The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
PerMOS:MISGENDER,the former name should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists -- therefore this redirect should not exist (and probably should be salted).Sophisticatedevening(talk)19:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This redirect has no place on Wikipedia, as discussed above and per the talk page consensus. Blatant guideline violation.QuicoleJR (talk)20:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, this policydoes not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.
What encyclopedic value does the deadname have? Why should it be included?
Again quotingWP:BDP regarding extensions of BLP to deceased people:
Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends,such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. (emphasis added)
Keep: Many people are gonna look ub "Robert Westman" on Wikipedia so this is necessary to help readers. Besides as already mentionedMOS:MISGENDER only covers the living--Trade (talk)00:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: I am not talking about any editor or making any accusations of transphobia towards other editors; theredirect itself is transphobic because deadnaming is transphobic.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk)00:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyrobyte: Manning's deadname is included because she is notable under her birth name. There was significant and sustained coverage of her under her birth name since Manning leaked the documents in 2010 and did not obtain a name change until several years later. This is spelled out inMOS:DEADNAME (in fact, it's included as one of the examples of when including a deadname is appropriate). In the case of this redirect, the person being deadnamed (Westman) was not notable under their birth name and so there's no reason to include it.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk)19:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's insane. It is much worse to have a deadname in the actual article of a BLP than to have a deadname redirect to a non-BLP. In my opinion, Manning's deadname should not be included but this redirect should be kept because it's not a BLP.Cyrobyte (talk)20:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the merits of your position; however, there appears to be a well-established consensus to include Manning's deadname in her article that would require significant discussion to change. You make a good point about the difference between including it in the article and including it as a redirect.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk)20:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined the speedy deletion. It is not a page intended to disparage the subject, as redirects are simply an aid to locate an article. I note thatBradley Manning redirects toChelsea Manning(and they are alive). However, a community consensus can still be obtained via this discussion to delete.331dot (talk)07:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable (by Wikipedia's standards) under that name. I encourage you to further note that Chelsea Manning is the first example given there inMOS:DEADNAME to illustrate this exception to the general idea of avoiding use of people's deadnames.
Because of that, I don't find Chelsea's deadname existing as a redirect (which also is an R from move, given the notability timeline) persuasive in keeping this redirect at all.Hamtechperson15:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that Manning's situation is different. I was more referencing it in relation to the speedy deletion I declined, regarding intent.331dot (talk)17:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do oppose misgendering somebody in body text, but this is likely a common search term and a useful redirect to have. Not to mention that redirects aren't really subject to the same guidelines as articles since their primary function is to take plausible search terms and redirect readers to the appropriate page. This is why we have redirects from inappropriate names, slang terms, etc that aren't appropriate for actual article content.ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk)10:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt,WP:DEADNAME already applies to redirects of deadnames for individuals who only became notable after their transition. As that already has community-wide support, this RFD is redundant as aWP:LOCALCON cannot override a larger community-wide discussion. —Locke Cole •t •c15:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it provides for a BLP like exception if desired- but it exists now, why not keep it instead of just waiting six months to a year for someone to create it later?331dot (talk)17:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.WP:DEADNAME only applies to living people because it has to do withWP:BLPPRIVACY. I don't understand why people are glossing over that fact. And even if the exception is applied for recently deceased people the redirect will be recreated in a year or so anyway.Cyrobyte (talk)18:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the damage it does to potential familial survivors and to the community in general. Flip that argument around, where's the harm in deleting and salting for six months to a year and then allowing a discussion to be held to determine if the time is right then?WP:BDP certainly seems applicable here in allowing protections to extend temporarily until a better picture of who this person was emerges.WP:NODEADLINE. —Locke Cole •t •c23:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it is in the article. As with all deadname redirects we should always defer to the consensus of the editors in the article about inclusion or exclusion unless there is some clearly-articulated reason to differ. If there is no consensus we should wait for there to be one before creating or deleting the redirect. In this case it's complicated because it is disputed what the subject's preferred name and pronouns are,but this name is currently bolded.Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)editedThryduulf (talk)10:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rough consensus on the article's talk page to not include the birth name in the article; the current state of the article (as of this comment's writing) only includes "Robin Westman". I say "rough consensus" because there has been significant pushback. In case it becomes clear that this person wanted to be referred to by their birth name (it isn't clear right now, like you said), the redirect can be recreated by an admin. I still recommend salting because the redirect will probably be repeatedly recreated if this RfD is closed as "delete". It's best to err on the side of caution and leave out the redirect unless there is consensus to include it.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk)19:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We would have this discussion to point to if it is recreated. It's unusual to preemptively salt something absent evidence of an actual problem first. And, frankly, repeated recreations would indicate that the redirect is useful.331dot (talk)00:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dotrepeated recreations would indicate that the redirect is useful Or, it'stransphobic harassment because the internet is filled withinternet trolls with nothing better to do than to wittle away at efforts websites such as Wikipedia take to reduce exposure to deadnames for recently deceased trans individuals.WP:AGF is not aWP:SUICIDEPACT. A minimal 6-month reprieve so the sources can settle down is perfectly in line withWP:NODEADLINE. And this is something we should try to get right. —Locke Cole •t •c02:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't increase exposure to have a redirect which would require already knowing the person's deadname. AGF is not a suicide pact but it also doesn't mean there is a troll around every corner that we should plan for. Do you have evidence that there are specific efforts to troll this deceased individual?331dot (talk)08:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of the article had to be semi-protected due to the number of unhelpful comments, many of which were transphobic; I would consider that evidence of trolling. Although I do see your point that having the redirect would require already knowing the deadname.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk)20:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just echoing what SPM said above, this is precisely what I was observing, and even with the ECP protection on the article itself we still have gotten a couple people inserting the deadname. —Locke Cole •t •c07:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf Unless I've missed something, the name isnot currently in the article, and rough consensus is against including it at this time.WP:CCC, sure, but let's extendWP:BDP protections until more is known about the subject of this article and the heavy opinions being expressed in the media have had a chance to settle down. —Locke Cole •t •c23:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
should probably have mentioned that i ended up not drafting the dab because it'd only have two entries, which isn't enough imo. would've mentioned it a couple hours after this nom buti forgot :(consarn(grave)(obituary)21:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect would be useful if there is an article having information about the company named as such. But what the current target has is a one-word mention, and as an example.Delete. Jay 💬06:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
There is no targeting the tropical depression on its section articles forHuaning. Although JMA officially upgraded the system into tropical storm namedLingling (18W), this is a former name and needs to be deleted permanently.Icarus 🔭 •📖 •✎02:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion wasRefine to section Partially punched chad. Pointing to the section Partially punched chad is seen as a balance, as the other section with useful information: #2000 United States presidential election controversy, comes into the reader's view after #Partially punched chad. Jay 💬16:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page has had several changes to what it should target just by people changing the history, I figured a discussion would be the best way to get consensus. I personally think thatChad (paper) § 2000 United States presidential election controversy makes the most sense as a target because it is on a page that defines what it is and explains it context while linking to an article on the larger issue of the recount.Casablanca 🪨(T)18:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the top of the page, not to a section? That seems to be the only point of conention here at the moment, so it might be better to clarify.Tevildo (talk)17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toChad (paper) § 2000 United States presidential election controversy. This is the reason the term entered the popular lexicon and became notable, and is to this day. Other sources that define the term typically reference the 2000 election—for example, these pages from the first page of Google search results forhanging chad:[1][2][3][4] Re: Lunamann's suggestion: the 2000 election section is also short and also defines the term in the relevant context (a "hanging chad", where one or more corners were still attached). --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toChad (paper)#Partially punched chad, as that is the actual section talking about "hanging chads". While their notability comes from the election controversy, that section is still in view of the reader, and it makes more sense for a redirect to point to the topic itself rather than to the reason for its notability.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)13:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. This has article or list potential and a red link may inspire its creation. The article onjaw is far too broad to be the appropriate target. A list of ICD-9 codes may contain some of the info on the topic but is not an adequate substitute for an article or list dedicated to the topic. Note that the two uses ofjaw diseases currently in article space occur atList of MeSH codes (C07)#MeSH C07.320 – jaw diseases andList of MeSH codes (C05)#MeSH C05.500 – jaw diseases. These are no better than the ICD-9 list and if we think such a list could be appropriate then at best "jaw diseases" is ambiguous because multiple such lists exist. There are other classification schemes such as SNOMED and ICD-11 that one could argue for. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment I'm on the fence here. On the one had, it doesn't seem like the most likely of search terms but on the other hand if someonedoes use this then the target is relevant and (in terms of extant encyclopaedia articles at least) unambiguous, so it is harmless.Thryduulf (talk)11:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this redirect is a sentence with a subject of "Inna", searching for pages by typing in sentences is not plausible and I don't think this is worth keeping.Utopes(talk /cont)03:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
Anders Lange’s Party for a Strong Reduction in Taxes, Duties and Public Intervention
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete; nobody measures with inches at this distance, so it's implausible. It's also slightly wrong, the distance being equivalent to 99.9998 metres; it's 0.2 millimetres off. Yes that's really pedantic, but anyone measuring such a distance in inches is also going to be really pedantic.Nyttend (talk)07:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
Delete.1234qwer1234qwer403:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 5#Fortinstine
Disambiguation draft requested(done)Thepharoah17 (talk)01:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]