This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 6, 2025.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 17#Main Article
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 21#Electrism
- 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 wasDelete* Pppery *it has begun...18:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why this would be a synonym ofIvan Gašparovič, googling doesn't help. Sounds like just a newbie mistake (made by a user with 7 edits) that should have been deleted in 2009. --Joy (talk)16:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Its related to his answer in the 2009 presidential debate, where he apparently confused the functionality of a search engine and email clients. As a consequence, his political opponents sometimes used the term to mock him as an elder, digitally illiterate person (presumably not fit for the job). Does not belong on wikipedia.Newklear007 (talk)11:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all. It seemed to be relevant enough for a mention in 2009, but now we know it is not. The article content is anyway unusable too, per Presidentman. The AfD had decided that it cannot be a standalone article. Jay 💬15:28, 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).
Squidward on a Chair
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 21#Syriacs
Karyolysus lacerate
[edit]
- 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 wasdelete.✗plicit14:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The correct name of the species isKaryolysus lacertae, and I think "lacerate" may be an "implausible typo".Alfa-ketosav (talk)09:28, 6 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 wasDelete* Pppery *it has begun...18:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Blae" means blue in Scots, but blue isn't an especially Scottish topic (as compared to many other countries that have blue in their flags), and there are no other good targets, so I suggestdeletion perWP:FORRED.Duckmather (talk)00:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect toBlue, as it links only toEarly Scots (ignoringRfD,XfD, and stuff like that).SeaDragon1 (talk)21:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with your proposal is that theBlue article doesn't tell me what "blae" means, which isexactly the sort of situation thatWP:FORRED is designed to avoid. (If someone can add a sourced mention of "blae" or even find a decent source that can be used for such a mention, however, then I'll retract my comment.)Duckmather (talk)22:56, 1 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 wasretarget toWikipedia:Tags.voorts (talk/contributions)04:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest converting the numerous hatnotes at the target to a disambiguation page. Looking through uses of this redirect, even experienced editors are often using it for something other than file copyright tags - most frequently maintenance tagging, sometimes also tag-teaming. For example,WP:V currently links this in a context in which maintenance tagging is intended.Nikkimaria (talk)00:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The ongoing RfD atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 27#Wikipedia:TAGS may be related.Steel1943 (talk)07:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- At present, it's not a broader target - it's another specific use of the term "tag". If that becomes a dab page as proposed in the other discussion then it could be a good target.Nikkimaria (talk)04:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, my use of 'broader' is in contrast to "file copyright tags" being a very specific and niche topic. Broader as in "has broader mass appeal". --Tavix(talk)17:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget toWikipedia:Tags. (everyone, and most of all the closing admin please see the related discussion) -Nabla (talk)15:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Tags is not a disambiguation page (yet). The hatnotes there do not include WP:TAGTEAM which is a hatnote at the current target. Note to closer, in case we are retargeting to Wikipedia:Tags before the Wikipedia:TAGS RfD closes or the move request is made: move the TAGTEAM hatnote from current target to new target. Jay 💬13:25, 13 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).
