping. BugGhost 🦗👻 10:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PANDORA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Except it's not a helpful redirect. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it is a helpful redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...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...
    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)[reply]
Keep Very much unambiguous. WP:CHEAP Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Dawans

[edit]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation with interlanguage links seems the best solution. -- Reconrabbit 18:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Someone might be looking for the Atoni people, also known as Dawans. Sting Kipu (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a disambiguation page would be best then. Greenshed (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Gaza massacre

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

Retarget to Gaza war or Israeli invasion of Gaza --MikutoH talk! 03:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:Easternsaharareview and this 10:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Povery and Un-British Rule in India

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

Samurai & Shogun (2025 Edition)

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

Who Are You: 40th Anniversary Edition

[edit]

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)[reply]

History of Ultramens

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

List of Ultra Q monsters

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:
Previous AfDs for this article:

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)[reply]

CachyOS

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MoonPieTown

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#MoonPieTown

2008-2009 influenza vaccine

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

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 5#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp

Camp Bragg

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Visioneers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 5#The Visioneers

Handbook of the Mammals of the World Alive

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

Vaa Vaathiyaar (actor)

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

Chinese Muslims

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
@Casablanca Rock @~2025-31416-56 @Mx. Granger @Natg 19 Quickphoto (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

British undegraduate degree nicknames

[edit]

Nominating this redirect on behalf of TangoWhiskeyDelta who attempted to nominate this with the following rationale: Delete. Article has had the information about degree nicknames removed from it a couple years ago. CycloneYoris talk! 00:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either I didn't look hard enough or some kind soul has added the nicknames back in, bypassing the issue. (Probably the former, knowing me) TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this a Keep. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TangoWhiskeyDelta: I still don't see any nicknames at the target. Could you please indicate where you found them? CycloneYoris talk! 03:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris They're spread throughout the article. If needed, it could be changed back to how it originally was, with the nicknames in their own section. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TangoWhiskeyDelta: That would actually be best, in my opinion. But regardless, I'm going to close this RfD (and the other similar one) since you've withdrawn your nomination and no longer want them deleted. CycloneYoris talk! 04:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I had closed this RfD as "withdrawn" since the nominator has apparently withdrawn their nomination above. However, I hadn't noticed that the word "undergraduate" is actually misspelled as "undegraduate" which is why I'm reopening this nomination and nominating this redirect for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 21:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

[edit]

Campusj

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:
Previous AfDs for this article:

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)[reply]

British degree nicknames

[edit]

Delete. Article has had the information about degree nicknames removed from it a couple years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British undergraduate degree nicknames

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

Premier Kolodnicki

[edit]

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)[reply]

Canadian politics websites

[edit]

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)[reply]

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: [79], [80]. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Carbon Crombie

[edit]

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)[reply]

Benign variant

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

6/8 time

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Project DIVA movie

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Project DIVA movie

Vladimir Motin

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

March for Arakan

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Health care in Guinea-Bissau

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

Adventure camp

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nafugan Modi

[edit]

Fails WP:GNG. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Modi Significandi

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

Srce nije u modi (2000)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
comment: target taken to afd consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP

[edit]

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

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

Emperor modi of jin

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

Modi Stadium centuries

[edit]

Ambiguous redirect, as there are other stadiums named Modi Stadium (disambiguation page). — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dayawati Modi Public School, Hapur road

[edit]

Fails WP:GNG. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpen modi

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

Alkes dinesh mody institute

[edit]

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

Programs renamed by Modi Government

[edit]

Uncommon search term. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modi's Media

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Modi's Media

Derogatory remarks towards Narendra Modi by Maldivian Ministers

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

Rahmanullah Lakanwal

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

Black New World Order

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Black New World Order

54 Pickup

[edit]

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.[81]

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)[reply]

Bicycle hat

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Bicycle hat

Nesbitt, Minnesota

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Nesbitt, Minnesota

Ninja death star

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Ninja death star

Juan (Suikoden)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Juan (Suikoden)

Appalachian trial

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

Bats at 37 Military Hospital

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

November 26

[edit]

Christopher Paul Davies

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

Ommish

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

MySpace.

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

Dinsmore, Arkansas

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

Future Sky Paradise

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

Gaza massacre (2012)

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

Extreme North

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Skibidi senator

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Skibidi senator

Virtual Markets

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

2025 United Kingdom general election

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#2025 United Kingdom general election

Attempted killing of Charlie Kirk

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

Noakhali Express

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

Gabriel Baaba Gwanga'mujje Eri Yesu

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Gabriel Baaba Gwanga'mujje Eri Yesu

Bypass mail

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Bypass mail

1Sa.

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Amargi

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#Amargi

President Joe

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

Parkton, Minnesota

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

Judas hatch

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retarget to wikt:Judas-hole? Katzrockso (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

November 25

[edit]

Satellite planet

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

Umbrium

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Umbrium

RSS (Political)

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

Super hedgehog

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

St Peter.

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

BS (video game)

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

Yadult

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

Ford Research and Innovation Center

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

Yellow fly

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Yellow fly

Moomers

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

Gossam

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

12 Leonis

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

Starcker

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Starcker

Ahillya Harjani, Yeoh Kay Ee

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:
Previous AfDs for this article:

Search results will give more information on the subject than these redirect targets. zglph•talk• 11:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VFR Tourism

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

November 24

[edit]

TOURIST HOTSPOT

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

Travel destination

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

Radar Homing and Warning

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Radar Homing and Warning

Say Hello to My Little Friend

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

Joe is Biden

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

Minneapolis-style hot dog

[edit]

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)[reply]

Delete per nom. I2Overcome talk 10:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not relevant to the target. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The devil

[edit]

These should probably point at the same target as I don't think the capitalization makes a difference in meanings in this case. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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! 01:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The devil, and retarget The Devil to Satan. The word "the" implies that it is talking about only one, and not just devils in general. The term "The Devil" is also mentioned at the start of the Satan page. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beszterce (disambiguation)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Omoikane (Nadesico)

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

List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll

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

FORD

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

November 23

[edit]

. 30 Remington AR

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

Body soap

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

Israeli airstrikes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Israeli airstrikes

WPSTART

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

Template:Nonstandard list end

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 30#Template:Nonstandard list end

Kallis

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

g Tauri

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 30#g Tauri

Sephardi socialism

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

Knockoff

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I have mentioned this discussion over at the RM. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 15:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete. Counterfeits are not knockoffs, and neither page in question addresses them. So just delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Lacrymosa

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

Hyder Husyn (singer-songwrite)

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

November 22

[edit]

Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons

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

Calls of the void

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

Wandering Husk

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

Answers in Creation

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Answers in Creation

Social Research Center

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

Surface transportation

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Isha Malviya

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:

Delete Search results will give a much better overview rather than just a simple snapshot of her career: [84]. And if notable, a red link would encourage article creation per WP:RETURNTORED. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Leftover Xiaolin Showdown redirects

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

Delete these leftover redirects. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Explicit:: that one's fine. the others aren't however Oreocooke (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Oct 7th.

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

Prime Minister of the United States

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Prime Minister of the United States

Oct 7th

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

0141

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#0141

Light room

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Light room

Corrido (song)

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

Weigh Count

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

Israeli torture in Palestine

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Israeli torture in Palestine

在日同胞

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

White nationalist terrorism

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#White nationalist terrorism

Chance to win a prize

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

Undemocratic

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

Crashpad

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Crashpad

Qws

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Qws

Nick Jr. (Polish TV channel)

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

November 20

[edit]

Mimi Lieber

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Restore article and send to AFD. Geschichte (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    or Delete per my comments below, post-relist. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Skipiti Toilet

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

Camp Bragg

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 28#Camp Bragg

Yup bro

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

The Visioneers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 28#The Visioneers

Edmonton International Airport Transit Centre

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

Adobe Photoshop 25.5 (Macintosh)

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

Marubeni Copper Holdings Limited

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

6/8 time

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 27#6/8 time

Huang, michael

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

Soccer Team

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Soccer Team

Sexy times with Wangxian

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

Princess Meg

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Draft:Dakarai Larriett

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

Spider-People

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

Adventure camp

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 27#Adventure camp

Car liver

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

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 28#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp

Boeing 797X

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

WAST (defunct)

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

President of the United Kingdom

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

Kurdish genocide

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Kurdish genocide

Home by Rite Aid

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

Inaccessible Island nighthawk

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

Marlon Barber

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agudela

[edit]

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)[reply]

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" [85] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

20th-

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

Cinquante

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

A.s.l.

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

2000s internet

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 1#2000s internet

Xpose Uncensored

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blockbuster (film)

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

November 19

[edit]

Steroid stack

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

Beautiful Merodon Hoverfly

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

hydrocortisone brand names

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

UdaJeet

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

Red rubber grease

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

New Zealand,

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

New.Zealand

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

New+Zealand

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

Sex.

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

MySpace.

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 26#MySpace.

Chlorate.

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

A J Stewart

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

Extreme North

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 26#Extreme North

Gaza massacre (2012)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 26#Gaza massacre (2012)

Draft:Common pig

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

Outlawry in Lancashire Act 1491

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

1Sa.

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 26#1Sa.

Amargi

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 26#Amargi

Gaza's hunger games

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Gaza's hunger games

T'en va pas comme ça"

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

Hindu marriage

[edit]

These redirects should probably have the same target, although I'm not sure which one would be more appropriate. मल्ल (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Hindu marriage" - agree with Myceteae analysis. and Delete "Hindu Marriage" - having different redirects is confusing to a reader and the capital M makes this look like a name - also don't see the capital M as plausible search term Asteramellus (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Sea Grant

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

When it's done

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

Judas hatch

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 26#Judas hatch

I cell

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

Department of Mathematical and Computational Sciences

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

November 15

[edit]

Beszterce (disambiguation)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 24#Beszterce (disambiguation)

List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 24#List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll

Omoikane (Nadesico)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 24#Omoikane (Nadesico)

Template:Lang-fr

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

Quirrel (Hollow Knight)

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

Surface transportation

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Surface transportation

Co-founder of Wikipedia

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

Isha Malviya

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Isha Malviya

2025 Squash World Cup

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

The devil

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 24#The devil

Cindyana Santangelo

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

在台ベトナム人

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

Handegg championship

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

Electrooptical Effect

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

It's a snap

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

Index shifting

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Index shifting

Antler sleeve

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

Wikipedia:BetaWiki

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

I'm not sure why this points here. Wouldn't https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmcloud.org/ be the more expected destination? Not sure if it existed when this was last considered in 2016. Sdkb talk 19:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate between meta:translatewiki.net and https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmcloud.org/, I guess? Betawiki is the old (pre 2009) name of translatewiki.net but a search at WP:VP shows that in recent times people also use the term to refer to https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmcloud.org/ instead. Because the interwiki prefix betawiki: still works and leads to translatewiki: I think we should record the old meaning somewhere. Warudo (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Weiss (1943)

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

Fall Weiß (1943)

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

Fall Weiss (1942)

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

Corrido (song)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Corrido (song)

Leftover Xiaolin Showdown redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Leftover Xiaolin Showdown redirects

Best songs of the decade

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

Pinacoteca Provinciale di BaRI

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

Russian invasion of Ukraine

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
A majority yes, but not a vast majority. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 07:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Move+ extension also allows one to update links in fairly quick succession. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 21:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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[86], the opposite movement almost doesn't happen[87]. This proves that they're mostly interested in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) article. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Retain the current target Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), per the reasons of the previous comment. Lklundin (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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."[sarcasm] InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The parent article is titled World War II not German–Polish War. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Retain current target per Mr rnddude. --Minoa (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Retain current target - That seems to be the target most users would think of .. The Seal F1 (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

X (née Twitter)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 28#X (née Twitter)

Undemocratic

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Undemocratic

Șaaru River

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

Crashpad

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22#Crashpad

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1325969489#How_to_list_a_redirect_for_discussion"