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 wasno consensus. Since most commenters seem to prefer to harmonize the redirects, I have retargetted both toObesity since of the existing targets it got two supports to wiktionary's one. anyone is welcome to add a hatnote to the wine tasting meaning or to wiktionary.Rusalkii (talk)20:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on which target these should go to? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Rusalkii (talk)23:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retargetflabbiness to Wiktionary per nom. The term can indicate fleshiness rather than obesity—a non-obese person can be flabby—and it can alternately mean weak or ineffective.Carguychris (talk)20:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RetargetFlabbyFlabby to an article, most likely whereFlabbinessFlabbiness targets.orweak delete both. I forgot the policy/essay, but it states that we should not be retargeting redirects to Wiktionary unless they have been repeatedly deleted and recreated, which these have not; one was created in 2006 and the other in 2007.Steel1943 (talk)22:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thinkSteel1943 is referring to the documentation at{{Wiktionary redirect}}. It's strict, laying out four criteria that need to be met. In my experience, these are frequently ignored, or one criterion is held to be good enough. I wish we wouldn't do that, or at least update the documentation to reflect actual practice.
The rub seems to be in the "Readers search for it on Wikipedia." How much? Most editors would probably agree that a single view isn't enough. "Flabbiness" doesn't meet this bar, with less than a view per day in the linked period; "flabby", with 40 views, still has a weak case IMO.
We could disambiguateFlabby, but it would be a weak one, pointing only to list entries.Flabbiness could go to the wine list entry, as the singer would not be referred to as such. I would prefer to delete both. --BDD (talk)20:29, 16 May 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).
1927-28 Waratahs tour of the Britain Isles, France and Canada
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. The error "Britain Isles" is implausible. This was created by a pagemove, but not a longstanding one — in 2008 someone moved the target to this title and then moved it one minute later, due to "Britain Isles".Nyttend (talk)22:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it wasn't for Servite et contribuere's keep recommendation, this would have been eligible for G6 speedy deletion due to being obviously created in error.Thryduulf (talk)17:11, 19 May 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).
1957-58 Australia rugby union tour of the Britain Isles, Ireland and France
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. An old (2009) but completely unneeded redirect. "Goa, Daman and Diu" was an Indian union territory named for its three component regions; obviously there's nowhere else in the world with this name, so nobody would need to disambiguate it. And there's no naming convention whereby Indian states/territories use (India) in existing titles — you wouldn't encounterUttar Pradesh (India) orLakshadweep (India), andSikkim (India) is a redirect — so nobody would see other state/territory articles using (India) and anticipate that this one would have it as a matter of course.Nyttend (talk)21:53, 18 May 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.
Keep, as a plausible alternative name. SeeJSTOR andPubChem; given how many trade names that drugs have, it would introduce concision issues to mandate mentioning every trade name in every pharmaceutical article.Sdrqaz (talk)04:36, 21 May 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.
Speedy keep. RFD is not the place to request articles be created in place of redirects. That being said,meh, the current target does talk about the checkmark as a symbol indicating "yes", as well as variants outside the Anglosphere. Maybe it would be reasonable to split that part out, but I see nothing obvious or standard about a green circle instead.35.139.154.158 (talk)02:21, 19 May 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.
We should have consensus on the target of this redirect (or if it should be converted into a dab). From a contested technical request to move the article on the 1991 video game to the base page name (permalink):
@MimirIsSmart, weirdly enough, I think the redirect should go toWP:RFD—not for deletion, but for consensus on its target. Seems to have been the victim of a cut-and-paste move that was subsequently fixed—so an argument exists thatMega Man 2 should be the target as ade facto{{R from move}}; this is reflected by several retargets in the page history. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is consensus thatWP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't apply and to create a disambiguation page instead.Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs)19:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguator is far from pointless. A casual reader seeing "Mega Man II" will think it's talking about the NES game that is 100x times as famous. Classic case where SMALLDETAILS doesn't work well.SnowFire (talk)19:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMega Man 2 says that it was styled "Mega Man II" but the box art pictured very clearly shows it using the Arabic numeral. Google hits for"Mega Man II" -Wikipedia show the 1991 Game Boy game as the most common use (of those where I can easily determine which is being referred to in the snippet) but not to the exclusion of results about the 1988 NES game. Searching fot"Mega Man 2" -Wikipedia is essentially the same in reverse: the NES game is the most common use (of those where I can easily tell), with a greater but not complete dominance than the Game Bay game has for the Roman Numeral. In both cases there are several results I can't tell which is being referred to from just the snippet (I've not looked further at any). The only two valid options seem to be either primary disambiguation with both 2 and II redirecting to the same dab page, or having the articles atMega Man 2 for the NES andMega Man II for the Game Boy.Thryduulf (talk)12:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, there being 4 Mega Man TWO games, all of them should be disambiguated, and the base terms point to a disambiguation page; the 3 games with articles, and the mobile game listed atList of Mega Man video games; and the other numbered Mega Man should also be so done. --65.92.246.77 (talk)16:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Disambiguate or approve the move suggestion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬15:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate The NES one is undoubtedly the most famous, and we shouldn't assume readers want to see the Game Boy one when they type this.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)08:30, 20 May 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.
Requesting deletion. Title subject is a teen charged with (but not yet tried for, much less convicted of) murder. The name is kept out of the body of the target page following discussion, due toWP:BLPCRIME reasons (the discussion was split, reaching aWP:NOCONSENSUS closure that kept the name out of the article.) This redirect is being used to put a name we're excluding right at the top of the article; the person redirected there will not find the text explaining what this name has to do with the subject.Nat Gertler (talk)14:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (copying and pastingmy comment fromWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karmelo Anthony (2nd nomination), which is happening concurrently with this RfD...): The previous redirect discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18 § Karmelo Anthony) was closed withIf the discussion there results in a consensus to exclude the subject's name, this redirect should then be deleted. The RfC found "no consensus to include the name of the suspect and no consensus to exclude it". Also seeWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Please delete redirect, where the closing admin saidthe inclusion or non-inclusion of the redirect or, indeed the determination of what constituted the stable version of the article, is outside the scope of the RfC. All that background information aside, the redirect should be kept, because as I said at the previous RfD, readers who type "Karmelo Anthony" in the search bar already know his name; they are just looking for information about his case and the incident he was involved in (in which he is a central figure), and the redirect assists readers with that. Besides, his name appears at least 20 times in the References section, so deleting this redirect would not be helpful or beneficial to our readers in any way.Some1 (talk)15:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote and the redirect are both separate issues. The hatnote can be removed from the article while still keeping the redirect.Some1 (talk)15:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not separate issues, they are linked; as long as we keep this redirect, folks will hold that we need the hatnote because people may be looking for Carmelo. --Nat Gertler (talk)16:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the closer of the previous RfD, I can confirm that speedy deletion would not have been authorized by my closure. I specifically authorized speedy deletion in the event of a consensus to exclude and there was no such consensus. --Tavix(talk)01:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The procedural history here is a ridiculous tangle (I'm inclined to agree that no speedy deletion is warranted), but on the merits its not mentioned at the target and hence the redirect is inappropriate.* Pppery *it has begun...17:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No real good answer. The name is a plausible search term. But redirecting it to an article that does not have it mentioned (per the lack of consensus to include, thus default to exclusion per BLP) will lead to only one conclusion for readers - that the name that was redirected was the name of the accused. And what Some1 doesn't consider above is if someone gets a link from a friend to this redirect, not having any idea who it is. They will come to the only one possible conclusion as well. So it really should ideally not be redirecting to this page. I would beokay (but nothappy) about IAR ignoring the "mentioned at target" for this case since it is a plausible search term.. but only if there's a consensus to ignore the concerns about "naming by proxy" when there is no consensus to include the accused's name.On the other hand, redirecting it toCarmelo Anthony isn't super great either because then someone looking for the current target article would be sent to a basketball player that they don't have any interest in. So Iguess that my !vote here would be to just delete it? If people want to get to the basketball player, they can spell the name right - not to mention that the Wikipedia search bar is notthat bad that if they type in the name spelled with a K and it's a redlink, it'll almost certainly show them the basketball player they're looking for. That leaves the issue of people looking for this article and not finding it - to which there is no good answer that I see. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!18:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Friend A sends Friends B this link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmelo_Anthony (which, if the redirect is kept, unlikely since it redirects toKilling of Austin Metcalf and they would have to manually click the link to get to the non-redirect page), (and if the redirect is kept) it means that Friend A already knows who Karmelo Anthony is and it is likely they'll tell Friend B who that person is before sending them the link (e.g. "Did you hear about Karmelo Anthony? Here's a link to the Wikipedia article where you can read more about what's happening to him", etc.). I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.Some1 (talk)19:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either - hence why I bolded "no real good answer" and was wishy over !voting to delete it. I've thought about how to respond to your point, which is correct/true, but the difference is we can't control what happens outside of Wikipedia, we can just control whether wefurther it or not. Our BLP policies areintentionally significantly more strict than even most news organizations have. I'd be surprised if most people were sending links through messaging apps/texts/etc and were including a whole backstory other than a short backstory, if even that. But then again, below it was pointed out that it's getting 4000 hits a month... And that's why I'mvery weakly leaning towards deleting it. Sorry if my flipflopping/wishy-washy views aren't that helpful to others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!22:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I also supportremoving the hatnote. I don't think this is necessarily the right forum for that (should probably be on the talkpage) but if the redirect is deleted the hatnote should be deleted too. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!03:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just a plausible search term, but has in fact received 4000 hits over the past month. There is no consensus that a BLP violation is involved. The hatnote is a different issue, and need not affect this discussion.StAnselm (talk)21:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Delete name of person who was arrested when they were a minor, and has not been tried nor convicted.Gerson Fuentes had his name suppressed until after he was convicted. --Jax 0677 (talk)21:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a frequently used search term and as a result,not having it will just result in someone searching elsewhere and getting less balanced content. I don't see anything new from the previous discussion about theWP:BLP aspect in the last few days and procedurally, keeping the redirect while not having the name in the article is, I believe, consistent with those closes.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)00:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We are required to retain such mentions in markup where we otherwise reject textual inclusion (see Village Pump RfC link below).JFHJr (㊟)03:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be another notch in making BLPCRIME pointless if consenus can be to remove the name, but because it appears in cite titles a redirectand hatnote containing the name can be forced on the article. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ironically, despite the exclusion the subject is still mentioned 21 times (by my count) at the target. --Tavix(talk)15:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that distinction is important. His name is still very easy to find for those looking for it there. --Tavix(talk)22:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone using the redirect can search the article, find any one of those sources that use the name, and confirm it. Therefore it's still a good redirect so long as those sources remain in use. --Tavix(talk)21:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is one significant (maybe not over 50%, but still significant) reason that my comment above was prefaced with "no real good answer" - because I can see the redirect remaining for that reason. But I still am not specifically arguing to keep it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!22:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most above, particularly Some1 and CoffeeCrumbs. I still think that excluding the name from the article was the wrong decision for precisely these sorts of reasons. Anthony's name and association with this case is not a private matter at this point (in large part due to the actions of him and his family) so people will be looking for information about him and the case. It is far better, including from a BLP-perspective, that they are taken to a neutral encyclopaedia article than alternatives elsewhere (or newly created biography at this title) and presenting them with a page saying we haven't got any content is incorrect as search results (which may take several clicks/taps to reach) will confirm.Thryduulf (talk)10:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with Kyle Rittenhouse, the subject has been propelled to the status of public figure by the nature of his alleged crime and its aftermath – hence why the redirect regularly receives hundreds of daily views. Wikipedia is not censored and the utility of the site is diminished if we opt to omit basic, undisputed facts that are widely and repeatedly reported by reputable, subtantial media outlets.WP:BLPCRIME should not have different interpretations depending on the race of the alleged perpetrator.ITBF📢14:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His name is already in about 20 of the citations and people know his name when they search for that name.Dresq— Precedingundated comment added13:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this redirect passes a lot of policy tests and should be kept. It is useful for helping people come to the main articleWP:R#KEEP. The name is used by multiple reliable sourcesWP:V. This is the preferred method for dealing with someone who is notable for only one eventWP:BLP1E. It explicitly deals with the issue of introducing material into the articleWP:BLPCRIME. Other high profile cases have or had personal name redirects like this, by removing this redirect it creates inconsistency without any policy reason. If we remove this redirect we create a POV issue where as reliable sources report on this it would appear that we are trying to deliberately remove it.Dr vulpes(Talk)00:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason under WP:POFR to include Karmelo Anthony as a redirect. We should also be extra cautious, since he is a minor and not a public figure.MrTaxes (talk)04:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove hatnote unless/until the name is re-added to the target article. It is fundamentally silly to jump through verbal hoops in the article to avoid naming the accused, only to have the name right up at the top in a hatnote. I think (and said so in the RfC) that not naming the suspect is incorrect here but this is clearly even less correct. I am usually strongly opposed to redirects without a mention but I could see this being an exception, so I am dithering about what should in fact be done about the redirect. If we insist that the hatnote must be kept if the redirect is then I suppose delete. Redirecting to the basketball player is obviously absurd and EASTEREGGish and I strongly oppose that.Rusalkii (talk)06:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a plausible search term, that already shows up 20 times on the page, albeit in the titles of the sources quoted on the page. Avoids confusion with the basketball player.Count3D (talk)05:49, 28 May 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 result of the discussion wasDisambiguate Xem and retarget the others to Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns. Jay 💬19:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its hard to say, but if I was a reader who didn't know what they meant, I think the current target of neopronouns better helps the reader understand what they are than that busy chart...Sergecross73msg me13:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably onlyXem is suitable for disambiguation. What should happen with the others? (Also, what is an album code? I don't think that's suitable for inclusion on a potential disambiguation page, but we can sort that out later.) --BDD (talk)15:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per BDD's question. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬14:39, 18 May 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.
Keep Judging by the target article, there is an entity called Vatican Press under the aegis of the Dicastery, so this is a fine{{R from subtopic}}. Could it be confused with similarly named entities? Sure, but they seem to be mentioned in the same article anyway. And there needs to be some consideration for proper names, e.g., there are other national broadcasting companies, butNational Broadcasting CompanyNational Broadcasting Company still redirects toNBC. If the Vatican Press gets its own article at some point, we can deal with any confusion via hatnotes or other usual devices. --BDD (talk)20:12, 19 May 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.
Keep the dubstep one, it's a common association to the genre, per the content atDubstep#Wobble bass. I don't really know enough about "Helmholtz resonance" to comment, though it strikes me as less likely to be typing all of the "wubs" out as one long "word".Sergecross73msg me15:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬13:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Helmholtz resonance for both. It includes the string of three "wub"s (although spaced), whilst the dubstep article doesn't.Nyttend (talk)22:00, 18 May 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 searching "Sudan sever" brings up this redirect, a lot of hits for Bahrain and Sudan severing diplomatic relations with Iran (that event was in 2016 so definitely not relevant here), a single typo for "severe" and a single result for theNational Association of Seadogs urging the (presumably) Nigerian federal government to sever ties with the Sudanese government in 2009.Thryduulf (talk)17:32, 19 May 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.
Ausf. A is not listed in quotes anywhere inPanzer_I_variants, nor are Ausf. B, etc. No need for redirect title to be enclosed in quotation marks. I hope there aren't other "Ausf. n" redirects for n = {B, C, F}! --FeralOink (talk)15:43, 18 May 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.
Dry humping shouldNOT be a redirect to frottage. It either deserves its own article or better yet, be a redirect toheavy petting. Ooops, sorry, I see that heavy petting is already a redirect to making out. A subsection ofMaking out could include dry humping, with the (correct) description given byUser:Someone-123-321 above, i.e. that it is NOT an act of either sexual penetration nor penetration of any other sort, because the parties involved keep their clothing on.--FeralOink (talk)15:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the header above, prior to saving. It states, "If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged."
Although dry humping is already listed here as a redirect, I hope it is not too late for me to turn it into an article. I will try working on that now.--FeralOink (talk)15:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is the right target as per the description at the target section. No objection to creating a standalone article at this title or atclothed sex if feasible. Jay 💬11:18, 25 May 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.
Not mentioned at target, wasn't mentioned when the redirect was created. The word appears in a few articles so retargeting or disambiguating might be a possibility.SevenSpheres (talk)23:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as best as I can tell, this is just (a rendering of) an Arabic word that can either be a name or is part of a couple other phrases, but there's nothing about this specifically. One of those search results seemed to be a typo for "Ahdab", which I fixed.35.139.154.158 (talk)00:33, 10 May 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.
Not mentioned at target. On-wiki search does return a bunch of mentions in articles related to Final Fantasy, though whether this should be retargeted (and if yes, to which of the articles) should probably be left to someone familiar with the franchise.1234qwer1234qwer400:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or retarget, and if so where? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Rusalkii (talk)18:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Or disambiguate? Also, thoughts on the pre-redirect history in case of support for deletion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬18:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. the current target doesn't mention ramuh (or name any summons for that matter, which i guess makes sense), the other articles only mention the name in passing, and most results i got were top however many summon lists and guides, so he's probably not on the notable side of summonsconsarn(grave)(obituary)19:03, 8 May 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.
Delete unless someone can suggest names to put on a disambiguation page. (No objection if someone converts it during this discussion.) One would expect a page with this title to be a disambiguation page or an article about a geographic location, not a redirect to a sport club.Nyttend (talk)22:03, 18 May 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.
Honestly, i'm confused atEurovision (disambiguation) article which implies a network that organise the contest (Eurovision (network), founded in 1954) is in the first place on the list, instead of contest itself that first held in 1956, despite "Eurovision" redirects to ESC instead of the network. My question is, should we keep "Eurovision" as a redirect for "Eurovision Song Contest" on condition that the DAB page needs to be restructured, or retarget "Eurovision" to a network that holds the contest?103.111.102.118 (talk)02:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep PerWP:PrimaryTopic. Also going to change the DAB page and put the notify on the redirect. Going to have to do some programming to notify it on redirect entry. Definitely going to notify a bunch of Projects about this discussion.Servite et contribuere (talk)07:48, 18 May 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.
Keep. From PTOPIC, this would seem to be an instance of
In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic.
such a conflict. And my inclination is to avoid the urge to decide primariness merely because something is in the news right now, and think about if anyone's going to remember this in 10 or 20 years, which I'm doubtful of. That being said, the dab page is probably just safest.35.139.154.158 (talk)15:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of meanings, and a potentially short-lived usage isn't enough to overcome established usage for other meanings. (Consider how many Google Books results will refer to the proposed retarget.) If it were just the two alternate options mentioned by the nominator, I'd advise the medical topic, because it too has long-term usage, whilst the political topic may well be soon forgotten except as historical trivia.Nyttend (talk)22:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very US-centric view - that because in the US MAHA is being used as a political slogan it must be the primary topic. The difference withMaga (for whichMAGA redirects to theMake America Great Again page) is that there are very few other topics, and it is used worldwide and has impact on other countries as well. Even if the "MAHA movement" ends up making changes that are significant, it is virtually certainly going to be contained within the US and within this administration. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!22:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per berchanhimez. It may be that the political slogan becomes the primary topic in the future, but that'sWP:CRYSTAL. If it does we can revisit the target of this redirect at that point, but what matters now is that it currently is not the primary topic.Thryduulf (talk)17:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're not just an American website and this is just a slogan, not currently a government program that would earn primacy over time. Other uses continue to outweigh that one overall.Nathannah •📮01:04, 23 May 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.
This redirect has pointed toPope Benedict XVI andpapal conclave at various points. I pointed it toThe New Pope earlier this year and think that that is the more intuitive target; pointing it to the new pope after every conclave doesn't seem sustainable (when does a new pope lose his newness?). The old RfD was before the TV show was released.Sdrqaz (talk)00:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also addednew president, which is far too broad to target just the American one. There are also apolitical presidents, such as corporate presidents, so retargeting toList of current heads of state and government isn't viable either; I think that it should be deleted.Before someone asks, this is not an invitation to createNew American president, which I don't think would be useful to readers (again, when does a president lose their newness?).Sdrqaz (talk)01:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the issue for those who want to retarget topresidential election is that readers searching for "new president" want to know the person, not the process. The article's incredibly generic "A presidential election is the election of any head of state whose official title is President" and sections that don't mention the incumbents is not helpful at all, and I would argue that there is no helpful existing page for a person searching "new president" due to the breadth of the term. As for "new pope", readers thinking of the real-life pope want to reach the person, not the process too. However, since we run into issues with defining newness, it would be even better to retarget toThe New Pope, which would be more intuitive.Sdrqaz (talk)04:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change target to The New Pope for New pope. Probably best match and a possible confused title.Delete New president it is silly, might not be NPOV, there are Presidents all over the world, and it is not common at all.Servite et contribuere (talk)07:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNew president as hopelessly vague; president of what? where?.Retargetnew pope back topapal conclave (and keep it there forever regardless of any future conclaves) as I'm not convinced both omitting the "the" and lowercasing make an especially plausible search term for the series, and that target avoids any concerns about arbitrariness of the word "new"* Pppery *it has begun...17:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget topapal conclave andpresidential election. Most people searching for "new pope" are likely to be interested in the office covered byPope and how one comes to become a new occupant, not a very short-lived TV series, and thepapal conclave article discusses the subject. Similar thing for "new president" and the corresponding process, which is covered bypresidential election. Both have alternate meanings, e.g. Coptic Pope of Alexandria and the corporate presidents referenced above, but the Catholic pope and the political presidents have dominant usage in English.Nyttend (talk)22:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNew president as hopelessly vague. EvenPresidential election is too narrow a topic, as there are all kinds of presidents who are not chosen in presidential elections (for instance, presidents of companies, government systems where the president is appointed rather than elected, and government systems where an individual is president by virtue of being elected to some other office).RetargetNew pope to one of the targets suggested above. I thinkThe New Pope is the best match for this search term, but either way, whichever target is chosen should get a hatnote to the other target. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs)23:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mx. Granger, as far as politicians are concerned, what presidents are not elected? Off the top of my head, I can think of only one non-elected office that was functionally a president — German Emperor, which was held by the King of Prussia ex officio — and even presidencies that are functionally hereditary, like thePresident of the United Arab Emirates or thePresident of North Korea (when it was held by a living person), are typically elected, at least as a formality.Nyttend (talk)03:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Appointed" sounds like the incumbent is chosen by an individual or tiny group; it's an election by the legislature. As far as ex officio, I was thinking of head-of-state presidents and didn't think of presidents of legislatures.Nyttend (talk)00:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New president per the nom's later arguments.Retarget New pope to Papal conclave per Pppery and Nyttend. The correctly casedNew Pope already redirects to the TV series for those searching for the show. Jay 💬16:09, 31 May 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).
Disambiguation draft requested(done)Rusalkii (talk)18:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 26#Judge Bridlegoose