mic_none

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For the reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 0 58 58
TfD 0 0 1 24 25
MfD 0 0 0 4 4
FfD 0 0 1 9 10
RfD 0 0 0 25 25
AfD 0 0 0 42 42

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.

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:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

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

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

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|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

June 28

[edit]

Scraface

[edit]

Unlikely typo to dab page. Roast (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seating Arraignment

[edit]

No mention in target article - delete? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Judge John Hodgman episodes (2010–2014); its an episode memtioned on that article. Still swayable for deletion, because this is miniscule for inclusion. Roast (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese officials

[edit]

Too vague a term. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first (Chinese) is ambiguous with modern officials and has only one incoming link. The rest has no incoming links and aren't clean targets, because "officials" tends to mean something more specific than the entire government. Jruderman (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver ramming

[edit]

A local here, might be too vague, as that could refer to 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot or 1994 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I could be missing something, but neither article about the Stanley Cup riots mentions a ramming/car attack. There were cars that was burned in the 2011 riot, but that is more an attack on a car. Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rice gadu

[edit]

The word "gadu" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. (This redirect was formally an article that was subject to a WP:BLAR in 2014 after existing for 2 months.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plain rice

[edit]

Whatever this redirect is meant to represent, I do not believe that the generic article about Rice is the appropriate target. If anything, this phrase most likely refers to Rice as food, but even that is unclear. Maybe be best to delete this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting to Rice as Food makes more sense -- in that its descriptive of the thing being consumed (it's plain") rather than of the species or the product. Sadads (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In British usage, "Plain rice" (white steamed rice) is distinguished from "fried rice" or other "special" (with shrimp, etc) rice dishes. All this should be in Rice as food. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that Rice as food doesn't mention "plain rice" (yet).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia (Sony)

[edit]

Sony also owns the Columbia film company so there is no obvious target. Delete as this is too hyperspecific for a disambig page Kinopiko talk 21:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong cityscape

[edit]

Pointless redirect unless we were to have cityscape for every city. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salt and vinegar

[edit]

These all need the same target. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 06:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FChan

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, doesn't seem worth a mention Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inscript

[edit]

Dabify or hatnote with inscription? Ninixed (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inscriptional

[edit]

Shouldn't it have the same target of inscription? Ninixed (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2030 South Korean presidential election

[edit]

Target does not mention 2030 election, unhelpful redirect. Redlink is better to encourage creation when needed Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 13:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

[edit]

Spook mountain

[edit]

Not mentioned at target page, no clear relationship Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nien

[edit]

The member is not that popular and she wouldnt be the primary topic for Nien. Theres also no dab page for Nien. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 17:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pan Syndrome (anime)

[edit]

Mayu Sakai did write a manga titled Peter Pan Syndrome (manga) (which redirects to Mayu Sakai) but it was never an anime series, as those are two different mediums. A deletion is preferred. lullabying (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Internet Phone

[edit]

Hmm...Apple Internet Phone? I seriously doubt anyone would search for specifically this when trying to find iPhone. In addition, nobody calls iPhone "Internet Phone" nowadays. Also, it assumes the i (as in Apple's iconic branding) stands for specifically Internet, but that's dubious. I'm thinking delete. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add. Here are the views from creation to today. Only 23 views. It's obvious that nobody would ever expect a redirect like this, even if unambiguous (because iPhone is indeed Apple's phone line that has internet connectivity, ROKR E1 does not count and is much more esoteric) does not make it a plausible search term. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify this statement: I believe the nominator is claiming that ROKR E1 could be considered ambiguous with the nominated redirect because ROKR E1 is also known as the "iTunes Phone". (Honestly, the nominator should have just plainly stated that rather than basically requiring participants to fish around in the the article to figure out where the potential ambiguity lies.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I confused you, @Steel1943. I didn't say that the redirect was ambiguous, I was saying that iPhone is the primary topic, because when you said that the redirect was unambiguous WP:PTOPIC first came to my mind. I wasn't even thinking about ambiguity when I nominated this redirect, rather the suspiciously implausible title. Either way, ambiguous or not, a long obscure name like "Apple Internet Phone" (not to mention the capitalization) is seriously implausible and nobody would expect such a redirect to exist. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I was saying was it seems you were, without directly saying it, assuming all readers either know what the ROKR E1 is and its connection to Apple by just the name or its existence alone. That's all; I've never heard of the ROKR E1 until your initial comment. Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fish or fishes

[edit]

Section is missing from the target article. In addition, there seems to be no explanation of the topic of these redirects, which seems to be the reason why the word "fish" or "fishes" is used for the plural form of the target subject. My first thought was to refine these redirect to Fish#Etymology, but such an explanation of these redirects' subject is not explained in that section either. Unless there are some kind of alternative target explaining the English plural form of the target subject, probably delete these. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator follow-up/related comment: I just found Fishery#The term fish, a section that is obviously located in the wrong article and probably should be removed or moved to Fish. (At this time, I don't consider this a retargeting option.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wood v Georgia (1981)

[edit]

Bit of a convoluted history here: Legobot created this in June 2024 a redirect to Wood v. Georgia (1981). In September, Significa liberdade draftified that (I've restored the draft for reference) and Liz deleted this redirect per G8. After PickleG13 recreated Wood v. Georgia (1981) in May as a redirect to List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 450, Nyttend restored with the summary Why was this deleted? As far as I can tell, the target has existed continuously for a long time—I assume referring not to Wood v. Georgia (1981), but rather to its target, which EmausBot then retargeted this to. In light of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 20 § 9,568 recently-created redirects from SCOTUS cases, this is an avoided double redirect of a deleted page and would normally be eligible for G8 speedy deletion, but given the deletion and undeletion involved here, WP:WHEEL applies and thus consensus is needed. So, delete per consensus regarding the parent redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No opinion on keeping or deleting; my interest was procedural. The G8 was inappropriate because its target hadn't been deleted — this application of G8 is meant for when someone redirects a page to a target that has never existed, or for when you're cleaning up redirects to a page that's now been deleted. The target exists, so the redirect is ineligible for G8 right now, and the target's existed continuously since 2007, so the redirect has always been ineligible for G8. The deletion of a different redirect is utterly irrelevant to G8, since this isn't a redirect to the other redirect. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time the redirect was deleted, it pointed to an article, not to a redirect. There was an intervening draftification and recreation as a redirect. So Liz was correct to delete under G8. (I also think that, if that hadn't been the case, G8 deletion is appropriate for avoided double redirects that are only from a difference in spelling, where the middle link in the chain has been validly deleted, but that's beside the point.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher v. United States (1946) & Fisher v. United States (1976)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete per G7

End of Life on Earth

[edit]

I was very surprised to end up at this target where the term is not mentioned. Both Tinchy Stryder videography and List of songs recorded by Tinchy Stryder mention that this is the title of one of his albums and expect an article about it to be at End of Life on Earth (2012 album), although that title has never existed. Where should it target though? End of the world, Mass extinction, Global catastrophic risk and Global catastrophic scenarios are possible targets and I'm not sure which is best. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Reviews

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

End-of-life

[edit]

The first of these is a former invalid disambiguation page. I think these redirects are better deleted so as not to encumber Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dab per above. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 05:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hounds of Shadow

[edit]

Delete. Not mentioned in target article or in any other article. Was redirected to High House Shadow. Mika1h (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seggs

[edit]

could also refer to human sexual activity in general User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Sexual slang#Sexual slang and social media per 35 drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 13:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are multiple alternate targets suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High House Shadow

[edit]

Delete. Not mentioned in the target article or in any other article. Was an unreferenced article that was redirected in 2014. Mika1h (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C4SS

[edit]

The Center for a Stateless Society is no longer discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, except for being listed in a list of libertarian organizations. I would propose deleting these redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aŭstriano (talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

[edit]

Fredarick Jackson

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. "Jackson" is his legal surname, but I can't find any evidence that he's used "Fredarick". Searching for "Frederick Jackson" pulls up different people (Frederick Jackson Turner, Frederick J. Jackson). Rusalkii (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Inchequin: restoration of honours, manors, lands and tenements in Ireland.

[edit]

Delete. Created as a redirect to the current target two years ago, but I can't see why. This sounds like a quotation of a title, but the only appearance of tenements in the article is the title of an Act of Parliament: An Act for restoring unto Murrough, alias Morgan, Earl of Insiquin, all his Honours, Manors, Lands, and Tenements, in Ireland, whereof he was in Possession on the 23th of October, 1641, or at any Time since. Since this is significantly different from the original title, I don't think it's plausible enough to retain. As well, the concluding full stop is unlikely to be included, so it's even less plausible. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psynapse

[edit]

I apologize if this is the wrong venue. The Norwegian pro-psychedelic group Emmasofia has changed it's name to Psynapse. I can't move the article to "Psynapse" because it's occupied by this redirect. What's the proper way to handle this? Prezbo (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prezbo: The article needs to be moved to Psynapse (organization), since the subject isn't the primary topic, and this redirect should be left alone (since it appears to be a significant R with history). CycloneYoris talk! 09:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what defines a primary topic, but I would argue that the organization is more important than the comic book character. Prezbo (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the organization the primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earthen Vessel

[edit]

The word "Earthen" does not appear anywhere on the target page (let alone the target section) leaving the connection unclear, nor did it appear in the version that was current when the redirect was created in 2010. In 2009 an article at this title about a Christian instrumentalist band (formed that year in Alaska) was correctly speedily deleted under A7, and google results for "Earthen Vessel" band are about a 1970s "Jesus rock" band from the midwest, which suggest that it isn't nonsense but I'm non-the-wiser about what the meaning is. All the uses I've found on Wikipedia are about earthenware, which is what I expected when I saw it in the list of titles (when researching Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 4#Earthen) and I recommend retargetting there (as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Earthen pot). Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember what I was thinking of when I created this, but vaguely remember going through articles for Baptist sects at one time, so I assume that I created it from some text that has since been deleted. I've got no particular background in Baptist history or culture beyond going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole a couple of years ago.
However looking up Google and this is the first hit I get for "Earthern Vessel" Baptist
https://www.baptists.net/history/category/strict-baptist-magazines/earthen-vessel/
JASpencer (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just made it a redirect. Earthenware was in categories Category:Cooking vessels and Category:Serving vessels, so it is odd there was no redirect. Jay 💬 11:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Development of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

[edit]

Delete. Generally, I don't think redirects to specific sections of articles should be created, unless they were an article at some point. Based on this precedence, there could be redirects like Gameplay of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim or Development of Fallout 3 and so on. Mika1h (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify that redirects to sections are of course fine (in this case alternative titles or spin-off media). What I meant that these kinds of [section title] of [article title]-type redirects are not appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that such redirects are inappropriate, given that the redirect targets exactly what is its title within a section of the respective target article. (Will I go out of my way to create such redirects? Absolutely not, but it definitely goes the right place.) The target section is exactly what the redirect mentions; given the content of the target section, it seems the subject of this redirect is probably not notable enough for a standalone article, so a redirect to the current target is the best we have and probably will have forever. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I alluded to previously, by that logic we could create thousands of similar redirects for media articles. Why are we giving this redirect a pass? A random example: So you wouldn't object to the creation of Gameplay of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (PlayStation video game), Development and release of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (PlayStation video game), Reception of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (PlayStation video game). --Mika1h (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best way for me to respond to this is ... On RfD, you will find editors who will claim WP:PANDORA is a problem, and others who claim it's not a problem or a valid concern. In most cases, the latter camp "wins" consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disappoint you but I don't care about winning, I just want to build a better encyclopedia. --Mika1h (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I just want to build a better encyclopedia." No kidding, that's why we are all here, or at least why we should be. If you feel like having WP:PANDORA more accepted, feel free to start a discussion. For me, I'm too tired of trying to argue for WP:PANDORA (your argument, which I agree with) that I'm just like ... whatever, it exists, and I'm not going to create more similar redirects. So regarding the "Sorry to disappoint you..." statement: Nope, your stance is my preferred stance, so thanks for hitting me with friendly fire. Steel1943 (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel. Plausible search term that unambiguously leads to the relevant content. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. I occasionally create these when the development section is long enough. We have some articles with similar titles, including one from the same series, and it is a plausible search title, so I think it should be kept. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it a plausible search term opposed to hundreds if not thousands of other media articles with sourced development/production sections? Just because Oblivion's development has an article, we shouldn't create a redirect for every Elder Scrolls game. --Mika1h (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, my judge for whether I make this kind of redirect is whether there is a large, substantial amount of content about the specific topic in the article. I don't see why it's a problem. Just because this exists doesn't mean that tons of others will suddenly exist, and even if it did, I don't see why that would be a problem. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ji Seo-yeon (singer)

[edit]

Salt evasion of Ji Seo-yeon, it is soft redirect?, TripleS member involved in several page (TripleS#Members metioned it.) after redirect AfD closure. Delete encourage article creation per WP:RETURNTORED. 216.247.95.184 (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paper9oll. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 13:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RESULT

[edit]

Too ambiguous; same reason MOS:RESULT was deleted   Jalapeño   (u t g) 09:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clavin (supplement)

[edit]

No longer mentioned at target. Cremastra (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom and Ireland

[edit]

No pages currently make use of this redirect. The current target is "Ireland–United Kingdom relations", but the phrase sometimes seems to be used as a synonym for "British Isles". I suggest "Great Britain and Ireland", a disambiguation page, might be a more appropriate target. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hop (TV series)

[edit]

Not the same target as Arthur (book series), maybe should point to where it points to (at Marc Brown (author)) Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the comment below, I bundled the other redirects. I’m now leaning delete and leave as redlinks. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merde

[edit]

No WP:FORRED. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 1.1

[edit]

1.1 ≠ 1 Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Spacing between initial and period" mismatches

[edit]

Unlikely, WP:COSTLY and WP:UNNATURAL given the instance of a period with a space before it, especially considering that one initial has a period directly after it but another initial has a space in between it and the period after it. (This nomination is similar to the nomination of recently made at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 23#H. L . Mencken; however, too much time has lapsed between that nomination, and this one, so I'm not bundling them.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly typos. Wire723 (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Rudolf Mengele

[edit]

The middle name was a hoax that was removed from the article. The redirect, however, remains (made by a different person than the person who introduced the hoax). No source uses this name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main pages

[edit]

I was expecting this to lead to Main page (disambiguation) (which does link to the current target). I would have boldly retargetted there, as home pages are not the only type of main page, but (apart from short-lived vandalism in 2016 and 2024) it has been stable since creation in 2014. Obviously singular and plural usually lead to the same content, but I don't think targetting the Main Page would be helpful here. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Main Page

[edit]

Unlikely typo, does not serve any navigational purpose. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or retarget. This isn't a typo (likely or otherwise) nor is it a misspelling (despite being tagged as such). It is a {{R from modification}}, but it isn't a useful way of navigating to the main page (the searcher isn't looking for information about the main page). I wondered about retargetting to Main page (disambiguation) as that's where we have links to articles about main pages that aren't the English Wikipedia Main Page (although there is a link there too) and thus closer to the search term but I'm not certain. At present I'd be equally happy with deletion or retargetting, but that might change. Thryduulf (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Home page, which (as with Main pages) is the obvious broad-concept article target. That said, the capitalization here is a little unnatural so I won't object to deletion either. Duckmather (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud First

[edit]

Should be deleted. The target section, #CF, does not exist, and, what's more, the term ("Cloud First") is an industry term referring to a posture or strategic approach to internet deployment, and associating it with a particular company is misleading at best. Autrui (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

[edit]

Tail wing

[edit]

These should point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Hilliard Jr.

[edit]

Son of a former representative who was a state representative himself. I think this is better as a red link to encourage creation Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following because I am curious about the outcome. Seems a reasonable redirect to me. No one is precluded from starting an entry on the subject (as I did in draftspace). Whether leaving something as a redlink is superior encouragement to create the article rather than linking to an article where the subject is noted is an interesting question. But our goal is to serve our readers as best we can with what info we have. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli–Palestinian conflict solutions

[edit]

Sinai option, one of many proposed "Israeli–Palestinian conflict solutions", was created at the redirect title in 2023, and moved recently by @Lionel Messi Lover. Despite the long history, I think this still should not be pointed directly at any one solution, given both the plural and the fact that this elevates this particular proposal (not, I think, a particularly prominent one) above others. I think this should be a disambig page, though if there exists a good overview page that would make a good alterative target as well. Israeli–Palestinian peace process is the closest I've found, but it isn't very well suited in my opinion. Rusalkii (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is support to retarget to Israeli–Palestinian peace process, and I would have closed this, but what prompted me to relist was the nom's words that this target .. isn't very well suited in my opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support relisting to Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but I think the page merits an article of its own right. However, it will take time to develop this redirect into its own article. This redirect is a violation of WP:NPOV since it seems like Wikipedia is advocating for the Sinai option. Therefore, I think it should be redirected quite hastily and then developed into an article later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easternsahara (talk • contribs) 23:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DAB per WP:NPOV. Mast303 (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion somehow got left behind on the April 13 log page even though that log page was supposed to be cleared months ago. Bringing it back into the fold.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 17:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Graph

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

Berlin and Leipzig Railway

[edit]

Delete Broken anchor, redirect title is not mentioned in the target article Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Storm of 2012

[edit]

Might also referred to 2012 Great Britain and Ireland floods, Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 or other notable storm in 2012 A1Cafel (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. Most of my (personalised) results relate to a storm that affected north east England in June 2012, but on the first two pages there are also hits related to Hurricane Sandy, a storm impacting north east Scotland in November 2012 and a storm impacting Cheboygan County, Michigan that December. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. I wish people would stop creating year-based redirects for weather events with no geographical qualifiers; almost every major weather event happens more than once in any given year. Carguychris (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Un bandido apodado el Matafácil

[edit]

Not mentioned in target page leading to WP:RSURPRISE. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titles that bypassed the "consecutive apostrophes" restriction on the title creation blacklist

[edit]

These titles bypassed a blacklisted entry on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that was added to the blacklist in late 2014. (See MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist/Archive 4#Request to add to title blacklist for further details.) Both of these titles were created after 2014. Neither of these have a technical need to exist. (The blacklist entry was created since consecutive apostrophes in titles cause issue with wiki markup on pages.) Delete both. Steel1943 (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feral gummint

[edit]

Sadly, this is not the Onion. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • █████. It's nearly invisible. It was a lapse into mild humor.
I half made up the term. I searched for it here, half-expecting to find it here. It wasn't, so I added it. I Googled today for "feral gummint" and I see 350 hits (only 1 from Wikipedia and no mirrors), most referring to the US, but some referring to other federal governments such as Australia and Canada. Example: "Oh great.. the Feral Gummint has a part to play to play in this.."
I wonder how anyone noticed it. (Maybe browsing "What links here" from [Federal government of the United States], with "Hide links" enabled? Maybe browsing "User contributions for A876" with "Only show edits that are page creations" enabled, clicking "500" and then "Next 500" to reach my very first additions, and then finally noticing this the 30th one from the bottom?).
I wonder how many people noticed it before someone sought to kill it off. (I have nominated even-more-pointless redirects from absurdly improbable misspellings for deletion, and somehow absurdly got turned down.) In 2007, Wikipedia in several ways "was" The Onion. No need to be sad about it. Often Wikipedia seems much better than it was; sometimes it seems hopeless.
(I recall noticing a comical fictitious entry in the index of a college textbook. I think it said "Humor, sick" and it referred indirectly to the stylish new out-of-sequence info boxes that someone had forced the editors to tediously add to many pages.)
==See also==
• Gummint (not "created" by me, but mentioned in my edit comment upon "creating" Feral gummint on 2007-08-17)
• Gubmint (not "created" by me)
Maybe redirect to Federation#Federal governments, copying Federal government?
Maybe move all three to Wiktionary?? They are deliberate semi-fake vernacular uses. -A876 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USFG

[edit]

Too ambiguous a redirect. Googling it turns up something way different. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Divisions of the Netherlands in World War II

[edit]

Wrong target, and there doesn't appear to be a divisional list out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also List of Dutch Divisions in World War II, which redirects to the same article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added List of Dutch Divisions in World War II to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yonas Kibreab

[edit]

This actor played in several other films and not only Elio. Elio is probably the most popular one, but it's still not a good reason to redirect. It's better to have it as a red link. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myung Hyung-seo

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

June 24

[edit]

Turkish massacre

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish genocide. There's also a relevant entry currently under discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_23#Turkish_genocide_(19th–20th_century) Bogazicili (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowroot biscuit

[edit]

there is also an australian biscuit called a "milk arrowroot biscuit" that, based off my research, looks to be different from uraro User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran–United States war

[edit]

Retarget to Iran–United States relations as ambiguous. It could refer to Operation Praying Mantis, 1953 Iranian coup d'état, or Iran hostage crisis. Also, one of them is misspelled/has a typo. LIrala (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Untied Sates" manages to have two typos in the first two words, delete this one as implausible. Weak keep for the others as this is (as far as I know) the largest direct armed confrontation between the two nations, although recentism might come into play in my assessment and I wouldn't be strongly against retargeting them to the more general article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Damn I put a type in one of those, my bad. Delete that and the other with spelling error. As for the other two, I think disambiguation could be useful here based on other examples, it's not quite accurate for relations, nor ideal for current target. CNC (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Untied shoelaces and Satay lest this ends up as some recurring Trout on Wikipedia. Borgenland (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the two with correct spelling Iran–United States war and Iran-United States war but delete the other two. Lova Falk (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don’t call Afghanistan war the Afghan-United Sates war, same with the Korean, Iraq, Vietnam. It’s about the region and where the conflict is fought. Doremon764 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karakasa

[edit]

unmentioned in the target, and seems to primarily refer to kasa-obake. however, the name on its own isn't mentioned there either, only as parts of alternative names for it. results for "から傘" gave a mix of both, and results for "唐傘" were a mishmash of umbrellas, yōkai, and netflix series i haven't heard of (which only actually narrows it down to "not kill la kill"). should it just be retargeted to kasa-obake over the romanized spelling's primary association with the yōkai? consarn (grave) (obituary) 18:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

should also add that it did previously target kasa-obake, but was retargeted in 2011 with no explanation. pinging @Cold Season in case they still remember why. idk, maybe results were different back then consarn (grave) (obituary) 18:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bomberos

[edit]

No WP:FORRED. Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refine the second per Ninixed. Don't refine the first per Thryduulf. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refine the second to Geography of firefighting#Chile. Neutral on the first. Ninixed (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Geography of firefighting#Chile, where it's mentioned, per Ninixed. 9ninety (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC) self striking, see new comment below 9ninety (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine the second per Ninixed. Don't refine the first - per that page "Bomberos is the name given to firefighters in most Spanish-speaking countries" so pointing to a Chile-specific section would be inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first and refine the second. Indeed, bombero simply means 'firefighter' in Spanish. Since firefighters have no special relevance to Spanish-speaking countries (vs. every where else), and since they have no special relevance to Chile (vs. every other Spanish-speaking country), neither the current redirect nor the refinement is appropriate for bomberos.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I was under the impression that the term bombero(s) was Chilean, but as Myceteae points out, it is simply Spanish for firefighter. I don't think it makes sense to delete Bomberos and keep Bomberos (Chilean firefighters), which is disambiguating from the former. I don't see any meaningful links to the latter either, so it's most likely not a useful redirect. 9ninety (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ingénieur

[edit]

Per WP:FORRED, it’s not valid. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-blankdraft

[edit]

Per Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#Should the point 3 of G13 be obsoleted? there is no longer any special provision for deletion of blank drafts, and hence this redirect should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give consideration to the late "keep" vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – keeping it as a redirect template might give the impression that there is a special status for blank drafts, rather than them being covered as part of the more general {{db-g13}}. The fact that they are still eligible for G13 doesn't convince me as an argument to keep a specific redirect, especially since the template that previously existed there had a broader scope than the current redirect. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University (Scandinavia)

[edit]

This used to target to List of universities and colleges in Sweden, which is too specific. The current target, on the other hand, is uselessly broad and doesn't even discuss Scandinavia. Rusalkii (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget To University college (Scandinavia) per Katiedevi Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Murchison

[edit]

Could also refer to his father who was also known around the same time as Murchison Jr. Murchison Jr. was best known for being the founder of the Dallas Cowboys, but his father was also well known in the 60s. Murchison Sr. was noted during the time of the JFK Assassination and Madeleine Duncan Brown (An advertising executive) had claimed to have been present at a party at the Dallas home of Clint Murchison on the evening prior to the assassination of John F. Kennedy that was attended by Lyndon B. Johnson as well as other famous, wealthy, and powerful individuals including, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, H. L. Hunt, George Brown, and John McCloy. P.S I did get this last part almost mostly from the article Madeleine Duncan Brown. But back to the point, I would suggest to Dabify. P.S. I restarted this in order to notify people about it, but unfortunately I couldn't. If someone could help me list it in discussion categories for ones related to Texas, Oil, American Football, Dallas Cowboys and Business, that would be very helpful. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Square root of 4

[edit]

Unneeded, it's very unlikely that someone would look for the articles for 2 and 3 through this. Wikipedia is not a calculator. Square root of 1 was deleted for similar reasons in a 2019 RfD. I am bad at usernames (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A strongly-related new RfD discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 19#Square root of 25. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep square root of 4 and square root of 9 as redirects; delete sqrt4; and do not replace with the draft article. There's no harm in keeping the redirect to avoid a redlink between square root of 3 and square root of 5, though sqrt4 reads more as calculator input than a plausible search term, and any mathematical properties of the square root of 4 can be adequately discussed in the article about 2 or square root. The draft is a WP:COATRACK and WP:CONTENTFORK. Complex/Rational 22:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational: Do you have any thoughts on what in the draft should be integrated into the article? 2 is surprisingly sparse as is, as an article on one of the most important numbers. BD2412 T 23:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a couple of sentences about squares, root rectangles and trigonometric rectangles are worth merging. But the rest could easily be written about the square root of any integer (e.g., continued fractions, terminating decimal expansions, standard deviations) by merely copying, pasting, and changing the numbers – in other words, nothing special to the number 2. Complex/Rational 01:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep the first two, delete the third one as it seems to be a bit of a stretch. I also feel like Square root of 1 shouldn't have been deleted, but that's a different issue. --Plantman (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 6#Square root of 25 has been closed to a "no consensus" result. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as ambiguous- the square roots of 4 are both 2 and -2. This makes them harmful as not factually correct. And if someone wants to know square roots they should use a calculator or search engine, not am encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Israel protests on university campuses in the United States

[edit]

Unnecessary freakishly long redirect that could refer to Gaza war protests in the United States, 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, or 2025 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses. Also WP:CSD G5 could apply here. Delete. Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:31, 5 June 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, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filmi music

[edit]

Filmi appears to be music in Indian cinema in general, whereas Hindi film music is only one part of Indian cinema. Filmi devotional songs too talks only about Hindi songs. Filmi qawwali includes Pakistan and Bangladesh as well, while Filmi pop appears to be Pakistan-specific. Apart from the redirects needing to be consistent, should we also make one of these a disambiguation page, in case Filmi is not seen as the WP:BCA umbrella topic? Jay 💬 10:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the nom's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Filmi music and Filmi song. Remove Filmi songs since you rightly point out that 'Filmi' refers to Indian cinema in general. I'm not sure a disambiguation page is necessary. It may be more useful to update the pages you have mentioned to be more inclusive, but I am open to discussion. Katiedevi (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Filmi Songs to Filmi, Keep Filmi song and Filmi music targeted as they are. I agree that there seems to be an issue with Filmi's coverage being limited to India while articles like Filmi qawwali making it clear that "filmi" is not in fact India-specific. But I think it's clear the same concept is being described and this is just an issue of inadequate coverage in Filmi. I don't see the need for a DAB. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several variants suggested here, thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try... in an effort to avoid a "no consensus" close...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inurement

[edit]

Someone searching for the legal term Inurement will end up on the wrong page. Disambiguate? Not sure what the right page would be. Non-profit organization laws in the U.S.#Federal taxes? See https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/inurement-private-benefit-charitable-organizations Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of potato

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

The Storm of 2012

[edit]

Might also referred to 2012 Great Britain and Ireland floods or Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 A1Cafel (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literally could refer to any storm in 2012, including the 2012 Southern Indiana tornado. Delete. EF5 14:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ambiguous BugGhost 🦗👻 16:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or retarget Weather of 2012. Jruderman (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba national cricket team & others

[edit]

Not an appropriate redirect. There is no such thing as the Aruba national cricket team. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Added several more redirects. There are no national cricket teams, at least not recognized ones, in any of these territories. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Punia (rugby union)

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Unless someone can add a source for it or add this player on the squad list at the squad section, just delete unless the player is actually mentioned. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

po(l)ypifer

[edit]

let's try this again!! "polypifer" refers to organisms formed from polyps, which is a list that only happens to include coral. there was a discussion about this before (see here), but it just kind of went nowhere. still no opinion on the plausibility of the second redirect consarn (grave) (obituary) 12:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

will add, though, that the term used to be mentioned in the current target... but only in passing as part of an image's caption. it's not mentioned there or in polyp (zoology) anymore ( °Д °;) consarn (grave) (obituary) 12:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
let's try this again!! Why do you torture us so?
As I said in last year's discussion, I think Dawkins' usage of the word is most relevant. Coral#Anatomy is still my top pick, followed a retarget to polyp. Cremastra (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
admittedly, i kind of oppose retargeting to the dab, as it seems the term only refers to living organisms with that funny shape (y'know, hence polyp (zoology)). that aside, it seems this and other results related to richard dawkins have been recently overcome with slop of ai variety, which isn't related to this discussion, but is a bummer nonetheless :c consarn (grave) (obituary) 17:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SHReK

[edit]

Useless, no way anybody would type that in Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:03, 14 June 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! 08:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 13:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Being less useful than most redirects is not reason enough to delete. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's in an official piece of documentation (the "piece of documentation" being it's film poster in this case) so it's at least a somewhat plausible search term User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this gets 3 page views a month on average suggesting that no one is actually typing this. All the links to the redirect are in project space. If someone is linking 'SHRek' in an article the link should be corrected to use proper English orthography. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R semi-protected

[edit]

Delete, as the target page is not supposed to be called directly, either {{redirect category shell}} or {{r protected}} should be used. Retargeting to {{r protected}} doesn't make sense either as that rcat automatically determines the protection level, and this implies otherwise. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix the calls. The titles are not interchangeable and thus instead the redirects using this template should be fixed rather than this template redirect retargeted. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kilma

[edit]

Delete. Very implausible misspelling of target. GilaMonster536 (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can provide a connection between the two. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 07:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As best I can tell, the only connection is that a very non-notable Icelandic band named "Katla" might have a song called "Kilma" but I'm not certain of that. All uses of "Kilma" I can find on en.wp are as given name (Kilma S. Lattin is the only one with an article at present, but he doesn't seem to be referred to by his given name alone particularly) or partial title match for the 1976 film "Kilma, Queen of the Amazons" that we don't have an article on (I have not investigated whether we should). Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified of this discussion at the target talk page and the talk page of Katla (volcano) as the redirect creation summary said create redirect for misspelling of volcano. However external searches see it more of a misspelling of an Indonesian volcano, Hawaiian volcano, and the base word for Kilimanjaro. Jay 💬 05:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blo.gs

[edit]

It's not mentioned anywhere on the target page Stumbling9655 (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has some history. It was originally created as an article in 2006 and promptly merged to Yahoo. It is mentioned at List of Yahoo-owned sites and services, which was split from the Yahoo article. It was restarted as an article in 2007 and lasted until 2016, when it was redirected to Automattic, where it was previously mentioned before being removed with this edit in 2024. 9ninety (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Agony

[edit]

I might be mistaken, but would a better target be Passion of Jesus? 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 07:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

仏

[edit]

not mentioned at target; maybe retarget to Buddha (which might be a closer match, although this term is not mentioned there either) or delete? Duckmather (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ABDUL RAHIM AYOUBI

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

No use in all caps. I will note it was discussed previously here and was closed as keep. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No harm and completely unambiguous. I wouldn't necessarily create this redirect, but I don't see an issue with its existence now that it does. Casablanca 🪨(T) 13:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked more into the page history and this was the original title it was at, so I think that is an even stronger argument for keep. Casablanca 🪨(T) 13:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it is spelled properly, so it is pointing at the right location -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. The move was done 3 minutes after creation, so that's not a valid excuse. Just delete useless redirects and be done with it. This isn't helping anyone and its existence just wastes the time of editors that look after redirects, which is harm. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects exist for the readers, not the redirect wikignomes. ALLCAPS and all-miniscule are very commonly found out in the wild, where people don't particularly take care to capitalize properly, or prefer one style or another; or whose system defaults to one or the other style, ignoring capitalizations. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But this isn't reasonably helpful for readers. All caps isn't something that's used normally. And the kicker is, if you enter an all-caps (or any random mixture of casing) title in the normal search box, it already takes you to a matching page if there is one! There's absolutely no need for the redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects do, indeed, exist for the readers. The thing is...this would be more worth keeping if it was misspelled, instead of just being all caps. In that case, it would indicate it was a plausible misspelling, having happened at least once. In this case, if you type the name into the 'search' box, it pops up at the "correct" title regardless of caps; most people won't be typing it into the address bar, and those who do will (almost certainly) be "properly" capitalizing it. Basically, this is a completely pointless redirect. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wouldn't have bothered nominating it because redirects like these do no real harm, but they also don't help at all without a case-sensitive search so their existence is entirely pointless, and if someone bothered to nominate one then I don't see why not get rid of it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete depending on whatever everyone else ends up voting for. This vote is a wildcard in order to expedite closure. The redirect is pointless but this RFD entry to discuss it is equally pointless. I wish RFD listings were more focused on actually problematic redirects rather than being flooded with debating non-perfect ones. Keep or delete is equally fine. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spelled properly and harmless Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potato potato

[edit]

There's a mention of the differing pronunciations of "potato" at the target section, but I don't think this is a very good target. Tomato tomatoTomato tomato redirects to Let's Call the Whole Thing Off (see there for an explanation), so "Potato potato" should either redirect there or just be deleted. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 00:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foot play

[edit]

this can refer to A) footsies (in which case this should be targeting footsies or B) foot fetish (in which case this should be targeting foot fetishism). either way, this current target is just inappropriate for either options User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WACP

[edit]

This redirect, created in good faith, to a personal toolbox doesn't quite satisfy the high bar required for a cross-namespace redirect from projectspace. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not just for my semi-administrative work, it's for everyone. Additionally, I spent a long time on finding an open shortcut. As well, I don't want to type all that, typing 7 chars is better than 35 by a factor of five by all means.
Thanks, Starfall2015 chat | about me 05:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For personal use, you can install User:BrandonXLF/PortletLinks which will allow you to create direct links to desired pages using portlets (the sidebar, drop-down toolbox, footer) which will be always available on all pages. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 03:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We usually do not have shortcuts to user scripts, but we do only if the userscript is heavily used (same with shortcuts --> userspace). Considering that this is a brand new script, it is not seen by many users, it might not be used heavily, and in the end, the script would simply not be important enough to warrant a shortcut. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the user wants it, and it isn't needed for anything else, then there's no reason to delete it. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 08:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with this reasoning. What will then stop anyone from creating a bunch of WP shortcuts to, say, personal XfD, CSD, PROD logs, etc. alongside other userspace pages? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 03:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Businessman

[edit]

Too vague Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, American businessesAmerican businesses is a redirect that targets Economy of the United States. In addition, American business does not exist and never has existed. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KenTacoHut

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Appears to be a restaurant featuring three of Yum's franchises in one. I think it's a meme? Does not appear to be notable enough to add to the Yum article. Rusalkii (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These seem to be a thing, or was a thing. Googling "ken taco hut" turns up quite a bit of results. Since this is/was a Yum! triple-franchise outlet, the origin of wanting to make these redirects seems clear. I'm not sure it has to be mentioned in the article, but it seems to be clearly a subtopic, if a very minor one. The main question for me is whether this is a worthwhile search term. Pageviews on these appear to be sparse. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 00:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added KenTaco Hut to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flagstaff war.

[edit]

Unlikely typographical error, but not eligible for R3 as a redirect has existed here since 2013 204.111.137.20 (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Coahuila Challenger 604 Crash

[edit]

The crash actually involved a Bombardier Challenger 601, so these redirects are inaccurate. Delete. Mr slav999 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Influencer Smurf

[edit]

Meme about a smurf from the trailer of this movie, not mentioned in the target page. Possibly merits a mention (see e.g. [5] [6]), in which case the redirect should be kept, but I believe the character was replaced for the actual movie. Rusalkii (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctors (series 1)

[edit]

This is ambiguous and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which Doctors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show evidence of usage of "series 1" for any of those shows? If yes, add a hatnote. If no, don't add one. So long as Doctors series 1 is at the base title, it is the de facto primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at both suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this is solid evidence that Google results should not be used to determine primary topic. The first three things you list are a series that only has a single season and a couple of things that don't have articles. None of those things are useful for the question at hand. Instead of regurgitating, can you try analyzing these results? How is "series" used in this context? -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In all cases "series" is used in the plain English sense. It is not our job to say that people using "series 1" in relation to a TV programme that didn't have a series 2 is wrong, it is our job to enable people to find the content they are looking for (not the content we think they should be looking for). It is very clear that people using the search term are not looking for a single topic, but multiple different ones. I have analysed all the information available, and it all points to the same conclusion: there is no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "plain English" isn't helpful because 'series' has multiple uses in (plain) English. In television, series can be synonymous with the American English usage of season or it can be synonymous with program. I'm asking for your evidence because I do not believe you have analyzed your regurgitation of Google results to filter for the correct context. Better evidence would be linking to the specific results that uses "The Doctors series 1" to refer to each series in question. I also disagree with your assertion that Google results can be used to deduce what someone would be searching for in Wikipedia. Google's algorithm prioritizes giving a searcher a variety of different results; this is so a searcher doesn't have to scroll through a bunch of similar results to find a minority topic. This is not compatible with Wikipedia's preference to use primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've presented all my evidence and explained to you my methodology and reasoning. It's now up to you to actually provide some evidence that there is actually a primary topic, rather than just repeatedly asserting I'm wrong without backing that up. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the burden of proof, I cannot provide evidence of absence. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to provide evidence of absence, I'm asking you to provide evidence of the primary topic you repeatedly claim exists. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made no such claim. -- Tavix (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? You've spent this entire discussion opposing the view that there is no primary topic. Either there is a primary topic or there isn't, if you reject the evidence showing there is no primary topic then (assuming you are acting in good faith) you can only be asserting that there is a primary topic. Are you commenting in good faith? Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you recall my original !vote, my rationale was I don't see the ambiguity. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only comes into play where there's ambiguity. -- Tavix (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have objectively demonstrated that ambiguity exists, everybody else commenting sees ambiguity exists, so I was assuming good faith that your comments were are difference in opinion regarding the presence or absence of a primary topic - it now seems that assumption was incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Weinroth

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, useless. K1 does not apply because this should never have been an article in the first place and it has no useful history. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manupur (1748)

[edit]

I intend to make the page for this, I'd also like to have the "Battle of Manupur" redirect thus also deleted.

This currently redirects to an earlier 1748 battle. Noorullah (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

[edit]

H. L . Mencken

[edit]

WP:UNNATURAL, especially considering that a period is directly after one initial but is a space away from another. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I expected this to have been created in error, but the history suggests it might have been intentional although I couldn't tell you why. This has received 7 hits in just over 6 months this year and got exactly 1 hit in the whole of last year, this is unarguably not being used. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good example of unnatural. ⇌ Synpath 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fardu

[edit]

I'm not sure that this is a plausible misspelling (or alternative transliteration) of Fordo. It's only linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Mythology & Folklore/F, and is also an Arabic word for an Islamic religious obligation (wikt:fardu). Plantdrew (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish genocide (19th–20th century)

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish genocide; the concerns there do not appear to have been addressed by adding a timestamp. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Turkish genocide (1820–1920) and Genocide of Turkish people from the same creator, might be worth bundling? 86.23.87.130 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added those. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also listed Turkish massacre. Maybe all of these should be considered together. Bogazicili (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamali (Marathi TV series)

[edit]

The Kannada TV series and the Marathi TV series are not the same series, so this redirect does not make sense. Also, the history of the Marathi TV series article is now back at Kamali (TV serial) following a round-robin page swap. GTrang (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the deletion but would request the title be protected based on the socking attempts to create a separate page under that name. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JarsOfClay

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

pseudo-UseMod cross-namespace redirect

[edit]

This pages are mentioned at Wikipedia:First 100 pages, but have no UseMod-era edits. I don't think they are useful as search terms. Janhrach (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if the page history is so important, then why not move it to something else? The curid will stay the same after moved. Ninixed (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or even move them outside mainspace Ninixed (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOVEREDIRECT, let's not do that. Instead, if you want a redirect at a different title created, go for it. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Withdrawing the nomination of the second redirect. I agree that the first redirect should be retargeted to Wikipedia:What is a wiki for. Janhrach (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LikeThis

[edit]

This is a page mentioned at Wikipedia:First 100 pages, but it doesn't have any UseMod-era edits. Implausible search term. Janhrach (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZzZ

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

NupediaWiki

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

Coast Guard News

[edit]

Misleading / false-information redirect. This defunct publication has no connection the US Coast Guard other than as the main topic of its former coverage. It was a publication of Bright Mountain Media, whose big disclaimer read: "Neither the United States Coast Guard nor the Department of Homeland Security has officially approved, endorsed, or authorized this website." [11].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "United States Coast Guard News"[12] is, per the banner at the top of the page, an official website of the US Government and United States Coast Guard News does redirect to United States Coast Guard, and it's not an implausible search term for that. Other than the official news page of the US Coast Guard Academy [13] almost all my search results are for (collections of) news stories about or featuring the USCG (the Daily Mirror features prominently in my results for some reason). Hits on Wikipedia are almost exclusively in citations though, so I'm unsure how useful a search term this is. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of extrasolar planets

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

Israeli strikes on Iran

[edit]

dabify or move both target pages here, including June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran or June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel, accordingly. Ninixed (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SANDbox

[edit]

Implausible search term. I second Safiel's characterization as created as a test page and then turned into an unnecessary redirect (see history). Janhrach (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SandBox

[edit]

I do not see how would this redirect be useful. The creator noted that this was a test page and that they were going to nominate it for speedy deletion, but they redirected it instead. The history has not actual UseMod-era revisions. A page named SandBox did exist, but its history is at Wikipedia:Historical archive/Earliest sandbox history. Janhrach (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whipping Boy (American band)

[edit]

Redirects to a list of examples (notable entries) -- now removed from that list given this is just a redirect. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD as a contested BLAR. The content was way above the A7 threshold so there is no justification for summary deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody CSDed it. If you want to restore unsourced content that makes claims about living people, you can do that in your capacity as an editor, just as it was blanked by Bolelyn as an editorial decision. I don't know why you'd want to do that, though, unless you were planning on improving it (in which case, we can just speedy close this). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with Boleyn's findings of a lack of sources and notability. I also note that the BLAR has not been contested, that would require someone to make an argument in favor of the article. -- Tavix (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominating a BLARed article at RfD is contesting the BLAR. My recommendation to restore is also an explicit contesting of the BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominating a redirect that has been blank-and-redirected is only a contestation of the WP:BLAR if they are in favor of restoration. If they support deletion of the underlying content, that's quite the opposite of a contestation. Rhododentries' response to you shows that they are not in favor of restoration. Your !vote also doesn't show any support for the article. It implies that it doesn't meet A7, but that's completely irrelevant to this discussion because this isn't WP:CSD. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman: Then make a case for keeping the article. If this was AfD, how would you !vote? -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant IMO. This isn't AfD. The correct procedure needs to be followed. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman: It's absolutely relevant because the purpose of this discussion is to decide what to do with the redirect, and I want to know why you want to send it to AfD. So far you haven't made a case why AfD is necessary. There is no evidence of this discussion being used as a backdoor—that usually takes the form of the same editor redirecting it and then subsequently nominating it for RfD in hopes of avoiding scrutiny. The correct procedure is being followed given that this is a redirect and it's being nominated at Redirects for Discussion. When redirects with history are nominated here, part of the process is analyzing the content to determine whether it's restorable. So, do you think the article content is worth rescuing? Have you found any evidence that the band may be notable? -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when discussing article content, the community has established that the proper venue is AfD. Redirects for Discussion is for, well, redirects. A redirect is not an article. There is substantial precedent for returning these BLARed articles to AfD for examination. I do not see why you, and others, are intent on ignoring that precedent. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're still ignoring my questions. You summed it up perfectly with A redirect is not an article. The proper venue for discussing articles is AfD, but—as you recognize—this is not an article. RfD is more than capable of looking at a {{R from history}} and making the examination you're asking for. Also, let me be clear: I am in favor of restoring contested WP:BLARs when they're actually contested (latest example), I am not ignoring this precedent. -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proper venue for discussing articles is AfD, but—as you recognize—this is not an article. And yet, you insist on discussing this redirect on its merits as an article. I've made my position clear, so I won't engage further in regard to this specific redirect. But I do think perhaps a broader discussion (RfC?) should be had to gauge a wider consensus on how to deal with BLARs. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're discussing the redirect on its merits as a redirect. In this case, the nominator's rationale is due to a lack of mention at the target which is very much a common rationale for redirects. Like all discussions where that's the case, we should be examining retargeting options (eg: there's a mention at Not So Quiet on the Western Front (album)) and whether or not a mention can be added to the target (eg: in this case, it'd be out of scope). That said, because it's a {{R with history}} we additionally have to examine the history and decide if it's worth restoring. It's a much wider question than if this were an article. As for RfCs, there was recently one where there was no consensus on what to do with BLAR's at RfD. It's a couple years old now, but Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 15#BLARs at RfD is also a good discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this countless times so I'll keep it brief. Despite you continuing to assert your opinion as unarguable fact, it is very much not. The correct venue for discussing the deletion of article content is AfD and when someone explicitly states they are contesting a BLAR it is astoundingly inappropriate to claim that they are not actually contesting a BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand where you're getting the idea that I'm making an "unarguable fact". The fact that this is (and has been!) an argument makes that point a bit silly, no? You are claiming to have contested the BLAR, but I don't see any arguments made in favor of keeping it as an article. In case I missed it, can you please make your case? -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not making an unarguable fact but presenting your opinion as if it were an unarguable fact (there is a difference). I don't know where you get the idea that someone cannot contest a BLAR without sastifying you that their reasons for doing so are acceptable. I, the nominator here and Presidentman have all contested the redirection. That is more than sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on their reply to you, Rhododendrites is not in favor of restoration (I'm pinging them in case they wish to clarify). Both yourself and Presidentman are not making arguments in favor of keeping the article—rather purely jurisdictional ones. I've asked Presidentman to clarify their position to confirm whether or not it's solely a jurisdictional argument, but the fact that he's not answering those questions sure make it seem so. Based on recent history of you not showing up when the page goes to AfD, I'm not convinced that you care about the underlying article content. That's why I'm insisting on you making such an argument (or even better, providing evidence of notability). Iff such an argument is made, I'll switch my !vote to restore because I do want to rescue salvageable article content. If not, I'll continue to oppose restorations purely based on jurisdictional arguments in an ongoing effort to preserve RfD's authority regarding redirects with history and keeping obvious deletable junk out of AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are not the arbiter of what is and is not a valid reason to contest a BLAR, and nobody is under any obligation to WP:SATISFY you. RfD does not have jurisdiction over article content so it cannot be preserved, whether you want it to be or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the arbiter either. You've given your position on the matter and I've given mine. As always, it ends up with us going in circles which satisfies no one. No worries though, I've done the leg work myself and found sources. -- Tavix (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not interested to get involved in rfd procedural debates. I found a redirect that redirected somewhere it was no longer mentioned. I looked at the old article because it came up here, and it looks like there's no sourced content worth debating. If someone wants to add citations, go for it? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Burning Skies

[edit]

Implausible redirect. Not a name used in any reliable sources. In fact, it came from a twitter thread[14] — Czello (music) 13:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:M

[edit]

This redirect has long been a redirect to Wikipedia:Mediation, an essay about dispute resolution. But it is just an essay and probably an unlikely search target. I would propose redirecting WP:M to Wikipedia:Maintenance instead, which is much more likely to be a search target and is much more important for maintaining Wikipedia than an essay about dispute resolution. RaschenTechner (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. We need to be conservative when retargetting shortcut redirects because the potential for disruption is high: once someone is familiar with where a shortcut leads they don't check every time, people who learn before and after a change thus use it with different meanings leading to confusion, and old discussions can have their meaning changed. In this case, the redirect has been stable for a very long time and has many incomming links (and an unknown number in edit summaries and an unknowable number in edit summaries); those I spot checked were all intended for the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and for emphasis: WP:M has pointed here since 2004 and has almost 5000 incoming links. ⇌ Synpath 00:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the 2 above, this would break so many links for no benefit. It is was 2004 then would be sensible to delete or retarget it, but not after so long. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea May Taleb

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karly Harfouche

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Abdel Khalek

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cybelle Al Ghoul

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Salha

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Souad Takash

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assile Toufaily

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Ghanime

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Sardouk

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saria Al Sayegh

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sinal Breiche

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aya El Boukhary

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cecile Iskandar

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rida Wahab

[edit]

Outside of the scope of the List article (10+ caps for the Lebanon national team). Nehme1499 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

[edit]

Amtrak station (Portland)

[edit]

Ambiguouus with Portland Transportation Center and malformed. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak station (Durham)

[edit]

Ambiguouus with Durham-UNH station and malformed. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak station (Columbia)

[edit]

Might be ambiguouus with Columbia Station (Washington) and malformed. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak station (Oakland)

[edit]

Ambiguous with Oakland Coliseum station and also formatted in an awkward way that seems highly unlikely to be searched for. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpill

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

LGBT rights in LA

[edit]

Too ambiguous, could refer to Louisiana. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget To LGBTQ rights in Louisiana unless there is a more appropriate target with Los Angeles. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. "LA" could mean either, so this is the more appropriate outcome than a straight-up retarget. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (second choice retarget to Louisiana, but do not keep, and do not dabify). Disambiguation is for when two pages could reasonably share the same title. But I don't think anyone would reasonably expect either "Louisiana" or "Los Angeles" to be abbreviated here, especially for such hyperspecific topics. If someone wants to search for this, it's not that burdensome to type out the name of the place they're looking for. Plus, we don't even have a redirect for just "Los Angeles" (and probably shouldn't, since while it's mentioned a couple times on the California page, there's nothing really dedicated to LA specifically there). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean disambiguate. My first instinct was "keep" or "delete". Los Angeles is the primary topic for LA so I'm surprised to see a preference to retarget to the Louisiana article over keeping or DAB. I can't support retargeting to Louisiana. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 35.139.154.158. Also, not suitable for a disambiguation page due to use to multiple unrelated acronyms. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Los Angeles is the clear primary topic for LA (as evidenced by that redirect, as well as common usage: most people don't refer to states or provinces by their abbreviations). Therefore this is an {{r from avoided double redirect}} to LGBTQ rights in Los Angeles – which, uh, doesn't exist, but should. Los Angeles is briefly covered in the California article and in any case is an {{r from subtopic}}: the reader will learn we don't have a separate article on LGBTQ rights in LA and will have to scrounge what information they can or go elsewhere. Cremastra (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that LGBTQ rights in Los Angeles should be a redirect to the California article, so I've just created it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Cremastra (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cremastra. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully agree with IP35. Delete because of the abbreviation of a state which is ambiguous. Disambiguation was an option if we had an article about LGBT rights in Los Angeles. It makes sense to create "LGBT rights" redirects to countries, kingdoms or states. City-specific exceptions are like the article LGBTQ rights in Mexico City, where the lead says the rights are considerably more progressive than the rest of Mexico. I would have nominated the recently created LGBTQ rights in Los Angeles for deletion too, as probably the only such city-based redirect, but there is one sentence in the target: In November 2024, The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to make the city a "sanctuary city" for LGBTQ youth.. that can be justified, but then we may have to refine it to #Transgender_and_intersex_rights. Jay 💬 11:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping dictionary

[edit]

Per Wiktionary, a sleeping dictionary is "a sexual partner who also serves as a native informant or language teacher for a person visiting the region from outside". That is a general concept that probably could be explored in a Wikipedia article of its own, either of that title or something broad-concept like travel and sex. As such, I think WP:RETURNTORED applies. A redirect to Wiktionary would also be acceptable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First fire

[edit]

Exists from a previous PROD but the target is now a DAB - and the phrase doesn't appear in any of the articles Ivey (talk - contribs) 16:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Assuming the PRODed content was accurate (it was unreferenced but plausible, although mostly how-to) then this is a specific term in relation to furnaces (google suggests it isn't limited to any one type). My first thought was "origin of fire", searching that phrase led me to The Origin of Fire, which is a 1902 Finnish cantata and I would be very surprised to land there after using this search term! Control of fire by early humans is closer to what I was thinking of but I'm not certain that's close enough? It wouldn't help people who are looking for the usage in relation to furnaces, but it is linked as "earliest fire" on Template:Human timeline and it is the primary topic when I google "first fire" -Wikipedia when I exclude partial title matches of (probably non-notable) businesses and histories of fire brigades. Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thought I just had was when earth's atmosphere could first support (sustained) fire (I vaguely recall a PBS Eons or SciShow episode about this). Google results for my vague query string suggest this was the result of the Great Oxidation Event but that article does not include the word "fire" and nor does Neoproterozoic oxygenation event linked in the hatnote. I haven't been able to think what we would title an article about this topic, and my vague searches are just leading me to articles about the (far) future - the exact opposite of what I'm looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fossil record of fire would be a decent article for that other thought. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it would, thank you. Looking at this with (slightly) more awake eyes I'm thinking the best option here is either a set index/disambig or a redirect to Control of fire by early humans with hatnotes to Fossil record of fire and something related to the furnace/kiln sense if we have any relevant content. I'm about to add a hatnote from the former to the latter based on the History of fire redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 15:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting my close and relisting this per discussion with Jay at User_talk:Rusalkii#First_fire_RfD, to allow for editors to consider the merge history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical and miracle power of pyramids

[edit]

Was originally it’s own page, now doesn’t have much use as a page, unless maybe a redirect to Pyramid power. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking pyramid

[edit]

The current target isn’t correct. Maybe Spanking paddle is supposed to be the correct target. But "pyramid" is only mentioned once in the entire article so maybe it isn't. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms associated with the color red

[edit]

I don't see any dedicated section of terms associated with red. However, there is a similar section: Red#Idioms. I'm thinking that either the redirect should be retargeted there, or be completely deleted. 1isall (talk/contribs) 17:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can find a better page, section or anchor about terms related to red, let me know. 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flip (geometry)

[edit]

this could easily refer to Flip (mathematics). this should be retargeted or turned into a disambiguation page. ―Howard • 🌽33 17:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese pizza

[edit]

Firstly, "Pizza cheese" is about cheese, whereas "Cheese pizza" is about pizza, so on the face of it I'd retarget to Pizza. However, there's a properly-referenced use of "cheese pizza" at Algospeak as a coded expression for child pornography which probably shouldn't be ignored. You might argue someone searching "cheese pizza" rather than simply "pizza" might well be looking for the meaning of the coded expression. So what to do? A two-entry disambiguation page (attempted at this title recently, but reverted) might be better than a hatnote at Pizza. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or, a stub article about a pizza sauced dough topped with cheese, with a hatnote to the coded speech topic, instead ; which could be expanded to describe various types of such pizzas, such as 3-cheese, etc. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pizza. Any other topic, especially the one suggested, would completely astonish and would not be the primary topic. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either retarget to Pizza quattro formaggi, which is actually a cheese pizza, or delete to aid searching. Pizza itself is a bad target, as the term is unmentioned, leading a reader to wonder why they've been brought there. I'm skeptical of "algospeak" as well, since as others have pointed out, it'd be pretty surprising to those looking for the plain meaning. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard cheap slice of cheese pizza at a pizza shop would not be quattro formaggi, but just dough, sauce, mozzarella instead. So it wouldn't be the common topic of "cheese pizza" as found on a pizza joint's menu. Thus, I think, a stub list on the cheap pizza, and 4-cheese, and hatnote for algospeak would be better serving. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be horrendous overkill. What should anyone even searching for this expect to find? At best, we have an article about a particular type of cheese pizza, and there's really nothing else we do or should have. Shall we have an article on pepperoni pizza too, explaining that it's a pizza with pepperoni on top? (Oh hell, that's another bad redirect). Or mushroom pizza? Or Pepperoni, mushroom, and anchovy pizza? In dictionary parlance, these are sum-of-parts phrases whose meaning can be easily inferred. As opposed to, say, Hawaiian pizza, which is not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to pizza in absence of a more specific target, with pretty strong opposition to retargeting to quattro formaggi, as that'd be like having pasta as a redirect to spaghetti: it's technically correct on a surface level, but excludes entirely too many variants of the dish. also without opposition to dabifying or listifying when (and by "when" i mean "if") there are more articles about pizzas known for their use of curdled cow juice, and to a hatnote about the yucky algospeak definition consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acyrologia

[edit]

This is a similar, but distinct, literary device, making this a misleading redirect. Delete per WP:REDYES. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malapropism lists acyrologia as a synonym and there is at least some support that it is synonymous or that one is a type of the other.[15][16] These aren't the greatest sources, but maybe there should be a discussion at Talk:Malapropism about the definition or whether to add an appropriately sourced discussion of acyrologia to the article. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target and creator pages. By "similar" the nom may have been referring to the Brexit means breakfast RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Butalia

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gautam Butalia closed with consensus to delete and this redirect was created very shortly after, despite having no support, by the creator, who was very disruptive and had to be taken to WP:ANI for repeatedly being disruptive at AfD. The only evidence that I can find for the existence of this person is Cosmo League 1 and Cosmo League 2, which is not WP:RS, and has him down as playing for other amateur clubs - not Woodlands Lions!

In any case, at WP:FOOTY, we don't redirect players to clubs as most players change clubs multiple times during their careers so a redirect would only cause confusion. In this case, I strongly oppose redirecting as there is not even one half-decent source to link this player to Woodlands Lions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dry heat

[edit]

The current target does not seem to be anywhere close to a primary topic; searches are showing a mixture of cooking food (which is close to the target but not the same), natural climates in deserts, and some other stuff. There's also Dry Heat (manga) (where Dry Heat currently redirects which it shouldn't per WP:MISPLACED), and some other minor uses. Either disambiguate or delete in favor of search. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate for the sterilisation and the manga, and include any relevant articles about cooking and climate. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify. I hate to argue for content creation being the outcome, but what is really needed here is a broad concept article describing what dry heat is and summarizing its applications. Normally, I'd argue for deletion to encourage article creation, but that would leave Dry Heat as the default topic for all searches, which is unsatisfactory. A disambiguation page may be an acceptable intermediate solution but there doesn't seem to be a great selection of articles that would broadly capture the various uses. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nile Canal

[edit]

This isn’t a correct redirect. Even googling “Nile Canal” brings up something up totally different. The previous edit to this page actually said to bring it to RFD so here I am. Therefore, I say Delete. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or convert to a disambiguation page: The Suez Canal is not connected to the Nile, so it's clearly unhelpful to redirect there. The "predecessors", which is to say the ancient/medieval canals between the Nile and the Red Sea, are covered in two articles already: Canal of the Pharaohs and Khalij (Cairo). Neither of them is really known as the "Nile Canal" to my knowledge, which is why I think deleting as too vague is fine, otherwise a DAB that links to both those articles (and any other articles that might be reasonably relevant) is also fine. R Prazeres (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine tune

[edit]

Shouldn't this target the disambiguation page Fine-tuning? Seems like a more appropriate target, because this redirect is ambiguous (I added the Wiktionary link on the disambiguation page a few moments ago). Justjourney (talk | contribs) 05:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 13:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hadayek EI Maadi station

[edit]

Contested R3, the title contains an "I" I instead of an L in "EI", making it an implausible search term. Not sure if this is a G7.... ToadetteEdit (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National railway

[edit]

A national railway is an example of something that might be (but isn't always) a state-owned enterprise. Railways are mentioned a couple of times as examples, but never using this exact phrase. National Railway was a railroad planned in the USA in the 1870s and National Railways lists multiple other entities that have similar names so I don't think this is a good redirect as it stands, I'm unsure whether National Railway or National Railways would be the better target (both link to each other, but neither link to the current target). I don't support deletion as (a) this has been around since 2010 and (b) there isn't anything relevant the search engine finds that isn't the current target or listed at National Railways so search results would be unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about redirecting to Railway nationalisation? 135.23.202.10 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this, and while I can see the connection (and have added it as a see also at National Railways) and it is probably better than the status quo, I'm not certain that it's unambiguously the correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After more thinking, I'm notnow certain that I do not support railway nationalisation as the target, including for the reasons articulated by Mangoe below. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC) incorrect word fixed Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget To Railway nationalisation. A National Railway sounds like it would be organised and owned by a national level government Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Beckham

[edit]

Non-notable relative as per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Absolutiva (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cruz Beckham

[edit]

Non-notable relative per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Absolutiva (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Fitcher

[edit]

I cannot find any evidence that he is referred to as "Fitcher" rather than "Fitch". We have one use of it at Nanking Safety Zone, but as the article elsewhere repeatedly uses "Fitch" I strongly suspect this is a mistake that should be corrected, but as I don't read Chinese I don't want to fiddle with the content without checking the source. Rusalkii (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solgier

[edit]

Unlikely typo Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in QWERTY keyboards D and G is seperated by F. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 13:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is true but irrelevant, this is a phonetic misspelling not a typo. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not convinced. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke (comics)

[edit]

I can't see how this redirect makes sense, and it is not in use. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget The page has a complex history, but it was a redirect to an earlier version of Nuke_(disambiguation)#Fictional_uses before that page was moved form the base title in 2023, and the double-redirect was corrected by a bot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

[edit]

Sylvia Swayne

[edit]

I think this redirect should be deleted. It was established as an ATD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia Swayne. However, Swayne is no longer listed on the primary page, as candidates on that page are removed if they lose their primary election (which Swayne did). Thus, this redirect seems unnecessary. I fail to see how it would even be helpful to someone searching "Sylvia Swayne" on Wikipedia. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Media personalities

[edit]

Not sure that this is the best redirect; the term is often used for all influencers, celebrities in general and not necessarily infotainment. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RO/DI

[edit]

Seems to be a WP:XY in the context which it is used. "RO" represents the nominated redirect's target ... but apparently, "DI" stands for DeionizationDeionization, which is a redirect towards Purified water#Deionization, and thus apparently a separate subject. In addition, in the target article, the current target section and Reverse osmosis#Water and wastewater purification both mention deionization. With all this being said, and the fact this redirect is a mishmash of acronyms, probably best to delete this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The RO/DI combo is explicitly discussed in that article ("An effective combination of both RO and deionization is popular among reef aquarium keepers...") but not in Purified water#Deionization. And from discussions like [17] and [18], I get the impression that RO/DI water is considered a sort of subcategory of RO water, so even the parts of that section that don't explicitly address it might still be of interest to someone searching "RO/DI." -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as first choice, or unrefine as second choice. If aquariums are the context for this redirect, then shouldn't Marine aquarium, which has multiple mentions, be the more appropriate (but surprising) target? Water purification would have been the best, but even there RO and DI are separate sections, and not mentioned together. Jay 💬 05:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 18:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beef Boss

[edit]

Outfit from the game. Not mentioned in target or anywhere else onwiki, and almost certainly too small of a detail to be mentioned. Rusalkii (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Durr Burger

[edit]

Fictional fast food chain featured in the game [19]. Referenced in passing at Konami Code, though I don't think it makes much sense to retarget to such a trivial mention. Rusalkii (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Used Hubcap District

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. I think this is a nickname for a part of Edmonton? The connection to the radio show is unclear to me after some googling. Rusalkii (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Blocklog

[edit]

Redirect to a special page, therefore the redirect doesn't actually work (it's more like a soft redirect). I don't know if converting into a soft redirect using {{Soft redirect}}, or retarget to something like Help:Log, which describes this process. Or even retarget to the historical page Wikipedia:Historical archive/Logs/Block log, to match WP:Block log. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 02:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakt

[edit]

The redirect Bhakt was recently created, but the correct English transliteration of the original Sanskrit term is Bhakta, which already exists as a redirect to Bhakti. Deleting this redirect avoids confusion and maintains consistency with other properly transliterated Sanskrit terms used as page titles (e.g. Yoga, Raga, Dharma, Mantra etc.). Asteramellus (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hill .

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

June 20

[edit]

Bhat (food)

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

Early Qu'ran Manuscripts in Sana'a

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

Mine clearer

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

John God

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

Spook mountain

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 27#Spook mountain

Tonal system

[edit]

Several articles (see "What links here") link to Tonal system with the intention of pointing towards Tonal system (Nystrom). Clicking these and being redirected to Chromatic scale just made me confused. The mentioned Nystrom page already has a hatnote that points towards the musical system.

Even if a redirect to the music theory is preferred, wouldn't tonality be the more appropriate target? --FIQ (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, disambiguate per Thryduulf's arguments. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sa Aung Ko Ko

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

Today's featured article

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

Nien

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 27#Nien

United States intelligence

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

Het route

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

No mention on target page, not useful as a redirect. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Het route?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject the redirect per nom. Take back to AfD as a 2nd nomination. The AfD was before the Gaza War. Sources and interest may now be different, and there could be a merge outcome, if not a standalone article or deletion. Jay 💬 06:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of not seen Shen Gong Wu

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

Lexington Park, MD μSA

[edit]

I believe this redirect should be deleted as the μSA now encompasses 2 US counties I do not think it should remain as a redirect as the Lexington Park μSA is no longer coextensive with St. Mary's County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am the pootis man1 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Hall, Indiana

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

9,568 recently-created redirects from SCOTUS cases

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

Max, Mon Amore

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

Aerial apparatus

[edit]

Presumably refers to a flying machine, but that is not mentioned in the disambig being targetted under technology. I am unsure if it can refer to something else. Should be retarget this somewhere, update the disambig or just delete? Linked from only a single new article (formerly, it was just a rough translation which I corrected). A potential better redirect target, if we want to keep this curio, could be flying machine. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 05:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

[edit]

Future US elections

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

2030 South Korean presidential election

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 28#2030 South Korean presidential election

Man-Wolf (film)

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

Blade (2025 upcoming film)

[edit]

Factually incorrect and improper disambiguation that was erroneously created and accepted as a separate draft from Draft:Blade (upcoming film). There is no Blade film set to release this year, and the contents of this redirect's history are not worth keeping when compared to the more developed draft. Should the Blade film eventuate, that is already covered by the appropriately titled Blade (upcoming film) redirect. For reference, Blade (2025 film) no longer exists. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 22:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flyover ramp

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

Long/short grain

[edit]

Neither is mentioned in the target article, leaving the connections between the redirects and the target unclear. (These are section redirects, and neither section is present in the article; content may have been removed.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also all the inbound links are woodworking, and nothing is about cookery. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... Since these redirects may be affected by this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, retarget, or disambiguate, and if so where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Steel

[edit]

It was created because it was an apparently once a common nickname for U.S. Steel. However, shouldn't this actually be an article about large Steel corporations? I think this redirect should be Blanked to encourage users to create an article about Big Steel. There is already Big Oil, and Big Tech. Surely there should be some sort of article on Big Steel. Right? Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't blank articles without redirect; we do "delete per WP:REDLINK" though. Steel1943 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B1454 road

[edit]

non-existent road harrz talk 10:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one does appear to exist [35], but it's not currently mentioned in the target article. I'd say keep and add mention. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:FAB8:C00:A757:B61E (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts now that a mention has been added to the target page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KineMaster

[edit]

Redirected to a section that doesn't contain text "KineMaster" was removed by MrOllie. OOCJZ (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the page was BLARed a few months ago. The most recent article content is at Special:Permalink/1287035406.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete without opposition to recreation. the extremely few sources across all previous diffs were of debatable everything, not limited to reliability, usability, and existence. the content of the diffs that weren't vandalism was also pretty promotional, so i couldn't see it sticking in mainspace for long. however, i did actually find some sources that seem to be potentially useful, so it can likely be recreated if someone's in the mood consarn (grave) (obituary) 11:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2032 United States presidential election

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

Buppie

[edit]

Deletion. The target is not a synonym. It may be related, but "Buppie" is not mentioned anywhere, and neither is "yuppie", from which "buppie" is derived. GA-RT-22 (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uyrapuru

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

Arab terrorism

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

Frontier Park

[edit]

An article at this title created by Burkouri was recently redirected to St. Charles, Missouri by Onel5969. I have moved the page history of the former article to Frontier Park (St. Charles, Missouri) to avoid confusion. There are a lot of parks with this name, so it doesn't seem appropriate to have a redirect to the city where just one of them is, nor to have a set index article since most of the hits I found on Wikipedia were rather run-of-the-mill. Paul_012 (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seggs

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 27#Seggs

Mercy fuck

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

Self-rolling carriage

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

Jerry killers

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

Aamer Haleem

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

Football redirects

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

Nevayda

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

Trans-exclusionary

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

Gâteau

[edit]

Does this pass WP:FORRED? 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 00:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring original !vote due to misunderstanding of WP:PTM — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 07:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

[edit]

Reading town

[edit]

There are lots of towns named "Reading" so this isn’t correct. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The akron hammer

[edit]

Neither of these phrases are mentioned in the target article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:747C:71B6:4CA5:979 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza shop

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

Bully of Chiraq

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

Bathys

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

Culture of potato

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Culture of potato

Circleville Herald

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

Rice in Sri Lanka

[edit]

The phrase "Sri Lanka" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving readers searching this term unsatisfied with arriving at the target article. In addition, between the potential targets Rice production in Sri Lanka, Agriculture in Sri Lanka#Rice cultivation in Sri Lanka, and History of rice cultivation#Sri Lanka, it seems unclear which one of these would be the best target for the nominated redirect, causing potential WP:XY problems. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two suggested articles to retarget to, either one seems preferable to the status quo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vader

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

Brexit means breakfast

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

Wildly implauslbe way to search for this topic (apparently some British politician said "breakfast" instead of "brexit" once and there was a brief brouhaha over it). And even if someone searched for this like this, they'd find no information about this specific example, as they probably would have wanted. Delete with extreme prejudice. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you can see from the previous RfDs that Steel1943 has now added, this redirect previously did make sense, as the phrase was discussed at target. The mention was then removed, but the 2024 RfD saw consensus to keep this despite that. But with respect I can't say I agree. Redirects without mention can be appropriate if their meaning is self-explanatory (e.g. a variant spelling of a name), but this phrase is a reference to something, and the target does not explain what that reference means. That makes it a false promise to our readers. Delete or restore mention. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments in the previous discussion. I actually used the first of these redirects a couple of weeks back to find the target article when I could remember the example but not the name. A mention would be good, but that's not a prerequiste to the redirect being useful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FChan

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 28#FChan

Survival thriller

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

JWG

[edit]

I would recommend either deleting both redirects or converting converting the first one into a disambiguation page and redirecting the second one to the new DAB page. In the article, Gacy is never referred to by his initials. GilaMonster536 (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could include other titles with "Joint Working Group" such as Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches. Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Watonga Regional Airport per the IP and Thryduulf Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 1,447

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

Episode 1.1

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 26#Episode 1.1

"Episode numbers" redirects to EastEnders lists or articles (Part II)

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

삼성

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

Christian Godhead

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

The girls are fighting, aren't they

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

Soviet Onion

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

User:Rewben Aladeen

[edit]

Is this ok or allowed? It’s definitely weird. Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is a note on the user's talk page here questioning the legality of such a thing. Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to a soft redirect unless the user requests deletion. This maintains the link the user wants but removes all the confusion, etc caused by a hard link. I've not looked in this case, but pretty much every previous time base user page to articlespace redirects have appeared here it has been the result of someone using their user page as a sandbox to write an article and then moving that to mainspace, those have been converted to soft redirects too. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The user has not been active for eleven years. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 11:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki page

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

Salt and vinegar

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 28#Salt and vinegar

Incredulity

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

Video game key

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

Hong Kong cityscape

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 28#Hong Kong cityscape

SB 4-C

[edit]

Incorrectly tagged with PROD by Armeym (talk · contribs) with rationale: Redirect destination contains no information about what SB 4-C is or does, except for a single instance where its use is mentioned. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Returned ticket

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

Unreserved seat

[edit]

I don't know what it is with all these non-Chinese titles redirecting to articles about Chinese trains, but this title is very ambiguous. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 03:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westlake, Washington

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

June 17

[edit]

Multi-party democracies

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

Train system

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

Xinjiang region

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

High-speed railway technology

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

High-speed train lines

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

Socialism in China

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

Asia ex-Japan

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

Columbia (Sony)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 28#Columbia (Sony)

Plain rice

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 28#Plain rice

Unmentioned rice cultivars

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

Rice gadu

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 28#Rice gadu

Vancouver ramming

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 28#Vancouver ramming

South Street shooting

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

Chinese officials

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 28#Chinese officials

Stephane Kasriel

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

Development of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 26#Development of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Mitten Squad

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

Foldable

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

Armadillo species redirects

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

List of songs recorded by Post Malone

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

ISO 3166-2:UNK

[edit]

Not mentioned in target, which is about ISO 3166-1 codes. ISO 3166-2 is for subdivisions, and no subdivisions are discussed in the target. I can't find reference to this code anywhere at all, though Google my just be failing me with the weird formatting. Rusalkii (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no UN code in 3166-1, so UNK is not a valid 3166-2 code. Delete. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 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, Duckmather (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Savior (Christianity)

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

Christ Agony

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Christ Agony

Sayings of Jesus

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S7 Series (Phone

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6.

Safe for drinking water

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

Gooner

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

COASTER

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

💇‍♂️

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

Titles containing "(disambiguation page)"

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

卫

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

Goon H.

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete Goon hi; keep Goon High and Goon High School; no consensus on the others without prejudice against nominations in smaller batches. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

仏

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#仏

世

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

笑

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

ABDUL RAHIM AYOUBI

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#ABDUL RAHIM AYOUBI

The Former Guy

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

Potato potato

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Potato potato

June 16

[edit]

Ji Seo-yeon (singer)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 26#Ji Seo-yeon (singer)

Kilma

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Kilma

Big Hero

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

Blo.gs

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Blo.gs

Breathe (upcoming film)

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

Spider-Man (video game series)

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

Wikipedia:RESULT

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 26#Wikipedia:RESULT

Whipping Boy (American band)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 23#Whipping Boy (American band)

Desalination membrane

[edit]

Not mentioned in the body of the target article in this specific manner, thus making it unclear why readers would be redirected to the current target article when searching this term. I was originally going to WP:BOLDly retarget this redirect to Membrane distillation, but after reviewing that article, I'm not convinced that that article and the nominated redirect represent the same subject, especially considering that Desalination is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reverse osmosis relies heavily on membranes, and the section #Desalination does mention membranes quite a bit. While it doesn't outright say "desalination membrane" (except in the references) it does talk about membranes in the context of desalination a lot. --Plantman (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to weak keep, more in favour of retargetting. See below. --Plantman (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that, but the same claim could apparently be made regarding membranes for the whole concept of Desalination in general; Reverse osmosis, Membrane distillation, and Desalination all make reference to using "membranes". Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 I feel like either Reverse osmosis or Desalination is the best place for this to point to. I'm slightly leaning towards Desalination now, because it provides an overview of all the different uses of membranes in desalination process. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it as it is (pointing to RO) if there was a consensus to do so. --Plantman (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say thanks Pppery for reopening this discussion. I was originally going to post a message on the closer's talk page, but I saw they are indef blocked. (I was going to argue that in the discussion's current state, I would believe this discussion would be closed to "no consensus", "retarget", or relisted again, not closed to "keep".) Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target Desalination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

[edit]

Jane kelly

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

TEACHER

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

Israeli strikes on Iran

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 23#Israeli strikes on Iran

Sp0rk

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

Wikipedia:WACP

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Wikipedia:WACP

Solgier

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 22#Solgier

Bomberos

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Bomberos

Sbirro

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcareers

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

Template:R semi-protected

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Template:R semi-protected

Ingénieur

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Ingénieur

rollago(s)

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Canlaw

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

Yankeeball

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

Gridball

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

The Moon Landing

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

Dav public school kusmunda

[edit]

Bad redirect; unhelpful styling. CptViraj (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush (2000)

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

SHReK

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#SHReK

Chip Whitley

[edit]

Did a google search, and Conan O'Brien wasn't mentioned for Chip Whitley searches. Appears to be fake. It is in page history of him having to do something with the actor. Don't know if the actor is notable enough or whether this redirect is legit or is fake. The user that created this also created a fake one called Dora The Ex-Toader. I think either Delete as one option, second option would be Draftify and crate article on actor or another one would be Keep. I am honestly neutral and I should let people who know about this and what it means debate and argue. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The talk page comment by Ardric47 asked to look at the beginning of the target article, and the redirect creator agreed. This was 7-9 July 2005, and I don't find anything on Chip Whitley at the target around this time. Whereas in October 2005, Chip Whitley was merged to the target under the O’Brien's style section. The unsourced content, even if not fake, needn't be kept as it's minor, and may have been recentism for that time. Jay 💬 19:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More history: The entire "Comedy and mannerisms" section (which included Chip Whitley) was moved from Conan O'Brien to Late Night with Conan O'Brien in 2006. In 2007, a vandal 207.160.40.253, removed 4 sections from Late Night with Conan O'Brien in 4 edits within one minute. Three of those were reverted immediately by three different editors, but the fourth and largest vandalism of 20,098 bytes, that included Chip Whitley, was missed by all editors. The removed content was unsourced though, so we cannot just bring it back. Jay 💬 19:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dance drama

[edit]

There are many types of dance drama, not just wuju. This is misleading. Either delete, retarget, or possibly a DAB? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see quite a few results for "dance drama" on this site, so I'm inclined to suggest a DAB or something similar. Seems like a reasonable enough search term that I could believe leading to the current target (given it's a direct translation of the name) or a number of other options, so some sort of list would make the most sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly: The Card Game

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

Community government

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

War 2

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