This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematicredirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged.Be bold!
If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases,place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start arequested move.
If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects thatdo have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See§ When to delete a redirect for more information.)
Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.
Current and past redirects for discussion (RfD) discussions
The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result isdelete.
Redirects nominated in contravention ofWikipedia:Redirect will bespeedily kept.
RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. TheG6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
The major reasons why deletion of redirects isharmful are:
a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects orfrom elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
You might want todelete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:
The redirect page makes itunreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article onAdam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
It is across-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are thepseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence ofnamespace aliases such asWP:.Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other thanCategory:,Template:,Wikipedia:,Help:, orPortal:.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted underspeedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
If the redirect is anovel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular,redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers arecandidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect forG6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with thesuppressredirect user right; available topage movers and admins), perform around-robin move. If not, take the article toRequested moves.
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
If the redirect ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page or a page performing a disambiguation-like function (such as a set index of articles).Speedy deletion criterion G14 may apply.
They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (seeWikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aidaccidental linking and make the creation ofduplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links arenot candidates for deletionon those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the{{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at thePennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, includingCamelCase links (e.g.WolVes) and oldsubpage links, should be retained in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Please tag these with{{R from old history}}.See alsoWikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using thewikishark orpageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
Just as article titles using non-neutral languageare permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral butverifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with{{R from non-neutral name}}.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per thewords to avoid guidelines and the generalneutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "AttorneygateAttorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are notestablished terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps underdeletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstreamreliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind thatRfD is not the place toresolve most editorial disputes.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.
Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Please donot mark the edit as minor (m).
Save the page ("Publish changes").
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding|showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If it is an inline template, use|showontransclusion=tiny instead.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading fromWikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.
Clickhere to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}~~~~
For this template:
Put the redirect's name in place ofRedirectName, put the target article's name in place ofTargetArticle, and include a reason aftertext=.
Note that, for this step, the "target article" is thecurrent target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert aftertext=).
Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacingRedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 forN number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}~~~~
If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add{{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after therfd2 template.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevantWikiProjects through one or more"deletion sorting lists". Then add a{{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.
To find the main contributors, look in thepage history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template
may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replaceRedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.
Please consider usingWhat links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Pleasepurge this page to view the most recent changes.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural relist since the second redirect was added less than a week ago. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!00:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is potentially ambiguous, with the caveat that its current target may not be the most proper anyways. For example, such a subject is also mentioned atMurder#Aggravating circumstances, which is an article that actually has the word "Murder" in its title. (Note: This redirect is a{{R with history}}; Apparently, it was a live article for about 10 years.)Steel1943 (talk)22:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is where I'd expect the term to go. It's common to think of assassination as a murder with a political dimension, even if it's not a complete 1:1 relationship. --BDD (talk)21:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'm not crazy about equating the terms, some people, including many editors do. See pagemove discussions on the Charlie Kirk killing. All the best:RichFarmbrough03:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
NoteUser: Steel1943 by my reading it was an untroubled redirect for 10 years then an article for less than a day. It remained untroubled for nearly another decade, barring a pointless change of case. I hope it gets left alone now. All the best:RichFarmbrough03:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure this is the correct target for this redirect. For one, the article targeted by redirectSexual exploitationSexual exploitation seems to not provide defining information that would equate to the nominated redirect adequately, surfing readers properly by targeting the current target. Otherwise, I'm thinking this should probably just bedeleted to allow the search engine within Wikipedia to provide other results.Steel1943 (talk)00:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot Project on CSEC, Child Trafficking and educational rehabilitation
The subject of this redirect seems to not be mentioned in the target article, leaving readers not able to find the content they are looking for if they search by the nominated redirect. (Note: This redirect is a{{R with history}}.)Steel1943 (talk)00:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know But don't rush these things. This is a redirect from move, to fix capital letters. If it is deleted the sentence case version should be deleted also. The third title it sat at has history and was merged, so should not be deleted for attribution reasons. (It would be a copyright violation to do so.) All the best:RichFarmbrough02:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
An unhelpful mass creation of specific codes that all redirect to a section where they may be possible examples, although they're not listed. A quick web search spot-check of a few of these shows all sorts of other things that use these also, which isn't surprising given the terse numeral-and-digit combination that they're made up of.Strong delete all. of these as ambiguous and nearly limitless. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)23:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note. For a little more detail, the target article has overthree hundred redirects, the vast majority of which were all created by a single user. This nom just takes care of ones to one section (and there are some more that I didn't bother with)...other sections have some large numbers like this too, but this was the most egregious. I've seen some other large batches from this user at RFD before, and I fear there may be boatloads of similar cleanup. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)23:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah massxfd did show a talk page notification for you, and I figured it was a situation like that. However, the main gist of the rationale still stands. A web search for "3v3" for example overwhelmingly comes back with all sorts of things that are played three versus three, so this is still pretty ambiguous. And while it's true that this specific example is mentioned at the target, it's just one code of many possible, and there doesn't seem to be any prticular reason to single this one out. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)03:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other notable concepts could be disambiguated if needed, but at the moment I fail to see any. And circuit and battery are manufactured at standard voltage values, they are not limitless. PS: there's also2P5.fgnievinski (talk)03:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added to the nomination, thanks for the heads up. I'll note, though, thatan in-wiki search for "3v3" finds a ton of matches for other stuff, almost entirely for sports played 3 vs 3...but I also found a match for some taxon identifier code forPloima (whatever all that means exactly). I'm not sure that the voltage code is particularly special here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)05:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As a large nomination, I'd prefer to see a more affirmative consensus before deleting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Rusalkii (talk)22:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your changes. Retargeting a redirect in the middle of an active RfD discussion and removing the{{rfd}} tag isextremely disruptive. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My signature conforms with the applicable P&G and community norms. Unilaterally changing the target and untagging redirects in the middle of an active discussion does not. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)17:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page for what? For variations ofsur andvil/VIL which already exist as dab pages? If anything, we could redirect towards them. But it makes no sense because there are no pages using these isolated sequences with a hyphen. And take a lookhere:sur- is mainly an English prefix of French origin. We could have a soft redirect to Wiktionary on that page, but-vil remains absolutely useless. ~IvanScrooge98 (talk)17:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read again because I argued very clearly and you ignored the main point I raised. And besides that, someone typing-vil on enwiki will almost certainly never be looking for an obscure Lithuanian root used in a handful of names. You care about that? Provide links for all of those roots from their respect dab pages, or else let us just delete the absurd redirects—and that apparently also includes-mant-, now that I look more closely. Regards. ~IvanScrooge98 (talk)17:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Absurd" is telling about your attitude to and knowledge of linguistics, as well as the ways how Wikipedia works (I cannot link a dab page if I want to mention this term in an article). --Altenmann>talk18:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:RFD:Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers. --Tavix(talk)17:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we are clear, all I did was revert your disruptive edits[1][2] and add #Glossary to the targets in the listing to accurately reflect the current target of each nominated redirect.[3] My sole intent is to facilitate a civil and transparent consensus-building discussion. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)18:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck "extremely". I apologize for the unnecessary flourish; I agree it was counterproductive. I maintain that the behavior was disruptive. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete, dab, or retarget? Note that Altenmann's "keep" vote is in fact to retarget. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Rusalkii (talk)22:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay, so i really want you to stick with me here, this might be one of the most deranged claims i've made in my life... but i don't think this is an arrow sign that points back
this insane asspull aside, i'm not entirely sure← orarrow (symbol) (where↩ redirects) would be good targets either, as they'd first need a definition of "back" that would also warrant (or at least justify) the existence ofarrow forward as a redirect to its opposite-facing target. arguments regarding↑ and↓ could also be made, but i don't wannaconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not specifically mentioned in the target article, meaning that readers may not find what they're looking for when searching the term. The most related potential target I could find areUse of force continuum andInterrogational torture, but it doesn't seem like either target is the best for this redirect; if only the two affirmation articles were one article, then it might be perfect!Steel1943 (talk)19:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone your change; please don't change targets mid-RFD until it concludes with a consensus to do so. That aside, I think this is an even worse idea, as this isn't called a "tire rating", and as I mentioned, there are other things that could just as well be sought after. A "code" isn't a "rating", and the UTQG would at least make a little more sense, but still, no one calls it a "tire rating" so much as ratings for the individual qualities. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)02:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with everything you just said. The redirect is called "tire rating" and the sectionTire_code#Speed_rating lists all the tyre ratings - which is exactly what a typical reader would expect. Whereas your suggested link toUniform Tire Quality Grading explains nothing about tyre ratings, so it is a poor choice that does not help the reader.
presumably a portmanteau of "alpha" and "ampersand". there seems to be no particular affinity with languages that have the word "ampersand" (english and polish) and languages that use a term tangentially related to the word "alpha" to refer to the @ (norwegian and svedish), and results only gave me a south african sand distribution company and a prog rock album with this name. that is to say, no idea what this is about lolconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. In addition, the singular form of this redirect,Third-degree method, does not exist and has never existed.Steel1943 (talk)19:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Rome" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving readers potentially scratching their heads looking for information about the subjects of the redirects at the target article.Steel1943 (talk)19:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If closer considers me the creator of this redirect, it is eligible under G7. If closer considersLoyal luz (LL) the creator—I reverted LL's move per RfD nom's request atWP:RM/TR—it could qualify as{{db-error}}, as LL clearly meant to move to (politician) but was blocked by the history at that redirect.Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs)19:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a plausable error, it was at this title for about 2 minutes in 2006 and the only Google result appears to be a mirror which also includes the correct spelling.Crouch, Swale (talk)18:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toFargo (1996 film), one of the best-known movies of the 1990s and genesis of a 5-season (so far) TV series; it is really obviously primary for "Fargo (film)". The only other movie by this name,Fargo (1952 film), is hardly known by anyone still living. The existence here of an article about the latter can be handled with a hatnote, as usual. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When more than one film needs to be disambiguated, partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) should be made and redirected back to the main disambiguation page or an appropriate section of it. This aids navigation, and helps editors to avoid creating new articles under the ambiguous title by accident. While the general guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation allows for incomplete disambiguation, the film-naming conventions guideline prefers disambiguating all secondary-topic films from each other.
While the 1996 film is certainly primary among the two, since films are given full year disambiguators when their title isn't purely primary, it seems like we should follow the guideline here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)15:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAbsurd Italian Internet Memes,Ta Ta Ta Sahur,Aeroplanino Gattino, anddelete the rest - all three are useful redirects, for the first serving as a redirect to better help TA users or users from the Arabic Wikipedia to lead to the correct article; the second and third is a character from IB so it doesn't make sense on deleting it.Freedoxm (talk·contribs)16:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd Italian Internet Memes raisesWP:FORRED concerns, since the term is a direct translation of an Arabic phrase that itself is an indirect translation of an English phrase, and the term itself is not used in English. The other two, while legitimate characters, aren't mentioned at the target.~2025-31416-56 (talk)16:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: FORRED doesn't feel like an issue here given it's not actually in Arabic? It's likePocket Monsters-- next to nobody refers to the series as 'pocket monsters' in the English-speaking world, we refer to it as Pokemon, which is an English-ish spelling of a shortened form of the Japanese phrase that directly translates to "Pocket Monsters". And yet we havePocket Monsters as a redirect, because someone who speaks both Japanese and English may have only run into the full Japanese name of the franchise (somehow) and, not knowing the English name, could try to guess it by transliterating the name they DO know into English.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)03:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unusual disambiguation of the form X (synonym of X); a more typical form would be something like "Maelstrom (phenomenon)". It's also an unhelpful redirect since no one's going to search for this. "Maelstrom" is a dab page, which lists the primary meanings at the top, which is plenty fine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)18:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect was created on 14 January 2023, but like many other potential Netflix "greenlightnings" could have happened or have already happened, it’s almost two years since its creation. I call fordelete perWP:RETURNTORED unless some content is created for this.Intrisit (talk)12:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As of this nomination, the creator of the redirect who made the initial move is blocked, but it is set to expire well before the week is out.TornadoLGS (talk)05:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think perhaps 2025's reasoning is "Someone tried to put the article at this location, which makes me think that someone else might try to search for it there"? The issue is, that sort of usefulness justification, if accepted, pretty much invalidatesthe entirety of RfD because you can apply that logic to basicallyevery redirect under the sun-- "oh, someone made this redirect, which means it might at some point get used".One person using a redirect once should not be the threshold we measure usefulness by.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)03:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSt Austell River mentionschina clay mining there, but I'm also finding regions notable for their china clay mining in Bulgaria, India, the US, and elsewhere in the UK just from a very quick search. We'd need stronger support for a generic title like this. --BDD (talk)16:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this word has a strong connection to other topics, such as agreeing or understanding something, in addition to the target not mentioning the word "concur" even once without the "-rence" suffix, I do not believe that the current target is proper. However, seems like the only target we have for this isSAP Concur, which is where the original target of this redirect was moved to. With this information, I have no opinion between "weak retarget toSAP Concur" or "delete", but those are my two stances on this.Steel1943 (talk)00:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page creator wastopic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months starting in March 2024,see here. Neither of the redirects were created when the topic ban was in place, but I thought this would be worth mentioning.~2025-31416-56 (talk)17:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guessweak delete since though it could be considered synonymous with the current target, it is not sufficiently described there. In addition, I could not find a good section or paragraph inPitch (music) which describes the topic of the redirect either (which, I must admit was a bit shocking to me).Steel1943 (talk)06:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too vague. It shouldn't targetVocal register, since voice pitch and register are distinct (though related) concepts.It could potentially be retargeted toVocal range,Voice type, orHuman voice, but I don't think it's a particularly good match for any of these articles either. Someone searching for voice pitch might be looking for any one of these articles. On second thought, since the redirect gets a lot of usage, it may be better toretarget toVocal range as the most likely target.Tomato potato burrito (talk)00:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget: This is a very plausible search term. And I'm not a phonologist, but looking at possibly-relating articles,Vocal range seems the most logical and what the average searcher would be most looking for.Cesiumslate9 (talk)23:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target article, which only treats straightfoward dubbing. UntilJune 2012 this was a weak article, redirected after ano-consensus AfD. But this is worse: the redirect implies to readers that we have content we don't. This should either get aWP:REDLINK deletion or the article should be restored and improved; I slightly favor the latter.BDD (talk)20:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't seem to be a particularly likely misspelling or mishearing, at least not of the word "margarine" spelled and/or pronounced correctly, and i'm not here for mistakeceptions. results seemed to be mostly intentional but also not misspellings, which is a roundabout way of saying that they were bad punsconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)17:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
refers to a "run" (search) for "oleo" (margarine, presumably not in pink) amid the bans. ignoring how little attention the countermeasures actually get in the target, this doesn't seem to be a very likely term. only about three sources i could find actually use it, and those results seem to be outnumbered by other aggressively miscellaneous stuff, like something to do with hoodoo.or at least that's the case in english results, most other results i got referred to the portuguese word "óleo", which should probably be ignoredconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)17:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In 2016 I created this redirect to replace a piped link[[Margarine#United States|oleo run]] in the articleBob Uecker. It seems that in the intervening years my work on that part of the article has been replaced with simply[[Margarine|oleo run]], which to my mind is not an improvement, as it's less specific. Rather than delete the redirect, I'd like to see it retained and the article modified to use it without piping, as I intended all those years ago.Colonies Chris (talk)18:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The discussion thus far leads me to believe that neither participant browsed the page's revision history. For 9½ years, this was a standalone article that only discussed bypass mail in the United Kingdom. An editor added{{Globalize}} at one point. Another editor responded by blanking the article and turning it into a redirect, yet another example of the recent trend of tearing down the encyclopedia while calling it building the encyclopedia. Bypass mail in Alaska has received significant coverage by the state's news outlets, but I doubt Google is going to hand you those sources on a silver platter. I'd call it a dilemma. If you delete the redirect, you've completely backdoor-deleted an article with zero discussion on its merits as an article-worthy topic (and we know there are editors who see no problem with that, based on past practices). If you accept Golem08's suggestion, you continue to effectively backdoor-delete the content related to the UK and project a belief that bypass mail in the two places are islands unto themselves (there's no real difference that I see between the two). RadioKAOS/ Talk to me, Billy/ Transmissions17:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Bypass mail' does not appear to be standard terminology for this in the UK. The concept is usually described as 'direct delivery', or 'end-to-end delivery'. ([5],[6],[7]). I won't comment on theWP:BLAR of the article which was unreferenced for 9 years, but I don't think the information should exist under this name.Postal services in the United Kingdom could do with expanding (if information can be reliably sourced). I have tagged with R with history.Golem08 (talk)16:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on whether the redirect should be deleted, but there's no reason we couldn't have an article on one concept that goes under two different names in different countries. What it should be named is a different question, but if such an article exited bypass mail should at least redirect to it.Rusalkii (talk)20:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion, the Hong Kong Interbank Clearing Limited (HKICL) is the operator of the Clearing House Automated Transfer System (CHATS), but they are not equivalent entities as HKICL runs several systems. Combining them as a single entity is confusing.Jedison brussels (talk)17:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect should not be here since the only correlation betweenBattle for Dream Island andInanimate Insanity is that they both share genres, both beingobject shows. The redirect spot does not coverInanimate Insanity in whole, only covers it being spawned out of existence because ofBFDI. This leaves me to believe that theInanimate Insanity redirect should bedeletedConeKota (talk)15:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An entire paragraph is dedicated toInanimate Insanity, and it's even stated thatInanimate Insanity has been described as an unofficial sister show. Quite important. I also agree with ~2025-31416-55. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester)16:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing the "entire paragraph" argument though, when I check the paragraph itself, it's rather stubby and again, does not coverInanimate Insanity as a whole, like it should, only briefly mentions it on its own with no significant coverage other than it being a sister show alongside BFDI.ConeKota (talk)20:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is gonna sound strange, butkeep todiscourage creation. i haven't found enough material for it, so it's best to just stick with what we have for now. once more material is found, it can be worked into the target, and then potentially its own article, but it seems that day ain't the day that is today (which is today).yes, this is a thinly veiled assumption of willingness to reenactwp:bfdi for like every object showconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand paragraph so that there is more infomation. If anyone was looking for Inanimate Insanity and it did not have an article, they'd most likely go to the BFDI page. -ExcitedA.It may be a good idea to look atthis.13:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When expanding the paragraph, care must be taken to ensure additions aredue, after all the article is about BFDI and not object shows in general. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester)16:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toWilliam Shakespeare (disambiguation). The playwright is certainly primary among Williams, but Bills? Probably not, given that he's overwhelmingly known as William. Probably best to just point to the dab page and let the searcher figure it out from there; there do seem to be multiple other potential matches there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)17:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I do agree that it is created regardless of political party, the term itself is derived from Modi. If an uninitiated person were to hear this, probably in India, they might think they heard Modi. Also, Modi and his supporters are kind of infamous for this, and the article itself mentions "x jihad" which also originates from Modi and hinduvta. Modi is mentioned 15 times in the article; the BJP is mentioned eleven times. There was also a move request to change it to media coverage of Modi, showing that it could be confused. Ergo, I'd keep.User:Easternsaharareview this00:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the second of these.wikt:Godi media (literally lapdog media) is just a Hindi wordplay on Modi media, which derives from the allegation that news orgs given this monicker are subserviant to Narendra Modi. Being uncommon doesn't affect the existence of its usage (WP:Redirects are cheap etc).Gotitbro (talk)14:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the history when I tagged CSD. Would be X3 if it was parenthesis instead of comma. It doesn't look like this was a merge, so I don't think keeping history attribution is needed. ThanksMz7 for looking slightly closer than I did. Happy Editing --IAmChaos06:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect target has no mention of a numbered route 67, only an internal highway number. The internal numbers aren't treated as route numbers and as such the redirect should be deleted as it is confusing.thetechie@enwiki (she/they |talk)21:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. i dont think theres really anything else called “weird route” and weird route is the most common term used by fans to describe the alternate route. ask anybody who’s played enough of deltarune to know about this route and theres a very high chance theyll call it the weird route. so uh.. not vague id sayCmm78 (talk)17:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many people would not know whatDeltarune is, but they wouldn't be searching for Weird route as it does not appear to be a concept outside ofDeltarune. The phrase appears in contexts not related to the game, but it appears to always be just "this is taking a weird route", etc, so no one would expect that to have a Wikipedia article or redirect.TheSilksongPikmin (talk |contribs)20:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: just look at the search results for "Weird route", pages and pages of purelyDeltaurne[8] The first non-Deltarune result is on Page 5, however pages from then on are still almost allDeltarune related. "Weird route" if not used forDeltarune also is just used in a greater sentence for a route being weird, it isn't an actual concept like the Deltarune weird route, so no one (or nearly no one) would be looking it up on Wikipedia.TheSilksongPikmin (talk |contribs)20:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm in favor of a disambiguation tag ---Weird route (Deltarune) ---, but I'd like to comment that of the 2000 page hits on Wikipedia for 'weird route', it's entirely possible they could also have been looking for a weird highway or a weird road. I'd also like to add the relatedSnowgrave andSnowgrave route get very little hits on wikipedia according to thewmcloud pageview tracker. Like only up to 10 in a month.Xalsiertalk01:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be a depreciated term on Wikipedia because members in the fandom can find more extensive information about the alternative route elsewhere, such as the games related wiki or youtube.Xalsiertalk16:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ambiguity has not been established. So long as there is a "weird route" described on Wikipedia and there's no other things specifically called "weird route" to disambiguate this with, it's fine as is. --Tavix(talk)16:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCardiganshire can be given thus. It's only the Anglicization that puts "shire" on the end of the county name, formerly the kingdom of, and now the county ofCeredigion. (The town was historically (and still is in Welsh)Aberteifi.)
In the image you will see five (Welsh) countiesBrecknock (Brecknockshire), Cardigan (highlighted),Caermarthen (nowadays Carmarthen),Glamorgan,Pembroke andRadnor, together with some of the towns in those counties. All these counties can take the "-shire" suffix. Certainly those counties that have a county town of the same name more rarely drop the "-shire" suffix than those which do, but context is king here.
And? This is beyond a stretch and has no plausible utility. I was unable to locate anyone rendering the town name like this, and creating this on the off chance someone would search for this very specific half-archaic way of writing it (and even there, I'm not convinced of your reasoning...the Brecon example certainly doesn't adhere to the same pattern) asks too much of one's credulity. This is a confusing redirect, and is not reasonably going to help anyone find what they're looking for. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)17:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rich Farmbrough. The image proves that "Cardigan" has been used for the county, and the article's current title shows that "Cityname, Countyname" is an established form for Wales. Don't assume that readers are always consulting sources that use spellings common in the 21st century. Also,don't speedy delete because it's definitely not an error.Nyttend (talk)06:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The redirect is seemingly an ordinary victim of this flight's crash, but his name isn't mentioned except in the external links; if he doesn't qualify to be mentioned, he probably shouldn't redirect here. This was created as a redirect to the present target in 2008, and before this RFD all subsequent edits consisted of categorisation work.Nyttend (talk)02:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I declined the G10 because it is not a page "that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose"; as noted above, the named individual was convicted of a crime so it's not disparaging, the redirect may have been intended simply to reference the location of her crime, though that doesn't seem appropriate. Suggest deletion via discussion here.331dot (talk)20:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It being mentioned atPolytypic makes me think it is{{R with possibilities}}, and REDYES could be an option, but maybe someone who knows biology could speak to whether it should just be included in taxon, and the redirect kept? Happy Editing --IAmChaos00:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would intensify the problem given that the article is not a broad concept page on Interim housing. At best it should be "Interim housing in China" if the proper name was removed.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)19:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AFD. A retarget wouldn't work either since it's not mentioned there; the targeting to the dab page was definitely not right, and I guess we can call it a contested PROD and send it to AFD as a procedural thing; or maybe let the PRODder,Donaldd23 do so himself if he wants to write a more fleshed out rationale for it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)15:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here too - there was an article, mostly plot, which was BLAR'd without explanation by an IP, but given the lack of sourcing I think that may have been justified. That said, this is more than just a redirect and may deserve an AfD.ASUKITE16:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or restore, I don't understand why it was redirected to the DAB byUser:~2025-38537-34 when it appear to be the only 2008 film, was there another they were thinking it is ambiguous with? Otherwise it makes no sense to redirect to the DAB.Crouch, Swale (talk)18:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-38537-34, I think in this case AfD should be a first stop, with the possibility of retargeting being an option there, if only to give the original article a chance. AfD tends to focus on notability first, so if the sourcing is inadequate but thereare sources somewhere it can still be saved.ASUKITE01:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'd stilloppose a retarget to the Paladino article (and confirm still support sending to AFD). While it's mentioned there, there's no significant detail, other than to say that this guy was in it. If this film is truly not notable (which I haven't looked into), we probably shouldn't be mentioning it there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)20:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There isn't anything to predominantly tie this specific phrase/slogan to thespecific protest(s) covered in the articleJune 2025 Los Angeles protests against mass deportation. There are multiple articles that cover opposition to ICE & mass deportation in the US, and none of them stand out from the rest as having unique warrant to be the target for this redirect. —Jamie Eilat (talk)00:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget (as creator) to50501 protests in February 2025#Pacific states where it is mentioned for now. I created the redirect because this was an oft-used slogan at the Los Angeles protests, and I believe it was mentioned there at the time, but it may have been removed since. Upon my searching after the nomination, it seems not specific to any particular protest. If a mention is later added atAbolish ICE orUnited States Immigration and Customs Enforcement#Criticism, it could be retargeted there. I do not see theneutrality of the redirect as a deciding factor here; plenty of article and redirect titles exist which have non-neutral titles as a matter of referring to partisan movements or ideas by their common names. The redirect isWP:CHEAP and should be kept if possible.silviaASH(inquire within)05:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in the target article; either way, most likely, if a reader is researching this term, they are looking for some topic that is more specific.Steel1943 (talk)19:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am flabbergasted that there isn't a dedicated article for the topic of jewel theft on Wikipedia. How is that not a thing? I would suggest turning the redirect into adisambiguation page for specific diamond heists in real life and fiction.MEN KISSING (talk)02:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really long decimal expansion redirects like this, such as the longest possible redirect of 255 characters,do have a novel use for aiding search functionality, as was brought uphere. Now, this was 127 characters long, but I checked myself and it actually seemed to have the same effect.
Does 0.999... in particular need to have a super long redirect? I might say delete weakly, since itis just clearly nines spammed a lot. But I feel chipping in on redirects of a similar nature for other decimal expansions is worthwhile.MEN KISSING (talk)21:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The arguments from the last RfD definitely make George W. Bush seem like a PTOPIC forGeorge W.; however, this one the w is not capitalized and there is no period, so only a weak keep.Casablanca 🪨(T)15:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pi is the article on the mainstream mathematical concept covered by this redirect. The idea that it should be re-notationed as tau isWP:FRINGE and should not be treated as mainstream by retargeting this redirect. —David Eppstein (talk)08:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I worry I'm about to dredge up the Pi vs Tau debate, which I would rather not do. But I don't know if I agree that redirecting 2π to Tau is necessarily a treating of aWP:FRINGE theory as mainstream. The redirect is already currently targeting a discussion of the proposal of τ = 2π, relegated to one short paragraph with a link to the Tau article. So why not just send directly to the Tau article? Still, I can see your point. If so, the2pi →Tau (mathematics) redirect is also of interest. Honestly, I see that there's a lot of page history and consensuses for Tau on Wikipedia in general that I hadn't accounted for and probably should have looked into before making this RfD. But I need to go to bed.MEN KISSING (talk)09:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per nom and as a way to match2pi; in addition, I'd like to point out that this redirect's current target is due to the history of a former article that it used to target,Tau (2π). Said article is now a redirect that at one point pointed toPi#In popular culture, but now points towards theTau (mathematics) article.It also has EXTENSIVE history as a prior draft of the article that would becomeTau (mathematics).Either way, if Tau is aWP:FRINGE idea, its notability shouldn't be challenged here, with redirects pointing to it-- it should be challenged on its own page. Which, I might add, has sufficient sources to establish notability, so it's not going anywhere.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)18:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Discussed at both places, but the redirect should pretty clearly go to the article dedicated to the main topic, not the summary-style mention in the broader article. It serves as a pretty decent place for anyone who may not land at quite the right spot but needs help getting directed to somewhere better too (including the main pi article). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)22:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak nom and not about deletion, so don't worry too much
although mentioned in the lead, this is a little bit of a strange case, as most results i got seem to refer to just about every other type of interval that is vertical, with the primary topic being the intervals betweencontour lines, which is also the definitionwiktionary goes with (if without citations or quotes), with a distant second being thevertical interval timecode, and somehow nearly no results actually related to vblank. that is to say, what do?
Delete : this is really ridiculously unhelpful. Much ascity might redirect toChicago, it is simply a generic term redirecting to one very specific case.Imaginatorium (talk)05:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Vertical interval is common shorthand forvertical blanking interval at least among video engineers. The other uses identified by the nom are notWP:PRIMARYTOPIC worthy so, at best, this should be converted to a disambig. ~Kvng (talk)15:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we lived in a world where Chicago was the only city in the world noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article, I think it would make sense to redirect "city" there. I don't find the comparison between Chicago and Vertical blanking intervals to be very apt.MEN KISSING (talk)04:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the problem here is that, even per your own vote below, thereare more plausible targets, but the closest we have to proof that any of them would actually be plausible targets are confused incoming links and a ptmconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)17:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this is considered a misspelling for "hinged" ... but alas, it's just a guess since it's the closest title match I can fathom and I cannot find evidence of this misspelling being common or likely at all. But, either way, "inged" is not mentioned in the target article.Steel1943 (talk)07:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retarget toDoor#Hinged Hinged doors are the default. (We have sliding and revolving in separate articles.)Dropped h is a widespread language feature, as well as a possible typo, and there's no harm in supporting it with this redirect. All the best:RichFarmbrough13:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Nominator comment: The argument here for the "keep"s and "refine"s seems to be that a reader may type the word without an "h" to get to the target article. That seems rather erroneous: The argument presented by these votes seems to be that someone may pronounce it this way,not that they would spell it this way. As a spelling, this redirect is both erroneous and technicallynot a phonetic spelling for theproper way to say the word.Steel1943 (talk)22:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. it's a phonetic spelling, not a... spelling spelling, and it's not like the accents that love their silent hs wouldn't have stuff written with the h anyway (or at least an apostrophe to make it clear that there's a missing h)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)01:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget, per Rich. Plausible typo, especially in an accent with a dropped h, where you might forget or not know that hinged is spelled with an h.MEN KISSING (talk)04:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The previous AfD, which closed as redirect to this target, had two participants who both preferred redirecting despite the target being mentioned in two pages, so I am reluctant to vacate that as a soft consensus with no further participation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Rusalkii (talk)01:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most of the English language sources I see refer to Han by this name, so seems like a primary topic for the redirect in my view. But if multiple people have the nickname and people don't think there's a primary topic, then DAB page works too.Joseph2302 (talk)14:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. this really seems like the kind of tidbit that should be mentioned in both articles as only choe currently has a mention, but as is, it seems that either target would besurprising and potentiallyundue, considering that i've found more or less the same amount of stuff for both. unless there's a running gag of north korean ball kickers being compared to ronaldo (or whether or not the term applies to comparisons toronaldo,cristiano ronaldo, orronaldinho), i don't think we have much material for a dab either. also, we probably need a better source for the mention at choe anywayconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep htwins.net as a possible search term;delete HTwins.net as a different capitalisation which does not help with search results. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester)08:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ˀ Should be retargetted toglottalization, just asˤ points topharyngealization. As it says on the top ofglottal stop (sound, not letter), "For consonants followed by superscript ˀ, seeGlottalization." It makes more sense for the superscript to go to this location. I had boldly made this retarget already, but an admin reverted me and told me to take it here. ~oklopfer (💬)13:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article space is not the only reason we have redirects,especially template redirects.
Uses of redirects include the following.
To provide "soft" standardisation: many entry points (via redirects) but one maintained article/template where documentation, categories, and transclusions are managed.
To accept alternative names, spellings, capitalisations, hyphenation, spacing, punctuation, diacritics, transliterations, and common typos while keeping one canonical title.
To preserve incoming links from external sources (books, papers, news, blogs, databases) that use a different title than Wikipedia’s chosen one.
To provide stable targets for wikilinks in wikitext so editors can write the intuitive/short name and let the redirect land on the canonical page.
To preserve systems widely used on other wikis including other WMF supported projects, such as other language Wikipedias.
Understand that there is an ongoing program of replacing certain template redirects when other edits are being done,[16] so the absence right now does not mean that there is usually or always absence.
Delete Template:ENgvarB, unsure about the others. There aren't any circumstances when an editor is likely to capitalise the letter N as opposed to any of the other letters. There is no corresponding{{ENgvarA}} template.Dgp4004 (talk)23:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a much higher likelihood of accidentally capitalising the letter after a capital, as all that is required is for the caps key to be held down a moment longer than needed, rather than it being randomly hit. Indeed I have mis-capitalised the second letter of this template a number of times, I do not recall mis-capitalising any of the others, though it is entirely possible.
DElete ALl. WP:UNNATURAL typos. Given the sheer amount of templates and the relative likelihood of these sorts of errors, coupled with sheer number of other possible errors, these do more harm than good. They're also fairly easy to spot immediately upon making. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)22:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Achanan village has never been called Yemazlu. Yemazlu is the name of an abandoned village that existed in a few miles from Achanan before 1940 (Achanan called Khalach at that time). There are Wikiarticles in other languages for both of these villages without redirection. EitherYemazlu redirect page should be transformed into an article or it should be deleted.Wikikarlen (talk)01:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article - the Azerbaijani WP article is the best of the other Wikis. Failing that it appears a significant portion of the final population moved to Achanan, so a simple sentence can be added there, and the redirectKept. All the best:RichFarmbrough20:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Unmentioned at the target. Before being redirected, it was a CarlosSuarez46 stub with one non-working reference, so we can't reasonably even keep what was there before. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)23:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible redirect. Left behind after an AfD, it was just some weird nationalist soapboxing, author long blocked as a sockpuppeteer.Joy (talk)10:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, there are no real readers who are going to type "towns in the former rsk" in the search box. Even if someone somehow managed to do that,the search engine would find the right articles. There is no value to the redirect for the average English reader. It just preserves history of yet another editor flamewar in a contentious area, which is fairly pointless. --Joy (talk)12:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics of deleted article have no bearing.
Characteristics of deleted article's author have no bearing.
Neither the Go nor Search functionality are exclusively used by humans, nor from the web interface. And you don't know what people may type.
Thereis value in preserving records of editor conflict. This is the subject of academic study, which, among other things can help us manage conflict better.
I came across this thanks to a WatchMojo YouTube video about “certain decisions leading to the bankruptcy or the decline of operations of movie studios”. Upon getting to this title, the video brought up “Gods and Generals”, the only film that this title has brought out. Maybe, it can be re-targeted there or be deleted outright. So I’ve brought it over here for a discussion as it hasn’t fallen into one before!Intrisit (talk)14:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i can't believe i'm saying this, butrestore, and then hopefullydraftify. the pre-blar content isfucking raw and two of the sources have contracted a case of dead, but it's nothing some more time in the oven can't fix. i've also found some more potentially usable stuff for it (even if a lot of it is written in some sort ofindecipherable glyphs), and can dump it here if needed. as is, though, don'tjust restore, because i think the content shouldn't be left aloneconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)22:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreation of deleted redirect. If kept, please ensure the page is edit protected so we won't need to keep watching to make sure it won't change redirect, when it obviously will.Gonnym (talk)10:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I actually have no strong feelings one way or another re:targeting, speaking as one of the original Delete votes back in March 2024. Unlike "criticism of Israel", where this criticism doesn't make sense-- Is the criticism of Israel here that... it's not real...? I've heard of antisemites denying theholocaust, but denying the existence of thecurrent, physical country of Israel is a new one. --Lunamann c. 2024 --directing it over to a page discussing those who ACTUALLY DO deny the existence/legitimacy of Israel directly addresses my issue with the original version of this redirect.Whether this is ONLY the epithet and won't have people whodidn't think about Israel at all stumbling across the page and getting confused is a whole other matter and is what's weakening my Keep !vote here.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)18:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a legit point - the confusion.
And I think, on your earlier question,𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫, yes there are people that argue Israel is not real, some call itthe Zionist entity. Denying your (often military) opponent is a "real country" is fairly standard historically, but used much less since the end of WWII, though I'm sure other contemporary examples will spring to mind. All the best:RichFarmbrough20:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Implausible redirect created ten years ago as a result of a page move. Would have done R3 but its over ten years old so... -ExcitedA.It may be a good idea to look atthis.23:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects should be deleted. They are for sounds that do not exist in spoken language, and exist to fill in gaps for theoretical possibility only, completely lacking notability. None are mentioned at the targets they currently go to. An old RfD exists for labiodental trill, and the choice not to delete was only because such nonsense was mentioned in a singular sentence on the target at the time, which specifically noted it as theoretical and had no references at all. Neither the inventive nonsense nor the redirects belong on WP. ~oklopfer (💬)22:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are also questionable, but not in the same boat as these other redirects. Because thereare palato-alveolar and alveolo-palatal examples for the ejectives, one could potentially, and even reasonably, be referring to those when talking about 'palatal ejectives'. The ones I have proposed for deletion here are more unambiguously inventive, rather than through confusion or even alternative naming practices. ~oklopfer (💬)04:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are mentioned in the target page. Some of these titles are very implausible and bizarre. We don't need a redirect or a section for every one of these AI-generated brainrot characters that go viral in one video on social media, since there are likely thousands at this point if not more.HurricaneZetaC22:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could also seeBelt sander as a potential target, but didn't want to make the change unilaterally. Alternatively, could just add a hatnote at the target. Thoughts? Happy Editing --IAmChaos21:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if "sandbelt" would be an accurate term for a belt sander. It would more so refer to the sandpaper-belt within the belt sander. I'd venture that "sandbelt" is also uncommon in reference to the belt, which is more often a "sanding belt".NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk)17:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak nom, so don't worry too much. also, don't remove the first two letters of "sysex", worst mistake of my life
while it's mentioned in the target, results imply that midi isn't really that prominent when it comes to this term, as a common or proper noun. most of what i got was a potentially notable band and any form of "exclusivity" to any form of "system" (so, say, stuff exclusive to thedreamcast, to any givenoperating system, or to capitalism, not just to midi software)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)18:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the presence of this redirect would cause a problem for readers. Is there another article they might be looking for that this redirect would obscure? ~Kvng (talk)14:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Luna, and it could also refer to the other stuff mentioned by nom. Seems weird to choose this as the redirect target.Despite nom's advice to the contrary, I am going to attempt to remove the first two letters of "SysEx". Wish me luck. ...oh great heavensMEN KISSING (talk)05:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
refers to midi-playing hardware's input (key presses), output (sounds), and throughput (middle management), and(/or?) the funny holes that you plug other stuff in to make them happen. ignoring that said hardware is apparently really consistent in labeling it as "thru", this just isn't something the article explains beyond having a section about the thru port and passing mentions of the in and out ports in a single footnote this is to say, regardless of whether or not this is a plausible search term (i think it might be), and of whether or not the much more prevalent definitions regarding the words' uses in this weird scary thing called "grammar" would take priority (fwiw, it seems they do), it's going to besurprising if the article has no meaningful info on thatconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)18:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that info is there by technicality at best. a reader looking for info on the ports would have to deduce what two of them do by name drops in a footnote, and nothing else. granted, that's not a hard thing to do, but for wikipedia standards, it'd be a sloppy jobconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)00:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm the one who did these shortcuts. I frequently visit bot userpages, mostly to click the "user contributions" button, and so, following in the footsteps ofWP:CBNG andWP:CITEBOT, I made some shortcuts from the project namespace for some of the other active bots with high edit counts, and that included this one. But, you can remove the JJMC89 bot shortcuts if you don't want them. I was going to mention it on your user talkpage after you removed the indicators from the bot userpage but I figured you'd do it yourself if you were sincerely opposed to itYellowmarkers (talk)22:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest it is probably better to have no primary topic and redirect to the DAB or maybe better just have a DAB here so that readers can pick either but I don't think a misspelling should have priority over a correct one.Crouch, Swale (talk)23:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G6 redirect, thenmove William Shakespear. Per Steel1943, but just be BOLD per WP:NOTBURO instead of going through yet another discussion process. Also noting here that I fixed the rfd template. Happy Editing --IAmChaos17:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessarily long redirect with a weird capitalisation and an obsolete name (it's calledWarriors now). --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester)14:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteWarrior Cats does appear to be a legitimate alternate name and Erin Hunter is the pseudonym of the author. "By" being capitalized might be done by people who don't know how title case works. While each of these individually would be plausible, I don't think this is a particularly reasonable search term.~2025-31416-56 (talk)18:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as while "Warrior Cats" is still very commonly used to refer to the series today, the "By Erin Hunter" part is weird and no one is gonna try to find the series by looking all of that up.Blubewwy (talk)18:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This wouldn't be an unnecessary disambiguation, it would be an incorrect disambiguation. I see your point, "Warrior Cats by Erin Hunter" would be fine (and I wouldn't bring that to RfD), but the "By" is a miscapitalisation which means it isn't a proper disambiguation. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester)15:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless this redirect is determined to be ambiguous, I see no issue. That, and a lack of page links or views is not a valid rationale for deletion. Also, third party search engines in English for this redirect return results primarily for the current target, hinting aWP:PRIMARYREDIRECT association.Steel1943 (talk)22:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is just the name of the international school without the qualifier. It's even primarily listed in the logo in the infobox, so I think it's plausible for this to be searched.Yellowmarkers (talk)23:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term "casino capitalism" is not used anywhere in the "Economic ideology" article anymore and the section it used to link to no longer exists.ApexParagon (talk)22:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (slightstrong preference) or retarget toHydrocortisone. Hydrocortisone and cortisol are two names for the same molecule. 'Hydrocortisone' is the name used for the pharmaceutical product while cortisol is the name used for the endogenous hormone. These are valid{{R from trade name}}'s but these are fairly obscuredrug trade names. These were mass created byUser:PotatoBot presumably from a comprehensive list of brand names. Consensus has been mixed as to whether we should keep obscure trade (brand) names for drugs and other chemicals. See ongoing discussion atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2#Umbrium and the two discussions linked in the Old RfD list template.Do not keep since 'cortisol' is not the proper name for the pharmaceutical. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)00:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Edit: Updated listing rationale to reflect my current 'strong' preference for deletion (no longer 'slight'). 01:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I would imagine all are listed on PubMed as "user supplied synonyms" for hydrocortisone, but without mention at target, it's not very helpful to have redirects from these obscure trade names, and these are too many to mention at target. I have good faith that the nom has vetted the list of tradenames and nominated the obscure ones that are not clearly associated with cortisol/hydrocortisone. Concur that if kept, these should be retargeted to hydrocortisone as a more appropriate target.Mdewman6 (talk)07:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all tohydrocortisone per nom and the outcome of the first RfD, although I think there could have been consensus to delete if more people had participated in that discussion. No objection to deletion except for consistency's sake.I2Overcometalk22:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not mentioned at target. To my knowledge, this is a legitimate Italian brainrot character, but I'm probably too old to know mostly anything about Italian brainrot.~2025-31416-56 (talk)17:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Death factory" is an uncommon at best term for the Nazi extermination camps. It is not mentioned on page, and is more of a generic colloquialism for all sorts of unpleasant historic things, includingliterally deadly factories, proverbial factories of death, includingJapanese biological warfare factories, and thecapital punishment system in South Africa, among others. Beyond this, it's an extremely plausible typo for "Death Factory", which is the disambiguation page for two films. There's no clear primacy of the term here to mean Nazi extermination camps. As the page notes, it's a colloquialism for that, but it's a colloquialism for many things.Iskandar323 (talk)14:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
implausible order, and the results seem purely coincidental or procedural (thus, stuff like "dracula/vlad ţepeş" or "dracula (vlad ţepeş)"). i guess it's also vague with other depictions ofvlad the impaler, and maybe the man himself depending on who you ask
no, that would first require some context in which a last-first-middle name be plausible outside of a single orchid with a flower that looks like an unwashed asshole... and i guess that there be other draculae (draculi? dracula?) known by this full name, as a two entry dab isn't worth more than, say, a hatnote
Retarget toDracula (plant), as this likely refers to the species which is listed there as a redlink. Once the flower itself (which, yes, it does look like that, but that's hardly its fault) has its own article, these can be re-retargeted there and the flower can get a hatnote.MEN KISSING (talk)02:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the target Yongin FC article redirect, it is unused and wrongly redirected toYongin Football Center, and now the new professional club Yongin FC was just founded and the article cannot be created because of this old and wrong redirect.Snowflake91 (talk)09:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a new article can be written atYongin FC without need to delete this. Butif there is no plan to write such an article soonand the current redirect is incorrect or likely to mislead then it should be deleted. So, I guess,delete unless a new article is written before this closes. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)02:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's another Billy the Kid Museum in New Mexico, and it appears to be at least as if not more prominent in search results. The target article doesn't mention the museum directly, so the redirect isn't very helpful for readers looking for the Texas museum and is just confusing for readers looking for the New Mexico museum.TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation04:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I right that this is not an ISO code? If so, proposingdeletion Too old for R3, but its use in WMF environment makes me hesitate on G3. Happy Editing --IAmChaos02:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems implausible, unnatural as search term, and if anything, a web search of it turns up other targets. Currently only other redirects and some obscure hatnotes direct here.Iskandar323 (talk)08:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:2Sa. bundled in; there don't appear to be additional similar ones. Delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)01:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist — let's ideally solidify a consensus on the page history. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)01:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The revision history onMinor Xiaolin Showdown characters was indeed just fancruft, and it seems like a superfluous redirect when minor characters are not mentioned. The other two ought to have been deleted as well per the previous RfD linked. Shouldn't be any harm in deleting any of these.MEN KISSING (talk)02:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2025 Progressive Conservative Party of Prince Edward Island leadership election
Article was created at this title back in March, after the province's premier suddenly resigned and reliable sources (such as they are in Canada's east) expected a leadership election to happen quickly. It was announced today that the election will be held in February 2026, so the page was moved. Listing on behalf ofUser:GoodDay who asked about PRODding the redirect atWT:CANADA and also tagged the redirect forWP:R3 deletion.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)00:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(supplementary note: I would've just r3'd it for being as implausible as it is, had it not been on enwiki longer than almost everyone currently here)Oreocooke (talk)16:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
alas, there actually is an accident here, as the formatting causes the systems to mistake the date for part of your signature. why you'd be signing this impoperly in the first place is beyond me, thoughconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an implausible manner in which English readers may spell out the first word of the redirect, given that it seems like sort sort of non-diacritic version of "Mɨnɨka".Steel1943 (talk)20:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Check 'what links here'. It was once rendered like this in Ethnologue. It would need to be recreated so the reader would be redirected from the Ethnologue name. All primary Ethnologue names since before ISO link to a language article, though for names used for multiple languages we might not always have sufficient disambiguation.— kwami (talk)00:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LIsted buildings in Bishop Thornton, Shaw Mills and Warsill
Delete - our search engine already searches by partial title match, and these are not former titles or commonly-known alternative names. These don't make itmuch more difficult to find the intended target, but they also serve no really useful purpose.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)22:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this was not the only dog-eating, cat-eating or pet-eating hoax in history. Rumors of people eating them have popped up many times in history. As I said, there are many places called Springfield, most famously in Ohio and Illinois.Candidyeoman55 (talk)21:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague and per prior RfD. The list of possible referents is enormous. This is not suitable for a dab page as it would consist of a long, unwieldy list ofpartial title matches of the form 'National X Award' and 'National Award of/for X' and so on and so forth.This comment from the prior RfD articulates additional problems with aNational Award dab page. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)05:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Section doesn't exist in the target article, and didn't exist even when the redirect was created. Redirect was created by a user in the midst of thembludgeoningthis deletion discussion using AI. The policy itself is ahallucination, and the redirect was likely made to cover up the hallucination. Oddly enough, this policy has been hallucinatedtwice in deletion discussions.~2025-31416-56 (talk)17:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no relevant content at target. I notice in one of those LLM vomit-piles that it's hallucinating links to WP:DELREASON, but rather than a shortcut it's writing a piped link to the deletion policy. Bizarre, but not particularly surprising if someone is prompting an LLM to invent reasons not to delete something.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)21:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to vote, it would look something like this:
Delete per nom. This redirect is not just unfitting — but counter-intuitive. It is time-consuming, unnecessary, and time-consuming. , and anti-ethical to Wikipedia's policies such as WP:XFDCORP, a great redirect that targets existing policy. As a large language model, some of my borrowed information may be outdated or hallucinated — but I'm trying my best! Please pay 6 kromer to see the rest of the vote.consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)00:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for what that's worth, i think that'd be a lackluster target as well. it's less "what afd's purpose is" and more "when and/or why to nom stuff". there's a lot of overlap, sure, but the focus ultimately goes elsewhereconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)11:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly seeing notability for this. It redirected to a section that was very quickly removed 8 years ago, the site has been down since at least 2017, and I can't find any information about it except for a closed-down subreddit and a YouTube video.TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk)19:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SMALLDETAILS does not distinguish the church from the biblical passage, as the church is not known as "St Paul's Shipwreck" in short, even the article describes its short name as "Church of St Paul's Shipwreck".
"And a well-known conceptmay still be the primary topic for a variant styling or incorrect spelling [emphasis added], even if a much less well-known subject uses that spelling"
As stated previously, the church (the "less well-known subject") is clearly less notable than the biblical event (the "well-known concept").𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞?19:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget - I think "Paul's shipwreck" and "St Paul's shipwreck" are similar enough (and the meaning reasonably clear for the former) that it's logical for them to lead to the same place. I'm not sure making it a dab page is the best option - the phrasing isn't how one would typically search for a wreck of a particular ship or in a particular location. --Sable232 (talk)03:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot verify any sort of 40th anniversary release. That is a rather surprising result for such a famous album if such a release did exist. Looks to be made up. --Whpq (talk)18:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was redirected to a page that no longer exists, but wasn't deleted for some reason when the target page was. Not mentioned on the current target page.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)10:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pejorative nickname not mentioned in target. A Google search suggests this isn't a common nickname either, just a few instances in transcripts of assembly meetings.Rusalkii (talk)22:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A quick look, does suggest that the current target is the the primary topic (although I absolutely do not endorse "who cares about Cameroon"). I've added a couple of things to theExtreme North (disambiguation) page, which should be linked in a hatnote from the Russian region if this redirect is kept.Thryduulf (talk)19:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
re: "who cares": <sigh> sadly, the West has little attention to genocide in Cameroon (by the way, in the discussed area) and in Africa in general. I dont see students' protests similar to these about Gaza or Ukraine. --Altenmann>talk19:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some overlap between the Far North and Extreme North disambiguations, but whether merging the disambiguation pages (note not simply redirecting) would be better than two separate ones is a matter of opinion.Thryduulf (talk)21:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I would see "far north" in terms of distance, and "extreme north" in terms of difficult living conditions.Move Extreme North (disambiguation) to Extreme North. If however, the dab is modified to make Far North (Russia) the primary topic, Keep. Jay 💬16:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Split three ways. Thoughts on Jay's move proposal? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,mwwvconverse∫edits14:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep''' Prefer WP:SOFTR - I knew what it meant immediately and extreme north is a term you're more likely to hear from someone already in decently harsh/cold area describing a place even further north and is thus even harsher, and since we already consider it harsh where we are, yeah I've heard extreme north. With that said would prefer a soft redirect as it can be easy to get tripped up on.Beaksters (talk)15:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
small note regarding kailash's comment: while some people in the latter two afds were blocked for socking, it seems to have been 3 different people. still socking, and one even had two accounts in the same afds, but they're notall the same guy.though seeing mushy yank doing the do was definitely a surpriseconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)11:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...oh right, also,delete, essentially per the afds. the refs in the pre-blar content seem to be either mostly or completely composed of trivial tabloid coverage, user-generated stuff, primary sources, or generally unreliable slurry. the ip that initially restored the article (or made a brand new one, hell if i know) is also an lta, so i'm not entirely sure this discussion even counts lol. regardless, if someone can find sources that are actually usable for an article, this can then be recreated in a way that doesn't look like it was written as an adconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)11:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While?? is anull coalescing operator in some languages, it is infix in pretty much all of them, so using it as{{??|foo|bar|baz}} is at least odd to me when it is normallyfoo ?? bar ?? baz. Furthermore, as noted by nom, it is used incorrectly fairly frequently, thus it should be deleted for ambiguity.Casablanca 🪨(T)14:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect was nominated for speedy deletion byAjeeshkumar4u, who gave the reason as "C. H. Ashokan is not mentioned anywhere in the target article T. P. Chandrasekharan". That is true, but not one of the speedy deletion criteria, so I have declined the nomination. However, I have investigated further, and found the following.
The target article does not contain any mention of C. H. Ashokan, and never has.
The redirect was created in 2013 by GiantSnowman, who gave no explanation. (Neighbouring edits by GiantSnowman are on totally unrelated subjects.)
A Google search reveals that the connection between the two is that C. H. Ashokan was accused of being involved in the murder of T. P. Chandrasekharan, though he was not convicted.
I can't see any useful purpose in this redirect: nobody wishing to find information about C. H. Ashokan will find anything about him from this redirect.JBW (talk)12:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone recreated this with another questionable target. The previous discussion was closed early asG5. Can we please establish a consensus on what to do with this?I2Overcometalk11:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable? Other people tried to create a hoax article about a "President of the United Kingdom". Of course this office doesn't exist, as the United Kingdom is the best-known monarchy in the world. Five or six vandals tried to create a hoax article, I created a factual redirect.Candidyeoman55 (talk)11:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's true the UK is the best known monarchy, but I wanted to make navigating here less inconvenient. There are always people who may have ideas out there. But I think this redirect is a good fit.Candidyeoman55 (talk)11:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is decided, it should be consistent with other similar current RfDs (Prime Minister of the United States, President of Belgium); my preference would be todelete and salt all of these as unhelpful, not to mention being potentialWP:PANDORA-fodder (why don't we haveEmperor of Australia,Prime Minister of the Vatican and a host of other potential offices?). Targeting the republicanism movement definitely seems inappropriate, the relevant section ofList of countries by system of government would be a better target if this is kept.Rosbif73 (talk)10:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep They were, for a period of time, planned to take place in 2023, but got delayed. I don't know if it's worth including every delay for these games as they are taking place 6 years after initial planning, but without a mention it is a bit odd.[1]— Precedingunsigned comment added byCasablanca Rock (talk •contribs)18:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there is nothing currently in the article indicating that this event was ever planned to be held in 2023, it just says it was originally scheduled for 2020, then postponed to the following year, then postponedindefinitely, then announced for 2026. I'm not sure that the provided citation is good enough to establish official scheduling, seeing as it's about a different event entirely and just happens to mention these games in passing.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)20:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects should both be deleted or synchronized. Per third-party search engines, this phrase seems to specifically refer to a type of physicalChild abuse; however, the present time, this phrase is not mentioned inChild abuse, leaving readers arriving at the target potentially confused on why they arrived there.Steel1943 (talk)23:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was invited to contribute to this RFD, presumably as the closer of the mentioned AFD. A "drubbing" in British English means "a beating-up" or "a physical attack". I have no strong views on whether this should be kept or not, or whether it is a plausible search term.Stifle (talk)09:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 3^0.5 is the same thing as the square root of 3. It's also probably the easiest way to symbolize it without using non-keyboard characters. --Tavix(talk)16:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what this is. Yeah, it equates to the same answer, but one is not the same equation as the other. It's like saying that "3 * 3" and "3 ÷ 1/3" mean the same thing ... yeah, the answer is the same, but the question is not. It's similar to powers vs. roots in math: a "2" root creates the same answer as as a "1/2" power, exactly as multiplying by "2" creates the same answers as dividing by "1/2". In a nutshell, the redirect isn't theSquare root of 3, it's3 to the 0.5 power. (And yes, I'm saying this knowing that 31/2 is clearly mentioned in the target article; I'm in belief that some of our math articles need to be reevaluated to not potentially confuse readers in this manner.)Steel1943 (talk)22:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that youneed to type a calculation to arrive at the article.sqrt(3) and3^0.5 are both calculations. They are equally plausible and perfectly valid ways to specify the same number.MEN KISSING (talk)00:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it was. I really don't understand completely what you're saying? Why do you think "square root of 3" and "3^1/2" are not fundamentally the same thing?MEN KISSING (talk)15:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to further clarify in addition to anything I said two responses ago. Well, I did just think of something: To clarify, it's like instead of multiplying number A by number B ... dividing number A by thereciprocal of number B: Sure, you get the same answer, but it requires doing an "opposite" type of operation twice to get there.Steel1943 (talk)05:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I understand where you're coming from. But we're not doing any sort of opposite operation twice? If anything, the square root operation is the opposite operation, not the exponentiation. The better comparison is writing A x (1/B) instead of A / B to specify division.
Even still, people don't write A x (1/B) as notation to specify A / B, because that would be silly unless they were working with some pretty fancy mathematics. Peopledo write A^(1/B) as notation to specify the Bth root of A, though. Sometimes the concept of an Nth root is even defined that way.MEN KISSING (talk)22:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we kind of are doing opposite operations twice since to get the correct answer, an "opposite" math operations and a reciprocal number are both needed to get the same result. However, I do get that the whole "opposite operator" comparison for "power vs. root" may not be as well as acknowledged or understood as say "addition vs. subtraction" or "multiplication vs. division". Then again, the "power" operation could be considered to have two "opposites": "root" and "logarithm", though "root" would require a reciprocal to get the same answer as a power, whereas "logarithm" is an opposite as well but can be done with the same number to get the same result.(Yay, math(s) is/are fun and not confusing at all!)Steel1943 (talk)02:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going point by point onWP:RFD#DELETE I don't see any arguments to delete. (I have autocollapsed this to not seem like aWP:WALL)
Extended content
1. The redirect page makes itunreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
There has been no article this has arguably caused difficult finding, so this does not apply.
2. The redirect might cause confusion.
Similar to above, there has not been any identified possible confusion.
3. The redirect is offensive or abusive.
This is not the case
4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam.
This is also not the case
5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Banana".
This redirect makes perfectly good sense as pointed out byTavix, as = 3^0.5.
6. It is across-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace.
Not a CNR.
7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted underspeedy deletion criterion G8.
Not broken
8. If the redirect is anovel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful.
It is not the result of original research and it is not particularly novel or obscure. It is specifically mentioned at the article as, as (I do not think that accounts for original research perWP:OBV)
9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move.
No proposed move
10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Could not plausibly be expanded into its own article
11. If the redirect ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page or a page performing a disambiguation-like function (such as a set index of articles).
admittedly, i have no idea how many problems actually were in the original nom, but it was definitely more than one. for now, i'll recommend usingtwinkle for this stuff, since it'll boil the complicated part of the process down to pressing the button that does the thingconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)18:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The only use of this name I could find on enwiki is atList of Greek football transfers summer 2010#AEK Athens. He's listed as a defender promoted from the youth team, so all of that checks out. Elwiki doesn't have an article on the player, but lists this surname as part of the 2010-11 AEK squad. There are also Wikidata items for both names (Stamatis andMichalis). It may well be an incorrect name, but I don't see another competing use. I do hope@BEN917: comments and can help make sense of this, as he clearly knows much more of the subject area (and language) than I. --BDD (talk)21:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Michalis" is wrong and irrelavant to "Stamatis" which is the correct name. The user that created the page probably did it by mistake. Another user not noticing that article, created another with the correct name. When I noticed the existance of the two articles, a request for deletion of the initial and the history merge of the two articles was made. The request was naturally accepted and therefore there is no reason in keeping the redirect. The user that made this request on my behalf conveyed my opinion as it was, which was quite comprehensive. I also fixed the mistake in theList of Greek football transfers summer 2010 article as well as in the Wikidata. I cite a link from theAEK Database, which contains all the footballers that have played for the club. The link shows the results of the search of the name "Kalamiotis" in the footballers section. Clickhere to see the results (you can change the language to English). Best regards!BEN917 (talk)22:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, I'm convinced. If the error indeed originated here, let's clean up our own mess, even if it's been a while. --BDD (talk)16:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move without redirect (Updating per discussion)Keep - I fear that the number of years that this existed at the incorrect name must have spread the misnomer out there, evidenced by the wikidata pages. While those can be merged, we may not be able to easily correct other places that the mistake was spread to. I think it is better to maintain this tagged with{{R from incorrect name}} in case someone follows an incoming link or searches the incorrect name they saw somewhere, then they can at least end up at the correct destination instead of finding a deleted page and wondering why. This is part of why the Rcat linked above exists. -2pou (talk)22:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the current links, lists, and Wikidata items, and there are no remaining references using the incorrect name.
The point is that someone may have a direct link somewhere (which wouldn't appear in any of your numbered points above), and the purpose of redirects is to provide navigation. If deleted and someone clicks the direct link, they no longer reach the correct information. That said, I do not feel so strongly about it if consensus moves to deletion. There is a caveat I'd make to closers, though: Note to closer: This redirect has substantial history that would have been better restored and sent to AfD (these were both articles for a time). If the result leans toward delete (as it currently appears), I'd recommend accomplishing this via a suppressed-redirect move toKalamiotis, Stamatis (Michalis Kalamiotis (footballer) /Stamatis Kalamiotis (footballer) now fixed and struck per below) to maintain the history. This redirect's history was originally at thecorrect name before I swapped them per aWP:RMTR request favoring the older history. -2pou (talk)19:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @BDD. You're absolutely right. I'm confusing myself here... Now fixed above. Perhaps an indication that eliminating the misnomer should actually be done... I'm swaying myself. -2pou (talk)22:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moving the article to "Stamatis Kalamiotis (footballer)": There is no naming conflict or ambiguity that requires parenthetical disambiguation. UnderWP:PRECISION andWP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, a parenthetical title such as "(footballer)" is used only when multiple notable subjects share the same name or when disambiguation is otherwise necessary. That is not the case here: there are no other notable subjects named "Stamatis Kalamiotis" on Wikipedia or in Wikidata. Moving the article to "Stamatis Kalamiotis (footballer)" would introduce an unnecessary disambiguated title and would perpetuate confusion about the correct canonical name. The correct and policy-compliant solution is to keep the article at its current clean titleStamatis Kalamiotis and to remove the erroneous redirect (Michalis Kalamiotis) perWP:PRECISION,WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.BEN917 (talk)12:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Rephrasing, I meant that significant histories will typically get punted via said "restore" !votes. Not always, of course, but frequently. -2pou (talk)18:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I made therequest back in the day and also asked for a deletion the redirect and history swap. I thought that by the acceptance of the request (by you) that those would happened as well. I now notice that in addition of the first that did not occur, the history of the articles was not swapped as well. I cannot understand why did that happen.
Nevertheless, why is so important to keep the history of Michalis Kalamiotis? As far as I searced it contains nothing more that Stamatis Kalamiotis contains now, since it barely had any text (link). In my view the article Stamatis Kalamiotis should not have any redirects since as we examined there isn't any particular reason in doing so. Thank you!BEN917 (talk)17:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your request was for the move, and though you made the deletion recommendation, that's not the forum that would carry out that step. Apologies that I didn't specify that before. Everything I am suggesting now is just anWP:ATD. I'm of the view thatdeletion is always a last-resort solution when other solutions can accomplish the same goal to avoid any potential loss of author attribution that may occur between articles. In fact, now that I'm actually looking closer, it looks like this edit (Special:Diff/1321812956) merged the content of what's being nominated for deletion into the new location, so technically speaking,WP:ATTREQ says we need to provide a link stating that the content was copied from one location to the other with a link (either in edit summary or Talk page).Page comparison shows that infobox changes and the name discrepancy was still there, but the Career and Honours sections (which were not preset) were copied verbatim. Again, all fine, but we need to link where those sentences came from. -2pou (talk)18:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my position: the ideal and policy-consistent outcome here is that no redirect of any kind is needed, and the only existing page should remain the article atStamatis Kalamiotis. PerWP:PRECISION andWP:DAB, disambiguated titles (such as “Stamatis Kalamiotis (footballer)”) are created only when ambiguity actually exists. It does not exist here. There is no other notable person with this name in Wikipedia or reliable sources. Regarding the old redirect history: as shown above, it contains no unique or substantive content. UnderWP:RFD andWP:REDIRECT, such trivial histories do not require preservation under an alternative title. Therefore, the correct action in this RfD is simplyDelete the redirect entirely. No move, no disambiguated title, and no additional redirect is necessary. If there is nothing further of substance to add, I believe the discussion can proceed to closure.BEN917 (talk)21:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PRECISION and DAB have to do witharticle titles, not redirects. Your argument suggests that we could bring a whole slew of ~44,658 redirects here fromCategory:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation because they are not precise, but several have been kept or left alone because they areWP:CHEAP. I just default to unnecessary dab options because they are easy, but if you don't like unnecessary dabs, one could also go toKalamoitis, Stamatis to preserve history, which is still his name and has no unnecessary disambiguation and can use{{R from sort name}} (seeMessi, Lionel andRonaldo, Cristiano, for example). My main point is not the destination, but that it is non-trivial.
I don't understand the statementas shown above, it contains no unique or substantive content. I was literally arguing the opposite. Just one example: Who wrote the sentence "Born inAthens, Kalamiotis began playing football for local side AEK Athens. He made his debut for AEK in October 2010 in theGreek Cup againstPanthrakikos."? It was copied to the new page by you, but you are not the original writer of that sentence. The original author(s) are in the history that is up for deletion, which is one of the purposes under REDIRECT that you site under the pointTo comply with the maintenance of nontrivial edit history. The sentence is now different, but it wasthe start point that was built from. That is all I am saying. If the closer feels that this discussion reaches consensus that the sentence above, along with work done by others in finding external links, the honours listed, and category additions are indeed trivial contributions from other editors, then that is the consensus, and I defer to that. I personally lean towards every contribution made, if used elsewhere should be accounted for, but if I do not persuade anyone, I am just one person, and one person a consensus does not make. And if I continue to beat this dead horse, I won't sway anybody! All that said, I do appreciate the significant amount of work you put in after thatmerge to make the article more substantive. Although the AfD closed as no consensus, it's much better to have nearly aWP:HEY result than deletion. Kudos! -2pou (talk)22:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
consider this a weak nom, as this might just be a case where i'm being some sort of... how do i say this... sightless dolt? unseeing moron? visually impaired oaf? something among those lines, i'm sure
but instead of an alternate spelling, this seems to see use mostly as a stylization among one or two pieces of media not actually all that related to lovecraft's ethnically questionable shenanigans, or as the name of a potentially notable black metal band, so unless i'm missing some obvious details, this seems like a case ofreturning to red, or at least hoping someone is lucky to find something that could be worked into the current target (assuming itis actually a plausible spelling in some context directly related to the source material, that is)
yes, but the other half would be... uh...asag? haven't found much evidence for it, it just happens to be the most tangentially similar thing that actionable cat name connoisseur h. p. lovecraft might have heard of.as an aside, it'd be really funny if someone did this with christian figures, like having a character named "deborah-elohim"consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)01:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Azag-Thoth is mentioned atRabisu#In_Modern_Literature_and_Popular_Culture. This seems like it's meant to be a reference to the Lovecraftian creature ("materials presented in the book are a blend of ancient Middle Eastern elements, with allusions to the writings of H. P. Lovecraft and Aleister Crowley"). I can't actually access the source and I can't say lovecraft.ru inspires much confidence, and it isn't even entirely clear this is meant to be the same entity, but it's at least suggestive.The Lovecraft wiki offers this as an alternative name as well. Google hits seem to be primarily for the Lovecraftian entity. Overall, it looks like thisis a relatively common alternative spelling, though Lovecraft lore is rather tangled and if someone more familiar with it disagrees I'd defer to them.Rusalkii (talk)19:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Back when I was active in the skeptics movement I would encounter this org fairly often but my sense is that it's actually quite obscure. The redirect gets≈1 view per day and has at times had more traffic. This is low overall but higher than many redirects we delete as obviously useless. The traffic is presumably due to the existence of the redirect itself and its appearance in a handful of articles; these links could simply be removed when this is deleted so asnot to suggest there is a suitable article here. Regardless, since there is no description of this org at the target and only a passing mention in a list of org's elsewhere on-wiki, this does not serve readers and should be deleted. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)01:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One can have "Benign variant"s of things other than mutations; phrase is to vague to redirect to one target and I don't think it makes sense as a dab.Rusalkii (talk)22:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — "Benign variant" is a common and specific term, almost exclusively used by professionals and non-professionals in context of clinical genetics (the only other usage being niche references inEEG interpretation). TheACMG–AMP2015 variant interpretation framework defined "benign variant" as one of the five standard classes of gene variants. This is the standard vocabulary for clinical variant interpretation and patient education, widely adopted globally. Major resources and databases such asClinVar,ClinGen,GeneReviews andwebpageswhoseintendedaudienceisnon-professionals use the exact phrase—"benign variant"—in both professional and lay explanations. The redirect is useful and improves navigation to the relevant genetics content for our readers who are looking for the meaning of this term, which is an official clinical genetics classification rather than a vague expression, and is not commonly used in non-professional communication outside this context.—StrangeOrange14:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be vague in a genetics context, but it is used in other context as well. For instance, we use it7 times, of which none seem to refer to the class of gene variants. Similarly, the first hit when I google the phrase is the EEG usage, and it represents a large fraction of the results. The three common usages I can see are (1) the gene variant, (2) a variant of a disease or other health issue (as expressed, not genetically) or (3) the EEG variant.Rusalkii (talk)18:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to “benign variant” being one of the official classes of gene variants, it is also the standardized terminology used to describe variants in place of the older term"mutations". This has already been standardized in clinical genetics and there is clearly aspike in its popular usage after this terminology was adopted and started being used in science communication. While a Google search does return some EEG-related results, these represent a clear minority but that's besides the point. Of the seven instances you noted above (excluding the redirect title itself), one is the title of a 1981 journal article, one is the title of a 2010 journal article, and one is an unsourced usage referring to anEnder’s Game character—none of which represent widely used terminology in those respective contexts. Additionally, since 2015, the term is way more commonly being used inscientific literature to refer to clinical genetics than EEGs. While it is also used in EEG interpretation, I had to specifically look for it to show up in myjournal search. Outside of clinical genetics and its niche EEG context, there is little evidence that the term is used elsewhere with any comparable frequency. We would be remiss to delete this when it seems easy to disambiguate—I believe you already did that with your response.—StrangeOrange04:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a definition contrary to one you would find in any dictionary, and nothing in that article addresses them. You can find just as many people using dupe and knockoff (which you insist are entirely unrelated) as synonyms.PARAKANYAA (talk)22:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already brought this up onTalk:Counterfeit_consumer_good#Proposed_split where it formerly redirected, with the general consensus that "knockoff" does not mean counterfeit and should not redirect there. Dupe and knockoff are virtually identical concepts referring to legal imitations of products, so whatever that article ends up being renamed to, the other should redirect there. -Shivertimbers433 (talk)00:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also would support a full article atKnockoff; I think there’s enough history and notability there for knockoffs, dupes, and counterfeit goods to each have their own articles.I2Overcometalk23:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone opens a split request on counterfeit because knockoffs and counterfeits are different things and knockoffs are completely different things (they claim).
Someone later opens a merge request for dupe to counterfeit because it is (they claim) the same thing.
I execute both of these by splitting the content at counterfeit to to have one article on the concept of "product clearly trying to be another product though not exactly and it uses a different name", as that is what both knockoff and dupe mean.
After this, Cinaroot (the creator of the dupe article) argues that these are totally unrelated things, and completely rewrites the scope of the article to be on dupes and not knockoffs and remove any mention of them (but keeps the half of that article's sourcing which was about knockoffs, not dupes, and did not even mention dupes, but just rewrites it to be on dupes, which I have since removed because we cannot say they are different things and then treat them as synonyms)
So, we now have no article that addresses what a knockoff is, and we are simultaneously arguing that it is and is not the same thing. Just delete it. Anything else is more confusing. Maybe someone will make another article. Maybe someone won't. Better than an incorrect redirect. A dab makes it worse because you do not actually get any content about a knockoff at either of these articles, and if it is notable, that is not what a dab is for,WP:RETURNTOREDPARAKANYAA (talk)01:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. I totally agree with PARAKANYAA on this. First offDupe (product) should be moved toKnockoff because knockoff is thelegally recognized name in courts for that type of thing under the law; original (legal), counterfeit (illegal), knockoff (legal under certain circumstances). Courts/lawyers use the term knockoff. Not dupes. That's pretty standard.this andthis explains the difference. Whoever did this made a mess of things.4meter4 (talk)01:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to disambiguation and add wiktionary box. I originally created this years ago as a redirect to counterfeit consumer goods, since that is the primary topic and the items that seem mostly in question that use the term concern those watches and handbags. I don't understand the difference between that and the dupe jargon. You can make a case to addReplica to the counterfeit consumer goods "see also".AngusW🐶🐶F (bark •sniff)00:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surface transport is a broader category than just road transport. Here's the definition fromCambridge Dictionary (emphasis added):
the movement of people or goods by road,train, or ship, rather than by plane
What should we do? That's a good question.Land transport would definitely be an improvement over status quo, since it includes rail. It doesn't includemaritime transport, but it seems to me like we don't have a better option since there is no article about the two concepts lumped together.
Retarget toLand transport with hatnote The majority of sources I could find used surface transport to refer to specifically transport over land. However a minority include the sea, specifically in the context offreight, eg:[30],[31]. Therefore I would suggest including a hatnote toMaritime transport to acknowledge potential ambiguity.Golem08 (talk)22:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The target of the page no longer exists, (the redirect was last edited 12 years ago) and it now targets to just the page. What action should be taken to this redirect?2550 69 11hne(talk)20:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The target section was removed 4 years ago in this edit[32] byDanstronger. Personally I think this was a mistake, because the article now lacks any link toEisenstein integer, and the content was verifiable (if not actually sourced). I propose to reinstate the target section, whose content is certainly verifiable. --JBL (talk)21:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at least. I'll mostly remain agnostic about whether or not the material should be re-added to the main square root of 3 article (it maybe seems a little off topic, but I dunno). But it's not there now, so until it is, the redirect shouldn't exist. And even then, this requires typing two unusual characters: the square root symbol and the minus sign (not a hyphen, as keyboards generally produce), so the utility of this seems questionable at best regardless. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)16:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Or whatCasablanca Rock said since I haven't dealt with this type of math in almost a decade. 😂 (I'm still "delete" though since the target does not fully encompass the subject of this redirect.)Steel1943 (talk)00:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am troubled as this is mentioned atEisenstein integer to some extent as which is in; however, it is a bit surprising as it is not the only use of. I largely think that this should be kept with the content restored as noted above byJayBeeEll, but I am unsure if that's a conclusion that RfD can come to. If so, count this as a !vote for keep.Casablanca 🪨(T)23:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for what little that's worth,delete unless sources are found and then added. the section that got removed was just unsourced cruft, so restoring it really wouldn't help the article or a reader. the mention at eisenstein integer is indirect at best, so it wouldn't help matters much eitherconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)15:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ethernet cable andEthernet Cable redirect to two different articles; they should both redirect to the same article. Which one, I am not sure at the moment.Erpertblah, blah, blah...16:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lower-case version, since its target does go into quite a bit of detail about the various cables used for ethernet specifically, while the networking cable page is more generic. And since we're here,delete the upper-case version, since it's not a proper noun, and the search function will already match case differences (which would have avoided this situation in the first place). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)17:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lower case version and if keeping the upper case both should redirect to network cabling. As the term is commonly used, ‘Ethernet cables’ can be used on non-Ethernet networks and Ethernet can run over fiber, which is not considered to be an Ethernet cable. Because of this it is not appropriate to redirect either phrase toEthernet.Ngriffeth (talk)15:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got this backwards, I meant keep and retarget the lower case version to networking cable.
Anyone referring to Ethernet cables is almost certainly referring to the twisted-pair version. The Ethernet article has extensive discussion of the historical use of coax cables but that’s less relevant to anyone interested in Ethernet cables.
The observation that the networking cable article doesn’t have as much discussion of Ethernet cables is correct, but that’s not actually a problem since it links to a main article with extensive discussion of each kind of cabling. It also points out that twisted pairs are commonly used for Ethernet networks and that coax was used in early Ethernet networks. This gives a much clearer picture of the situation for Ethernet cables.Ngriffeth (talk)12:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah, okay. those "keep and retarget" votes actually just mean "retarget" in practice lol
this small confusion aside, though, results for "ethernet cable" still mostly gave me whatever cables could be used for ethernet shenanigans. this includedcoaxial cables, but it also includedtwisted pair,ethernet crossover cables,cable ofmarvel vs. capcom 2 fame and not much else,usb-c cables, lists of cables used for ethernet hijinks, and a bunch of assorted color-coded square stuff i can't tell apart to save my life. this, along with other cables the results i got before google lost track of itself didn't cover, is information i think is better communicated in ethernet than networking cable, as a reader would be looking for somewhat more specific info, even if about this oddly nonspecific topic.this also doesn't mean i think either article covers it that well, but that's besides the point for nowconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and target them all to the same article. I would preferNetwork cable because most of the coverage there is about or at least relevant to Ethernet cables, and there's not much direct coverage about the cables inEthernet. ~Kvng (talk)15:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a redirect to this next election. Red Links encourage article creation. This moved from draftspace, but was redirected to preserve history as an ATD, but quite frankly, there is really no valuable content in the history. It basically just says the basic fact the incumbent one term governor is eligible for a second term. The details on the jungle primary in history don't really justify keeping it as this information can be found on other election articles such as the more broadElections in Louisiana.Delete perWP:RETURNTORED.Servite et contribuere (talk)18:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since there's information about the upcoming election at the target article. This is standard procedure when there's no separate article for a given election. The redirect can always be overwritten with an article. -Eureka Lott15:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Odd one here. The target clearly mentions this redirect as an alternative name for the target subject/section, but this is clearly aWP:RSURPRISE per third party search engines ... which define the primary topic for "handing" as the verb to give someone something via hands. I did some searching around the English Wikipedia, specifically looking for options such as variations ofGiving, but could not find an alternative target.Steel1943 (talk)20:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
moved fromyellow paint debate and then retargeted. i thought yellow paint (the material that makes stuff yellow) would've been the primary topic, but it seems that yellow paint (the unsubtle signposting) seems to beat it by a relatively decent margin. not that this is worth worrying about much, but i do think it would be better off retargeted back to the debateconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
eh, not quite. it's a somewhat widespread recent argument regarding game design, it really just happens that the article is a tiny wee bitfucking raw at the moment. it's definitely not up there with "graphical fidelity vs. art style" (which is obviously a binary choice, you can never have both, ignore thesplit fiction-shaped hole in this argument) or "make big money vs. make good game" (which is obviously a binary choice, you can never have both, ignore thebalatro-shaped hole in this argument), but it's at least well past being nicheconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)11:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not discussions many people are even aware of. Even hard-core gamers mostly play rather than debate. Of course that applies to many subjects we have articles on. But almost every household in the western world will have or will have had yellow paint. And we see yellow paint on the road every day in many countries. All the best:RichFarmbrough12:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
kind of? admittedly, if i'm overestimating something, it's my inability to avoid this damn argument. how hard is it for[platform(s) redacted] to figure out that i want to see cute art and not people screaming about bad game design?
Keep or delete or retarget to somewhere that talks about the physical yellow paint, but do not retarget to the debate. A quick google gives 1 hit for the debate and all the remaining for the actual physical paint in the first two pages. For what it's worth, I'd never heard of the video game meaning before and while I'm not much of a gamer I do sometimes hang out with them.Rusalkii (talk)19:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
funnily, this one actually has a reason to be in titlecase. that being that it was from a move of a redirect toyear of the snitch, as a song in that album. for whatever reason, thecommon noun version was previously speedied as a pile of fancruft for an unrelated, seemingly unnotable rap trio
that's all besides the point, though. per redirects likered crayon (seerfd), there doesn't seem to be any need for redirects for specific colors, and results don't seem to have implied that the death grips sound thingy would be a primary topic for the search. i guess if kept, the common noun version should be recreatedconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not feeling this one, honestly. this will be a little too similar topandora for my tastes, but it would be just as valid an argument forred,green,yellow,yellow,purple,brown, and cthulhu help me,blue. on a more serious note, this and all those other articles also aren't really about paint of those colors, nor do they have the kind of info readers would be looking for under a title like that, so they'd besurprisingconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)11:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of it in the target article. Apparently there used to be but a discussion led to its removal so the redirect no longer makes sense.Largoplazo (talk)18:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thecontent was moved fromTav (number) AIUI. It was then pre-emptively deleted in a discussion in August, butUser:Farkle Griffen has commented on the talk page explaining the history of the tav character in theabsolute infinite article. Presumably the content will be restored , or at least enough of it to allow the redirect to remain in place. All the best:RichFarmbrough21:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
What led me toTav (number), and thence to my deletion submission, was that a link to it had been removed from the "See also" section ofTaw, the article about the letter in Semitic scripts, by who I see now is the editor who shortly before initiated the discussions to which you refer.Largoplazo (talk)13:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page has multiple incoming links from Lieber's other projects. If she is indeed not notable, then this redirect should just be deleted, as she is clearly notonly known for this film (and if anything, her role in it seems fairly minor). —Anonymous23:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article and consider AFD for proper assessment. The article was recently BLAR'd (May 2025). It was getting >700monthly pageviews pre-BLAR and continues to get ≈400 views per month post-BLAR. Quite possibly just an artifact of being linked in a few high-traffic articles. Linking to a random movie she appeared in doesn't make any sense. Even if this is her most high profile role, the article (appropriately) contains zero biographical information and doesn't even discuss her performance.If found non-notable at AfD this shouldnot be made to redirect back to the film. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)18:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ugh...delete anddo not restore unless someone actually thinks the sources are usable. as is, citation 1 is a filmography and not usable for notability, citation 2 only mentions her in passing in the context of one random episode of friends where she's one of two actresses for the same character, citation 3 only mentions her in passing in the context of a one-off appearance in seinfeld, and seems to be from a blog, and i have to wonder what the hell citation 4 is doing there because it seems to be nothing but the headline followed by a picture of her and who i'm assuming is her husband. as is, i found some seemingly usable sources for her, but they're not in the article, so a closer would be restoring a filmography with effectively one source that doesn't prove notability, meaning she unambiguously doesn't meet gng as is, and if an article were to be made from those sources, it would be underwp:tnt, whether the creator wants that to be the case or not. honestly, people saying that it should be taken elsewhere without actually assessing the stuff they want taken elsewhere should stop, since it only actually means they want someone else to deal with a potentially really simple caseconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)22:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment:Geschichte,Myceteae,consarn, any chance the three of you could work out your differing stances? As the nominator, I'm neutral between restoring and sending to AfD and just deleting, but without further engagement, this will end up being closed as no consensus and kept as a redirect, which doesn't seem to be an outcome anyone wants. Thanks. —Anonymous19:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer deletion over keeping. I think it's inappropriate to BLAR articles that don't have a suitable redirect target and that have some content worthy of evaluation at AfD. That said, I agree that this the content and sourcing in the history is essentially unusable so either she is not notable of this isWP:TNT and can be deleted either way. I will also amend my bolded !vote above. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@An anonymous username, not my real name:without further engagement, this will end up being closed as no consensus and kept as a redirect This is not true; the competent experienced closers (and all the admin ones at least) know better perWP:NCRET and will close a "no consensus" with a functional outcome of the prevailing non-delete option if there is no consensus to delete. If a closer does what you describe, please ask them to modify or vacate their close, and if that fails raise it atWP:DRV whereby it will almost certainly get overturned. There's no reason for a redirect to be kept if no one votes to keep it.Left guide (talk)16:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article and send to AfD. Deleting the now-redirect would be tantamount to bypassing AfD; don't just turn articles into redirects and then delete them using RfD.CapnZapp (talk)21:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a redirect titled Mimi Lieber would be fine if we had an article actually discussing her. I agree The Thing About My Folks isn't that article; it contains only a trivial mention with no details. Still, that doesn't mean we should delete this redirect because it used to be an article which received no AfD.CapnZapp (talk)22:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this seems like a good time to mentionthis afd from a blar no one in rfd had any actual arguments towards restoration beyond a procedure that doesn't exist, and no one in afd could prove was notable enough to improve or "re"create. similarly, no one voting to restore this has made any actual arguments towards the content being restored, with the closest to one being the exact thing that was mistaken for an assumption of incompetence way back inthis afd and proven ineffective in a couple othersconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)17:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since nobody advocating for restoration has been able to make any arguments that the subject may be notable. Without evidence of notability, the subject article should not be restored (and it is inappropriate to ask AfD to try to find that evidence for you, that's not the purpose of that forum). --Tavix(talk)16:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus seems split right down the middle, and seems to need aWP:BARTENDER unless consensus eventually sways in either direction. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Steel1943 (talk)18:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear whyAgudel-a redirects toGraciela Agudel-o (emphasis mine), as there are no mentions of "Agudela" in the target article. Redirect should be deleted as it appears to be a typo butWP:R3 is not applicable as the redirect has been in place for over 12 years.Shazback (talk)03:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one of the two sources in the article (the dictionary of composers) reads "Graciela Agudela", but this is likely to be a typo (perhaps someone who thought Spanish surnames are gendered?)
Comment I think this could be an ok option. Information about beaches in Matosinhos could be easily added either in the Geography section or under Attractions. See link below from the municipality’s webpage.
Delete. Vague as a misspelling of the composer's last name orAgudelo grapes or a correct spelling for the Portuguese beach. The misspelling for her name does appear in two en-wiki articles:List of women composers by birth date andList of women composers by name (I will correct these). It's also seemingly misspelled in another person's namein the references atFreddie Records."Graciela Agudela" has just 318 hits on Google, including, I think, en-wiki mirrors or sites that may otherwise be influenced by the misspelling on a couple of pages here. The misspelling also appearsin a citation on her es-wiki page which is a clear error (I plan to fix this, too). The beach, Praia da Agudela, is mentioned atList of beaches in Portugal § Porto metropolitan area. Redirects from last names are not standard but are sometimes justified. The fact that this is a misspelling, which I find to be rather uncommon, makes it less likely to be useful. We do haveGraciela Agudela but the correct spelling of her lat name,Agudelo, redirects toGodello. I have updated the hatnote atGodello to include the composer.Search results will reveal the correct pageGraciela Agudelo, via theGraciela Agudela redirect, as well as the Portuguese beach and any other uses that might sneak in. The full-name misspelling getsmore traffic although both are low. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget toList of beaches in Portugal § Porto metropolitan area, as Matosinhos doesn't have a mention and will not be useful as a target. Weak because the beach doesn't seem to be important enough for even Matosinhos to have a mention. Otherwisedelete to favour search results, or the wiki search bar to suggest similar spellings. Jay 💬08:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, second, third, and fourth quarter are obviously ambiguous, as evidenced by their current pointing to separate sets of articles (not to mention the commonality of "quarters" in sports games).BD2412T04:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guessweak delete all since theQuarter disambiguation page would be best target, but not all meanings are included there, and none of these redirects have a clearWP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target. (Otherwise, if someone can figure out how to disambiguate these titles properly, I'd be supporting that instead.)Steel1943 (talk)06:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
During theWang Fuk Court fire, I noticed some news using the term "Taipo" to refer toTai Po (example:[35][36]. And as a Hongkonger, we sometimes use the term without the space. Also, "Taipo" may refer to Mozambican politicianMaria Helena Taipo. So I am wondering if it should become a disambiguation rather than a redirect to a page about the rivers in New Zealand. Or should it be redirected toTai Po (disambiguation) and add the current target in the list?Sun8908Talk08:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, without a doubt, 100%. It's a deeply ambiguous title that could easily mean EITHER of those two very different topics, and so the safest bet is to have a disambiguation page at the basename, so users can go to the article they intend to go to. (Especially since the page that used to have this title JUST finished its move, and people might still be visiting its old title or using it as a search term).Paintspot Infez (talk)23:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the grammar is ambiguous, my read is actually the opposite of yours; I'd default to assuming that the Israelis are the subject in this phrase. Which I suppose means that I supportdisambiguation.Rusalkii (talk)22:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's also 97 as aC (programming language) numeric literal because of its dumb octal literals, but I find neither that nor any of the proposed dab targets satisfactory. The number and the year are implausible to have a leading zero, and the things like dialing prefixes and postal codes get pretty ridiculous with their open-ended nature -- this isn't really what redirects are for. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)22:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the target article is definitely Eurocentric, there's not discussion of white nationalist terrorism outside of specific country-by-country events. Perhaps that's enough.JayCubby02:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orredirect towhite nationalism. Some of what is on right wing terrorism should probably be moved over there. White nationalism isnt strictly right and right wing terrorism isnt necessarily white nationalist.
Keep - It's not the most common abbreviation but it is used. And as noted above, we don't need a double redirect. I see no harm in keeping it.Sundayclose (talk)22:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as harmless and consistent with the current target being the primary topic forASL. Some readers might reasonably insert periods even though it's less common. People often search all lowercase anda.s.l. automatically converts the first letter to a capital. I don't think we need this redirect—I would not have created it—but it's here now and is unproblematic. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)22:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I did see your original suggestion but did not realize there was an explicit argument that lowercasea.s.l. is substantially more likely to have this meaning. The use in a small number of articles tells us something but is not definitive for usage or search behavior.WikiNav for ASL (disambiguation) shows that 50% of traffic comes fromAmerican Sign Language and all outgoing traffic goes toAmerican Soccer League andAge/sex/location; none goes toAbove sea level or any of the other locations on the dab page.WikiNav for American Sign Language shows thatASL (disambiguation) is not among the top 10 pages readers navigate to. Clicks and traffic aren't necessarily definitive for primary topic/WP:SMALLDETAILS but overall this does not indicate a navigation problem.a.s.l. gets about 7 views per month; I suspect most come from clicks in articles but some may be typed. The current use ofma.s.l. in articles is inappropriate perMOS:NOFORCELINK—metersabove sea level should be spelled out on first usage rather than using an abbreviation and forcing readers to clicka.s.l. for a definition. The abbreviation can be defined on first usage if it is going to be used again, e.g.metersabove sea level (m a.s.l.). My solution is to fix the current usage in articles, maybe update the{{Redirect}} hatnote atAmerican Sign Language to explicitly addressa.s.l., and maybe monitor WikiNav and Pageviews for a few months to see if there is any indication that this redirect needs to be revisited. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on Mgp28's retargeting proposal? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!02:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting for the above redirects to be turned into disambiguation pages, firstly to match other ambiguous number month-day and day-month date notation disambiguation pages like '4/1' and '5/1', and secondly becuase I'm not sure if the respective target articles are considered the primary topics for the current redirect titles,number/number, or are well known out of their respective fields. Note that '5/10 (disambiguation)' already exists as a disambiguation page, but I'm only listing the redirect '5/10' here for the sake of centralising discussions about these redirects.PK2 (talk;contributions)02:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 5/10 was the subject of a successful requested move (the disambiguation page was moved over it), so this discussion is now partially moot. Thanks,1isall (he/him) (talk |contribs)03:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure if this redirect is worth keeping. While the character is listed in the target article, it has no information besides its name and the character was an extremely minor one who only appeared in a single scene in one episode, so it is unlikely a popular search term unlike his successor.~2025-38809-39 (talk)01:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jay I see that it was redirected to that article, but where was it merged? I don't see addition of any content about Alpha 4 during that time period.Rusalkii (talk)01:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather inclined tokeep because it isn't doing any harm and may well be useful for something or contain history that doesn't look valuable but in fact is. Almost certainly it isn't useful, but I don't see any danger in keeping it around.Cremastra (talk·contribs)01:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like the sum total history is "WithWikipedia:Votes for deletion currently broken -- no one seems to have a way to add edits, seeVillage Pump for discussion -- I have set up this page as a temporary location for the usual work ofWikipedia:Votes for deletion. I've made a remark to this effect on theVillage Pump. OnceWP:VFD is fixed, all this should be merged." over 20 years ago, with the following edit turning it back to a redirect with the summary "oops". No incoming links. If someone digs up an actual reason to keep this I have no objections, but might as well clean up whatever this old mess is. I somewhat concur with Cremastra's assessment that this is harmless, but since it's up for discussion let's mop it up.Rusalkii (talk)23:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have historical value. Some pages from long ago should certainly be kept, but we don't put every iron nail from the 1800s in a museum solely because they're old. It has to have actual importance.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)12:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete, technically per nom. it might just be me having smallbrainitis, but i couldn't actually find any evidence of this being used as a temporary substitute for vfd that hasn't already been cleaned up and/or never actually existed. no history, no logs, no incoming links, nothing. it also seems to have lasted a little under a month as a thing that isn't a redirect, so the estimate of 21 years of history going down the drain seems kind of exaggerated. considering the rationale for redirection, the creation could've also just been a mistake or somethingconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)12:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesallow it, in the sense that you can use it with|and=, and to add one. But it's not by default. I'd be happy to see this pointed wherever or turned into a wrapper; my main concernis discoverability, since I had a hard time finding{{Enum}} when I wanted to make a list with an Oxford comma, and these redirects should be available so that future editors looking to do the same don't have to search so hard. So I oppose deletion for them, but no preference beyond that.Sdkbtalk19:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb:I opposed deletion too, since I am the author of the old{{List with serial comma}} template. But a decision has been taken and we must follow it. Or you canrequest to undelete it and I will support your request. But the fact remains that if you find{{Enum}} viaTemplate:List with serial comma you are being mis-redirected. Supporting a serial comma requires being able to output “a and b” but “a, b, and c” (i.e. the template needs to distinguish between lists of only two items and longer lists). Hence giving the possibility to write|and=, and manually does not correspond to supporting serial commas. Otherwise we could also have a redirect to{{Enum}} named{{Comma-only list}} and tell people who come here protesting that to obtain what they want they will have to write manually{{Comma-only list|and=, }}. --Grufo (talk)20:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read through that TfD in much depth until now. Many of the delete !votes on it seem to reflect a combination of (a) some editors who justdon't like Oxford commas, which is a fine opinion to have but givenMOS:VAR is not a reason to delete the option, and (b) some editors who mistakenly believed that{{enum}} faciliatated Oxford commas and then just became obstinate when you showed it didn't.
Given that, my view is that the result should be challenged and overturned. I'm not sure that WP:RFU would be the right venue for that, given that I already technically undeleted it to make the redirect, so perhaps we can just have the discussion here.Sdkbtalk21:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are many problems in general with TfD. One—which is probably unsolvable as long as we centralize deletion proposals—is that many people who find pleasure in regularly monitoring and intervening in such places tend to bedeletionists, whereas most editors find the whole thing non-constructive or boring. Where I come from there is a proverb: the more you let the barber talk the more they will trim. Another problem is that we lack a policy concerning new templates that did not have enough time to be discovered yet; recently Iproposed a time window of six months that must be granted to new templates, but the proposal did not reach much consensus so far. Another problem, specific to the case in question, is that a user decided tobomb all the templates I created, and that is probably the main reason this template was nominated for deletion. I am not sure this is the right place to overturn a voting. But I am not expert enough aboutWP:Wikilawyering. --Grufo (talk)21:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: Then let's make it default and let's undelete the template as proposed bySdkb, what do you think? As explained above, the{{Enum}} template doesnot support serial commas, not even optionally. You are free even to write{{Enum|One///|Two///|Three|and=,&#32;}}, but that does not mean that the template supports///, as separator. --Grufo (talk)03:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll actually support deletion here. I think that Grufo is correct. If a template redirect makes it seem it does something which it doesn't, then it's improper to keep around.Gonnym (talk)08:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of their code should never have been created. Most of it is unreasonably complex-looking. It seems Enum does what you want, so I see no reason to restore the template or keep the improper redirect.Gonnym (talk)15:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Most of it is unreasonably complex-looking”: You have pretty low standards if you considerthe deleted code of{{List with serial comma}} “unreasonably complex-looking”. It was nothing but this:
I saidcomplex-looking for a reason. It's a way to say that more could be done with less.these two sentences contradict each other Those don't. The redirect doesn't do what the title of the redirect does. Enum on the other hand has parameters which allows it to do so. Also I'm not going to comment any longer so you can wikilaywer to your heart's content here without me.Gonnym (talk)17:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't,you do, by manually distinguishing the cases like{{enum|A|B}} from the cases like{{enum|A|B|C|and=, and{{space}}}}. --Grufo (talk)17:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An obscure topic (mainly a series of (self-published?) books which haven't gotten any attention inWP:RS it seems) which would never get an article on Wikipedia, but for some reason a redirect to an unsourced Wiktionary entry is created (also for the abbreviation BNWO). I can understand having Wiktionary redirects for words or common sayings, but when they are more like spam for something obscure instead of actual dictionary entries, then I don't think Wikipedia is the place to have an entry for it, even it is just a link to a sister project.
@Fram the term has increased in usage particularly in social media over the past year or two (that's why it hasn't showed up in RS's quite yet), and the entry has receiveda lot pageviews (compareGoogle Trends) as people look up slang, so a redirect would be useful in my opinion. note that I am currently working on adding quotations to the entry and note also that the types of sources that Wiktionary accepts goes beyond what is reliable for Wikipedia but what is for language use.Juwan (talk)11:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't trust Wiktionary pageviews at all though, they are extremely bizarre often. The 10th most viewed page isrevolutus, a Latin term? Right... The 20th most viewwed page isn't any better[37], as are many of the other entries.Fram (talk)14:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Don't understand why this can't use the same method AfD uses, would be a lot less confusing (yes, I know, one page per day instead of one page per AFD, but still).Fram (talk)11:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral. I accepted/created the first two because there are sources to support it is a nickname for the ship such as the ProPublica article in the Further Reading section,this NYT article (ProQuest2772233502) among several other publications (National Review, The Economist, etc.) so likely should be mentioned in the article but it's not.S0091 (talk)21:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an article linked from theLittoral combat ship § Further reading section with the titleThe Inside Story of How the Navy Spent Billions on the "Little Crappy Ship": How the Navy Spent Billions on Failed Littoral Combat Ship Program (emph mine), so not really not mentioned at target. And google searching finds many sources using it? Not sure we needed all four variations but tag all with{{R from non-neutral name}} if kept.Skynxnex (talk)05:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the singular is clearly attested in RS, and there doesn't seem to be anything problematic about having the plurals if the singular are OK.Hog FarmTalk20:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are four citations in the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation article that have "hunger games" in the title. There are also a fifth citation present in the2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings. The first four appear in the lead for Gaza Humanitarian Foundation & all five appear in theGaza Humanitarian Foundation § Killings and other access incidents section due to the inclusion of the other article by using{{Excerpt|Rafah aid distribution killings|hat=no}}.
None of these sources use the phrase "Gaza Hunger Games". The couple of places that I have been able to find it online are editorials.
Three of the sources, & the article itself, puthunger games in quotes. To quote thescare quotes article,Writers use scare quotes for a variety of reasons. They can imply doubt or ambiguity in words or ideas within the marks, or even outright contempt. They can indicate that a writer is purposely misusing a word or phrase or that the writer is unpersuaded by the text in quotes, and they can help the writer deny responsibility for the quote. (Omitting references from that article)
Since there is no reliable source using the phrase "Gaza Hunger Games", we can conlude that it is aneologism. TheWikipedia policy on neologism statesArticles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.
The editing guideline governingReasons for deleting states8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. "Gaza Hunger Games" is certainly novel & is not listed in the article.
TheNeutrality of redirects editing guideline states3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per thewords to avoid guidelines and the generalneutral point of view policy. I would argue that "Gaza Hunger Games" is not neutal as the phrase is not found in any reliable source.
I had tagged{{Db-g10}} before the redirect was speedily deleted & then subsequently revived because of the contest of the deletion. SinceGaza Humanitarian Foundation is a humanitarian organization that has been accused, but not proven, of complicity in the2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings, the Gaza Hunger Games redirect arguably failsWP:G10 as an attack on an organziation. It certainly failsWikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Intuitiveness as the Israel Army is directly responsible for the killings, not the GMF.
Secondly, you're being too narrow by dismissing sources that say "hunger games" in Gaza but not necessarily "Gaza hunger games". We have redirects likeISO 4 (redirect), where "ISO 4" can be found in many RS but not necessarily "ISO 4 (redirect)" exactly.VR(Pleaseping on reply)02:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what those sources state:
Le Monde:'The Hunger Games' in Gaza
MSN/Sky News:'hunger games' in Gaza
Responsible Statecraft:'hunger games' in Gaza
Sky News:"Hunger Games" in Gaza
None of those sources stateHunger games in Gaza & they areall put in quotes. See my bullet point about quotes above.
I think that my opposition to neologisms should be clear by now. No, I do not support this in any way. I think that as aid is reestablished in Gaza, this will become more obscure phrase anyway, especially with theGaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) going defunct as of 24 November 2025.Peaceray (talk)21:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent this is a fair question. I found the evidence sufficiently convincing that the specific termGaza holocaust is used with essentially the same meaning as the topic covered by the articleGaza genocide. That was reason enough for me but, as I noted in the prior discussion, the history of repeated recreation and discussion about the appropriate target for those redirects also put more weight on the side of not deleting. To be clear, repeated recreation or retargeting of redirects that have been discussed at RfD is often disruptive and should not be done as a way to game the system to 'prove' how common or useful a redirect may be. But sometimes this contributes to the assessment of a redirect's appropriateness. I find the evidence in support ofGaza hunger games unconvincing, essentially for the reasons Peaceray and others have spelled out. The use of quotes in the set phrase(the) "Hunger Games" in Gaza does not show thatGaza hunger games is a name that is commonly used to describe2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings orGaza Humanitarian Foundation or the topic of any other article. It is too-great a leap from a few sources making the literary reference"Hunger Games" in Gaza to usingGaza hunger games as a name or synonym for the particular incident. It is obviously not an appropriate link to use in articles and it is not a plausible search term. If I read a number of sources that describe an event as aShakespearean tragedy orKafkaesque orreminiscent ofDune or whatever, I am not going to use those terms to search for the even but rather something more specific to the name or description of the event itself. Or if an actress named Jane Doe is repeatedly referred to asthe blonde bombshell Jane Doe orJane Doe, the blonde bombshell, that does not establishBlonde Bombshell Jane Doe as a nickname for the actress and does not justify a redirect fromBlonde Bombshell Jane Doe to the article about the actress. I understand that you disagree and are unlikely to be persuaded by my arguments, which largely restate points that others have already made. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)17:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. This redirect to the GHF article clearly casts shade on the GHF, despite that they are not responsible for the killings of Gazans.Peaceray (talk)21:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VR: This thread is below my "delete" vote. To be clear, I did not agree to a re-direct to "2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings". (Your comment "it was agreed on above...") I am only weighing in on the redirect to GHF. —ERcheck (talk)20:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we also consider this closure (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_September_5#Gaza_holocaust): "editors overall did not agree with the argument that a non-neutral redirect must be mentioned verbatim in the text of the target so long as it was clear to the reader that they are getting content on the subject that of the redirect".Peaceray and others, do you agree that a non-neutral redirect need not be mentionedverbatim in the target article?VR(Pleaseping on reply)04:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope the above 34 media sources + 3 scholarly sources will be enough to settle to show that this is an established term.VR(Pleaseping on reply)05:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage editors to look through all the sources that VR (Vice regent) has posted. I went through all the sourcesnot behind a paywall, & I found that the verbatimGaza Hunger Games is mention onlyonce, in the India Today piece,"Reality of Gaza hunger games explained as starvation kills scores"., where the phrase only appears in the title. A single source for the phrase absolutely failsWP:COMMONNAME.
VR seems to believe, & seeks to convince us, that any article that mentions bothGaza &Hunger Games justifies the creation of theGaza Hunger Games neologism. As I have outlined above, this is contrary toWP:NOTNEO,WP:R#DELETE,WP:RNEUTRAL, &MOS:SUBMARINE.
Several mentions of'The Hunger Games' in Gaza or variations fail to justify the creation of the neologismGaza Hunger Games as a redirect. That is the deletion we are discussing here, not other phrasings in the press.Peaceray (talk)21:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But on the bigger point I concede that "hunger games in Gaza" doesn't appear verbatim in most sources that actually talk about this. I don't see any policy that requires it. I'm an avid reader of wikipedia and when I search for a term I will just type in the major words and the wikipedia search bar is smart enough to pull up a relevant article or redirect. A reader is likely to type in either "gaza hunger games" or "hunger games gaza", which would be served byGaza's hunger games andHunger games in Gaza respectively.Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap so it is not clear what is benefit of deleting this. And NPOV concerns have already been resolved by agreeing that it shouldnot point toGaza Humanitarian Foundation, but rather point to2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings.VR(Pleaseping on reply)23:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEO applies to articles, not redirects. Also, RNEUTRAL explicitly statesif a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms.. Other users have established that multiple sources use “Gaza’s hunger games” or variations thereof, in their title and prose thus making this redirect okay. Lastly, based on this term having some use in the aforementioned references, users would not be surprised that this title leads to to Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.FrankAnchor19:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This RfD is specifically for the redirect ofGaza's hunger games →Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Much of keep discussion based on the usage of the term itself. Some of the keeps, then mention re-target to2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings; while some clearly say redirect to another target. To make the consensus clear, I recommend that the "keeps" make clear what they want the redirect to point to. —ERcheck (talk)14:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with hatnote to the aid distribution massacres. While people have stated that the Gaza homicide foundation isn't confirmed to be complicit with these crimes, they have obvious been called this. Also, of course it isn't confirmed yet, that happened just this year. And sinceWP:OR doesn't apply to discussions, I request everyone to use their brains a little: notice how theGaza peace plan doesn't mention the GHF? Why is this? Aren't the GHF good little smol beans who were just trying to help the Palestinians? Well, it sure doesn't seem so if other humanitarian foundations were chosen to give aid the Palestinians. And why'd the organization close so quickly after being accused of these crimes? Shouldn't they have been more committed to the Palestinian cause as a genuine humanitarian foundation?User:Easternsaharareview this00:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the logic here, a big falacy. The redirect will not, in any way, confuse someone and make them think the US has a Prime Minister. In the unlikely even someone types that in, it would take them to the proper article, with the proper title, then they would know the office is President, not Prime Minister. I doubt it gets much use, but there is at least a little logic to the redirect, as it is plausible that someone would type it in out of habit of using that title rather than President. Marginally useful is not the same as harmful, and it isn't harmful. It's managed to be here almost 12 years without incident.Dennis Brown -2¢10:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
admittedly, i don't think the consensus there was necessarily to delete as implausible, just as created by a sock. this means that it would probably be fine if someone who isn't footwear recreated themconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)11:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tag appropriately as a wrong name. The G5s used during the previous RFD are disappointing for reasons explained byShazback inthis comment. I also think linking to 20 year old AFD listings for other topics is a bit overkill for an RFD listing. Redirects do not need to be for exactly correct titles, and it is often beneficial when they appear for incorrect titles (see{{R from incorrect name}}). Anyone who searches for this term will be taken to an article that shows the correct term. Those who think it is innate knowledge that the US has a President but not a PM may be being too Western-centric. We shouldn't ignore users who are looking for information on a topic just because they don't know the exact term for it yet.BugGhost🦗👻18:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No clear rationale for deletion has been outlined. Contrary the insinuations above, pageviews demonstrate this is an extremely well-used redirect. The easy response to it causing confusion is retargetting toList_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Presidential_republics_without_a_prime_minister. However, the reader likely wants to access the POTUS page, and that retarget has no link to it. So keeping is IMO preferable. Either that or the disambiguation proposed last RfD, which explains that the U.S. has no president nicely and also links to other United Stateses.J947 ‡edits21:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The United States does not have, and never has had, a prime minister. It's impossible to know what people using this redirect want, but anything other than an article that says very clearly, up front, "The United States does not have, and never has had, a prime minister" is misleading the user.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)14:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Keep. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, and we do that best when we take people to the articleswhy their plausible but inaccurate search terms are incorrect rather than leave them guessing in the face of mostly not relevant search results.Thryduulf (talk)18:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also okay with any other target that explicitly notes that the United States does not have a prime minister. I noticed this is mentioned a couple of places atPrime minister (and there could be others?). --Tavix(talk)19:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as there is no reasonable doubt as to what the person is looking for - the primary political office in the United States.WP:RPURPOSE is clear thatReasons for creating and maintaining redirects include: [...] Likely mixed-up technical names (for example, Oxygen chloride redirects to Chlorine oxide).. That the US does not and has not had a PM is not a strong argument on this basis. PM or President are effectively technical names for a political office. Furthermore this redirect isWP:CHEAP and we should not penalize users or make it harder for them to find the information they want when this is a good example ofWP:POPE. The page title they arrive at clearly states "President of the United States" and from there they can search more about the executive function as well as titles of political roles in the US if they so wish.Shazback (talk)20:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while oxygen chloride could be mixed up with chlorine oxide by anyone who doesn't know chemistry very well, the UK and USA's governments are rather common knowledge. We should let the search engine handle this.User:Easternsaharareview this00:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep andrestorePresident of the United Kingdom as valid{{R from incorrect name}}s. The other RFD was deleted as G5 despite keep !votes in the RFD, so it holds no precedential value here. Both are plausible search terms for people confused about what the office is called especially if they live in a system where the position that holds the government's actual executive power has the other title. Anecdotally, as a Canadian, Ihave heard people incorrectly use variants of this. Tavix's proposal is also acceptable, but would be my second choice. --Patar knight -chat/contributions16:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toList of countries by system of government#Presidential republics without a prime minister per Tavix and others; that is the most informative solution and the most useful to readers, and the least likely to result in another new redirect being created through salting and starting yet another new argument about it. Presidents and prime ministers are not equal positions in their respective governments -some of the responsibilities of POTUS overlap with those of a prime minister, but a prime minister's role also overlaps with the Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House, and notably a prime minister serves under the head of state while a presidentis the head of state.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)00:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. there's no proper context for what the plant even is there, so readers who know that name will only find that there's no info besides "is in s2e20". if there was context somewhere, it also wouldn't be in the list of episodes, so this target issurprising regardlessconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)17:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as an alternative name. I found a source which notes that he refers to himself as this (with no apostrophe)[92], and a number of twitter posts where an apostrophe is included. It seems helpful and harmless.Golem08 (talk)17:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Chessrat. Capturing plausible search terms and taking those using them to articles that are directly relevant is an important purpose of redirects.Thryduulf (talk)18:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DrKay put it perfectly. It's impossible to know what readers might intend if they search for a non-existent election but pointing them to a list/calendar that does not and cannot include the search term is unhelpful. It is likely to confuse or mislead. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)18:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've seen several instances where various AI tools use Wikipedia redirects as part of their input processes. When we keep around erroneous things like this we are running the risk of perpetuating errors.Hog FarmTalk14:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be deleted, it seems unlikely someone would search for that rather than similar names, but i can't think of any alternative name. i was thinking things like "brainrot speech senator" but those seem unlikely too. qq77💬17:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unmentioned. easy as it technically is for someone who's already found the target, someone looking for this will either have to figure out for themselves why she'd be called that or have already known beforehand, which isn't enough to warrant a redirect. i'm also pretty sure i've seen this name used forsenator armstrong, but don't quote me on thisconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)18:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keepthis from the Guardian calls her the skibidi senator. Many people may not remember her name, so they may just search up skibidi senator. I think this BLP politician, who is called this by a RS, is the primary source rather than senator armstrong who has only been called this by memes.User:Easternsaharareview this00:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's true that on merge, this became just one & a half sentences in the List article. I do not think it is likely that the full article for the list of Suikoden III characters is going to come back soon (the sourcing standardsWP:VGC expects are stricter these days and it would require diving Japanese-language sources). By the standard many prefer of "must be mentioned at target", this should probably be deleted. I don't personally agree with said standard, though, and preferWP:CHEAP andWP:RFD#KEEP 1. Even if the odds of the list article coming back with a mention of Juan are 0.1%, it's harmless to keep the redirect for merge attribution reasons. But I know that my opinion is not shared by many of those who show up at RFD, and it's true that the content was largely discarded anyway, so take it as you will.SnowFire (talk)03:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Age alone isn't a reason to keep a redirect, but this one goes back more than 20 years! The even olderNinja starNinja star seems a more common colloquial name. Are there other likely uses for this term, though? It seems (ironically) harmless. --BDD (talk)00:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't feel like Googling "ninja death star" in public, and I've never heard shurikens referred to by this name, but BDD's comment makes me think that it might be a legitimate term. No mention on Wiktionary, but I don't feel like a lack of specificity is a good argument for deletion here. No opinion thus far, since I do not know if this is a legitimate term.~2025-31416-56 (talk)16:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the results i got imply that it definitely is a very slightly plausible search term... butonly for the two oddly specific groups that are ai "clipart" companies(it's notclipart if it's an entire image, you boltbags!!) and people likely to pick usernames likeXxX_-Death_Killer_666_Demon_Blade_Edge-_XxX on club penguin. and even then, most of the results actually referring to shuriken (that is, exclusively from the latter group) also had the text string "ninja star" nearby. that is to say, it's not even actually a plausible search term among the small and dwindling demographic to which itis actually a plausible search termconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)17:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This strikes me as a highly plausible search term for someone who vaguely remembers what these are/how they are used in (western?) popular culture but does not remember the name. That no evidence of this causing any harm in the past 20 years just makes the case for keeping even stronger.Thryduulf (talk)18:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if a point of reference is needed... yeah, the origin of the term kind ofhas to be western by the term's nature, even ignoring how it's somehow only limited to naruto fans who somehow miss the multiple mentions of shuriken. this is mostly just to say that europe seems to know what it's doing in this area, so it ain't them this time. that i still stand by my comment that the demographic in question is "small and dwindling" is besides the point for now, thoughconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is limited to naruto fans. I've heard of the weapon in multiple different contexts over the years and I've never read/seen a single edition/episode of that (or indeed most) manga or anime. I don't recall hearing the term "Shuriken" before this RfD so I'd definitely be relying a redirect or search results to find the article. I suspect my term would more likely beSamurai throwing star,Ninja throwing star orJapanese throwing star (or their plural forms), but the redirect is absolutely an equally plausible search term for someone like me. I'm fairly certain I've never written down these search terms previously, and certainly nowhere Google would find them, because like most people I am not in the habit of writing down vague search terms I use - if the purpose of my is writing something about the subject then I would use the correct term that I discovered after searching.Thryduulf (talk)11:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Original article was an apparent hoax; no such settlement existed. Minnesota does not have "boroughs" as the article indicated, and the supposed borders of the area can't exist as described. --Sable232 (talk)16:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered retargeting it to Nesbit Township, but given the hoax content, felt it would be better to delete the page entirely so that isn't hanging around in the history. --Sable232 (talk)22:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above. If the history is sufficently problematic that deletion would benefit the encyclopaedia then it can be revision deleted, if it isn't then there is nothing to worry about.Thryduulf (talk)18:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused - what purpose would revision deletion serve as opposed to simply deleting it? Almost the entire article history is the hoax content - the only revisions that aren't are the one turning it into a redirect and the two related to this RfD. --Sable232 (talk)22:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no reason to think that the park is going to be referred to by this name. Is there any evidence thatNesbit Township, Polk County, Minnesota is ever actually known as "Nesbitt, Minnesota"? I live in a township state (Missouri) and have never once heard of a township referred to with the phrasing of Township Name + State. Additionally, with the spelling difference and the hoax history, I don't think we need to be perpetuating the idea that there is/was a place known as "Nesbitt, Minnesota".Hog FarmTalk16:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see a long list of mistakes that the community made by deleting useful redirects and that we shouldn't continue to repeat those mistakes. --Tavix(talk)15:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to claim something is not going to be searched. But people cut and paste into the search box so it's certainly possible. Also tokenizers may well preserve possessives. Redirects have many uses. All the best:RichFarmbrough11:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - what's going to be gained by deleting this? It may not be useful to create large numbers of these, but I'm failing to think of a reason why keeping this already-existing redirect around is causing harm. The potential utility of this redirect may not be very high, but it's non-zero. Deleting something potentially useful for no obvious benefit is not a good idea.Hog FarmTalk16:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even ifTavix is correct that these are helpful for linking (which is a somewhat debatble), recent MOS discussions have demonstrated that consensus has been leaning toward the position that such links should not be made. I.e., that the's part of the text should explicitlynot be part of the link. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)18:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a redirect is useful for any purpose then it should be kept perWP:RFD#K5. As for the MOS, are you thinking of the recent change toMOS:PIPESTYLE for plurals? That guidance is explicitly not for anypunctuation or non-printing characters (which MediaWiki considers apostrophes to be punctuation) because it breaks the link when included. --Tavix(talk)18:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there's been an emerging consensus at multiple MOS discussions (see the previous similar RFDs for links) that the apostrophe-s should NOT be part of the link text. This has nothing to do with plurals or piping, and everything to do with how a link should appear. It so happens that this consensus agrees with MediaWiki's behavior. Creating these sorts of redirects explicitly goes against that consensus. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)20:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that "emerging consensus" is against existing policy, due to rfd being attended by regulars who have an expectation of seeing redirects that need deletion and have hance developed a bias in favour of deletion. This is an ongoing process that has been visible for at least the last 8 years. It's important to only nominate "new and harmful" redirects as rule 1.
In this particular case a bug in the software has deprived us of automatic linking of possessives, and we have been waiting for a fix for many years. We should not necessarily wait for this any longer when we can resolve the issue ourselves - at least those of us who are willing. All the best:RichFarmbrough11:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I wouldn't advocate for creating more of these, but I really don't see what benefit would be gained by deleting this. This appears to be unambiguous; any one searching this or clicking a link will get to where they intended to. Even if directly linking in this fashion is discouraged, that isn't a reason to delete the redirect - only to not link it.Hog FarmTalk16:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Not harmful
Useful for at least one version of one page.
Potentially useful in many other contexts.
No benefit from deleting, indeed deleting just creates another entry in the database and removes potential.
Disambig. When a plausible search term is ambiguous but there is no primary topic then in almost all cases readers are best served by a disambiguation page rather than a redlink and search results (which might be several clicks/taps away, depending on multiple factors).Knocker-up should also be included on the dab.Thryduulf (talk)18:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If people use this term to mean those things, and they do, and Wikipedia has content about those things, and we do, then there is no reason to not take them to the content they are looking for. The purpose of redirects and disambiguation pages is to help the reader, not to stick rigidly to arbitrary rules. I'm also not certain whyFertilisation,Canvassing orKnocker-up would be partial title matches for this phrase?Thryduulf (talk)11:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources, I don't change my vote though. First two point out that it is has two meanings or use it intentionally to be funny. In short, I think the primary topic is fertilisation because that is what people who search that up would want to find. A hatnote would be enough because it only has 1 other use (perhaps knocker-upper as well, but 3 is doesn't necessitate a disambig and it can be mentioned in the hatnote)User:Easternsaharareview this03:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dab (I thought we had already written this dab page.) There are multiple meanings including from the printing trade, electioneering and show business. All the best:RichFarmbrough11:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Just retargeted this redirect to where it currently targets (the knocking object on some doors), but now I'm not sure if it should targetDoor knock orCanvassing, the target ofDoor knocking (which I believe is properly targeted, thus I'm not nominating it here). I guess I'mkeep andweak retarget toCanvassing since I think "knock" in this sense is an object and not a verb/action, but have no quarrel if consensus sways towardsCanvassing.Steel1943 (talk)07:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a disambiguation page is appropriate here, given that neither of the proposed targets are known by this name. If anything, aWP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target should be established, and then tagged with a hatnote referring to the other article.Steel1943 (talk)12:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this redirect refers toSurya Namaskar, a redirect targeting the same target as the nominated redirect, but the "?" is both not plausible and not a "with" or "without" diacritic version of the aforementioned other redirect.Steel1943 (talk)23:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all I can think of with these is masking, where people mask letters in words that are expected to trigger automated content filtering on some social media platforms (for example if you write "sex" on Instagram you'll get a content warning or even have your account shut down, but not if you write "s3x" or "seggs" or "xes" instead). I don't know whythis title would trigger an abuse algorithm, but there could be some valid cases for titles like this.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)13:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which one was recreated after deletion? Please provide an example which was either (a) SALTed; or (b) where delete/recreate occurred multiple times. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)23:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and also his !vote at the 2023 RfD. Needn't keep a redirect that was created during a past discussion to help a buggy bot. Jay 💬18:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, sure enough I had participated in the RFD involving the talk namespace redirects. Though my two responses were both comments, seems the second one definitely applies here as well.Steel1943 (talk)21:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be either. We've shied away from G7 when there was a deletion discussion because that makes it harder to detect that others wanted it gone when we are asked for a refund. — rsjaffe🗣️22:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsjaffe: Who's we? G6 for deletion discussions arefor pages where a consensus to delete has been previously reached via deletion discussion, but which were not deleted. That's not the case here, the discussion was still open when you deleted it and it was only closed after that due to the speedy deletion. And three deletes in about a day doesn't make this aWP:SNOW situation.WP:G7 is the only correct criterion and the way to "detect" the deletion discussion is by including a link to the deletion discussion in the 'additional reason' field of the deletion page. --Tavix(talk)14:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got the sequence of events incorrect. Thewe was referring to a discussion on the Discord server admin channel about G7 being problematic when a deletion discussion has run its course (and yes, including the deletion discussion link when deleting it earlier).
I messed this one up in two ways: one, I misread the date of creation: stopped reading after I saw "2 August", and two, in responding to your first ping, thought the discussion was closed before I made the deletion. And, redirects are different from regular articles in that a "refund" is really superfluous--it's easy enough to just recreate it. Will change to G7. My apologies. — rsjaffe🗣️16:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of a complicated history split and re-merge to a set of old articles, these redirects might now need to be retargeted to topics that make more sense. There is some more background atTalk:Palestinian pottery for anyone who's interested.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that Ivanvector wants others' opinions, he wouldn't have brought these redirects here if he didn't. My question iswhy he wants others opinions specifically for the two redirects that have obvious targets. --Tavix(talk)21:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I was going through all incoming redirect links to the three articles I was merging and splitting, and finding more impacted redirects as I went, and it was helpful in organizing my thoughts to list them all out. The two obvious ones became obvious after I listed them out, if that makes sense. Happy to just speedy retarget those and remove them from this discussion if it's causing trouble, though. Ialways post here because I want others' opinions - if I had an obvious solution I would just do it.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)22:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for opening this discussion Ivanvector. I created & develop dPalestinian pottery &Palestinian archaeology. Both were moved to different titles on the rationale that they overlapped with Levantine pottery & archaeology. As I explained to you while trying to restore the former (which was successful with your help), these are really sub-topics of the more broadly titled articles. I would note that there is anArchaeology of Israel in addition toLevantine archaeology, so there should be anArchaeology of Palestine orPalestinian archaeology too. I suppose the reasonPalestinian archaeology became Levantine in general is because it can also be considered a synonym forSyro-Palestinian archaeology and when people challenged me as to what reliable sources discussed the topic in these terms, I added it as a synonym and expanded the article scope accordingly. However, there should be an article of narrower scope concerned with archaeology practiced by Palestinians in Palestine. There is much information on the subject not included in any of the articles we currently have, which don't reflect the efforts of figures likeStephan Hanna Stephan or current archaeological efforts by Palestinian national institutions.Tiamut (talk)05:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ThinkPottery in Palestine &Pottery in the Palestinian territories should be disambiguation pages maybe? Offering a choice betweenPalestinian pottery, brief history of pottery making behind the still living art practised by Palestinians &Levantine pottery, overview of the history of pottery making & archaeological artifacts (pottery shards) & their use to historical study & timelines of the region 11:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC) -signed Tiamut
We have a guideline that recommends against creating disambiguation pages with only two topics. Usually how we would handle a situation like this is set the redirects to target the subject that is most likely what readers are looking for (theprimary topic) and use hatnotes to suggest other possibilities. We could add a note at the top ofPalestinian pottery that says something like "This article is about pottery in the State of Palestine. For the history of pottery in the Levant region, seeLevantine pottery", or "'Pottery in Palestine' redirects here. For pottery in the Levant, seeLevantine pottery". There are a variety of templates for this depending on what works best for any particular situation.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)13:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. Fine with hat notes offering the alts. But to clarifyPalestinian pottery will also include Palestinian potters outside the narrowly definedState of Palestine, like those in areas occupied by Israel in 1948 and in exile. So the hat note should read something like "This article is about pottery produced by Palestinians". Also regardingPalestinian archaeology, I would like to restorevery pared down version for expansion and development.Tiamut (talk)13:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the discussion thus far Ihave restored am in the process of restoringPalestinian archaeology to Tiamut's proposed revision (and added various notes for attirbution), and retargeted the titles that were fairly obvious, so as to focus discussion on the remaining "history of" and "Syro-Palestinian" redirects, which aren't so obvious to me.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)16:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per Crouch -Red Meat is a similar example where we do exactly this. Or else retarget toFootball team, per above. TypingSoccer Team in the search box and landing on the page for a slightly obscure band would be a violation ofWP:ASTONISH. Strong oppose moving the band to the base name for similar reasons. The band is emphatically not theWP:PRIMARYTOPIC — Amakuru (talk)10:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the "Perak state route" redirects. Two of them are just redirects from an alternate capitalization, so they should be kept. (The nomination rationale is invalid on that basis.) The other two are alternate capitalization of alternate names, so they should be kept as well. Remember,redirects are cheap. As for the other two, I'm not sure that they are needed, so they can be deleted.Imzadi 1979→07:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all four Perak state route redirects - perfectly fine alternate capitalization redirects & as noted byImzadi1979,WP:CHEAP (especially for redirects that are up to 15+ years old).Leaning Keep for the two Malaysia Federal Route redirects mainly because ofWP:CHEAP for 15+ year old pages despite very low pageviews, and the fact that despite being technically incorrect, these redirects provide a good target to an unambiguous search.Shazback (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC) -Edited to replace "Oppose" by "Keep" for clarityShazback (talk)01:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Mainly for the Malaysia Federal Route redirects, they could use more discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk)16:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem like a useful redirect - only one "Dawans" currently on en:wikipedia, and although it is a relatively rare name, there are multiple articles on other persons with this name on other language wikipedias, including one with a highly similar name to the current target (see Wikidata,fr:Adrien Dawans,de:Sigismund von Dawans). If not redirect, could be a short disambiguation page.Shazback (talk)05:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The purpose of redirects from a surname is to assist the reader who can only remember the surname or who does to wish to type out the full name. They are used either when Wikipedia has only one article about a person with the given surname (this case) or because one individual is the most likely topic sought by this surname. SeeWP:RKEEP #6.Greenshed (talk)18:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toDawan (disambiguation)? After all, if we are to accept Dawans having two major meanings here (the Atoni people, and Sigismund-Helmut von Dawans), then it's instead a case ofWP:ONEOTHER. Perhaps we can instead list the Wehrmacht general within the Other uses or the See also sections in that disambiguation article?Frank(hasDemoCracyDeprivaTion)13:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate Dawans and convert the redirect to a disambiguation page, perShazback's proposalabove. Err on the side of the reader enteringDawans correctly wanting some Dawans and not singular Dawan, but "see also" can handle misspellings.—Bagumba (talk)07:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate this is a concise description of many events that have unfortunately happened in Gaza. While this is a very likely search term, its also pretty ambiguous since Israel has created no shortage of such events.User:Easternsaharareview andthis10:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: I think the fact that we have four different target options suggested here (five including the current target) illustrates that there is likely not a clearWP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, which naturally strengthens the case to disambiguate.Left guide (talk)23:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all other similar redirects It is overly vague and can refer to numerous possible things. Since DAB pages are not a search index, disambiguating it would be out of the question. Rather, it should be deleted to let the search function take over.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)21:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't right that this redirect should point to a disambiguated title.Fort Bragg was first called "Camp Bragg". The disambiguator atCamp Bragg (Arkansas) would seem to indicate it is not the primary topic, so retargetCamp Bragg toFort Bragg and put a hatnote there. (If the Arkansas place really is the primary topic, the article about it should be moved to the base name instead).Shhhnotsoloud (talk)21:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate A minor Confederate encampment from the Civil War is not the obvious primary topic. There doesn't seem to be a clear primary topic here.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)12:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, especially the English Wikipedia's disambiguation pages, is not a translation service. Since this is the English Wikipedia, there should be no expectation that translations of disambiguation page titles should target a title of a disambiguation page in another language. In other words, unless there is validation to overwrite the nominated redirect with a disambiguation page with subjects known as the title of this nominated redirectin English text use, it should be deleted as the current setup does not help English readers.Steel1943 (talk)21:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that many of the places named Beszterce are in Transylvania, it's likely that English sources referred to them as such prior to World War I.~2025-31416-56 (talk)12:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
Comment: BundledKilgoreite. Happy Editing --IAmChaos17:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:retarget
Note: Bundled in the second entry (with 2 Ns). Courtesy pingTornadoLGS andScrabbleTiles in case you want to amend anything. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)14:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:speedy delete.
Thank youTavix!thetechie@enwiki (she/they |talk)21:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:withdrawn
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:Moot
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 17#Kilgoreites
Y
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:disambiguate
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:no consensus
Disambiguation draft requested.Left guide (talk)23:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]