This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 25, 2025.
Utah valley shooting
[edit]
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 3#Utah valley shooting
Spatial singularity
[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 wasno consensus between consarn and consarn, without prejudice to retargeting wherever or renominating immediately if anyone forms a stronger opinion.Rusalkii (talk)06:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
while it's probably easy enough to figure out that a reader might want to seegravitational singularity (hence starting off with a suggestion to retarget to it), it doesn't seem to be a distinction without a difference, as singularities don't seem to be necessarily limited black holes, and spatial singularities (whatever those are, neither target defines them directly) don't seem be the exact same thing as gravitational singularities, so... what should be done with this? should anything be done with it?have i just come down with a terminal case of dumb?consarn(grave)(obituary)14:23, 18 September 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).
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 5#Bunny wabbit
Charlie Kirk related rds
[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 wasKeep/retarget.(non-admin closure)Cremastra (talk ·contribs)02:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria R8, unlikely and implausible search terms. From what I can tell from experience, we simply don't do such rds.Gotitbro (talk)19:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "harder for people to find information": Not really, at the the end of the day we aren't Google.Gotitbro (talk)04:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree,keep "Charlie Kirk's wife". I arrived here after searching on literally that term expecting to get details of his wife.--A bit iffy (talk)06:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy retargetCharlie Kirk shooter →Assassination of Charlie Kirk. BLP violation. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy retargetCharlie Kirk shooter →Assassination of Charlie Kirk perWP:BLPCRIME, see alsoKirk shooter.CNC (talk)00:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, nonsensical2804:388:411E:9B72:1:0:7F06:BC29 (talk)07:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- RetargetCharlie Kirk shooter per above, this is a very plausible search term but unless and until somebody is convicted of or confesses to being the shooter it should not redirect to a specific individual.KeepCharlie Kirk's wife as plausible and harmless.Thryduulf (talk)09:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding of theAssassination of Charlie Kirk page is that there is now consensus for saying he confessed.Czarking0 (talk)03:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- TheCharlie Kirk shooter "speedy retarget" proposal is now moot, because the target became a redirect, turning this into a double redirect, causing it to targetAssassination of Charlie Kirk, removing the underlying BLP concern.Keep both redirects as both are sufficiently plausible.—Alalch E.18:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the wife and retarget the shooter
- Czarking0 (talk)03:54, 2 October 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).
Land-Tenure in the Christian Era
[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.✗plicit00:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Christian" is nowhere in the target article, meaning that the potential subtopic which this redirect represents is not adequately (or even) defined in the target article.Steel1943 (talk)21:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: One of a number of poorly designed redirects with unlikely search titles recently created by this editor. The target is apt, but the redirect itself is almost inhibitive to a reader getting to the article directly. The redirect does not serve a meaningful role as a placeholder for a potential article. ~Pbritti (talk)00:53, 28 September 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).
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#WasabiXML
- 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 all to slavery.(non-admin closure)Thepharoah17 (talk)22:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These should point at the same target.ArthananWarcraft (talk)17:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Slave master,slavemaster, andslave-holder all redirect toSlavery; whileslaveholder redirectsList of slave owners. Should these be added to the listing? I don't think there's enough distinction between all these terms that they would point to different targets. @ArthananWarcraft --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]- I've now addedSlave-holder,Slaveholder and some others to the list. There is also a dabpage titledEnslavers
which might be a better target forEnslaver.ArthananWarcraft (talk)19:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that all redirects should be targeted at slavery. The outlier makes no sense to be redirected to a different page.Felicia(talk)19:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Target all →List of slave owners. These are all terms for a particular role in slavery and should point somewhere specific rather than the broad coverage atSlavery. There's also theEnslavers dab page which I would cover to a redirect; a hatnote pointing toStarCraft (video game)#Computer expansions could be added toList of slave owners. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk20:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection toSlavery. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- retargert all toslavery. Enslaver is not the same as slave-owner, and neither is slave-holder. Enslaver can be slave-catchers. And slave supervisors can be assigned rights as slave-holders, who do not actually own the slaves. Renting out and borrowing slaves did exist. Slave catchers frequently aren't the slave owners, but they did enslave the people they caught, when getting fresh new slaves. --65.93.183.181 (talk)21:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Many dictionaries and usage notes define these terms as synonymous and the usage inSlavery reflects this or at least does not consistently make these distinctions. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The list article is not appropriate target because it is not a definitive list. It is not like a political office that would be a definitive list. Thus the only article available is the base article. Unless someone wants to add a large intro section about what a slave owner is, and how it can be variously defined, the list is not a proper target. The list is also vastly biased for the European colonial era. There are so many slaves in antiquity, and in non-European cultures, that the list isn't even funny in its focus. Even Biblical slave owners likeAbraham are missing. --65.93.183.109 (talk)22:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair points.Slavery is a reasonable target for all. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget all to slavery since people are more likely to be looking for information about the practice of slave owning, IMO, than a list of people who owned slaves.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}20:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget all to slavery. TheList of slave owners is a valid directory of documented, notable slave owners, but probably isn't what someone searching for a more generic topic is looking for.pburka (talk)02:41, 3 October 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).
99 Nights in the Forest
[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.✗plicit23:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect was created when an entry for the subject with this title was added toList of Roblox games. However, that subject completely fails the inclusion criteria of that list, and has been removed and discussed before. For now, the subject is not on the page, and redirects should not exist to pages that do not mention the subject or offer any sort of substitution.λNegativeMP117:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Brookhaven RP redirects toList of Roblox games because its a roblox game and so is this redirect for the same reason, so why shouldnt this redirect be keptAquilatorG10 Talk Contribs 17:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Brookhaven RP is a game that is on the list, and meets the list criteria. The redirect makes sense because it goes to a section talking about it. This game does not.λNegativeMP117:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- oh i forgot 99 nights got removed.AquilatorG10 Talk Contribs 18:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:1B56:14B9:F321:AFC6 (talk)23:08, 27 September 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).
List of botanical cryptids
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#Paradote
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#Mike Jack
Wigan Athletic F.C. 8–0 Hull City A.F.C.
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#Wigan Athletic F.C. 8–0 Hull City A.F.C.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Kha'y
- 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 toOffensive weapon#Bladed article defences. Consensus is that the term is roughly UK-specific and that the section is an appropriate target. I note that the term is an odd enough construction that it seems likely to be mostly used in a legal context.(non-admin closure)Cremastra (talk ·contribs)02:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
defined, seemingly primarily in uk law, as "any article (object) with a blade". this means knives are counted, sure... but so are arrows, spears, inordinately sharp sporks, saws, glaives, great swords, axes, and glass shards. so...retarget toblade, even in absence of a definition of the term in wikipedia (at least that i could find)?consarn(grave)(obituary)16:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- and as it turns out, i seem to have a case of the Big Dumb™. the termis actually defined atoffensive weapon#bladed article defences... but i also don't think that'd be a fitting target, because it only defines the term in the context of doing weapon things with them, so it doesn't really change my suggestionconsarn(grave)(obituary)16:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬13:15, 25 September 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).
Cape Verde national cricket team
[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.Complex/Rational15:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike the redirects mentioned at#Algeria national cricket team there is content relevant to cricket at the target here in the "Other sports" section (which is why I'm not bundling it), however it doesn't mention there being a national cricket team, let alone give any encyclopaedic information about it.Thryduulf (talk)12:33, 25 September 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).
2 redirects to a fangame that is barely mentioned the target yayy
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#2 redirects to a fangame that is barely mentioned the target yayy
Algeria national cricket team
[edit]List of Victorian newspapers
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#List of Victorian newspapers
- 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. Jay 💬07:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this to redirect toAcetic acid like it did originally, since that is what I was looking for when I typed it in. However, I can see the logic in acidic acid pointing to acid, but I question how many people really would type in "acidic acid" and want to just read about acids in general.Tideflat (talk)01:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, neither target is particularly reasonable. "Acidic" and "acetic" are completely separate words, and "acidic acid" is otherwise vague...it seems unlikely for simply "acid". Maybe pH? Maybe some other measure of acidity? Best to just delete this as confusing.35.139.154.158 (talk)05:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The current situation (which I caused) is neither useful nor conventional – we don't havesalty salt etc. Search suggests that it's not a common typo foracetic, so{{R from misspelling}} may mislead when the phrase is the correct spelling of something different.Certes (talk)08:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above --Lenticel(talk)10:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak retarget toacetic acid. This is an honest mishearing/mispelling based on the pronunciation of 'acetic'. The nomination shows it has utility and so, some amount of likelihood forWP:RPURPOSE. If others feel this redirect is too confusing then delete it of course. It just gets a pass for me.⇌Synpath13:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget back toacetic acid ordelete. I believe this is a plausible phonetic misspelling of acetic acid, i.e. someone hearing "acetic acid" and being unfamiliar with the terminology, hears "acidic" instead of acetic. But I also am not sure how useful it is and there is risk of confusion here. Definitely do not keep- we don't havebasic base and we shouldn't have this redirect toacid.Mdewman6 (talk)20:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delety delete.Steel1943 (talk)21:38, 19 September 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).
Nike CTR360 Maestri
[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 wasno consensus. Given that Mycetae's !vote came in before Thryduulf's search-result-based comment, I think this is no clear consensus. We can speculate on the precise meaning plenty, but unfortunately this is a case where we can't read readers' minds. Since the current target is undesireable, I'm retargetting to "Single-family detached home" as an ATD.(non-admin closure)Cremastra (talk ·contribs)02:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word "independent" is nowhere in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear.Steel1943 (talk)21:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete could be referring to an independent household, off-the-grid survivalist independence, or a family (house) that is independant of an ancestral house --65.93.183.181 (talk)21:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all theoretical uses, but I didn't find any evidence that the term is used in that way in practice to any significant level. In real-world usage there is a single clear primary topic, and I see no reason why we shouldn't redirect there.Thryduulf (talk)09:59, 26 September 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 toList of wars involving Ukraine. --Tavix(talk)19:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could mix up withRusso-Ukrainian War which started in 2014A1Cafel (talk)17:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget toList of invasions and occupations of Ukraine to matchInvasion of UkraineInvasion of Ukraine. If that term is ambiguous, so is this. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)09:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume the main ambiguity of the "invasion" redirect stems from the2022 invasion of Ukraine and2014 invasion of Crimea. Here,Russo-Ukrainian War appears to be the unambiguous primary topic and the correct target (with the hatnote that is currently in place).1234qwer1234qwer414:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what's unambiguous about it being the PTOPIC. Literally the most important war in human history took place (partly) in Ukraine. Thus if anythingWorld War II in Ukraine would be the PTOPIC. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)14:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would be as commonly referred to as just the "War in Ukraine" out of context, mainly because it did not only happen in Ukraine. Web search results are certainly biased towards recent events (and only show results related to the Russo-Ukrainian War), but I think I remember RfDs with similarly biased outcomes. In any case, I have bundled seven similar redirects into this nomination, and would not feel too strongly about retargeting all toList of wars involving Ukraine.1234qwer1234qwer413:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to "Russo-Ukrainian War". This is the correct target, per above. I can understand Ms Tamzin's opinion about the potential ambiguity of these titles, but I do not think any other potential wars are actually called 'war in Ukraine' in practice, except in a purely descriptive manner. The current war, ongoing since 2014, is sometimes referred to as the 'war in Ukraine' in mass-media sources. If we think of the reader first, a redirect seems most appropiate. Any potential confusion can be stemmed with a hatnote toList of wars involving Ukraine at the target page.RGloucester —☎23:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for two participants, all !voted when the nomination had only two entries. Pinging them for their opinion on the next 7 that were added, or to review their existing opinion on the first 2:A1Cafel,Toddy1,Hurricane Clyde,JasonMacker, andTamzin. Jay 💬15:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep on all per recent RM discussion. There is one thing that has changed since the nomination first went out that I think everyone should be aware of. The article:Russian Invasion of Ukraine was recently nominated in an RM discussion and the result of it was that they moved it toRusso–Ukrainian War (2022–present). As such, my !vote has changed to a "weak keep". As for why it is weak? I would still supportretargeting to list of wars involving Ukraine article as an alternative to keeping them as is.Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page!16:23, 24 September 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).
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#Doctor Ivo
Note:Slave master,slavemaster, andslave-holder all redirect toSlavery; whileslaveholder redirectsList of slave owners. Should these be added to the listing? I don't think there's enough distinction between all these terms that they would point to different targets. @ArthananWarcraft --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm yes delete. I just requested G7.S0091 (talk)14:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]