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 as 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.
a prettysurprising target, all things considered, as counterintuitiveness only really implies going againstintuition. it doesn't imply that something is necessarily paradoxical, or even that intuition is necessarily not paradoxical. theafd and incoming links for what's now the first redirect also support the idea that this is a vague term with no fitting target besides maybe soft redirecting back towikt:counterintuitive, though it might also be better off beingreturned to red... or maybe it could lead to a rehash of the same mess that was soft redirected in afd, but ehconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Created in 2011, not actually mentioned in the destination article, only indirectly in the mention oftelegraph implies the process of writing at a distance, which is not referenced. A Google Books search for the phrase "far writing" doesn't bring up uses of it as a phrase. This seems a bit too contrived to be useful. The search engine should do fine here.--Joy (talk)09:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect currently links toGraph (discrete mathematics). "Network" is sometimes used to mean "graph", but can have other meanings as well. This page was previously a redirect toFlow network; before that, it was an article. Since users could be looking for various different pages, and there's not an obvious primary topic, I believe this page would best redirect toNetwork, but there are other potential options, such asNetwork theory.The BooleanTalk01:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬07:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at target (nor anywhere else on enwiki); the original creation edit summary wasCreating a temporary redirect for the Burmese musical artist. Maybedelete perWP:REDYES?Duckmather (talk)06:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're on the subject...this isn't mentioned at the target. Not having seen the Simpsons Movie, I immediately instead thought ofOffice Space instead, which has a pretty memorable scene featuring something very much like this. But either way, again, it's not mentioned, so it's useless to those who know it but are looking for more information, and confusing to those who don't know it, so it should be deleted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)22:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this is the third in the series of redirects pertaining to the Simpsons Movie's nude scene, I mentioned in another RfD that this is a well-known meme template.Xeroctic (talk)22:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This misspelling might be unambiguous (even then, that's a bit uncertain), but definitely is not plausible. I seriously doubt anyone these days would misspell neologism as neolism. 🤨SeaHaircutSoilReplace05:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really want to say retarget tobioanalysis, but that article is pretty underwhelming and could use some major expansion for such an important and large topic, and technically, bioanalysis i.e. bioanalytical chemistry is more specific than biochemical analysis, the former being more quantitative, and the latter including more qualitative aspects like protein structures and such. So I am on the fence between that and anotherWP:RETURNTORED situation, where we really need a broad concept article at this title, pulling together the disparate content, like bioanalysis andBlood_test#Biochemical_analysis. We could try for a sort of disambigation page, but I don't really like that idea at all, as I don't think we can pull together enough links in a sensible way.Mdewman6 (talk)02:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig, you said it yourself: it is an ambiguous term with no better primary target, because it may refer to any type ofanalysis ofbiochemistry. We have at least tree items to start a valid disambig page:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A disambiguation page has been drafted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬05:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
None of these redirects need to exist at all. Wikipedia article titles do not need to be a service for resolving RGB color triples to CSS color names. –jacobolus(t)06:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There are 50,331,648 such possible redirects of these forms, and they're still ambiguous. Triplets of numbers and bare hex values can refer to all sorts of things besides color. Even something like rgb(...) is ambiguous without a reference for what the possible ranges can be. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)17:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This redirects to the street circuit in Exhibition Place that is used for racing. I don't believe that this is the appropriate target for this redirect and I think it should be a disambiguation page or redirect to a different target. Previously, many pages that mentioned the Exhibition Place street circuit linked to this redirect, but I bypassed them.Cyrobyte (talk)04:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have seen some people misspell "Taiwan" as "Thaiwan," but even then, the redirect seems highly unlikely to be stumbled upon, which ultimately makes it redundant.8BitBros (talk•edits) 03:57 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per nom (as incorrect capitalization)...probably could have been done without a discussion. I'm not an entomologist, but there are apparently over 400,000 known species of beetles, and I suspect at least a few of them are blue. The current target doesn't even list this as a common name of the thing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)15:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is the board game notable? Either way, I think it's dubious that a board game about an event would be the primary topic over the event itself. Search results tend to skew towards commercial products as they get a cut for items sold from their link, so I'm not surprised that search results would point that direction. --Tavix(talk)17:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I'm a little confused. I just used a different search engine, and it pointed me to a bunch of civil war stuff, but none of them actually use the term "war of the states", just some terms that look similar. For what it's worth, this term also doesn't appear inNames of the American Civil War.Chess enjoyer (talk)17:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete I did some digging but only foundone source that seems to use the term to refer to the war specifically. There are some other hits on Google Books, but the actual texts seem to use the more commonWar Between the States. I don't think there's enough usage here to justify adding a mention at the current target orNames of the American Civil War. Thus, I think people using this phrase are likely looking for the board game which may or may not be notable enough for an article. A redlink seems like the best solution here. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)18:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toNames of the American Civil War#War Between the States as suggested. "War of the States" and "War between the States" were descriptive idioms commonly usedduring the war itself for the conflict, and not so much these days. Redirecting to the naming pagespace subhead "informs the controversy" better than a redirect to the main article. This is a good discussion to create, however.BusterD (talk)18:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This redirect got only 67 hits all last year[4] and had only one incoming link, which I just changed to point directly toAmerican Civil War, so deleting it probably wouldn't hurt anything. On the other hand, it's been around 19 years without causing problems, so there's no urgent need to change or delete either. It's not a common term for the Civil War, but I could see rare instances of someone possibly confusing War Between the States for this term. If someone wants to write an article about the board game, they can write right over the redirect as easily as if it were a redlink.Station1 (talk)23:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Usage in articles does largely refer tosex verification in sports. Most of these articles cover a couple of the same cases, so this may reflect usage by one or a handful of editor working on similar articles rather than broader usage. A Google search turns up many results related toprenatal sex discernment. This could possibly refer to other entries atSex determination#Discernment of an organism's sex. Of course, "gender" is conflated with "sex" if we keep, retarget, or DABify using any of these. Good redirects sometimes anticipate such things, but pointing readers to any of these without addressing thesex–gender distinction is inappropriate. So I'm unsure what the best course of action is. I find the nom's suggestion of a quiz ongender schema theory, or simplygender theory, quite unlikely. These articles don't coverexams on the theories, anyway. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)02:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:SSRT, the main purpose of having a soft Wikt redirect is either for commonly used terms without articles or to discourage the creation of articles for topics that don't need a Wikipedia article but are repeatedly given one. Neither applies here; this page has a single mainspace incoming link and has apparently never existed as an article. If anything, its history shows that it's become a target for vandalism by unregistered users. Delete.— An anonymous username,not my real name03:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because people have tried to expand this page into article in the past, which having this page prevents. If vandalism is a problem the page can be protected. Additionally, many slang terms have articles, so a redirect is helpful to readers who may expect an article on this subject. This page also averages over 300 page views a month, which shows that it redirects users when they would be seeing nothing.-1ctinus📝🗨17:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We normally keep{{R from move}} redirects, for good reason, but this article was only at this title for its first circa 10 hours and that was in 2018, so most of the usual reasons are not relevant here.Thryduulf (talk)03:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked at the articles for every settlement listed atByron (disambiguation), the current target has far more information about local politics than any of the other articles, but as noted this does not include a list.Byron, Illinois andByron, Minnesota mention the settlement has a mayor but neither contains a list of them, meaning there is no such list anywhere on Wikipedia.Thryduulf (talk)03:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "racism app" doesn't seem to be a common nickname for Instagram, and Instagram is far from the only app infamous for racist content.Raymond1922 (talk)21:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:RNEUTRAL. This does appear to be somewhat common and I can't find any genuine ambiguity but let's avoid perceptions that we're callingInstagram the racism app. It doesn't appear to be used in any reliable sources.J947 ‡edits22:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please check yourWP:UPPERCASE;WP:RNEUTRAL explicitly states thatmore leeway is given to redirect titles re: neutrality because they're less visible to readers; someone reading theInstagram article can't see theRacism app redirect to it until and unlessthey themselves plug "Racism app" into the search bar/URL. (Or if they go to the What Links Here page, but at that point they're pretty much definitely an editor themselves.) Thus, if there really isn't any genuine ambiguity, and it's somewhat common, then a redirect is warranted; otherwise, it fails the tests ofWP:XY or plausibility.That said,delete as thiscannot be unambiguous; I fail to see how Instagram is ptopic for this overX or insert-app-here-meant-for-browsing-4chan.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)22:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd read RNEUTRAL, it states "[t]he exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful", later defining an established term as one that is "used in multiple mainstream reliable sources". As I said above, this term is not. It is common but not established.J947 ‡edits23:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Yeah, fair enough. I was focusing too much, I suppose, on the "let's avoid perceptions thatwe're calling Instagram the racism app" part, and the "doesn't appear to be used in any reliable sources" bit just went right past me.In any case we're !voting the same lol𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)01:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like aWP:MADEUP term with only 22 outbound links, and none of those articles source the term or note any kind of origination outside 'more important than avery important person' (sources in that article describing a VVIP just say 'they're richer', not that they're more well known). Mostly used in Indian articles, but other words can easily be substituted over a repeated 'very-very'.Nathannah •📮21:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate betweenVery important person,VVIP (hip-hop group), andV.V.I.P. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, but it is for things made up on 22 separate occasions. Since there's two things with articles whose names are inspired by the abbreviation for "very very important person", it's highly unlikely to be genuinely obscure.J947 ‡edits22:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding those; I didn't find them in a WLH search, but I would agree the musical groups take preference and that's how I'd expect the title to come up anddisambiguation is preferred. I more had an issue with the uses I cited, which didn't elaborate on the concept in article text.Nathannah •📮23:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As listed in references in the VIP article, VVIP has been used in both the NY Times and Wall Street Journal. It's not clear if you're recommending deletion, but I don't think it meetsWP:R#DELETE. I would note thatVVIP (hip-hop group) is linked on the VIP disambig page (V.V.I.P is not). I would also note that a Wikipedia search for VVIP picks up the redirect page and the hip-hop page, but not the V.V.I.P page, which is not ideal. As long as a new VVIP disambig page can have a link to the main VIP article, I support changing to aDisambiguation page.Simon12 (talk)02:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick review of Google Books shows many uses of "Kazak" to refer to "Kazakh." Thus, I think this seems like a plausible misspelling. This was the original title of an article that was merged into the current target. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)02:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
per creation rationale, ironically. mentioned in passing atkitanda with a source that... to say the least, i'm not exactly willing to trust the plausibility of, as damn near every mention of the term that i could find outside of that article is from and/or about kitanda itself. i guess it'd be better off retargeted to kitanda, maybe with an anchorconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)16:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned in target article or any other article. Was an unreferenced stub in 2007 when it got redirected to now deleted character list.Mika1h (talk)15:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move dab to the base title orRetarget toVariable refresh rate. Not only is that that overwhelming primary topic in my google search results,WikiNav shows that between a quarter and a third of visitors to the target go to the disambiguation page, andWikiNav for the dab page shows variable refresh rate got 100% of outgoing views from the dab page.Thryduulf (talk)13:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move dab to base title. Page views over the last 30 days (I should probably check longer, but ehh) do favor variable refresh rate, but not by a ton, and unless it's really really overwhelming (like IBM or something), I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the dab page for TLAs like this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)18:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first: When submitting an RFD, the listing should show the redirect's CURRENT target at top, not what you think it should go to. (I.E. it should show "Wargames >WarGames" rather than "Wargames >Wargame"). That confused me for a good hot second (i.e. "Wait, you want it to go to... the redirect's current target???"); hope you don't mind me fixing this.That said,retarget toWargame as per nom. TheWP:SMALLDETAILS are clearly winning out here.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)11:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target. Extremely unlikely search term due to the disambiguation and as both parishes and counties are largely obsolete in New South WalesAusLondonder (talk)08:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Though this redirect was deleted as a result ofWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 16#Free New Mexico Party, the recreation of this redirect (I did not tag it with{{Db-g4}} since it has a different target than it did prior to being deleted as a result of the previous discussion), and the new target does not resolve any of the issues that were mentioned in the previous discussion since the target is still affiliated withLibertarian Party (United States), which the subject of the redirect apparently no longer has any affiliation with, resulting in aWP:REDLINK situation to potentially connect the subject of this redirect with its new primary parent topic.Steel1943 (talk)05:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "the subject of the redirect apparently no longer has any affiliation with" is incorrect and has been incorrect the whole time. TheFree New Mexico Party was created in 2022 and has been affiliated with theLibertarian Party (United States) the entire time since its creation.
For what it's worth, this is actually stated on the current target page of the redirect. The table entry says "Free New Mexico Party (LNC affiliate)" to make it clear that the Free New Mexico Party is the state party which is currently affiliated with theLibertarian Party (United States).
I'm not sure how much I cared to go into the weeds on this to figure out what the truth is. (Maybe I did before, not anymore, maybe I had something backwards?) Long story, short, if the consensus for this discussion is "keep", all should be well.Steel1943 (talk)16:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't take much "going into the weeds" to "figure out the truth"- it's pretty explicitly stated in that list article and onthe party's website that the Free New Mexico Party is the current New Mexican state affiliate party of the US Libertarian Party. There's literally nothing anywhere claiming otherwise- which is why I'm really confused as to how every participant in the previous discussion seems to have come to completely the wrong conclusion.Chessrat(talk,contributions)17:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...Not when an editor really doesn't care to do more than automated edits due to having no time to make any substantial edits that require using one's brain. That is all yall get for now.Steel1943 (talk)18:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat, it is generally bad practice to change a redirect’s target in the middle of an RFD discussion. It can be quite disruptive and can cause confusion about the redirect’s status at various points during the discussion. This refinement does seem reasonable, though. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)01:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only reason this is up for discussion at all is based on completely false information by the editor who proposed it (doing so twice- not only last month but again now!) despite the editor in question openly admitting they did not even do basic research on the topic/read the article, which would have easily shown their claim to be false.
I think that's the more concerning thing here- it is incredibly irresponsible editing to not only attempt to delete information from Wikipedia without spending a few minutes to check the facts, but also do so a second time despite being corrected. This should not be on RfD still and it should never have been on RfD.Chessrat(talk,contributions)02:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The situation before was a bit confusing. Perhaps we all could have searched harder but I couldn’t find much coverage of the party. I appreciate the work you’ve done to settle this and your transparent approach. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of disagree here at the basis of the argument, but no matter. I believe my argument in the previous discussion was thatWP:REDLINK applies, and in this case, it technically still does because there's no article at this title. Regarding something being "irresponsible", we go by the facts that we can find based on what issues we perceive with these titles, so based on what I found, there was an issue. Stuff like this happens all the time atWP:AFD, which is why I don't participate there very often: An editor could be looking for hours trying to find references that establish notability, and then after finding nothing, will nominate the article for deletion ... but then an hour or so after creating the nomination, some editor will flyby and tag it as a "keep" with some kind of a secret handshake reference that the nominator was unable to find that establishes some level notability. So, it is what it is, and I'm not taking any stock in this discussion other than restating myWP:REDLINK concern. Also, regarding "This should not be on RfD still and it should never have been on RfD.": Good luck trying to find any editor on anyWP:XFD forum who isbatting 1000,WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH applies.Steel1943 (talk)20:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is. The capitalization is a distinguishing mark between the generic but dated term for American open wheel racing cars and the now defunct series that used that term as part of its name. The reason both capitalizations are used in the articles is because they likewise are making the distinction between the cars generically and the CCWS. They are related but distinct terms.oknazevad (talk)04:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perWP:DIFFCAPS and oknazevad. Champ car refers to a generic AOWR car whereas Champ Car refers specifically to cars used in CCWS. My only concern is that people also used Champ Car to refer to cars in CART, but that is probably outside the scope of this discussion and CCWS uses the term Champ Car more explicitly than CART.Casablanca 🪨(T)16:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea why this term redirects here. Not mentioned at target and searching produces extremely scattered results (alternate history scenarios, music, an academic paper), none of which have anything to do with the Eighty Years' War. Delete.— An anonymous username,not my real name02:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That in and of itself seems like something to send to RFD, honestly-- why would "War for Independence" redirect to "List of wars of independence", while "War of independence" redirect to "Wars of national liberation"? Given the latter is talking about the subject itself, I'd imagine thatWar for Independence should mirror its target.IfWar on independence should ALSO mirror target with these two... I say we shouldbundle them.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)05:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, similar redirects are displayed below (note: it's way more than two redirects):
This covers every redirect related to "independence war" besides two redirects using "List of", which should stay atList of wars of independence.
These redirects are much messier than it seems at first glance. After all, in some cases, a difference in pluralization or capitalization currently leads to different articles.
I think the redirects ending (disambiguation) should stay pointed at the list article, as that's performing the disambiguation function. The rest should all have the same target, and that target should be eitherList of wars of independence orWars of national liberation. I'm leaning towards the latter as the search terms don't indicate a desire for a list, but this preference is weak.Thryduulf (talk)13:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment. Speaking only for the redirect I nominated in the first place, "war on independence" does not appear to ever be used a generic synonym for "war of independence" (and it would be a pretty implausible typo given the keyboard placements of F and N). The uses I found online seemed deliberate but none appeared to refer to notable topics.— An anonymous username,not my real name21:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The uses of "war on independence" on Wikipedia usually refer to wars of independence, but though I did not notice any, it could possibly refer to warsagainst independence. Besides theTen Year War on Independence, which was a war for Cuban independence, searches on Wikipedia for "war on independence" included a mention inRise of nationalism in Europe that is piped as [[Swedish–Norwegian War (1814)|War on independence]], which was an unsuccessful battle for Norwegian independence; a mention inAtatürk Museums in Turkey, which has the textAtatürk's family stayed before the Turkish war on Independence, referring to theTurkish War of Independence; a mention inZoubeida Bittari with the textAlgerian War, War on Independence, referring to the war for the independence of Algeria; and inForeign policy of Meles Zenawi, there is the sentenceThis was the first time of Eritrea since War on Independence in 1961., which probably refers to theEritrean War of Independence. Based on these mentions, I think it would be logical to target something related to wars of independence, and I don't think the nominated redirect is a typo.Mathguy2718 (talk)22:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has searched for or clicked on "Easter Island" is expecting a focused discussion on the territory. As you note, Easter Island's political and legal status is explained immediately in the lead atLGBTQ people in Easter Island. There will be no RSURPRISE with the retargeting and the article directly addresses the national context. Additional links and explanations can be added toLGBTQ people in Easter Island to highlight related articles, although my read is that this is already handled quite clearly. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom and Myceteae. Someone using this search term is looking specifically for information related to Easter Island and not only will they find that there, the lead makes it explicit that Chilean law applies equally to the island (with "Chilean law" piped toLGBTQ rights in Chile) and there is also an explicit link to that article in the see also section. I don't know why we'd try and shoehorn a link to Easter Island specifically in the main article in order that people directed to the less relevant article can find the directly relevant one when we can just direct them to the directly relevant one in the first place?Thryduulf (talk)13:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Cardinals are the first thing you think of when you think of Baseball in St. Louis, Missouri/Greater St. Louis, but they are not the only Baseball team named St. Louis. Could also refer to the formerSt. Louis Browns. And could also be a misspelling ofSaint Louis Billikens baseball. Keep in mind that people tend to search for the Mascot when searching for professional teams and use mascots less and sports in the name more when searching for college teams. And I should also mention that the unity between College teams in different sports is likely significantly higher than the unity between professional teams in the same city/region.Servite et contribuere (talk)00:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a systematic creation by a user who had a history with dubious systematic creations. They took theWashington Football Team name and applied it to the other major sports teams. The problem with that is unlikeRedskin, the name "Cardinal" isn't problematic(usually). --Tavix(talk)14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Left guide. Regardless of why this was created, this is a plausible search term and the only issue is that we have multiple relevant articles. Handily we have a ready-made list of those articles so we should target that.Thryduulf (talk)23:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig. It's also ambiguous with basketball teams representing Washington, DC and potentially other places listed at theWashington dab page.Sports in Washington exists, and it would be possible to expand that to be a list of sports teams representing places called Washington, but I'm undecided if that would be desirable.Thryduulf (talk)22:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "Washington Basketball Team", it's "Washington" with a descriptor of 'basketball team' behind it. That's why 'basketball team' is in lowercase in the body of the text. --Tavix(talk)20:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a systematic creation by a user who had a history with dubious systematic creations. They took theWashington Football Team name and applied it to the other major sports teams. The problem with that is unlikeRedskin, the name "Wizards" isn't problematic. --Tavix(talk)14:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
not seeing affinity with korean, and this is far from the character's only use or meaning in korean. used to be a redirect tohangul, but i also don't think it'd be too good in that area, since it's not mentioned thereconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)12:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WP:FORRED applies to the current target and the term is ambiguous in Korean, anyway. I disagree that we don't typically delete Unicode characters. We delete CJK characters all the time, typically for reasons described atWP:FORRED. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)02:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
this character isn't mentioned in any fitting target in the first place, so there's no use for this redirect or discussion, and if i'm being honest, there was no use for this relist eitherconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)14:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Emojis are a special case, as summarized atWP:REMOJI and as established most recently via anemoji-specific RfC. Some editors may extend that approach to Hangul syllables that they see as reasonably similar, but I see them more like individual Chinese characters that should be deleted unless they unambiguously refer to specific encyclopedic topic with 'special affinity' for the language. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)17:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do find the emoji situation occasionally at odds with how we normally approach things. REMOJI is largely beyond the scope of this discussion except to say there’s no reason we should expand that reasoning to new territory. Search results are better for밴, which is ambiguous and is defined on multiple pages. The same would be true for some emoji but the community had chosen a weird carve out there. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)22:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
actually, let's make the case funnier. from what i've been able to find, 밴 by itself is used for just about everything that would be spelled as "van" here. that means vans, sure, but it also means thesurname anddutch prefix, so even if affinity was proven, it would likely still face the problem of being vagueconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with JIP - retargeting to either death or dying would be misleading - I think this is a plausible search term and maybe a future standalone article, but don't see any appropriate target.Asteramellus (talk)22:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The use of title case makes me somewhat sympathetic towards retargeting but the lack of the wordon is significant. I'm slightly more inclined to just deleting to remove ambiguity, but I wouldn't wholly opposed to retargeting.— An anonymous username,not my real name02:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a systematic creation by a user who had a history with dubious systematic creations. They took theWashington Football Team name and applied it to the other major sports teams. The problem with that is unlikeRedskin, the name "Texans" isn't problematic. --Tavix(talk)15:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toSports in Houston, which has links to all the football teams representing the city. Regardless of why this was created, this is a plausible search term and the only issue is that we have multiple relevant articles. Handily we have a ready-made list of those articles so we should target that.Thryduulf (talk)23:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I just wrote on the talk page: I don't understand what distinction is being made here. Decision problems (as specifications of which inputs should have the answer yes and which no), languages (sets of strings, the strings for which the answer should be yes), and sets (maybe of natural numbers rather than strings) are all equivalent formalizations of the same concept. Why do we have three different link targets, none of which clearly state that these are all equivalent ways of thinking about the same thing? —David Eppstein (talk)01:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suggestretarget toSlut. The sole use of any of these links in articles is atSlut, where it is defined as a partial synonym. The phrase is used in the lead and multiple times in the following section. My sense is that the most common usage is closer toslut rather than a literal prostitute. The current target is not exactlyWP:SURPRISEing because most readers will understand the association, but the literal meaning is not the primary topic. A quick scan of Google Books usage confirms this. My sense is that this is different fromwhorewhore which has a long history of use with the literal meaning and today still sees that usage with some frequency. I'm deliberately not includingmale whoremale whore which ismuch less common and the use of 'male' seems a bit 'clinical' and more fitting of theMale prostitution target. Seeking consensus rather than boldly retargeting because there has been some back-and-forth over the years with editors all landing at the current target. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-neutral redirects can be justified for under a number of circumstances but I don't see that any of these are met. This term appears relatively uncommon and is meant to express a particular POV but is not strictly synonymous withright wing. This would require a definition and explanation and that is probably beyond the scope of this article. Of course if content is added somewhere and survives deletion, this can be re-created. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bad pun. I would be more willing to keep, but I don't even think this is really the right target. It's more saying all right-wing politics are comparable to fascism.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a redirect from the German name "Litauische Literarische Gesellschaft" would be justified, but this is thegenitive ordative case of the name. We don't want redirects from arbitrary declensions of non-English words.Chrisahn (talk)17:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't speak German, so I just copied the society's name from the title of its journal "Mitteilungen der Litauischen Literarischen Gesellschaft" and created the redirect. I suppose other non-German speakers will make the same mistake.Renata•318:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you just created the redirect fromLitauische Literarische Gesellschaft. Makes sense. Do you still think we should keep the declensed variant? I think it's excessive. Case in point: The were at least three different spellings of the society: "Litauische Litterarische Gesellschaft", "Litauische literarische Gesellschaft" and "Lithauische literärische Gesellschaft" all appear in the first few pages of itsMitteilungen. I guess we agree that we don't want redirects for all these variants. —Chrisahn (talk)19:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay,this August 2025 RFD nomination was closed as a "no-concensus" trainwreck owing to the numerous titles (some out of vandalism or nonsense) the proven sockpuppet has done. But for this nomination,TimTims2022 created these redirects to well-known articles which don't even mention them for within over a year of their creations. Following those ofKathleen Finch andRob Hudnut, I am calling for theirdeletion perWP:RETURNTORED until geniune articles can be created for them.Intrisit (talk)17:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFox Toma 1. It is mentioned atFox Networks Group as a production company, but it is only a single mention and does not have much information about it.
DeleteFox One-Stop Media. There seems to be no information on this; the only mentions are in one reference and the current target, neither of which contains much information about this.
Weak retargetYEP! toYep!, but it could also be deleted. (It is not tagged, though.) The capitalized version is mentioned atNorth Omaha, Nebraska as "Youth Empowerment Program", but I think sinceYep! is an article, it would be harmless to retarget to the song untilYouth Empowerment Program is created. I'm also open to retargeting to the disambiguation pageYep.
Mix. I agree with all of Mathguy2718's recommendations, with the exception that I'm not weak on retargettingYEP! toYep! (note this redirect wasn't tagged, I've just fixed that).Thryduulf (talk)12:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned. The target focuses almost exclusively on college students. I first assumed aholiday romance is a hot, steamy affair that occurs whileon holiday. Or perhaps romance that develops duringthe holidays, as oft-depicted in those cheesy Christmas rom-coms. Whatever this is, it's not described and this is surely not a synonym for "casual dating" generally. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)17:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A holiday romance is something the casual dating article could discuss (although it may be better in thecasual sex article) but currently doesn't, so it isn't really a useful target for the dab page as things stand.Thryduulf (talk)20:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. These were requested atWP:AFCRD by the same person (with different temp accounts). Later they registered another account and made more requests (seeUser talk:Kuwait Honduras), where they admitted to block evasion/sockpuppetry in their unblock request after blatant vandalism. This is a little hard to explain in a CSD request, so I'm dumping them here, and they're all fairly implausible spelling errors on top of everything anyway. There are probably more of these, but this is what I saw after a quick scan. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)16:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak restore the section. The creation summary makes it clear that Mowaffak al-Rubaie was the founder of the party. We have aList of political parties in Iraq but there is no mention of a "Center Party" (or "Centre Party"). The section as it existed when the redirect was created notes "al-Wasat" as an alternative name, but that doesn't appear in the list either (that apparently just means "Centre Party" so is ambiguous with other parties of the same name). It is also not (currently, I've not looked in the history) mentioned by either name at2010 Iraqi parliamentary election which the old section linked it to, nor on the current version of the articles about the three groups that section mentioned there was speculation it would form an alliance with. The section was reworded and de-sourced byAlibaker withthis edit who then removed the entire section an hour later[8], with neither edit giving an explanation. Alibaker contributed only to this one article, with 23 edits (including the 2 above) over 3 hours in February 2010 and then a further 2 edits in as many minutes in December that year. The removed section was sourced, and other sources verifying this do seem to exist so my thinking is that the target section should be restored and the redirect retained.Thryduulf (talk)16:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very confusing history because mediawiki can't just show the whole story simply, but it looks like at most it was at this title for a few days when first created about 15 years ago. There's no particular reason to hold on to this wildly implausible term. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)16:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite synonymous with any of the suggested targets—the current target is the worst match. Marrying for money is not exactly the same as a marriage of convenience or being a "gold digger". Absent explicit discussion of this, pointing it toMarriage of convenience or one of the other targets erroneously defines them as exactly synonymous and fails to address the specific topic readers are searching for. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined towardsdisambiguation here, with all the above topics andDowry being things the searcher could be looking for. Search results are not at all helpful here, without quotes it's mostly just a collection of articles where marriage and money are mentioned, as an exact phrase the results are almost entirely plot summaries where characters do this. There does exist though an album titled "Re-Marrying for Money" (Henry Kaiser (musician)#Discography),Don't Marry for Money (a film) and "Marry for Money" (a song) that would be good see-alsos. There also seems to be a 1914 or 1915 filmMarrying Money but the only mentions we have of that I've found are in actor's filmographies none of which are obviously a better target than any of the others.Thryduulf (talk)12:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate page namedLuna Park (Coney Island). There is a history of changing the target many times, which included this redirect having {{R from ambiguous term}} twice. I believe that the set index article is a better target than the current target since a reader searching with "Coney Island" is looking for a specific park, but since there are two parks, they should choose between the two parks instead of looking at "dozens" of Luna Parks that exist.Mathguy2718 (talk)08:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
weak soft redirect towikt:finagler per nom. i actually considered nominating this one as well, but changed my mind since, unlike "finagle", this does seem to be exclusively used as a synonym for "fraudster". still, a word like this seems best retargeted to something that actually explains its meaningconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)13:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Pippo" not mentioned in target, even when the redirect was created. As a result, someone who searches "Pippo Speedway" will get no information about the speedway.Mathguy2718 (talk)05:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target, and the section is broken. This apparently used to be article before it merged withEspoo, but any information has since been removed from Espoo.Mathguy2718 (talk)05:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toList of Montessori schools#Finland, which only gives minimal information the reader likely already knows of – but it's all we've got. Not sure what the nominator recommends. It can't be deletion, since attribution is just as much required for past versions of articles as for current versions last I checked.J947 ‡edits02:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In Estonian wikipedia it is written that from 1 January 1990 until March same year Ida-Viru maakond (Ida-Viru County) was named Kohtla-Järve maakond (Kohtla-Järve County).Pelmeen10 (talk)12:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is confusing and may mislead readers. The current target mentions many people with the surname Mann (as well as disambiguation pages of people with identical names), and the representatives are scattered with no indication of being representatives except forTracey Mann. I think this redirect should be deleted to allow for searching, which does a better job at finding representatives with the surname Mann than a surname index that links to many disambiguation pages. An alternative is disambiguating representatives at "Representative Mann", formatted similarly to pages likeSenator Mann.Mathguy2718 (talk)07:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are no entries at the disambiguation pageJohn Mann that could be called "Jon Mann". Searching on Wikipedia reveals it exclusively refers toJon Mann (filmmaker) according to one link and Wikipedia search. He is a Canadian filmmaker, different fromJohn Mann (musician). "Jon Mann" could also be a short name forJonathan Mann. Google searches show different people named Jon Mann and sometimes Jonathan Mann, but notably only very rarely John Mann. In any case, Jon Mann usually doesn't refer to John Mann.Mathguy2718 (talk)06:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I said that "Jon Mann usually doesn't refer to John Mann" because myGoogle searches do not mention "John Mann" until page 4. On the other hand, "Jonathan Mann" appears quite frequently, probably since "Jon" is often short for "Jonathan".Mathguy2718 (talk)18:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Blas" is not mentioned in the target, even when the redirect was created. Nothing at the disambiguation pageBlas seems to refer to it being a prefix or anything else that could plausibly have a hyphen.Mathguy2718 (talk)04:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a little crazy that a general topic like the persecution of transgender people redirects to a specific instance of it occurring today, when it has taken place throughout history, including inNazi Germany, thoughcolonialism and during the 1950–60s. Suggest retargeting to a section of theTransgender article maybe, or toTransphobia?Newbzy (talk)03:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to transphobia As despite what it sometimes appears there is more than one country in the world and transgender people have been persecuted throughout history, not just in the 2020s.AusLondonder (talk)14:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toTransphobia. It is the only article to which the 'persecution of trans people' would refer. Violence is a subset of persecution, not all of it, and while there are a few articles on specific types or times of persecution, none of them offer as high-level a view as the transphobia article.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. This might be a plausible search term (with quotes), but not common. Also search for "puppet" (using the quotes) returnsPuppet - so don't see how this is helpful.Asteramellus (talk)14:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toPuppet (disambiguation)#Music. The fact that this was created as an article about a song speaks to the plausibility of using quotation marks to refer to a song. As does the fact that that's how they're listed on that disambiguation page, and indeed throughout enwiki.J947 ‡edits00:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep J.P.Morgan & Co is predecessor before the merger - On JPMorgan Chase, it says - "JPMorgan Chase was created in 2000 by the merger of New York City banks J.P. Morgan & Co. and Chase Manhattan Company." So, searching for J P Morgan Bank would most likely refer to current entity "JPMorgan Chase" - not the pre-merger firm.Asteramellus (talk)14:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to360_degrees_(disambiguation). As the nominator points out, capitalizing 'degrees' indicates you might not be looking for information about angles. The other redirects mentioned can be kept as is, since I would assumeTurn (angle) is the primary topic. There's a hatnote on that page to the disambiguation page anyway.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!02:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to360_degrees_(disambiguation). I agree with the nom's assessment that DIFFCAPS applies and with MEN KISSING's. There dab page lists two entries with capitalized 'Degrees' and multiple works titled360°. As titles of works, these would be properly capitalized by readers who don't know how to enter there degree symbol. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)04:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "cisphobia" is not discussed in the target, and was not discussed when these were created. Search results indicate that they mean what you think they do, except that CISPHOBIC also refers to a (probably non-notable) music artist. A reader searching for these terms most likely already knows what "cisgender" means and is looking for information on the phobia, and they will not find that information here. I would recommendeither deletionor a soft redirection to therelevantWiktionaryentries, as one of them used to be.Chess enjoyer (talk)00:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, I agree with the nom's other 'delete' reasons. Not mentioned and not synonymous withcisgender. Anyone searching these words is looking for a description of the specific concept, which is not found at the target, nor anywhere on en-wiki. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague or retarget? This was originally created as a list of gay porn movies. I'm not sure whether this usage is specific to porn or to the more general topicList of LGBTQ-related films. That is wheregay moviesgay movies,gay filmsgay films, and several related redirects point. My sense is that "videos" does sort of imply pornography, but I'm not convinced that is unambiguous. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy valentine's to you too. A quick google search suggests the term "Gay videos" is rarely used by anyone, and when it is, only occasionally refers to gay porn. Since it could vaguely refer to a number of things, a disambiguation might be appropriate, but since its such a rare term I would just saydelete.WikiMacaroonsCinnamon?21:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmentioned, with no prejudice against keeping if a citation is ever produced for the claim that this animal is sometimes known as a "boogie worm". According to an edit in 2023, it may be fans of some YouTube channel calling it this?MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!02:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked, I accepted a request atWP:AFC/R to create this redirect because someone had managed to finda citation calling this a "boogie worm". This may or may not be aBrazilian aardvark situation all over again, but it appears to have some use outside of Wikipedia.Lynch4412:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of detail, but that was my general concern, yes (never heard of the Brazilian aardvark case, but that's right in line with this potentially). And this website seems to postdate the first addition to the article. As far as I can tell, it was originally added in 2021 (diff) and removed in 2023 (diff). The removal mentions a YT channel, but I have no idea if that was from before or after the first addition. Either way, it's a brazilian aardvark, or some novel coinage that's not widespread enough to mention/redirect from. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)15:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MEN KISSING.Vernacular names generally require multiple high quality citations. They are subject to a lot of hoaxes as well as good-faith but ultimately unsupported additions, withWP:CITOGENESIS being a major problem. Unsubstantiated redirects and mentions in articles are harmful and should be eliminated. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I added this because I know Tubifex by that name first. I think it's likely that it was initially some sort of "Let's add this to wiki because it's funny" since I couldn't find anything prior to its 2021 addition to Wikipedia but the fact remains that in 2026 people use the name to refer to the animal, especially across social media:
From a linguistic descriptivism perspective, it doesn't really matter who coined it or how it was popularized. People (myself included) seek the article for tubifex via the common nameAlphactory (talk)17:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.Homoeroticism issexual attraction between members of the same sex whereaserotica refers to literature or other art forms of a sexual nature. Homoeroticism exists and is experienced in real life, although it is of course also a subject of art. Erotica, gay or otherwise, is explicitly an art form. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)01:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That was the outcome of the AfD and re-creating it and then bringing it here for further discussion is a poor use of editor time. This is not a proper dab page and creating a redirect with '(disambiguation)' is nonsensical. At best this is redundant and confusing, at worst this is becoming a locus of disputes and disruptive edits. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)03:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm... sorry, what??? -If you're talking about the concept of turning a redirect into a disambiguation page (or "dabifying"), that happens all the time as a solution forWP:XY problems -If you're talking about the concept of putting a redirect on a dab page, that's also fine, dab pages have just as much a right as any page to use redirects? -If you're talking about the concept of a redirect having the word "Disambiguation" in it, that literally happens all the time when a dab page ends up being at the base title (i.e.Foobar (disambiguation)>Foobar whereFoobar IS a disambiguation page). It's also an entire category of tagged redirect, including {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, {{R from natural disambiguation}}, et cetera.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)11:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Foobar (disambiguation) is exactly the case where we could have a disambiguation by my above logic. Thanks for the example. It complements my statement perfectly! That said, I do want to set a limit to my above broadest statement: it does not refer to proper names or well-defined concepts, only to phrases. For phrases we need to be able to decide one way or another.gidonb (talk)12:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term "gay-for-pay" is primarily associated with pornography and other forms of sex work, which are the focus of the target article. The broader cultural conversation about straight actors playing gay characters in mainstream movies and other productions is not covered at the target and is not usually what people mean by "gay-for-pay". —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Deacon Vorbis. If we have any coverage of this I would have expected it to be summarised at least inMedia portrayal of LGBTQ people but we don't, nor do we (surprisingly to me) have anything relevant to the equivalent issue of cis actors portraying trans people.Thryduulf (talk)20:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and link one specific treatment of this subject,Newsweek gay actor controversy. What article are others are looking at? There's a long section atGay-for-pay#Film and television about this very concept. I would suggest refining there, but the reader could also reasonably be looking for straight pornographic actors in gay roles with this search term and being like 40% of the article the content on traditional actors is not exactly difficult to find. SoWP:RETURNTORED does not apply.J947 ‡edits01:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad spot. The C-segment being sometimes referred to as the "Golf segment" is mentioned directly in the article. I'm worried aboutWP:RASTONISH though; "golf segment" isn't exactly "golf class". I'm not a car person, are "segment" and "class" interchangeable?Tessaract2Hi!22:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absent any clear definition and any discussion of this terminology. I'm also not a car person but I learned duringthis RM that terminology varies widely in different countries, is often contradictory, and that terms used for marketing complicate matters. People may search for this but we shouldn't force a target unless we have a good description supported by appropriate sources. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)03:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget both toHot hatch first choice,Compact car second choice, because that's what my car nerd friend who I briefly jumped in a discord call with said it probably refers to. Weakly, because I did not comprehend any of the words they said to me and cannot vouch for the soundness their argument.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!05:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the Sega CD can be considered a separate system in some respectsEven if this was correct-- it's not, the Sega CD is as unambiguously an add-on to the Genesis as theSega 32X is (as well as theNintendo 64DD >Nintendo 64)-- the Sega CD is explicitlydiscussed on the Sega Genesis page. Similarly, the Game Gear is basically a Master System made portable, and is compatible withall Master System games through a cartridge converter; it is also, as with the Sega CD, discussed on the Master System's page.Keep these two.The Game Boy and Game Boy Color, though... Those aren't as clear-cut, as the tech of the GB and GBC aren't nearly as cleanly mapped to the NES's hardware (you can't just use a converter to plug an NES or Famicom copy of Super Mario Bros into a GBC and play it, like you can with a Master System game on Game Gear). NES stillfeels primary topic, but I'm not sure enough to come to a decision there; anyone have any other thoughts here?𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)21:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think most people would say a console is the same as another just because it can play its games. The Genesis has an add-on that allows it to play Master System games, but no one considers them to be the same. The PS2 can play most PS1 games but no one thinks they're the same thing. Also, I said the Sega CD may be considered its own system because it has an exclusive library of games that can't be played on a base Genesis.Mr slav999 (talk)18:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think most people would say a console is the same as another just because it can play its games.That's a valid concern re: referring to the Genesis as a Master System, a PS2 as a PS1, or the Wii as a Gamecube. However, I'd say it's not applicable re: the Master System and Game Gear. Unlike with all of the prior examples, which are backwards compatible but have extensive libraries that the prior console it's compatible with can't play, the Game Gear and Master System areliterally the same thing-- not only can most Master System games work on Game Gear with a cartridge converter (save for certain games that require, say, the light gun), but in turn, most Game Gear games can be played on Master System (although a converter didn't exist at the time, there *are* third-party ones that exist); there are exceptions-- Game Gear exclusive titles that you can't play on Master System because they use colors that the Master System couldn't support-- but one of these Game Gear exclusive games can be converted into a Master System compatible game with only minor graphical modification.Which means rather than being a case of a PS2 and a PS1, it's more like the case of aGame Boy Advance, aGame Boy Advance SP, and aGame Boy Player. All three ofthose I'd consider to be versions of the GBA, and that includes the Game Boy Player.I said the Sega CD may be considered its own system because it has an exclusive library of games that can't be played on a base Genesis....Hm. I'm... a little torn on this. Part of me is insistent that the Sega CD should merely be considered a disk drive addon to the Genesis-- like of course the base Genesis can't play Sega CD games, it doesn't have a disk drive on its own!-- but then I look up at my own argument that theGame Boy Player is a GBA (which... it is, it's not an emulator, it's the actual hardware from a GBA hooked up to your Gamecube). And as perSega_CD#Technical_specifications, it's NOT just a CD drive bolted to the Genesis, it has its own graphics and processor....Hm.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)21:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete all redirects missing the word "console" as vague with consoles, games, rereleases of those games, and rereleases of those games but in collection form, among other less plausible stuff like merch and the reader being one of those "so retro" folk
delete the others as well as... a misleading mess of varyingly implausible targets at best. judging by the views and incoming links (all one of them not related to this rfd insega 16 bit console), it's unlikely that a reader would be looking for those without already knowing what the consoles are, which would make the most plausible target some sort of list of consoles separated by bits or something, which technically doesn't exist, and even if it did (which would be at thelist of sega video game consoles andlist of nintendo products), they'd actuallystill be vague with arcade systems, which are separated in the nintendo list and ina separate list for sega (for which no 8-bit ones seem to exist, and only one 16-bit one seems to exist), and with the multiple consoles each of them have per bit (despite sega's best attempts to hide its pre-mega drive stuff)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
they'd actuallystill be vague with arcade systemsYou're arguing that the redirects that have the word "console" are an issue because they're vague with... arcade systems, which are famouslynot consoles?𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)21:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes and no. regardless of whether or not i think it's plausible (it's a skill issue, really), this is a confusion i've seen a good bit of among people who have lives, and i havesnk's arcade shenanigans of all things to blame for about half of it, with the other half being a sentiment of "that's just nomenclature, isn't it?".andStreets™ 2 depending on who you ask
...Okay, while the Pico does roundly trounce the idea that the Genesis is the only target forSega 16 bit console, I'd like to point out that the Master Systemwas the SG-1000 in much the same way that the Game Gearwas the Master System; the Master System being the Sega Mark III (as in the 3rd release of the SG1000). The Master System article even mentions it in the second sentence.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)23:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most would say that the SG-1000, Master System and Game Gear are separate consoles, even if they have some common origins. Sorry, but the fact you have a different opinion on this is kinda irrelevant, because what matters is what most people think.Mr slav999 (talk)15:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orDisambig betweenMonte Camicia andChimenti Camicia. FWIWit:Camicia is interwiki linked toDress shirt. Almost all my google hits are for shirts, but I think that's at least partly google trying to be helpful and thinking I'm searching in Italian and partly because there are multiple companies selling shirts, blouses and similar garments that include "Camicia" in the name of the brand or style but afaict none are notable, none have coverage on en.wp and the styles shown are far too varied to point at any one target (evenshirt doesn't cover them all).Thryduulf (talk)14:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate topics with generic names like "Mountain" normally can go on a DAB without the generic name perWP:PTM and the surname holder is also a valid entry without a surname article.Crouch, Swale (talk)20:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toIsraeli-occupied territories. AnAfD on a similarly-named article has led these to redirect toPalestine. However, perWP:ASTONISH, redirects that are specific to the occupation should probably point to the dedicated article rather than to the generic article about the country. Specifically, the "occupied territories" under slightly different names were a subject of international law and numerous UN resolutions for many decades, and a long-standing article about this topic exists. Strangely, the articleIsraeli-occupied territories was not discussed in the AfD.Place Clichy (talk)10:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i wanted to say i was just mistaken and stuff, which i most likely am, but those results, and some of my own research done right now, actually made things really confusing for the purposes of this rfd, as they seem to refer to...
"occupied palestinian territory(ies)" separately (since everything i could find uses the two terms separately)
two separate tags/terms taped together by coincidence or as part of a sentence (not entirely sure about percentages, so this one is either very important or completely irrelevant)
palestinian territory that is undergoing occupation jank
territory that is undergoing palestinian occupation jank (yes, that's apparently a different thing)
territory that is undergoing occupation jank palestinianly (what)
palestine itself lol
the west bank, gaza strip, and east jerusalem specifically
a couple buildings (coincdentally, sources that seemed to use this definition all refused to load)
"hehehhhahhhehhahehahheaheahehehehhe wouldn't it be really funny if i said 'property' while referring to women"
seeing as sources that (seem to) use the term deliberately seem to be either vague, about as confused as me, or certain but contradictory to others, i'll tentatively change my vote to "ow my thinky ball"consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)23:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was ano consensus, and articleIsraeli-occupied territories was not discussed, which are 2 reasons why a new discussion is welcome. Although the area is indeed the same (and the AFD reflects the name under which it is most commonly known), the notion ofoccupied territories is not synonymous with the area and we have articles to reflect that.Place Clichy (talk)18:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toIsraeli-occupied territories per Place Clichy. I think this is the more likely destination readers are seeking when they include the word “occupied” in their search. If someone is simply looking for the country or state entity, they will almost certainly type “Palestine” rather than “occupied Palestinian territories”. In these terms, occupied is the key qualifier and carries more informational weight than Palestinian. While it is true thatIsraeli-occupied territories also covers other areas (e.g. the Golan Heights), redirecting from a narrower term to a broader but directly relevant article is normal practice on Wikipedia. The concept of occupation is the primary topic implied by these redirects, and that concept is treated explicitly and centrally in the Israeli-occupied territories article. This retarget also has better long-term stability. If the political status of Palestine changes in the future, the historical and legal concept of Israeli-occupied territories will still remain relevant and well-defined, whereas redirecting toPalestine risks becoming misleading over time. If needed, the target article can always be expanded or split into subarticles (including one specifically on the occupied Palestinian territories). --Hassan697 (talk)11:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I'll just repeat what I saidlast time since nothing has changed:Keep all per Amakuru and common and official usage. Occupied Palestinian Territory is the name used by the UN.[13][14][15] The US State Department uses similar terminology.[16] These redirects are all common and accurate ways to describe present dayPalestine. The AfD addressed this, identifying the title as a POVFORK and noting that the content substantially duplicated content fromPalestine. The terminology is used and explained in several places in thePalestine article. I see the nom's comment above that the last one closed as 'no consensus' and thatIsraeli-occupied territories was not explicitly discussed as an option. This does not change my view.—Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)18:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of completeness, I'll directly address theWP:RASTONISH concern: The likelihood ofastonishment is low here given that Occupied Palestinian Territory(ies)is often used interchangeably with "Palestine". Additionally, as previously noted, the terminology is used and explained in the article. Palestineis currently occupied by Israel andhas a long history of occupation. Thus the discussion atPalestine describes all of this with links to additional articles with more detail. The RASTONISH guidance is simply toMake it clear to the reader that theyhave arrived in the right place. I believe this is reasonably well accomplished for all the reasons I've described but a boldedOccupied Palestinian Territory could be added to the lead by any editor who is concerned about this. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That usage is historical. The main name used by the UN, as seen on theirmember list page, is Palestine/State of Palestine, since its 2012 admission as observer. That's not debated here. The issue is whether the notion ofoccupied territories should be erased completely, as arguably it is not the topic of article thePalestine article (few mentions of the term and not even a section header). This specific point was not addressed in your copied-and-pasted comment.
That usage is historical. That is not my finding. And again, the article discusses the various terminology and can provide further explanation or clarification if needed. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)04:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically pointed to the most officialUN member list page which usesState of Palestine. Hence other usages are historical. There may be inconsistency from one UN agency to the other though. Note that looking up these terms on theUN statistical engine returns data sets that end in 2005 for "Occupied Palestinian Territory" ([17]).
I specifically pointed to the most officialUN member list page which usesState of Palestine. And I posted links to current UN and US State Department sites that continue to use this terminology (or variations thereof). The name is also used by the European Council on Foreign Relations[18] and appears in news coverage from reliable sources.[19][20] UN News also continues to use this terminology.[21] I'm not sure whatArticle1337712628 refers to. The current target does discuss"occupied Palestinian territory (oPt or OPT)" in the sectionPalestine#Etymology. And as I have said, this coverage can be improved and this name can be included in the lead to make things more clear.Israeli-occupied territories covers Israel occupation of non-Palestinian territory. Palestine is a substantial focus but the article's scope is much broader. A more specific target is better. I disagree withHistory of Palestine#Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories because I disagree that the name is purely historical. It continues to be used as a synonym for theState of Palestine orPalestine. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)18:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: this is aWP:INVOLVED relisting to close the 28 January log, which no longer appears on the RfD page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Thryduulf (talk)13:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was included in theoriginal listing. I don't think at this step we should add or remove entries from the nomination, although other variants ofOccupied/Palestinian territory/ies should probably follow the result of this discussion if it results in consensus. Other terms such asOccupation of... andOccupied Palestine can follow a different course and should IMHO not be bundled in order to avoid a train wreck.Place Clichy (talk)07:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I don’t know why Llara states they bundled it on Feb 7. I was quite alarmed by their post. I should have taken a deep breath and checked the history before springing into action. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)15:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Per Myceteae above. There is plentiful official and common usage where this is synonymous with Palestine, and the astonishment factor is low (and there's a pretty immediate link to Israeli-occupied Palestine in the lead). Note, Hassan697 has been blocked as a sock, and the additional "bundling" after the relisting does not seem to be in order and confuses the matter.—BrechtBro(talk)23:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to oppose too much bundling late in a discussion, but all but one of the added redirects are variations on the exact same phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territory/ies". I removed the one that didn't fit. My position still holds for all of the word order and capitalization variants. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)04:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing why this first and middle name combination should be a redirect, when the combination alone isn't used to refer to the person and is also a match forGiovanni Domenico Tiepolo. Not a good candidate for a disambig page, as both articles are partial title matches that wouldn't warrant disambiguating. Suggest deletion as the redirect's presence is obstructing search.Paul_012 (talk)14:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I'm reluctant to give full support for the suggestion without at least a draft of how the target page should read, though, since it will confuse readers should follow-up edits fail to take place. --Paul_012 (talk)08:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason to select one person with this combination of names over the others.Giandomenico will likely confuse readers unfamiliar with these compound name and it's not clear that this would even be the intended search target over one of the people who use the full renderings as part of their name. I agree that the redirect is obstructing search. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)01:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This should be deleted.Crémeux is French for 'creamy'. This is not aWP:FORRED nomination. The problem is that lots of things can be described as 'creamy', including a great many food terms that come from France or have been influenced by French:cream and other entries atCrème,crème fraîche,ganache, and many more.Custard is not a direct translation and anyone searching en-wiki for the meaning will be misled by this redirect. There is no primary topic for this French adjective on en-wiki. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)07:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per... creator!? as both a french word and an english loanword, it's only one of the possible meanings. judging by results, readers could be expecting any kind of creamy food, regardless of whether or not it actually is cream or custard.a lot of the aforementioned results were also written in someindecipherable glyphs, but that at most implies wp-pt would have more use for thisconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)11:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before someone votes to make a DAB page with all creamy foods related to French cuisine I'll just say... don't do that. —Anonymous12:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This has been getting a lot of traffic (over 300 hits last year), probably due to the incoming links:
In the "28/06-4" table row there is the sentenceThe dessert prepared by Ralph and Rue, a goat's cheesecrémeux, beetroot consommé and poached pear was declared perfect by the judges. That sounds not at all like custard(and also disgusting). Googlinggoat's cheese crémeux the results suggest thatcream cheese would be a more useful target (but as I'm allergic to cheese I could be wrong about that).
In the "50/11-1" table row there is the sentence...which consisted of a cake containing a double chocolate chip cookie base, coffee hazelnut financier, vanilla bean coffee caramel, coffee cremeux, and a chocolate mousse, in addition to a sugar dome. (containing no links). Googlingcoffee crémux that looks closer to a mousse than it does to custard(it also looks misleadingly like chocolate, which. as someone who likes chocolate mousse but doesn't like coffee, should not be allowed).
Top Chef: Wisconsin has, in the table row "310",Maple Crémeux, Blueberry, Pistachio & Caramel. Google results for that term give what appears to becream custard (also not a particularly helpful redirect tocustard) with maple flavouring. This looks very tasty and is arguably going to the right target but in the absence of the term it's not that helpful.
Top Chef: Destination Canada (table row "328") hasCorn Crémeux with Corn Ice Cream, Grilled Blueberry Condiment & Blueberry Crisp (Massimo). Google results for"Corn crémeux" were not particularly helpful, butwhat is "corn crémeux" eventually resulted in my understanding that it's just a creamy custard-like sauce made with corn in various forms.
Overall it's clear to me that there is not one single thing being referred to here, andwikt:crémeux ((cooking) A smooth creamy sauce, custard, or pastry cream.) just reinforces that custard is just one of the things that it could be. It seems unlikely that there is scope for an encyclopaedia article about it, so in the absence of aglossary of cooking or similar (that I've found) I think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is the best we can do.Thryduulf (talk)15:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: I still favor deletion. I was unaware that there is a somewhat prominent use of this word in English for a specific type of sauce or custard. (I'm not sure whether that is the context in which most English speakers encounter the word.) I don't see that the incoming links and pageviews justify a Wiktionary redirect per the guidance atWP:SOFTSP. The links in article space violateMOS:NOFORCELINK. These may be justified since cramming definitions or explanations of every dish into lists and episode summaries is probably unworkable. Still, I don't find the traffic or usage in articles overwhelming here. Given that these links appear in a handful of related articles, I suspect a single editor or small group of editors working in theTop Chef space are using these and I don't see any evidence of repeated re-creation of this redirect. Assuming these links are driving the traffic, they are being used inappropriatelyand the result doesn't actually help readers. Additionally, Wiktionary redirects are generally reserved for terms thatcan never be expanded beyond a simpledictionary definition and I'm not sure whether that is the case here. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:NOFORCELINK:Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.?! I'm a reader who does not know the meaning of the French wordcrémeux (I figure it must be French because of that diacritic over the "e", and it justsounds French) and I want a dictionary definition. Don't force me to click a link? That means spell out the meaning of the word, in plain English, right there in that article's text? Certainly don't leave me staring at a red link, that really would beforcing me to run off-wiki to look it up somewhere else! {{Wiktionary redirect}} per Thryduulf. You can also start thecrémeux article, using theArticle Wizard if you wish, but please remember that Wikipedia isnot a dictionary. –wbm1058 (talk)02:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Uffda608 would you be willing to create an article for him? I simply redirected this one as he obviously died recently and I redirected to the most obvious band, but with him being a member of multiple bands, I definitely back him getting a standalone article.Thief-River-Faller (talk)17:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a{{R from move}}, but I'm not convinced it's the best solution as the given name page (correctly?) doesn't mention non-given name uses. I arrived here directly from entering the URL expecting a full disambiguation at this title or to be redirected to a full disambiguation at the base name.Mary Sue is about the stock character and has hatnotes to the given name page andThe Mary Sue (c.f.#The Mary Sue for discussion about that redirect) so a redirecting this title there wouldn't be helpful. I'm honestly not sure what is the best action here.Thryduulf (talk)12:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect contains "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page. In this case, Лв does not seem to have refered to Kyrgyz som, which was in the former disambiguation page ofЛв, but there is possible ambiguity withЛВ, which redirects toSoviet locomotive class LV.Mathguy2718 (talk)06:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The current target is too general to be helpful for a reader specifically searching for somatic variation. I think the best thing to do isretarget toSomatic mutation, which reflects the one mention of "somatic" in theGenetics article. Though mutation is not the same thing as variation, somatic mutation is mentioned initially inHuman somatic variation.Mathguy2718 (talk)03:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning delete. Google and Google Scholar searches both indicate they think this is a mistake. They return a lot of hits forpseudogenes but it looks like this is because the words aresimilar, not because their meaning is the same or related. A search for"pseudogenetics" with quotes turns up only 165 hits on Google Scholar. Per regular Google and Scholar results, the meaning is variable. It sometimes refers to genetic pseudoscience generally[26] including specific examples like Lysenkoism,[27] race science, and eugenics, including a reference to "three generations of imbeciles". A few sources givepseudogenetics as a synonym forepigenetics (e.g.[28]), but this doesn't appear to be common (I wasn't familiar with that usage, FWIW). There is an article sectionEpigenetics#Pseudoscience but this is not an appropriate target. It's not suitable for a dab page since we have many examples of genetic pseudoscience butpseudogenetics is not a synonym for each of these individually. Notably, I do not find hits suggesting thatpseudogenetics meansthe study ofpseudogenes. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find affinity here for Japanese, perWP:RLANG. There's a potential forEugenics in Japan but given this isapparently the term for eugenics in both Japanese *and* Chinese according to the tags, this would have anWP:XY withHistory of eugenics#China, which is the target ofEugenics in China.
Notably, though, while this would of course fail theWP:RLANG affinity test forChinese as well, a quick check on Google Translate reveals that this rendering (優生学) is, in fact, specifically Japanese-- the characters herewould be correct in Chinese, except the first character is specifically the version used in Traditional (優生學), while the last character is the one from Simplified (优生学).𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)02:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's ambiguous with Simplified Chinese, based off the Rcat onzh:優生学. Even if it wasn't, I feel like such a redirect would be misleading and surprising – this term means "eugenics", not "eugenics in places that speak Japanese".J947 ‡edits06:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, when I click "Search for pages containing 優生学" on the Chinese Wikipedia, I get "There is a page named 优生学", even though they are two different names. Could anyone explain? However,this page proves that 優生学 isn't a Chinese term.Mathguy2718 (talk)20:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably it's running into the issue I said up in the second paragraph of my nomination-- 优 and 優 have the same sound/meaning, the difference is that the former is Simplified and the latter is Traditional; the same goes for 学 and 學. The Japanese kanji used for this word just happens to use the same symbols, except it mixes the two, using a "Simplified" and a "Traditional" character in the same word.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)22:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing Japanese about the word "eugenics". Rightfully so, the transliterationyūseigaku does not exist since there is no mention or affinity. This redirect would be valid if there was a Japanese song, film, etc. called "Eugenics" in English, but no such titles exist.Mathguy2718 (talk)20:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No clue why this targets a random disambiguation page that doesn't mention the phrase. However, it is mentioned atKavita Daswani as a publication, but the mention does not use the apostrophe ('). I am unsure whether this should be deleted or retargeted there.Thanks,1isall (talk | contribs)01:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but the version without the apostrophe would probably be valid? I'm not feeling bold enough to make it actually happen, thus the question mark.Tessaract2Hi!04:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on Jay's comment? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Left guide (talk)00:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No entries at the target disambiguation page are known specifically as "appraisement". Due to this being confusing, and since the target is a base title without a determined primary topic,delete orsoft retarget toWiktionary:appraisement.Steel1943 (talk)22:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the nomination rationale would make sense if the entries on the dab page were works of art (for example) named "Appraisal" that would never be referred to as "Appraisement". However, in this instance the entries on the dab page are largely noun phrases where the word "appraisal" can aptly be replaced by "appraisement" without a change in meaning. Therefore this dab page, unlike the works-of-art one, disambiguates "appraisement" and this redirect is appropriate.J947 ‡edits03:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hatnote the first redirect per Myceteae who explains this well. No need to harmonise redirects if they mean different things. I suggestunrefine the second redirect, since there's actually more coverage of mathematics in the lede ofNobel Prize controversies than in the section ostensibly pertaining to mathematics (the article is undergoing a bit of a revamp in fairness).J947 ‡edits03:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is mainly to clear out more implausible redirects to theItalian brainrot page, especially after the characters section was removed and its contents significantly cut down. A lot of redirects that were formerly mentioned are no longer mentioned, and there are also some implausible "alternate" spellings. For example,Ballerina Cappuccina is mentioned in the sources but not in the article anymore, leaving broken anchors. It can be added back into the article if it's deemed notable enough for a mention but that's not in my wheelhouse.HurricaneZetaC17:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the misspellings and alternate spellings aside for now, of which many seem eminently plausible, how harmful are the unmentioned redirects? At the moment, we're accurately telling the reader who searches one of these terms that "this is a piece of Italian brainrot and that's all the information we have on the subject". Perhaps these redirects will mislead the reader into thinking there is some information at the target when there's none. But is deletion in favour of the reader blankly staring at zero search results really preferable?J947 ‡edits22:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A google search indicates that the term "Western alliance" is most likely to be associated with Western Alliance Bancorporation. Other than that there does seem to be some colloquial usage referring to either NATO or the allies in WWII. I'd suggestretarget toWestern Alliance Bancorporation.TarnishedPathtalk21:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Google or Bing search results can be biased to prioritize commercial entities and ad revenues. Book results (people do still read books, no?) clearly show a predominance of the geopolitical in the results. And while not definitive,Wikinav results for Dec forWestern Alliance show a large proportion of readers (over 75%) continuing to NATO over the bank.older ≠wiser21:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment may be better to wait on the AFD, doubtful there is aWP:DIFFCAPS reason to do different things with the two. As Bkonrad has pointed out at the AFD, there are a lot of sources that use the string as a synonym for NATO. Of course that does not necessarily make it primary.~2026-39780-5 (talk)22:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to a DAB page. I suggestedWestern Bloc as a possible target since it seemed to have the closest title of any existing article. But it doesn't discuss the WWII alliance mentioned above. There is alsoFree World, which I considered as a possible target, but that could be seen as non-neutral. A DAB page could potentially include both of those along with NATO, the WWII alliance, and other international orgs.Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)03:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From the AFD there is sourcing for at least one additional entry; probably others can be sourced too. There are also some assertions that one topic or another may be primary, but as I mentioned at the AFD, even if that is the case, it is solvable by moving the title so it's appended with "(disambiguation)" and reformatting per MOS:DABPRIMARY.~2026-39780-5 (talk)03:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets and the disambig page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬07:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toWestern Alliance or change toKeep as disambiguation pageMultiple entities named "Western Union" have been found. Also, this probably shouldn't have been opened since there was already an AfD for this disambiguation page. There are multiple western alliances.Clarinetguy097 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Clarinetguy097 (talk)18:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both unmentioned redirects unless a suitable target can be found for both. There's no mention of calendars on the dab page nor in the mainBeefcake article.Beefcake magazineBeefcake magazine, one of the dab page entries, is a redirect toPhysique magazine, which contains this passing reference:Later, magazines expanded their offerings to include other items such as slides, calendars, and posing straps. The last line ofFirefighter calendar provides a definition of beefcake calendars but no other substantive discussion of the broader category. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinion as to wether there should be separate articles onBeefcake calendar,Pinup calendar, andFirefighter calendar or whether one should be a section of a broader article. But currently there is virtually no information on beefcake calendars at any of the related articles (and none whatsoever at the current targets) soWP:RETURNTORED applies to the current situation. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNude calendar is another article to mention, which might serve as a possible merge/rename target. There are really two distinct subjects: (a) Calendars featuring attractive models, male or female, nude or scantily-clad, intended primarily as erotica (into which category "Beefcake calendars" would fall), and (b) Calendars featuringunattractive models (or, at least, models of average appearance), nude or scantily-clad, intended primarily to raise money for charity and for amusement. This is probably not the best venue for a more detailed discussion, though.Tevildo (talk)23:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at suggested target - Nude calendar. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬06:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: There are several existing and proposed articles where a description of beefcake calendars *might* be included but still no substantive coverage of the topic. I agree with Tevildo's statement that this isn't really the proper venue to discuss potential massive rewrites and reorganization of existing content and expansion to cover all the related topics, subtopics, and supertopics. I don't want to beat a dead horse but it seems straightforward that these should be deleted given the lack of substantial coverage anywhere and passing mentions in a few places.Beefcake calendar can always be re-created as an article or a redirect to a section where coverage has been added. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)18:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undefined phrases. These are mentioned without definition in the article. This could refer tophysical properties andchemical properties together as well as to certain properties that may be conceptualized as living at the boundary between these classifications. These are certainly relevant tophysical chemistry but are broadly part of the domains ofchemistry,physics, and other disciplines. An introductory text will often define and distinguishphysical properties andchemical properties together and it's possible an en-wiki target could but I've not found one.Note: There are several redirects from adjectival forms likephysicochemicalphysicochemical that I have intentionally not bundled. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)22:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toMaterial property /List of materials properties. Material property seems close if not identical to the literal meaning of physicochemical, "a physical property or chemical property that does not depend on the amount of the material". Also the content makes sense as a target, generally someone is looking for a specific property. The actual page may need some editing (e.g. physical property is a "see also" but also a link in the lead) but that can come after.Mathnerd314159 (talk)05:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on the redirect but it would also be helpful if the definition ofphysical property in the respective article could be improved. At the moment the lemma could be understood as either synonymous tophysical quantity or to "physical property" in a broader and more general sense, i.e. not purely in the context ofphysics as I have statedhere. best,KaiKemmann (talk)19:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of these topics across multiple related articles needs improvement. @Mathnerd314159, do you have a source for your definition of physicochemical property? A clear definition should be added especially if these terms are not always completely synonymous. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the quote is from the material property article. As far as the physicochemical property, the sources do not seem good, so I would rely on the etymology, which is just physical and chemistry put together. That is part of why I said redirect, is because there does not seem to be a suitable definition of physicochemical property to use as the basis for an article. I did find some definitions such asthis NIST definition, but they seem like convenience definitions and not authoritative. In particular, it seems across different sources they generally speaking want to include almost all physical and chemical properties in the definition.Mathnerd314159 (talk)22:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I had similar findings. The term is used with closely related meanings but I've not found a strict definition. Its usage in certain fields appears to often refer to a specific subset of relevant properties but these don't constitute a general definition of "physicochemical properties". Usage inmedicinal chemistry is especially common per my search, seethis book chapter for an overview. I agree these are usually convenience definitions or simply lists of especially relevant properties for a given discipline or discussion. Standard dictionaries definephysicochemical as referring to both physical and chemical properties, with a secondary sense pertaining more specifically to the domain of physical chemistry.[29][30][31] (These dictionaries aren't necessarily authoritative for technical definitions, just sharing what I have found.) It's not as well-defined as other related classification of "properties" such as chemical, physical, material, and mechanical. I've not seen anything that suggests the meaning is consistently the same asmaterial properties and nothing that defines "physicochemical property" as beingdefined as "material property". Assigning a definition of "material property" sounds likeWP:SYNTH. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)17:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These should all point to the same place unless there's strong evidence that the "ship name"Hollanov is more specific to the show. I wouldtarget all toHeated Rivalry (the show). This was the original target forShane Hollander andIlya Rozanov but these were retargeted to the novel. Given that the show is the primary topic forHeated Rivalry, I would expect it to be the primary target for the two main characters, as well.Heated Rivalry (the show) already has a hatnote toHeated Rivalry (novel) and the books are discussed throughout the main article. A counter argument might be thatHeated Rivalry (novel)#Sequels mentions other books that the characters appear in but the mention is quite brief and the sequelLong Game is also discussed in the main article. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Shane and Ilya are literary characters first and foremost. The show characters are just adaptations. Furthermore, I plan creating pages for both characters in the near future. They are relevant enough and there are enough trusted sources out there for creating pages. As for Hollanov, I'd honestly redirect it toHeated Rivalry (soundtrack) as it is the name of a track from the album. —User:Grigoryevich (talk)20:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh noHollanov is ashipping (fandom) name so should redirect to show or novel (or be a standalone article likeDestiel orDrarry, if notable), imo. I originally hadHollanov point to the show bc an article for the novel didn't exist, but honestly not sure what established WP practice is in this area. For prior novel adaptations (where novel and show both have articles), do ship name redirects just point to w/e article is more popular/most likely to be searched for? We should prolly just follow established practice if available imo :) -Asdfjrjjj (talk)20:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree—I would not retargetHollanov to the soundtrack. Although this could be justified as an{{R from song}}, I doubt that is what most readers are looking for. If separate articles are created for Shane and Ilya, it becomes even less clear where to point this. I doubt there is enough distinct content for a separateHollanov article and I doubt there is sufficient reliable, independent coverage of this 'ship' separate from the books, TV show, and each character. The general guidance for all these is atWikipedia:Primary topic with specific guidance on redirects atWP:RPRIMARY. Our task is to determine the primary topic for each of these. The guidance is explicit that what came first is not automatically the primary topic. It seems straightforward that the show is the primary topic forHeated Rivalry and to my knowledge that has not been challenged. There would need to be a good reason to select the book(s) as the primary topic for the main characters and I've not seen one. The characters are mentioned about two-times as often in the article about the show as they are in the article about the novel, for what it's worth. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)21:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Shane and Ilya redirects, per Asdfjrjjj's rationale that they are literary characters first. I'm not familiar withHollanov usage but the comments above seem to indicate that it was in use before the TV series was created? The sudden popularity of the show clouds the issue because we have a natural inclination to think everything should redirect there, but in fiction articles we usually defer to the source work.—TAnthonyTalk21:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search forHollanov results from 2019–2024 reveals tons of hits. Everything I glanced at was an unreliable source, which is unsurprising, but it appears the term was used in fandom circles before the TV show was released. On the point ofWP:RECENTISM, this is a valid concern, but this seems to be a case where the astronomical popularity of the TV show raised the profile of the source material. It's unclear whether the book would have metWP:GNG before the show came out but it's possible. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)22:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Shane Hollander and Ilya Rozanov thenretarget it back to the TV series page as they are essential navigational aids for the central protagonists of the show whiledelete Hollanov per nom.ꕥ𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←16:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a fan of Tavix's retargetting suggestion unless more information is added - and there really shouldn't be much detail about one small sport's governing body in the top-level article about all sports in a country, especially one as well-represented in English language media as New Zealand.Thryduulf (talk)14:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep[Re]target both toJPMorgan Chase asWP:RPRIMARY andWP:SMALLDETAILS due to the lack of periods and spaces between the initials and essentially serving as a partial-title match for its current target more accurately than the proposed target. Add a hatnote like{{Redirect|JP Morgan|the person|J. P. Morgan}} if necessary.Steel1943 (talk)21:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, but our naming conventions caution against this type of PTM. At best, it's ambiguous and should target the DAB page as suggested by the nominator. (I disagree with the assertion that the bank is a primary topic for the specific phrase "JP Morgan").Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)16:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toJPMorgan Chase. The short name is very clearly the common name for the bank, and that is the clear primary topic in my searches for"JP Morgan" -Wikipedia - only one result on the first 3 pages was for something other than the bank, and that was for a non-notable solicitors firm. For example, the freely available part of[32] doesn't include the "Chase" part in anything other than a tag,[33] from last week uses "JP Morgan" and "JP Morgan Chase" interchangably. Eventhe official website barely mentions "Chase".Thryduulf (talk)13:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My search results are a bit more diverse, notably withthis as the third result. That's "J.P. Morgan" not "JP Morgan", but so are many of the mentions of the bank. Combined with Google's bias towards modern business over history and Wikipedia's opposite bias, I'm very cautious using those results here.J947 ‡edits00:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this a bit, and I think the best option is toretarget to the dab page. The problem withSteel1943's argument is that someone searching forJ. P. Morgan the person might not use periods or spaces between his initals.JD Vance is an example of a well-known person who doesn't use them. "JPMorgan" without any spaces seems most likely to refer to the holding companyJPMorgan Chase, but "JP Morgan" could refer to the company, its investment subsidary,J.P. Morgan & Co. (which is the website thatThryduulf mentioned), or the person.I2Overcometalk03:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These should have the same target, and I prefer that not be the disambiguation page. This isn't a trueWP:TWODABS situation, but I think we can say with high confidence that a reader is probably looking for one of two things, both of which have hatnotes to the disambiguation page. --BDD (talk)15:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per WikiNav, 59,000 people searched upJ. P. Morgan in Dec 2025 as opposed to just 31,000 forJPMorgan Chase (which surprises me). The complicating factor here is that, puzzlingly, "JPMorgan Chase" frequently gets abbreviated to "JP Morgan". Per BDD, I'm not enamoured with the disambiguation option. Mostly based on pageviews, I reckon the person is the best target. Closer should ensure that the ~140 mainspace incoming links have been updated before changing the first redirect's target. Note that the incoming links themselves look to be a strong point in favour of the bank.J947 ‡edits00:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to dab page. This is hopelessly ambiguous. I understand the desire to avoid this but longterm pageviews show that the two are very close.WP:SMALLDETAILS won't help us here.JP Morgan is certainly closer toJ. P. Morgan than it is toJPMorgan Chase but it's not clear that the average reader or editor is substantially more likely to mean J. P. Morga or JPMorgan when they type "JP Morgan". —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)05:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget toJ. P. Morgan. For reference, besidesJP Morgan andJp morgan, other similar redirects are included here, showing their current targets:
Many of the instances I saw more accurately referred toJ.P. Morgan & Co. For example,David Laws#Career says he was a VP of "JP Morgan" in the 1980's, at which timeJPMorgan Chase did not exist.Keiretsu#Outside Japan describes a banking system that arose in the United States in the 19th century and was "largely curtailed… in the early part of the 20th century". A better solution in these articles would be to use the correct name for the institution being referenced, be itJPMorgan Chase orJ.P. Morgan & Co. Targeting the dab page won't entirely prevent editors from usingJP Morgan as shorthand in the future but they will get an alert when they insert a link to a dab page (depending on settings, I think) and dab links that are used in articles can be tracked an corrected based on a determination of which "JP Morgan" is intended. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead andremoved the sole use ofJp morgan. There were several problems with that section including repetitive linking of "JP Morgan" using both redirects three times in the same paragraph. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Target both to JPMorgan Chase per Steel, Thryduulf, Mathguy, etc. as primary topic. Second choice: create new disambig page at JP Morgan with entries of JPMorgan Chase, J.P. Morgan & Co. and the current dab page. Jay 💬09:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A second dab page seems overkill, especially since people named "J. P. Morgan" can reasonably be styled "JP Morgan". However,J. P. Morgan (disambiguation) should be reorganized to list highlight the two banks before the list of other people named J. P. Morgan. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unmentioned at article. History dive indicates it was also unmentioned at redirect creation. Google search has nothing about peppers and instead talks aboutMichael Gargiulo, although that might simply be because he was a serial killer with a "___ Ripper" title in California.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)21:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My first thought was cannabis, but I think that's because this or something like it was a brand of it in a novel I read, but that seems to be entirely fictional. In the real world the hammer is also primary topic for my searches, I did get some hits for"California ripper" "pepper" but none of them in reliable sources and most user generated making me suspect it is mis-remembering of "Carolina reaper". Switching a US state with a "Ca..a" name that has "l"s and "n"s in the middle for a different US state with a "Ca..a" name that has "l"s and "n"s in the middle is very plausible, but in this case not common enough to justify a redirect.Thryduulf (talk)22:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also find that this mostly refers to a hammer. It sees a number of other, unconnected uses and there's nothing to indicate it is a common or likely misnomer for the hot pepper. This redirect is sure toastonish. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if I agree with removing ORES-related content from the target article. Even if it is deprecated, it still is very much in active use by many tools. And, even if it was fully turned off, it's an important aspect of machine learning and anti-vandalism.Skynxnex (talk)18:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A quick ctrl-F reveals that this page doesn't mention the word "Flashes" in any way, shape, or form; history dive reveals that it also didn't mention the word "Flashes" in January 22, 2025 when these redirects were created. Readers looking for information on the Flashes app would be extremely confused, and for a couple of these redirects I also wonder if there might be anWP:XY possible withMacromedia Flash/Adobe Flash apps.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)12:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I expected this to be very ambiguous, but it really isn't - 100% of my google results down to the end of page 4 were for the headphones, however there is no mention of either "Hd 595" or "HD595" anywhere on Wikipedia other than this redirect. The stub was correctly nominated for speedy deletion under A3 before being redirected, and as it does meet that criterion there is no problem with deleting the article content here.Thryduulf (talk)12:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it probably goes without saying that that's a really vague term due to definitions of both words, but just for fun's sake
results gave me assorted "bombs" that are also monsters, "monsters" that are also bombs, "bombs" (stunts) that are described as "monster" (pretty neato), andexeggutor
despite the blar's claims, i couldn't find the three sources describing the moab as this... but idid find two seemingly describing thefather of all bombs as this. of course, they were among the other vague results, but shh
Delete per nom. Even just restricting this to bombs, the first two pages of google find results related to theTsar Bomba (note the first bullet atTsar Bomba#Films, and theTrinity and Beyond article it relates to use the term "Russian monster bomb"), at least two different US bombs (including theGBU-28), and at least one conventional Russian bomb dropped on Ukraine. In amongst these were results for things that are not high explosive military devices - a TV episode, something related toWWE, an alcoholic drink, a song byX-Ray Dog (a redirect I need to investigate[edit: it just needed retargetting after content was moved in 2018.Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)]), a bomb that sticks to monsters inMapleStory, ahydrographic film and other assorted uses.Thryduulf (talk)12:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the wwe definition seems to be referring tobraun strowman... by which i actually specifically mean a finishing move he apparently has. is that move notable? ...nah, i found two sources about it, and both only mention it in passing
Delete as unnecessary. If a reader is searching in whatever search engine for this, they'll find it, and if they're doing it in Wikipedia using search they'll also find it, at least from what I know. 🫀Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? )16:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This was discussed and closed as 'keep' less than three months ago. Nothing has changed since November. This nomination presents no new arguments or evidence and no reason to think the recent discussion was flawed. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)18:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht, thank you for expanding on your reasoning and addressing the last RfD and lack of progress since its closure. I stand by my prior statements that the justification for this redirect could be improved by discussing this specific phrase but I don't find it strictly necessary in this case. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)21:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Myceteae is right about the recent discussion, but I think it came to the wrong conclusion (I'm not saying the closer acted incorrectly). While obviously meant as a response or retort to the slogan, the lack of content about this response means we're not doing readers any favors with this redirect. --BDD (talk)19:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless mentioned. this is the kind of thing we need a mention of, but it doesn't have a mention, so the math isn't mathing here. as far as the previous rfd goes, yeah, hopes that something will maybe get added someday are as much of a reason to keep or restore aswp:cheapconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the article. In the previous discussion I provided multiple sources evidencing use of this phrase in reference to the target article. Add those or others.BD2412T02:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (The previous discussion was a weak consensus at best, so I think it's reasonable to revisit this, despite the relatively short time since then). Unmentioned retort to the slogan -- a sort of an "obvious" construction that people have made, probably independently, but which doesn't seem to be helpful to find the target, and with no specific information about this as the topic of any discussion, rather than simply catchy titles that people have used. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)15:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Myceteae and BD2412. Mentioning this phrase in the article would be ideal, but the lack of a mention is not actually problematic let alone sufficiently so to justify deleting a very useful redirect.Thryduulf (talk)12:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt adding it to the article, keep only if successful. Seems like the right decision based on the previous consensus and current discussion. I'm about to go to bed, so I'll give it a shot tomorrow if nobody else does.I'll admit, I'm a bit afraid to do so given the topic, but someone's gotta.Tessaract2Hi!04:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and target it toUse of the slogan by Trump's political rivals. Looking at google search results (using quotes around the phrase), the general use of the phrase is very clear. For example a top result isthis pop song. The top search result on the Amazon site is a tee-shirt "Is America Great Yet? Cause I just feel embarrassed". I find images of ICE thugs and the J-6 Shaman guy ironically labeled "Is America great again? I'm just asking for a friend." That's the general tenor of the search results. Unfortunately I don't see any reliable sources documenting this phenomenon.Look at the google search results is not reliable sourcing. But now that this phrase is in the article, I think we can point the redirect at the appropriate section. --M.boli (talk)15:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cagliost. This is two characters away from the target, so I agree that it's an implausible typo. That argmument aside, this is a different name altogether, which makes the redirect confusing to readers looking for someoneactually named Troy Aiken.Chess enjoyer (talk)00:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943, I'm a little confused by your !vote here. Aiken and Aikman are not pronounced the same way (as far as I can tell), and I'd like to know if you disagree with my second argument. A Google search shows that there are real peoplenamed "Troy Aiken" someone could be searching for, and this redirect takes them to the wrong place. I do agree that the capitalization is a non-issue, though.Chess enjoyer (talk)04:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)(Underlined added 05:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. There is no information about this act in the target article, nor (as far as I've been able to tell) has there ever been. There are some small mentions in the articles about the canals this act authorised the closure of but none go into any depth and targetting any one of them would be an arbitrary choice. If information were to be added to any extant article it would likely beLondon, Midland and Scottish Railway#Canals, but it feels to me like detail about the Act there would be UNDUE. I haven't looked to see whether it is individually notable, but it would certainly fit in aCanals of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway article if one existed (I don't currently have an opinion about whether it should).Thryduulf (talk)03:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The act was already mentioned in the Canals section. I have changed that to an explicit mention by name, as it was clearly not obvious enough for some readers.Mauls (talk)11:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That section (which is not where the redirect targets) actually givesless information about the act than is present at several of the incoming links, despite those links clearly implying that there is more information at the target.Thryduulf (talk)12:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While there are multiple mentions of "track" or "tracking", there's no mention of "trackER". This sounds like it might be some kind of device, but it's not mentioned at the target, so it's likely misleading. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)18:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better coverage is added somewhere.WP:RETURNTORED likely applies as this seems to be notable enough that a brief but substantive description could be added. Although I'm not sure this has a consistent meaning.Here theMarch of Dimes uses it as a synonym for ovulation calculator. A Google search forovulation tracker (without quotes) turns up multiple sites describing ovulation calculators.[34][35][36] The coverage atFertility awareness#Ongoing development is insufficient but could perhaps serve as a starting point to expand coverage. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unmentioned at current target. History dive indicates that this was originally a redirect toMicrosoft Mouse instead; indeed, that page mentions the Microsoft Ballpoint Mouse under theMicrosoft Mouse#Later Microsoft mice section. It was then changed to its current target byuser:BjKa becauseThe MicroSoft BallPoint is not a regular mouse, but a TrackBall device [sic].
Personally, I do not feel that such is relevant; the information we have about what the Ballpoint even was is on the Microsoft Mouse page, not the trackball page, and at no point has anyone seemed to want to remove it from the page because it's "not talking about a mouse". Thus, barring further events re: removing the mention from the Microsoft Mouse article, the targeting should go there, imo.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)03:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects need the same target. I decided to put the redirects with N.A. separate since it might result in a different result than the same redirects without N.A. I'm leaning towardsChase Bank since it's mentioned in the first sentence.Mathguy2718 (talk)03:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Target all toChase Bank. These are all variations on the full name "JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." (plus one abbreviation). There is some potential confusion with the parent companyJPMorgan Chase but this is linked in the lead, which should clarify things. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)00:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit complex and I may have missed some history but I recommend wedelete these.Speak My Mind is variously called an unreleased Beyoncé album, mixtape, Japan-only release, and a few other descriptions.Speak My Mind spawned the single "Sexy Lil' Thug" and is mentioned at that redirect's target and in the lists atList of songs recorded by Beyoncé andBeyoncé singles discography#Other charted and certified songs. It is not mentioned atBeyoncé orBeyoncé albums discography and the articles that do include brief mentions provide no complete track listings or other substantive coverage of the album/mixtape. History shows that there have been repeated re-creation attempts, usually as poorly source or unsourced stubs, that end up getting BLAR'd.Speak My Mind (mixtape) is labelled{{R from merge}}. It was redirected toBeyoncé Knowles discographyBeyoncé Knowles discography in 2011.[37] That page's history only goes back to 2014; if a merger ever did take place it appears the history has already been lost. The most recent articleSpeak My Mind (album) was BLAR'd in 2018 with the edit summaries indicatingWP:SOCKPUPPETry.tl;dr: Deletion is appropriate given the lack of substantive coverage, repeated removal of such coverage, and lack of useable content in the edit histories. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)23:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unmentioned; history dive was a little interesting. The longer "Anatomic autopedophilia" and the shorter "Autopedophilia" were created on the same day by the same user, who also edited the target articlethat same day. Despite this, Anatomic autopedophilia started out as a redirect to Autopedophilia (and required retargeting by bot to paraphilic infantilism). In addition, just like withMollycoddle fetishism before, this was unmentioned when the redirects were created-- DESPITE there being a same-day edit from the same user.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmentioned redirect. This was originally created as a redirect toJPM Coin in 2020. When that was converted to a redirect to the current target tin 2021, this followed suit as an avoided double redirect.JPM Coin has now been restored as an article; the network is mentioned there but not described in any detail. Interbank Information Network is a blockchain network created or operated byJPMorgan Chase that has changed names multiple times; it is now called Liink or Kinexys or Kinexys Liink (I think). These are mentioned in a small number of articles but not describes in any detail I can find. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no information of this on Wikipedia. It is mentioned inJPM Coin like the nom said, but the article is a stub and the mention of "Interbank Information Network" was piped to "JPMorgan Chase", which was already mentioned earlier, so I removed the link entirely. The coin is not the only thing related to "Interbank Information Network" according to my search, but only the coin includes the term in Wikipedia, so there is no viable target.Deluxe Corporation andCommercial Bank of Dubai, which mention "Kinexys" and "Liink" respectively, do not seem to be helpful either.Mathguy2718 (talk)04:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase does not logically entail “the world is just”. You can believe everything has a reason while rejecting the just-world fallacy. Suggest deleting the redirect or redirecting toDestiny.Brycehughes (talk)16:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We should just have an article at this title. The idea that "everything happens for a reason" is itself widespread and well-documented. There are sources, e.g.:
Not sure why this redirect with a specific artist qualifier targets the disambiguation. There is a former article in its history that was BLARed for notability concerns, and the article aboutthe band that created this song has been deleted since. Suggesting deletion.Thanks,1isall (talk | contribs)14:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was previously his official website, current status not relevant. See[38] That it was at one point the official website makes it keep worthy. I added an archival link to external links, but this still has utility regardless and gets you exactly where you want to go.PARAKANYAA (talk)18:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was previously his official website, current status not relevant. See[39]. That it was at one point the official website makes it keep worthy. I added an archived link to external links, but this still has utility regardless.PARAKANYAA (talk)18:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this redirect is a non-notable meme referring to something that happened on the New York City Subway (the redirect target). I cannot find any reliable sources for the meme, it is not listed at the target, and I do not think there is any reason this meme would ever need to be linked directly on Wikipedia.Epicgenius (talk)14:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as confusing and not helpful. I could think of many places this would be better targeted at than the current target, but none where it would be appropriate enough to be retargeted to.Trainsandotherthings (talk)16:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Closer should ensure mainspace incoming links are updated or otherwise corrected.The obvious solution is to retarget toDiet. However, a significant number of people are likely looking for the current target where "Diets" = Dutch is discussed at length. The dab page hides that link in the see also. It does not include a link tolist of diets, another likely wanted target. Frankly I'm not totally onboard with this. To be clear, keeping as is and directing most readers through the hatnote is bad. But I prefer todisambiguate at this title given this search term's popularity, and arrange it in a way that appeals to readers who search "diets" up, not simply "diet". With this option, we can check WikiNav in a couple of months to see what links are most popular, especially to check whether "Diets" = Dutch andlist of diets are what many readers want or relatively few.J947 ‡edits07:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toDiet, clear absence of a primary topic given the importance of diet(s) to humanity, and the disambiguation page is short enough to easily navigate to any preferred topic.BD2412T21:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say anything of the sort. It disambiguates "diet" well. It does not disambiguate "diets" well, because that's not its job.J947 ‡edits23:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This character is not mentioned at the target section, or anywhere in the article. I don't think the brief mentions elsewhere justify a retarget, so I recommend deletion. I didn't do any research, but it's possible that she's notable on her own, in which casereturn to red would apply.Chess enjoyer (talk)03:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support this retarget proposal. The current redirect, and the user page (it's hardly an essay) to which it links, were both created to fill a gap in our documentation that no longer exists. This is documented atUser talk:Andrewa/speedy close#Why this page. Once they were helpful, but they are now counterproductive. Good catch. So assuming this retargeting goes ahead I'll then see to the deletion of my user page.Andrewa (talk)22:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, add mention atWP:WHENCLOSE and retarget, or delete (in that order, with the deletion process retarget as my fourth choice): Speedy closes are frequently used in a wide range of discussions around the project like DRV, RM, GAN that I think it's too ambiguous to have a primary topic. I suspect that there may be a systemic bias towards favoring the XfD process in this discussion given that it's being hosted at a deletion discussion venue, and am weary of forming alocal consensus here. A disambiguation page can includeWP:RMEC,WP:DRV#Speedy closes, andWP:GAFAIL. In GA-land, speedy closes are called "quick fails" but essentially the same concept.Left guide (talk)03:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not mentioned in the target article and I couldn't find it mentioned in any other articles. I searched for the term but couldn't find suitable sources to add to the term to the article.Suonii180 (talk)22:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Current redirect is confusing, as this remix isn't particularly notable to the artist compared to their other works. Either we expand the Circus Records artist list and redirect it there, or delete it.Cubnorth (talk)22:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The music producer is mentioned in 11 articles, but they're all passing mentions and wouldn't make for good targets. I think the spelling is different enough to be distinct from the Muppet. -Eureka Lott17:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like its usage there is in the same sense as the Wiktionary entry for me – all the results also mentionpositons. Also – how big is that database, relatively? I find "about 1,500" mentions onGoogle Scholar, which feels like quite a lot.J947 ‡edits23:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. It's unmentioned; it's ambiguous (see search results); its meaning is not precisely the same as "electron" per Wiktionary; it's probably most plausible as a misspelling fornegation, and it's an ambiguous misspelling regardless.J947 ‡edits23:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toKdV hierarchy, these are now names related to "soliton", eg
Rasinariu, C., Sukhatme, U., & Khare, A. (1996). Negaton and positon solutions of the KdV and mKdV hierarchy. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 29(8), 1803.
In 1947 in an meeting organized byInternational Union of Pure and Applied Physics the terms "negaton" and "positon" were proposed for the negative and positive charge (not an electron, just the charge). See
Miesowicz, M. (1977). Reminiscences on 1-st International Cosmic Ray Conference in Cracow (1947). In 15th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 10. Published: Budapest: Dept. of Cosmic Rays, Central Research Institute for Physics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1977. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics; Bulgarska akademiia na naukite. LCCN: 78-307721 12 volumes, p. 1 (Vol. 10, p. 1).
However, the modern terminology authorized by IUPAP does not use these terms.
Redirect. As Johnjbarton has described, it appears that the term negaton is used somewhat consistently for solutions of theKdV hierarchy, you can see the term used across at least 15 papers as found on arXiv[41], along with the term positon. I think it makes most sense to use this as we have evidence of it's usage, regardless if it is somewhat niche.It is a bit confusing based on dictionaries online, but I think negaton is being confused withnegatron, which is a real term proposed byCarl David Anderson, who discovered theelectron. I am struggling to find evidence of anyone actually using negaton to describe the electron.Ajheindel (talk)03:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago I made this article redirect toRosé (singer), due to my reading ofMOS:DIACRITICS, with a hatnote leading toRose (French singer). The redirect was changed as yes there is more than one singer, but now users without the accented e on their keyboard have many steps to reach their desired singer, who I would argue is the primary singer under the name based on page views and my Googling. I still think the best option is to redirect this page to the South Korean singer and have a hatnote there for the French singer, but opening this discussion to obtain consensus.orangesclub🍊20:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this, butBeyonce redirects toBeyoncé so readers may expect a similar instance for Rosé. If it was that simple, Category:Redirects from titles without diacritics wouldn't exist. Maybe we could have a redirect hatnote at theRose (disambiguation)#People section? Because I can also see editors removing Rosé from the Rose disambiguation page even though that's how many readers would get to her.orangesclub🍊06:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Beyoncé is also a very distinct name and there are no other singers with Wikipedia articles remotely close to that name. While "Rose" is a common given name, stage name, and object. That's not really a helpful comparison to make.I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me17:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toRosé (singer) and restore the hatnote.Rosé (singer) has a massive pageviews lead that has been sustained since her article was created in 2018. Since May 2019, the monthly pageviews ratio forRosé (singer) toRose (French singer) is 413:1. Given the traffic and the diacritic issue,Rosé (singer) is the primary topic forRose (singer). And, as the nom notes, the current situation impedes navigation since *technically* "Rosé" is not a "Rose" so she's not even listed atRose (disambiguation)#People. If people want to quibble about long-term significance, I'm a fan of the approach described in the essayWP:1OTHERPRIMARY. If we take a readers-first approach, anyone looking forRose (French singer) will still get there with the same number of clicks, whether they arrive at the dab page orRosé (singer) first. The current situation makes no significant difference for how readers findRose (French singer) while making it difficult to find the page readers are most likely to search for. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)15:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given the relative barriers to entering diacritics on most English language keyboards, this analysis is wholly insufficient. As I know you know, aprimary redirect may be used when the name is the primary topic for an article with a different title. For aWP:SMALLDETAILS determination, a chief consideration is whether spelling or other variations are likely to represent a deliberate choice by readers using the search bar. When readers use a diacritic, as inThe Wörld Is Yours orrosé, this represents a deliberate choice and changes the primary topic from the variant without the diacritic. The same assumption does not typically hold when readersomit a diacritic. Many people do not know how to enter them, even as they have become more accessible than ever with modern keyboards and operating systems. It is no surprise thatBeyonceBeyonce sawover 60,000 hits last year. She's one of the most famous people in the world and many readers likely do know her name contains an accent, and yet{{R to diacritic}}'s like this are great navigation aids to readers. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)23:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toRosé (singer) with hatnote per Myceteae. Most of the readers searching for the New Zealand and South Korean singer Rosé will not be used to searching with theaccent aigu. For a French village, you might hope the readers would be familiar enough with the French language that uses this diacritic to search with it; not in this instance. Combined with the enormous pageview difference, this is a no-brainer in my opinion.J947 ‡edits21:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for this redirect. There are too many Professor pages on Wikipedia. Keeping this redirect could be cited as a precedent, leading to the creation of numerous unnecessary redirects. Moreover, this person is not a public figure; the title "Prof." is not part of the name by which this person is known to the public.Cfls (talk)17:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a redirect from a title associated with an item on Wikidata. The Wikidata item associated with this page isChina (Q29520). However, they redirect to Greater China, which has its separate Wikidata itemGreater China (Q1143195). These terms are related, vague, and easily confusing. They make it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles and think these are completely identical. I suggest deleting these redirects to ensure users can reach the page they actually want.SoAnnoyedToName (talk)12:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata should not in any way shape or form dictate how articles are titled in English. If something is incorrect in Wikidata, fix it there. These redirects should not be associated with Q29520.older ≠wiser13:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go quite so far as the above, but this does seem more like you've identified a problem on the Wikidata side than ours. Since you've raised the question, is "China (region)" a good synonym for "Greater China"? I don't have any better ideas as to what to do with it. A reader using the search term is probably looking for a larger area than the country commonly called China (i.e., PRC), which this is. --BDD (talk)15:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
China (region) is rooted in history, introducing the nation and civilization, while Greater China is a concept that emerged only in modern times. China (region) is the cultural region, ancient civilization, and nation in East Asia, while Greater China is a with a definite scope(CN+HK+MO+TW) that often used by international enterprises or organisations in unofficial usage. Some mention this also includes Singapore but people rarely do so.SoAnnoyedToName (talk)17:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thisold revision can give a great introduction i think. I can only see "Greater China" after the names of some companies' branches in reality. "Greater China" is a "modern" word in business, while few other usages keep and it mayWP:UNDUESoAnnoyedToName (talk)15:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the retarget proposal? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Left guide (talk)21:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose retarget suggested above the relist. A regular Google and Google Scholar search turns up a number of uses. Many are similar to the usage in these two papers[42][43] where the authors discuss impacts to the brain from cancers of the organs such as breast, lung, and others.Here we see a discussion of "eight distinct peripheral cancer types, particularly pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancers". In this usage, these cancers areon the periphery orperipheral to the brain (thecentral nervous system) but the discussion is not specific to cancersof the peripheral nervous system. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting this usage with respect to the brain is the primary meaning, either.Peripheral cancer of the lung refers to cancers that develop in the outer portions of the lung. I don't think this is suitable for a dab page. The meaning is highly context dependent and could be used to describe many cancers, in context, that aren't generally called "peripheral cancer" otherwise. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)22:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this is the name of a prominent but probably not wiki-notable branch that is/was around sinceat least the 1970's, decades before the merger that createdJPMorgan Chase. "London" is mentioned several times in the current target article but seemingly not in reference to this branch location. No mention of "London" atChase Bank. Readers taking the time to enter any of these search terms won't find any coverage of this branch, so these should be deleted. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All created byOCDD in the course of two years. People will find more information by searching on these subjects than these redirect targets, which doesn't seem to have much purpose. Some of these are also wrongly redirected to national team pages when they are still not a part of it.zglph•talk•18:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a better target would beGreat Lakes–St. Lawrence Lowlands, which describes the broader biogeographical region of the St. Lawrence Valley, not just the river itself. As an Ontarioan, I feel like saying "St. Lawrence valley" would be understood to mean the lowlands surrounding the river, not the river itself—thus, a slightly stricter definition that the St. Lawrence lowlands, but looser than just the geography of the river.Cremastra (talk·contribs)17:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Convert into article - There was originally a McLeodGaming article, but it got deleted back in 2017/2018. Given the upcoming release of their second major game and the relative popularity of their forums back in their heyday, I think it would make sense to have a small article about them rather than keep them as a redirect.--Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at15:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate article titledVõrumaa, which is apparently a historical county in Estonia. On a side note, this seems to be the only article about historical counties in Estonia; similar names seem to redirect to their modern counties, likeTartumaa redirecting to Tartu County, instead of having their own article like inet:Tartumaa.Mathguy2718 (talk)03:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If itis the name of the competition, that's information that needs to be on the page; even if someone searched for this redirect and landed there and saw that, they can't know for certain thatthat andthis title are in any way actually related.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)01:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AlwaysBlaze it's not a good idea to retarget stuff mid-rfd unless it's as closing (which wouldn't be the case here outside of a speedy orsnow close, as it hasn't been a week yet), especially if that also involves removing the rfd template. if you're fine with retargeting, it's better to either make it a vote or see where consensus lies when it's time to closeconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)16:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unmentioned potentially-unnotable brand name. Wasnot a BLAR victim; was alsonot mentioned in the article when the redirects were made. These were apparently instead made due to an AfC request.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)00:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it's a brand of stuffed toy is not in question. If someone is searching for information on Squeezamals they'd likely be looking for specific information on the brand, which is not something that Wikipedia is able to provide. Redirecting them somewhere that does not have this information is not helpful and would lead to disappointment or confusion. --Tavix(talk)22:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is able to provide one main piece of specific information about Squeezamals, namely that this redirect implies it's a brand of stuffed toy or otherwise related to stuffed toys. That's not much, but the reader will be just as disappointed by search results. The reader may be confused by this redirect, or they may recognise that they have been directed to the closest available topic. After all, much of the prose atStuffed toy is relevant to a modern brand of stuffed toy and therefore may provide extra indirect information about Squeezamals.J947 ‡edits01:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects serve to direct searchers to where they can find content on the subject being searched. This redirect fails to do that. Search results are more effective in showing that Wikipedia does not have this content, which is much better than trying to figure that out in a 1,500 word article. Yes, there may be disappointment either way, but there would not be additional frustration or confusion by being served a faulty redirect. --Tavix(talk)01:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nom and Tavix. Redirects like this are harmful. Redirecting to a long article that does not discuss the redirect wastes reader time and is a disservice. Anyone searching these specific terms is looking for specific information. When we have none, we should cut to the chase and make that clear rather than redirect to a generic topic. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MovePolland (surname) to the base title and add a{{distinguish}} hatnote pointing to Poland. All of the articles that include Polland in their title are biographical, so there's no need for a disambiguation page. There's no clear primary topic for the surname, and a correct spelling should generally be prioritized over a misspelling. -Eureka Lott17:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see scanlations using that spelling (the katakana is クラハドールKurahadōru, which VIZ spells "Klahadore"). I do not know if any official versions of One Piece in any Latin character languages use that spelling.WhisperToMe (talk)01:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But for this particular redirect, miscapitalizations are plausible (that someone could likely do it) and therefore this should be a good redirect.WhisperToMe (talk)14:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Mr 0" is one of the character's names. There is an article that links to this redirect. Someone could start typing "Mr 0" and this will pop up, so it is handy.Richard-of-Earth (talk)03:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
federal district (brazil) is the primary topic by a pretty wide margin, the only other "federal district" that exists in the context of portuguese can just stay mentioned in the hatnote, and the only other "distrito federal" wasmexico city, which i will be genuinely surprised if anyone even remembers. all of this is to say, the current target is borderlinesurprising, i had to do some detective work to find the only plausible non-brazilian target (whose existence i can confirm), and a hatnote at the proposed target can do the trickconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)00:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom and add hatnote to Mexico City and the current target. There is obvious affinity between the Portuguese name for a place in a Portuguese-speaking country, so there are no RLOTE issues, and my investigations match the Brazilian district being primary topic but with Mexico City getting sufficient results to justify a direct hatnote.Thryduulf (talk)02:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SMALLDETAILS could apply, but it's hard to be sure based onclickstreams at the Federal district destination page - we don't measure them per-redirect, so we can't tell specifically how the "[Dd]istrito [Ff]ederal" readers reacted.Maybe it would be best to start by splitting out a short disambiguation page for these 2 specific meaningscombined because of case difference only, plus a link to federal district for anything else, and then after a month check how the clickstreams look then. This sounds like a safe way to streamline navigation for both of the specific non-English phrases. A more straightforward short list would usually improve things for those readers, and relieve us from this level of guesswork. --Joy (talk)12:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So if it was like that for most of its history, then we just go back to that? Why was it redirected to the more generic list, was there a rationale? --Joy (talk)08:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or DABifyDABify (1st choice)or Keep (2nd choice). I strongly disagree that the Brazilian Federal District is the primary topic. Mexico City was known asDistrito Federal for nearly 200 years, until 2016. The Mexican capital is more well-known to the large English speaking population of North America, many of whom speak Spanish as a first or second language. Monolingual English speakers frequently encounter Spanish phrases and place names, especially in works written about Mexico. Retargeting toFederal District (Brazil) will beWP:RSURPRISEing to many more readers. Honestly, I thinkMexico City has a strong case at being the primary topic, despite the name change, but a dedicatedDistrito Federal dab page is reasonable here. My Google search (from the US) exclusively returns results in about Mexico City in English and Spanish on the first several pages, including theBritannica article"Federal District". The WikiNav (clickstreams) data show that nearly 2x as many readers navigate toMexico City as toFederal District (Brazil) from the current target page. This isn't a huge difference and we can't know for sure how readers arrive atFederal district but this is certainly inconsistent with the notion that large numbers of readers are searching for the Brazilian district specifically and are somehow confused by the current situation. Note that Brazil is much higher on the page butFederal District (Brazil) still gets fewer clicks. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the former redirect,disambiguate / restore disambiguation page. In 2016 I might've considered the notion that CDMX is the primary topic. Now, we're a far cry from one in either direction. I think the fact that we're getting all sorts of anecdotal opinions as regards the existence of a primary topic is indicative that a disambiguation page at this title is not overkill. It's a very common search term, so we can do better than the current target – though I don't mind keeping as is as a second choice.The latter redirect can be retargetted to that disambiguation page. It links toFederal district prominently if that's really what the reader with the lower-case search term is after.J947 ‡edits08:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget. Regarding adding its def somewhere, I googled for phrases like "Paleocytology is", "called Paleocytology" and the like, found nothing. The term is used, "everybody knows" what it is, (cytology of ancient/archaeological remains), but nobody cares to define.--Altenmann>talk18:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I confess I did not search around for usage of this term–I fell into that "everybody knows" group because the meaning is obvious to me, having studied related fields. I don't think it would be obvious to a general readership. Google Scholar hasonly 28 hits and assumes it is a misspelling ofpaleontology. Combined with your findings, this term appears to be relatively obscure. This does strengthen the case for a Wiktionary redirect. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)00:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not described at the current target nor atMajor depressive disorder. There is a brief mention of depression severity atMajor depressive disorder#DSM and ICD criteria and the word does 'severe' appear multiple times in the article. Formal severity ratings and diagnostic categories don't map cleanly to the everyday sense of "crippling depression". This is a fairly common term that people may search for and anyone doing so expects to find an actual description. This informal usage is unlikely to have a consistent meaning used in reliable sources. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)22:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No standard for the addition of adjectives commanding independent pages, nor should there be. Agree with Myceteae that this is an informal phrase meant to express the already covered depression.FlederMaus9 (talk)23:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is arguably a worse target. Someone could have "crippling depression" withbipolar disorder or anotherdepressive disorder. This target doesn't exactly answer the question of what "crippling depression" means—no target can since it is not well-defined in reliable sources—but might erroneously suggest that it is exactly synonymous with one of these more well-defined syndromes. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No redirect is unnecessary, unless it's implausible, and I can see the letter swap (crusades>cursades) happening easily. While there HAS been only a total of three views, the redirect has also only existed for two weeks, so pageviews aren't a good tool re: gauging usefulness.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)21:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target nor anywhere else on Wikipedia regarding Star Wars. I don't know if there is a better target connected to the Turkana people or not. Probablydelete.TNstingray (talk)15:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I recommenddeletion.Department of Biochemistry was moved toDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Oxford in 2007 and this redirect was created as a result. There was some back and forth with this as a woefully incomplete DAB page and this was converted to a redirect yesterday byUser:Cfls. The target does not discussdepartments. There is discussion of training and employment atBiochemist but I don't think this is particularly helpful to readers searching forDepartment of Biochemistry and merely adding a mention there that some biochemists train or work in such a department doesn't improve the encyclopedia and may be seen as obvious to many readers. This certainly should not target a specific department such asDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Oxford; the move should have been completed without leaving a redirect. A DAB page orset index article would be unwieldy. The years-long history indicates there was not much interest in compiling a comprehensive list, anyway. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The harm is that it contains essentially no information about the very specific search term. When a target does not actually discuss a topic, sending readers there wastes their time and is a disservice. It is highly unlikely someone searching "Department of Biochemistry" wants to read a nearly 5,000 word article about the field of biochemistry. This would qualify asWP:RSURPRISE although readers might initially assume the articledoes cover biochemistry departments explicitly and in detail and will leave frustrated or confused. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Department of Biochemistry" is a generic descriptor (academic department for studying biochemistry) rather than a distinct encyclopedic topic with a single natural target. I don't see this as a WP:RSURPRISE case in practice: the redirected-from notice is shown immediately, and Biochemistry is the closest general destination absent an institution qualifier. Readers are unlikely to be surprised and confused about this redirect.Cfls (talk)23:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not genuinely confused by the association but I find it frustrating when redirects from a very specific search term take me to a general article that doesn’t address my specific query. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)00:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The town one is probably worth disambiguating. The village one I'm not so sure. We don't have any "villages" officially here in Georgia (USA), as they do inNew York, for example, AFAIK. I think, legally, all Georgia municipalities are cities, but town is definitely colloquially used for smaller ones. "Village" is really more of a Northern US dialect. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)04:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually wondering if these two should be unbundled and nominated separately, based on the discussion so far. This all hinges on specific meanings and usage ofvillage,town, andcity in the context of the state and the country. I don't think we're necessarily inWP:TRAINWRECK territory with just two redirects but the decisions could diverge. I wouldnot bundle these with the ongoing discussion atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 30#City (Georgia). Adding two new redirects so late and after so many different opinions have been expressed there is likely to prolong the discussion and make it more difficult to assess consensus. The eventual outcome there may be informative for handling these redirects but I think it will likely come down to whether and how each designation is used in each Georgia. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)17:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. I withdraw my merge suggestion. It's pretty clear thatVillage (Georgia) will have no usage in connection with the US state, and I can find no mention of a similar concept for the country of Georgia either, so I support deleting it. (Some places in the country of Georgia are described as villages (e.g.Lalisquri), but that seems to have no specific meaning beyond the everyday one of 'small settlement'). However,Town (Georgia) is different, There are many places in Georgia US that call themselves towns, even though there is no legal distinction, so it's valuable to have that redirect to take people to an article which explains that. I would like to see the links toCity andTown in articles on cities and towns in Georgia US and in templates such as those inCategory:Georgia (U.S. state) county navigational boxes tightened to use the Georgia-specific redirects. As for disambiguation, I doubt anyone would use either of those as a search term, so I don't think it's necessary to disambiguate it. All similar articles about the country of Georgia (such asList of cities and towns in Georgia (country)) lump together cities and towns without distinguishing them.Colonies Chris (talk)14:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to see the utility of keeping this redirect, then. If it's not for searching and only for linking in articles aboutGeorgia (US state) andGeorgia (country), why not just use theTown link in such articles? Why use a redirect that implies a more specific subject but just points toTown, where readers will have to search for whichGeorgia they are interested in? Or why use a link at all, sincetown is a fairly generic concept and we don't have anywhere more specific to send people? —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)14:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TheTown (Georgia) link is only intended for use in articles about Georgia (US). There appears to be no call at all for a similar link for the country of Georgia, as our articles don't make that city/town distinction.
Why use a redirect instead of a direct link to the target article#section? To quote two paragraphs fromWP:REDIRECT,
Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links.
and
Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.
And why use a link at all? Because readers will tend to assume that a town and a city are different, and in some states they are and in others they are not, so it's helpful to clarify that distinction (or lack of it, in the case of the state of Georgia).Colonies Chris (talk)21:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The article is explicit that a city isthe only type of municipality allowed in Georgia and later describes (emphasis added)hamlet, village and towntypologies. I readvillage,town, andhamlet as having the colloquial or generic meaning but the discussion there could perhaps be clarified or simplified. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)17:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteVillage (Georgia). First, the 'delete' arguments forCity (Georgia) atthe concurrent RfD generally apply here and I agree with them. This is an unusual way to form a disambiguation and is not a plausible search term. More specifically to this redirect, as detailed in the discussion above,village has no special meaning in either the state or country of Georgia. It'sa fairly common word that has a colloquial, if imprecise, connotation. It may be used to describe human settlements in either Georgia but there is no specific meaning and no encyclopedic content to add anywhere. Pointing this toVillage (United States) risks misleading or confusing readers. Sincevillages are legally defined in other US states, readers might erroneously assume the same is true in Georgia or they'll be left scratching their heads wondering why we've sent them to an article that doesn't address the redirect topic. I'm unsure what to do aboutTown (Georgia) at this time.—Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)01:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
NeitherCity (Georgia) norTown (Georgia) are plausible search terms, but that's not their purpose. They're intended for use in articles about towns and cities in the state of Georgia, to lead the reader to an article#section which explains the significance of those terms in Georgia. The fact that they're not likely search terms is a benefit - it means that disambiguating them between the two Georgias is unnecessary.Colonies Chris (talk)13:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with these arguments from the other RfD and I still find the 'delete' arguments more persuasive there. But again I have specific objections toVillage (Georgia), which I have detailed. Those are far more relevant to this discussion. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)21:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a challenge because there is substantial coverage of the same or related topics at multiple targets, and the content is appropriate for multiple articles. Ideally, there would be one main place with the most detail on trans men and sexual orientation and trans women and sexual orientation and we would point the redirects there, and the other articles would link via hatnote or use excerpts. It's not obvious to me what the best solution is given the coverage across multiple articles and multiple similar redirects pointing to different places. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the second so it's no longer a double redirect, in hopes this will make for a cleaner close. (At nomination, it was still pointing toTemplate:Gaza war infobox.) We can use{{avoided double redirect}} if needed, but "have something be a double redirect" isn't a valid outcome. That's not even a matter of opinion—even if discussion formed such a consensus, a bot would fix it shortly thereafter. --BDD (talk)20:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Such trivial attribution can be given with an edit summary (we are dealing with key-value pairs which I highly doubt can be copy-right in any country and is certainly not in the US). This never should have been in a stand-alone template.Gonnym (talk)19:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like it's actually just a way to cover your eyes so you can avoid seeing the ambiguity of the phrase. Obviously "Have a cow" as a phrase exists and has meanings relevant to encyclopedic senses.BD2412T22:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely useless. For crissakes, no one who wants to learn about the cattle industry is going to search for "have a cow". I think my brain is leaking out of my ear. (And both the simpsons catchphrase and the two-cows thing are fixed and not subject to alternate formations). Dab pages exist to disambiguate (shocker) things that could reasonably be titled the same, not for vague guesswork bespoke search engine results. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per above. My weak preference is for a single dab page covering both "have" and "don't" have senses as there is some overlap but if others prefer separate ones that's also fine by me.Thryduulf (talk)01:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Myceteae: "I want you to get that particular point. There are so many fellows trying to feed poor cows profitably. You can't do it You have got tohave a cow. When I say a cow I mean a cow that is a cow that makes a profit, not these old skates that you find around on a good many farms".Erf, Prof. Oscar (1923). "The Subject of Feeding for High Production".The Jersey Bulletin and Dairy World.42: 1295.BD2412T04:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 I'm not denying that the wordshave a cow appear in other contexts, including the literal meaning. But it's a well-known idiom that is even defined in many dictionaries.[44][45] Someone searching this is almost certainly looking for this set phrase. It is highly implausible that someone would read a passage like tho one you shared and decide to learn more about the subject by searchinghave a cow. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)04:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given enough people, highly implausible things will happen. I could at least see someone looking forYou have two cows this way. In any case, if we have a soft redirect to Wikitionary, readers will have to make the same number of clicks to get to that Wiktionary entry as if we have a disambiguation page including the same Wiktionary entry at the top of the page. Ergo, there is no real downside to disambiguating.BD2412T04:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but DAB pages are for compiling wiki-ambiguoustermstopics where everything has the exact same name/title, or at least iscommonly called by that name. In assessing for primary topic we don't give highly implausible referents equal standing. The overwhelming primary topic forhave a cow is the sayinghave a cow. We don't typically compile markedly different phrases ("You have two cows") or things that could theoretically be described that way but where it would be highly unusual to do so (Calf (animal)#gestation). We might a well add "Havingcowpox" and "Have a nice day" which are about as similar as the other entries suggested. I remain unconvinced that this is an appropriate DAB page. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)05:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Revert The relevant content lasted quite a while, untilNovember 2022. The editor,@ELdEL69:, appears inactive, but I'll ping anyway. They removed it since the Yaka only appear in "Legends", akaStar Wars elements that became non-canonical with the Disney acquisition. ELdEL69 also started a discussion on the talk page, so all in all I think the removal was fine perWP:BOLD, but from what I can tell, none of the lists excludeLegends content as part of their criteria. Some of it is explicitly included and marked. So I suggest we simply revert the removal. --BDD (talk)01:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably this was removed because it lacked sources, so this would mean restoring uncited content:==Yaka== TheYaka are a race of near-human cyborgs. They were transformed after their home planet was invaded centuries ago by superintelligent inhabitants ofArkania, a neighboring star system. The Arkanians forced the Yakas to undergo surgery in which they implanted cyborg brain enhancers, increasing the species' intelligence to genius level. Thus, the brutish-looking Yakas are much smarter than they appear. A side effect of the implants is a twisted sense of humor that all Yakas possess.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}} –wbm1058 (talk)15:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Palestinian genocide allegations per Thryduulf, same target as Israeli genocide. Should be categorised as redirect from non-neutral name, plural, other tense, etc.CNC (talk)08:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Thryduulf with tagging as per CNC. I'm not convinced by the argument that this is implausible, and the Palestinian genocide allegations article is more broad. If the user was looking for the article specifically about the Gaza genocide, that's easily reached via existing hatnote.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)22:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a minor variation of the established terms "Israeli genocide", "Gaza genocide", and many other similar ones that are the entire subject of the article.Thryduulf (talk)21:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Israeli genocide" is not an established term, and "Israelis committed genocide" is not aminor variation of "Gaza genocide". That's at least my take, which is why I thinkdelete is the appropriate way to go.Coining (talk)22:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have an entire article on allegations of "Israeli genocide", the exact term gets multiple pages of results on both Google Books and Google Scholar, it is undeniably an established term. Even if it weren't it is unambiguously a useful search term, so, no, deletion is not the appropriate way to go here.Thryduulf (talk)00:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If by "an entire article" you mean the page you've proposed retargeting to,Palestinian genocide allegations, then it proves my point that "Israeli genocide" isnot an established term. I doesn't use the phrase "Israeli genocide"even once in its text.
Even less of an established term is "Israelis committed genocide", which is what this redirect actually is. Even assuming that "Israeli genocide" is an established term, and that that's the reason it already redirects toPalestinian genocide allegations, that wouldn't imply that "Israelis committed genocide" should be its own redirect, just like we don't create redirects for every misspelling that someone could type into Wikipedia.Coining (talk)01:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be snarky - the redirect isn't for "Israeli genocide" it is for "Israelis committed genocide". I'm sure there are a bunch of folks who believe that every time theworld word Israel is uttered, it should be followed by "genocide" -- that doesn't make it an appropriate redirect.Coining (talk)09:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are a bunch of folks who believe that every time the world [sic] Israel is uttered, it should be followed by "genocide"You do realize that this is you admitting that this is a plausible, actively-used, established phrase, then?𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)16:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If by "an entire article" you mean the page you've proposed targeting to.... then it proves my pointI also don't get how "pointing something to the article that talks about it" is, in any way, shape, or form, proof that that something is an unused term. Either way, the very first sentence of that article isSince its foundation in 1948,Israel hasbeen accused of carrying outgenocide against Palestinians during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.There. Right there, I spelled it out for you.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)17:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The articledoesn't talk about the phrase "Israelis committed genocide" -- the phrase simply isn't used in the article. I'm not objecting here to the redirect fromIsraeli genocide toPalestinian genocide allegations. Under the theory being proposed for retargeting, there should be redirects for "Israeli genocide", "Israelis genocide", "Israelis committed genocide", "Israel is a genocide committer", "Israel is genocide", and so forth. It is simply not the case that the association of Israel with genocide means that any phrase that uses versions of both words deserves a redirect.Coining (talk)00:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Under the theory being proposed for retargeting, there should be (other redirects that don't exist)This is aWP:PANDORA-style argument; thus I'm going to bring inWP:BACKINBOX. We shouldn't be worried about whatother redirects do or don't exist, we need to focus on THIS one and look at ITS merits. (I'd also perhaps like to bring inUser:Bugghost/essays/Keeping_isn't_creating-- keeping this redirect won't force us to create any of the other hypothetical redirects you just mentioned.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)05:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing for those other redirects. What I'm saying is that the arguments for THIS redirect are actually arguments for a redirect on "Israeli genocide" (a redirect that separately exists), not arguments for THIS redirect. That can be seeing in phrases likeThis is a minor variation of the established terms "Israeli genocide" andWe have an entire article on allegations of "Israeli genocide", as well as the link above tohttps://www.google.com/search?q=israeli+genocide&oq=israeli+genocide. Iagree that the focus should be on THIS redirect. Which is why THIS redirect should be deleted, and your concerns should be directed to all those who are acting as though this were a redirect from "Israeli genocide", which it is not.Coining (talk)15:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I'm wondering ifthere's some sort of gap between what you're thinking of and what we're thinking ofquoting myself there lolWhen I parse the term "Israeli genocide", my brain comes up with "A genocide that's either caused by, or committed against, the Israeli people". Given where it's targeted, it's clear that that's the correct way to parse it-- specifically, "a genocide that's caused by the Israeli people" is whatPalestinian genocide allegations is talking about.Meanwhile, when I parse the term, "Israelis committed genocide", it comes up with much the same-- "A genocide that's caused by the Israeli people". Thus, in my eyes, it should be targeted to the same location--Palestinian genocide allegations.I'm over here wondering ifthat's where the issue lies-- if whenyou parse one of those two statements, you'renot getting the same results.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)22:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of parsing. I don't see sufficient evidence that the term "Israelis committed genocide" is an "established term". The applicable guideline doesn't say "established term or parsed or derived ancillary terms", so on what basis, even if your statement about parsing were correct, wouldn't it be appropriate to delete this redirect?Coining (talk)23:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The applicable guideline doesn't say "established termor parsed or derived ancillary terms"Honestly, the issue I have is thatthis position is just... flat-outpedantry. Who rightlycares if the established term does or does not include the word "committed", given its meaning with or without the word isthe exact same?Even throwing out the "...okay you're just being pedantic now" argument, there IS something that says that "...parsed or derived ancillary terms" is an okay thing, and that'sthe existence of avoided-double-redirects. If a given term would, for some reason or another (typos, misspellings, et cetera) redirect to a title that is itself a redirect, that's an avoided double redirect and should target the same target as the otherwise-target redirect. Bythis logic,Israelis committed genocide would be an ADR ofIsraeli genocide.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)00:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who rightlycares about the "established term"? It's the phrase used inWP:RNEUTRAL. That's enough reason to care.
Definitely not delete as there's an there are multiple articles named "The Grip" listed on the dab. It was common to call influenza "the grip" in the 1800s and early 1900s (Spanish flu § Descriptive names andEpidemic Influenza; Commonly Called "The Grip." (1894) for example). But given the rarity of that now,weak retarget to the dab page given there's an album calledThe Grip. Separately someone could refine the reference to influenza on the dab to make that more clear if they decide it's an improvement.Skynxnex (talk)19:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The dab page would be better than the current target. "Grippe (influenza)" is listed under 'See also'. A more specific entry for "The grip" could be added elsewhere on the dab page, pointing either toInfluenza orSpanish flu. Per your description,Influenza would be the better dab page entry since this term was apparently used to refer to (epidemic) influenza more broadly. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)22:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh, retarget toThe Grip I guess, since that's at the base title and capitalized...this could also refer to one or two other works there, but this one is currently primary. The only other possibility is really influenza; I've always seen that as "the grippe" instead, but apparently this exists as well...both are archaic though, so I'd favor this as a title of a modern work over that, even despite the capitalization. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)01:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No other information about this person is known or reported in RS. (We don't even know if this is a real person who prefers privacy, or a pseudonym). If not for the latest file reveals, this person would not be getting any coverage at all. Notnotable, and noverifiable information availale.I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me22:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe Guardian is reporting that Salvatore Nuara, Leonic Leonov, and Zurab Mikeladze were in the files because they were part of a photo line up; they don't have ties to Epstein.Anybar (talk)21:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Spanish flu would be a more reasonable target but between the misspelling and the vague intended meaning of 'consequences', this is a bad redirect. It was originally a long but poorly written article with zero references. It survived for less than an hour before being BLAR'd in 2004. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why would someone search "Black key" if they're looking forThe Black Keys? If there are multiple things it could be without a primary topic, why are you advocating for deletion instead of disambiguating? --Tavix(talk)20:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
this is kind of a double whammy, since it's both a lot of stuff already covered inkey, and not actually a plausible search term for any of them without a disambiguator or already knowing what the target's title is (no more plausible thanyellow key orred key, for instance)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)21:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Black key" is the specific name of a type of piano key. It's not the same thing as "a key that is black", so it's absolutely more plausible than "yellow key" or "red key". What else atkey is known as "black key"? --Tavix(talk)21:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toMusical keyboard per Deacon Vorbis, who made a good point regarding non-piano keyboards. The current target is therefore too narrow. I'd prefer not to refine to a section though given that the note on harpischords is in a different section (although I wouldn't fuss too much either way). --Tavix(talk)15:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominator doesn't adequately explain why this is not aprimary redirect. The black key is ubiquitous as one of two colors of keys on a standard piano or other musical keyboard (the other being white keys), and is known as such. I don't see anything else atKey with a black version commonly called "black key". IfThe Black Keys is a plausible secondary search term, then a{{redirect}} hatnote can be added to the current target. If there was at least 3-4 other unrelated topics atKey with "black key" discussed in article text rendering a hatnote unwieldy, thenmaybe I could see grounds for deletion or disambiguation.Left guide (talk)21:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the target doesn't necessarily imply that the conclusion is incorrect (intentionally or otherwise), only that it's irrelevant to any given issue. for example, i can say that pushing ai is bad because it's hogging ram i want to use to playultrakill, and while both claims will be true (hence, not a false conclusion), the conclusion will be irrelevant to the claim because it misses the wider points in favor of an admittedly really good game.good thing i'd never deliberately pull a trick like this
other fallacies seem to not be all that accurate to this term either. most have the chance of false conclusions, but aren't reliant on them, and some do rely on the conclusion being incorrect in the contexts of its own arguments, but not necessarily on the conclusion actually being incorrect
Weak keep. This got 43 hits last year, which is way more than I would have expected so I went to Google to see how common a typo it is. What I found was a mix of results about a basketball player namedTaihland Owens about whom we have only a couple of passing mentions that I've found, and typos for the country. It's not common enough a typo to be a clear keep, and the basketball player means we can't be certain that all 43 users were people were looking for the country, but on balance since it's not harming anything (I've not investigated whether the sportsperson is notable enough for an article, but if they are the article will be at their full name not their first name) so it's enough for a weak keep.Thryduulf (talk)17:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is strikes me as an implausible misspelling/typo for the country, although I take Thryduulf at their word that they encountered such examples in the wild. My search on- and off-wiki overwhelmingly returns hits related to the basketball playerTaihland Owens, who, as noted, is mentioned in two articles. At best, this is ambiguous and, for the average reader, the redirect effectively blocks search results that do reveal (limited) coverage of the basketball player. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)17:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For an English speaker, this seems to bemore plausible phonetically than the correct spelling if someone knows there is a "h" in there somewhere (the correct spelling implies a pronunciation of/θaɪ.lænd/).Thryduulf (talk)18:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. Non-negligible views, presumably stemming from knowing there's an "h" in Thailand but not being quite sure where. This sort of thing is much more likely to occur in searches than printed content, given you'd hope people would check the spelling before publishing information. I find the basketballer's first name an unlikely search term. His name is probably a misspelling of Thailand anyway, adding to the plausibility of this search term.J947 ‡edits21:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no one has demonstrated any real plausibility to this, and I see none either. On the contrary, this is actively harmful, as a cursory web search finds pages of nothing but a college basketball player with this as a first name, so it gets in the way of searches for him (of which there are in fact a couple hits). While omitting the 'h' from Thailand is a phonetically plausible error, sticking in some random place two letters later isn't. Could people ever make this error? Probably, but redirects that cover spelling errors should be plausible, not just possible. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)19:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while moving the letter 'h' by two letters is an unlikely typo, it's a plausible misspelling because (1) it's not pronounced with a "th" sound, (2) it's common to remember the letters but not the order, and (3) moving the 'h' only one letter (Tahiland) is clearly incorrect due to adding a syllable.Jruderman (talk)22:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteTaihland andTailand. Although both are phonetically closer to the correct pronunciation thanThailand, they're still not common enough to warrant a redirect. (Plus, Tailand also implies a pronunciation of "tail-land.") If we deleted the redirect and someone did happen to search either of the misspelled terms, Thailand will still be the top option.
Keep: It's very possible to misspell Thailand asTaihland. Most people know how to spell "land", but "Thai" can be difficult to spell, given the "th" is not pronounced as it is in "the". Because of this, people may drop the h and think ofTailand. But since apparently this "implies a pronunciation of "tail-land", someone might add an h after the i to makeTaihland. A native English speaker might find this unlikely, but it's more likely for people who aren't native English speakers. For the issue of ambiguity withTaihland Owens, it's better to targetThailand even if he had an article because the basketball player is not known by his first name, but the country is known by a single word. It's the same reason thatCanidate redirects toCandidate instead ofTrung Canidate: candidate is a single word (and is also what most people are looking for). If someone was looking for a specific person, they wouldn't search for a specific single name unless it was the person's common "known as" name, which is not the case forTaihland Owens.Mathguy2718 (talk)15:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
keep and refine synthetic big watermelon per my above reasoning, butdelete synthetic watermelon because it feels a lot less plausible, potentially due to the fact that i've never seen it phrased that way before, only things like "synthetic big watermelon" and the mentioned "merge big watermelon".User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sunand it shines)02:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Add mention and keep but mark as a{{R from misspelling}}. Most of my Google results were partial title matches for the "PS Seabird Survey" by the Washington Ornithological Society (I'm guessing that "PS" stands forPuget Sound here). However I was able to find[47] which states "In 1868, [paddle steamer] Seabird was engulfed in a fire and at least 100 people lost their life through fire or drowning." but I don't know how reliable that site is.This book is reliable and confirms the existence of the ship ("Among the other notable boats were theSeabird and theEliza Anderson. The former carried immense crowds, but drew too much water for the river trade.") but doesn't say anything else about it.This Facebook post about a different shipwreck includes the sentence "The Alpena was purchased by Goodrich in 1868 From Gallagher to replace the Steamer Seabird which burned off of Waukegan IL in 1868." That led me to[48] which contains more than enough referenced information about the sinking of a paddle steamer named "Sea Bird" offWaukegan, Illinois on 9 April 1868 for an entry, indeed it looks like there is enough information to write an article. "Seabird" is very obviously a plausible search term for "Sea Bird".Thryduulf (talk)14:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a{{R from move}} but it is ambiguous with teams representing the United Arab Emirates in other sports, although as far as I've found none of those have separate articles for their records. There also isn't at present a disambiguation page listing all the country's sports teams this could refer to. I'm bringing this here for discussion rather than recommending deletion, or any other specific action (see also#Welsh national team).Thryduulf (talk)14:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
pretty confusing history with nothing worth keeping, but the only mention of penne actually being baked in the target is effectively in passing (as the more important details are the other ingredients and appearance), as are the results, and it's in the context of only one dish
Deleet. This may be an example of1337 but since it is not mention and does not appear to be a notable example of the 'language', this redirect is unhelpful, especially for the uninitiated. I can't phantom a situation where we would take a random word or phrase from a language and target it to the article about that language. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)04:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is almost always the wrong venue to contest a blar, but in this case if we restored the pre-blar content it would be speedily deleted (it's either an A10 duplicate ofleet or with an uncharitable interpretation of the creators edit summary A11 as made up). That out the way,hacker language is a red link and an internal search for the exact phrase found no relevant results in the article namespace (just a few instances of "Hacker" on the line above the label "language" in infoboxes). My first thought was theJargon File, but I can't find any evidence that this title is used for that, indeed the only result on google for"A guide to the hacker language" -Wikipedia is a page on onelook.com (a dictionary aggregator) for "Words that start with "agui"" (of which this obviously is not an example).Thryduulf (talk)00:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially per Thry's reasoning, but I also want to add the reason we can skip the trip to AfD or usage of any CSD, is because the page would have aWP:SNOWBALL's chance in hell to survive either process. A CSD couldn't be used, however, because the redirect does deserve a non-speedy discussion. Deleting something the slow wayperWP:SNOW is not an argument you get to make every day, haha!MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!04:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as perWP:SNOW (the "This is the wrong venue but it would last five seconds in the correct venue" sense, not the typical "yeah it's been five seconds but there's already enough to establish a unanimous consensus" sense), as per Thryduulf and MEN KISSING.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)21:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Target doesn't mention any specific future conclave in contrary to the redirect name, and therefore seems frankly unuseful. The discussion inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next papal conclave ended indraftifyDraft:Next papal conclave, an article which has since becomethe conclave that we eventually got. But in the absence of an article about the future post-Leoine conclave, I don't think a reader would be helped with a redirect essentially amounting to "the next conclave will be a conclave". I suggest we delete this pagename, or possibly turn it into an article about the post-Leoine conclave specifically (though I doubt there are sufficient sources for that right now).Rose Abrams (TCL)13:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like similar 'Next Fooian election' and 'Next king of Foo', this may have served a purpose and had an appropriate target at one time, but it no longer does. The current target describes general conclave procedures but does not really cover the concept of the 'next' conclave. The only history here is the creation of the redirect and multiple retargets. There is no article content that needs to be preserved. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nextfoo redirects are valuable assets when we have content about the next foo, about when the next foo is likely/scheduled/expected to happen, or a list of foos that will reliably contain a link to the next one. It's uncommon that we have this content for foos that occur on a somewhat predictable schedule and/or are the subject of notable speculation about the timing/content. We have no such content about the next papal conclave beyond that it will occur shortly after the current pope dies or resigns, but someone using this search term will almost certainly already know that.Thryduulf (talk)00:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
come on, why's this gotta be unmentioned? where's myrocket lawnchair? i guess results are generally lackluster and torn between differing definitions of both halves of the term, literal or otherwise, and also between the specific ways in which they're then associated with each other (rockets strapped to a chair, a chair strapped to a rocket, a chair inside a rocket, a rocket-branded chair, etc.)... but that's boring and besides the point, i want a metal slug meme older than some people in mainspace, but sources don't seem to be in the mood to cover it or variations of it, least of all enough to justify this redirect's existence
I'm certain there has to be (or should be) somewhere on Wikipedia that goes into better detail on the topic of strapping rockets to a chair. If not, though, then I think we should at leastretarget toWan Hu, as the Chinese official who (according to legend) actually had a literal rocket chair built and then attempted to fly in it.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!04:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo,retarget toJet pack#Rocket chair, then. Or, I suppose you've already retargeted it. Which you're technically not supposed to do for a redirect under discussion, but in this case I can't imagine it would have anything less than unanimous support.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!22:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target. I'm inclined to delete, sort of perWP:RETURNTORED, although the edit history reveals some editors consider this a non-notable subfield. It is a real thing, has a few incoming links, and the phrase is used in other articles, includingHistory of molecular evolution. That is not a suitable target as the terms are not synonymous and it includes a minimal description of what comparative biochemistry is. There is a DAB pageComparative Biochemistry and Physiology which includes three articles that are partial title matches. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Restore orretarget tomolecular evolution. In this case I think we should see what the editing process can do for us. If restored, no predjudice againstWP:AFD, though I would note deletion is not cleanup, despiteWP:TNT. The stub in the history equated comparative biochemistry and molecular evolution, and while not necessarily synonymous, perhaps we do only need a single article, and not sure which title is best. But the page history should not be deleted here at Rfd.Mdewman6 (talk)07:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If retargeting, the sectionMolecular evolution#History might be better since it uses the term. I find the coverage somewhat deficient but targeting to the section helps to avoid readers erroneously concluding thatmolecular evolution andcomparative biochemistry are exactly synonymous. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)14:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was all set to recommend deletion per the nominator, but when I checked to see examples of other things it could refer to I found thatSpotify andAmazon at least regard "1997-2004" as the full title of the album, and it's not actually implausible given the only other text on the cover of all the album in all the pictures a Google image search is showing me is the band's name. The only other things this is a specific name for are clearly partial title matches (And Love Said No: The Greatest Hits 1997–2004 andBest Of (Chapter One 1997–2004)) or a subtitle (From Here on In (The Living End album)). The only other results a search for"1997-2004" site:en.wikipedia.org brings up are1997 in British television (and clearly nobody using this search term is looking for that article), and four articles about British train operating companies (West Anglia Great Northern,Arriva Trains Northern,First North Western andScotRail (National Express)) which fall squarely within my area of core subject matter knowledge and as such I can categorically state that this is not a remotely plausible search term for these articles.Thryduulf (talk)19:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Edit actually, I've just spotted there are more pages of search results but all of them are equally improbable search terms relating to things like Barak Obama's tenure in the Illinois Senate, Paul Scholes playing career with the England football team, Mary McAleese's first term as President of Ireland, the product lifespan of the Chevrolet Corvette (C5) 2-door coupé.Thryduulf (talk)19:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why does it matter? The character is still in the list article. Why would you make it harder for users to find information that still exists on a page?Gonnym (talk)07:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of this redirect showing up on search results makes it look to readers like we have an article on the Italian alps. We don't, not even a section at the target. We could retarget toNorthern Italy#Geography, which is reasonably informative, or delete the redirect.Cremastra (talk·contribs)20:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Italy is mentioned dozens of times inAlps. Shouldn't that article just be improved to further clarify the geography of the mountains in the countries they overlay?BD2412T22:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit shocking that unlike other languages (d:Q3509494) we don't have an article here. There's theFrench Alps,Swiss Alps, and even an article onthe very delimitation of the Alps, but not the Italian Alps. Over 100 articles link to this redirect. But given how the Alps are traditionally divided East/West rather than North/South, an article would be a bit of a hodgepodge. That can be seen in other languages' articles. In the interest of avoiding redundancy and helping the very many readers who come across redirect, I think a better idea than a redlink, which still encourages article creation, is a very shortbroad-concept article that briefly discusses Italian aspects of the Alps (likeFrench Alps does) but mostly focusses on directing readers to the different subranges of the Italian Alps (e.g.Cottian Alps,Bergamasque Alps). Likeit:Alpi italiane, but for now in much less detail.J947 ‡edits22:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful for navigation. When we delete XNRs, it's because they're liable to confuse readers, not because we think all XNRs should be deleted on sight.Cremastra (talk·contribs)16:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There were no submarine with this name neiter in Alfa class nor in Soviet Navy, so I propose to delete this redirect. According to яussian souяces K-64 have never had this name.Rave (talk)05:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete I didnt find neither "K-377" nor "К-377" submarines (although I did find some amusing things, such as "Preciosa Czech Bead Kit for Embroidery Pattern # K-377 , "Birds"" :-) --Altenmann>talk02:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect contains "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page. Distrito Federal has not been a disambiguation page since 2018.Mathguy2718 (talk)05:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete, only sort of per nom. it's kind of hard to disambiguate a term that only actually has one possible target, that being thefederal district (whoa)
...is what i would say, but it turns out that people referring to it will almost invariably slap a year on it (such asin ptwiki) or just skip the middle man and call it "rio de janeiro" because that's what it's been for longer than anyone around here who isn't a math or history teacher has been around, so there would be no need for a dab when a hatnote can and already does do the trick, and the current federal district is the primary topic by a really wide margin, so it does pretty much only have one possible target
...is what i would say, but- actually, i don't have a third plot twist. only two terms actually exist that this name could refer to, and neither of them are or need a dab, so i'm just gonna nom those redirects as wellconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)23:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
no, wait, i did find a third plot twist by looking at the pre-blar content ofdistrito federal for about 7 seconds.mexico city actually also was a federal district. frankly, i'm not even entirely sure mexico knew that, so it can just be added to a hatnote and nothing of value will be lost.don't restore that, though
except i lied, because i have a fourth plot twist!! buenos airesalso was one, and let's already get to the much more boring fifth plot twist that the fourth plot twist is a lie, as it doesn't seem to have ever been known as a federal district, meaning i accidentally told the truth (ew)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)00:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion of redirect. Individual Girl Guide group is not mentioned at target. Nor should it be. (Individual Guide groups are not independently notable.)Guliolopez (talk)02:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at this redirect for a while, and determined that its current target doesn't sit well. I'd think someone looking to this redirect would be searching for something likeWikipedia:Naming conventions (name) orWikipedia:Naming conventions (names); however, neither one of those exist. It seems the intent of this redirect upon its creation is to redirect to a naing convention for "people", but even then, it could potentially be ambiguous with the advice atWikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Style advice#Titles (which should probably be its own "Naming conventions" page [or section of another naming conventions page] at this point, but that's a discussion for another day.) In addition, we also haveWikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which includes the word "names". Quite frankly, it's not clear what readers may be trying to find when searching this shortcut, but it really cannot be assumed it's about people; the fact that the redirect doesn't have any incoming links doesn't make it any clearer.
With all that being said, my preferences for the fate of this redirect, in order of most preferred to least preferred, are the following 3 options:
Delete due to lack of clarity of what this redirect is meant to refer.
A redirect from 2007 that should have led to the now-removed "Marvin's" section in the article, detailing a restaurant on the campus of DePauw. However, it was improperly created, and tried linking to "Marvin.27s" instead. Anyways, now that there is no mention of Marvin's, I think we should either delete the redirect or turn it into a disambiguation.The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!)22:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Add mention to article then; I'm sure proper sourcing should be easy to find (heck, ctrl-F'ing "Maonesa" in the Mayonnaise article indicates that we already HAVE at least one source that mentions this name for mayo).𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)05:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To briefly summarize my position, as a result ofTalk:Khachaturian (surname)#Requested move 18 March 2025, the index was moved to a title with disambiguator andKhachaturian was targeted toAram Khachaturian as theWP:PTOPIC. My assessment is that all four variant transliterations of Խաչատուրյան, and the original Armenian string itself should point at the same target to reduce potential confusion, and that target should most probably be Aram Khachaturian based off of the RM. However,User:Timtrent did not reach the same conclusion and will hopefully be along soon to offer a different perspective. Hoping to gain some additional insight from more people as to the best target here.~2026-39780-5 (talk)18:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the AFC reviewer who reviewed the request linked to above (note that it will soon be archived, thusOld revision ofWikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects will help us) I was aware and content that this discussion would follow. It isnot a discssion to delete the redirects, but is one to determine the correct target. To be clear Ioppose deletion of any or all of these.
Agree andSupport that all the redirects should have the same target. Anythng else would be ridicuous. They are redirects from the surname.
Disagree andOppose that the surname redirects should link to the composer, since he is simply a well known gentleman of that surname. While the concept of not setting a precedent on Wikipedia is well understood, it is custom and practice to use the surname to disambiguate between even well known people.
Support that all these surname redirects link to the surname disambniguation page -Khachaturian (surname). That is what I would expect as a reader. Further, as a reader of Wikipedia, I would be very pleased when entering any of these into the search box and arriving at the surname disambiguation page, to see all the other people with that surname, and would enjoy disappearing down the rabbit hole of finding out more about them.
When accepting those I accepted I was in cordial discussion with the requestor / nominator. I also asked for eyes on this from other AFC reviewers atWT:AFC, hoping for advice, but none was forthcoming, thus I declared what I believed to be the correct outcome, and made it so after a pause to allow advice. I have no particular horse in this race except that I believe consensus needs to be formed. We can all work with consensus, never with uncertanity, nor inconsistency. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸18:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
IfKhachaturian targetsKhachaturian (surname) then it isWP:MALPLACED.Khachaturian (surname) would need to be moved toKhachaturian in that instance which would require not an RfD but anrequested move overturninglast year's RM. But I agree with Extraordinary Writ's comment in said RM: the composer is the primary topic for the search term "Khachaturian". ThereforeKhachaturian should targetAram Khachaturian –keep.That's not the be-all and end-all of this situation, however. There's no need to aim for consistency here. The reader is not going to be confused when different search terms target different places since they're only going to search up one of those search terms. Editors might, but readers first.Vahagn Khachaturyan is Armenia's current president. It is silly to suggest that an alternative transliteration of the composer's name is the primary topic over the normal transliteration of the politician's name. So I suggest toretargetKhachaturyan toKhachaturian (surname).As for the other three redirects, my opinions are less strong but I recommend tokeep Խաչատուրյան (the composer's probably not the primary topic for the Armenian name as opposed to the specific transliteration) andretarget Khachatourian toKhachaturian (surname) (givenLeon Khachatourian). There is no one namedKhachadurian on the surname page, so I am ambivalent about either target or deletion.J947 ‡edits02:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Khachaturian → Aram Khachaturian. That is the common spelling of the composer's name in English, and the composer is the primary topic for that spelling. I don't think the other versions all need to target the composer, though; J947's argument is very compelling. I'm not knowledgeable about Armenian romanization, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that each variant has different usage and a different/no primary topic. So, I'm undecided on the rest.Toadspike[Talk]16:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the Armenian wiki, the pagehy:Խաչատուրյան does not exist, so that looks like a typo on the English wiki to me.
On the Armenian wiki,hy:Խաչատրյան is the surname page, on which the composer, our purported primary topic, is listed. It is not a primary redirect.
When I ask Google Chrome to translatehy:Խաչատրյան while I'm reading the Armenian wiki, it saysKhachatryan. That's our surname page, which was first drafted on 10 July 2008.
This redirect should bedeleted to allow the creation of a standalone article. The target articleCroatia–Serbia border dispute only mentions "Verdis" in passing, while a fully sourced, comprehensive draft article exists atDraft:Verdis. The redirect is misleading and prevents coverage of a notable distinct topic.TeddyFazzber (talk)17:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that "Verdis" is a notable topic deserving its own article, and the draft includes substantial coverage from highly authoritative sources such as BBC, CNN, Firstpost, among othersTeddyFazzber (talk)17:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the RfD tag goes on the redirect page itself, not on the target article. If you can't place it there due to protection then don't place it somewhere else, just mention it in your nomination and someone who can edit the redirect will tag it for you. I'll fix this one.Thryduulf (talk)18:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed historical context and for correcting the procedural issues, @Thryduulf and @Consarn. I appreciate the guidance.
Regarding past deletions (AfDs): I have reviewed the past deletion discussions. The new draft atDraft:Verdis is not a recreation of the previously deleted articles. It is built on a foundation of recent, substantial, and independent journalistic coverage (primarilyCNN andThe Guardian) that was not central or may not have been available during the previous AfDs. This new evidence directly addresses the core notability concerns that led to those deletions.
Regarding sourcing: Thank you for the catch, @Consarn. I misspoke regarding the BBC. The primary, high-quality journalistic coverage comes fromCNN[1],The Guardian[2] andThe Sydney Morning Herald[3]. The draft has been cleaned to rely on these authoritative secondary sources and removes promotional/primary material.
The core argument for RfD: The purpose of this RfD is not to judge the draft's readiness for mainspace (that is for AFC), but to decide if the current redirect is useful or harmful. The redirect "Verdis → Croatia–Serbia border dispute" is actively misleading. It implies the topic is synonymous with the border dispute, while reliable sources now treat "Verdis" as a distinct entity with its own narrative, goals, and media coverage. Keeping this redirect obfuscates information and directly prevents readers from finding the dedicated draft article where the topic is appropriately covered.
Proposed path forward: I propose a consensus todelete this redirect. Following that, I will immediately submit the improvedDraft:Verdis for review via theArticles for Creation (AFC) process, where it can be judged solely on its own merits based on the current sourcing. This is the standard procedure for replacing an inadequate redirect with a proper article.
In summary, the situation has materially changed since 2022 with new, significant media coverage. The redirect now causes confusion and blocks access to a more appropriate treatment of the subject.TeddyFazzber (talk)18:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
as a heads-up, "primary" has a different meaning in this context: it refers to sources directly related to the subject of an article, or that flat-out are from the subject. readwp:primary for more info on that, but the nitty-gritty is that you don't want an article that relies too much on its subject's own wordconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, now the micronation enthusiasts are coming back with AI-generated proposals? Who could have seen this coming... this would continue to be anWP:UNDUEWP:NOT#NEWS violation.Keep andsalt. --Joy (talk)20:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I mean that as whatever we can do to stop these repetitive discussions about the latest stories from the fun section of the newspapers. --Joy (talk)21:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
is it? despite the description, i haven't seen much that suggests that creation protection can't apply to pages that exist. so while it would be redundant and kind of useless here, it might not necessarily be a contradictionconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)22:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
while this nom is suspicious, from a suspishusly new account with a sussy streak of some (but admittedly not enough) knowledge of wikipedia's internal workings, on a subspeciously sock-filled topic, related to a draft suspisyphusly passed on by a handful of suspensefully single-purpose accounts, i'm not actually entirely sure it's ai. it could definitely be ai-assisted, but it's definitely missing a lot of the tells, like having a suspiciously human-like level of awareness of events that have happened more than a sentence agoconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)22:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for the feedback. I've heard the arguments, especially about the deletion history and the sources. I understand I rushed this. I won't push for deleting this redirect anymore. I'm ending my involvement in this discussion hereTeddyFazzber (talk05:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I think this is the wrong place for discussing this, as the issue here is the promotion of the draft article. This looks okay to me at a quick glance, and there's a new article about Verdis on ABC News (Australia) today, so I'll have a look at the draft later with a view to promotion, if someone else doesn't get there before me. Time to close this rfd now?Laterthanyouthink (talk)21:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Genre re-directs to disco where there is no discussion of the genre. No indication whether it should link to funk or disco. On looking, I can't find any information regarding it being its own unique genre and there's no discussion about it. It appears to be just anotherhybrid genre name dropped by journalists without information on what elements are prioritized.Andrzejbanas (talk)14:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disco has its roots in funk. In this case, it usually refers to disco where these roots are more emphasized, the tempo is slower, the funky bass is stronger, but typically it is still considered disco, since these influences are visible to varying degrees in almost any American disco. The term can also be found in sources[49].[50] and widely used elsewhere (brief mentions, mixes or compilation names like[51]). It is unlikely that a separate article will appear on this subject.Solidest (talk)11:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ironically as perUser:Solidest's arguments plusWP:RETURNTORED. That's some MIGHTY fine information you have there, Solidest-- presumably, someone searching forDisco funk wants to learn about that. Unfortunately, that informationisn't in the article. We shouldn't redirect unmentioned things to articles that don't have information on them based on information that COULD be in the article but ISN'T. If you really think that might be information someone's looking for, and that this article should be where the information lives,the correct idea is toadd it to the article.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)12:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. G could also refer toDoctor G, which gets about triple the page views. In addition, I'm sure some of the pages from the prefix index atDr. G andDoctor G use the abbreviation. Not sure if Dr. G should be retargetted to Doctor G or disambiguated, but I don't prefer the current target.Mathguy2718 (talk)00:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the primary topic in my google results is for a brand of "dermacosmetic" skincare creams and related products that we don't have any content about (that I've found). Neither the reality TV series (current target) or film (Doctor G) appear in the first three pages of my search results, the TV series gets one hit on page 4, but that's it to the end of page 6. However, when searching for"Dr. G." -Wikipedia -skincare -moisturiser -cream almost all the results on the first three pages are for either the current target or for a soundcloud/youtube artist who doesn't seem at first glance to be notable. I would suggest adding a hatnote fromDoctor G to the TV series though (one already exists for the opposite direction).Thryduulf (talk)14:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate given the ambiguity found by the nom. Add a hatnote atDoctor G pointing there too.WP:SMALLDETAILS,WP:ONEOTHER, etc., but I like this solution given the pageview gap between the two targets. It also allows for an entry forTwo Mafiosi Against Goldginger and even the brief mention of the skincare company atL'Oréal#Recent history and acquisitions. I don't fully understand the suggestion to delete, especially given that unlike either target with a hatnote or the disambiguation page, search results only show one of the two primary targets for this search term.J947 ‡edits03:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The target article was gutted five months after it was written in 2015 and turned into a redirect. Then in August of 2025 someone changed it back into an article. In the months since the user who did so has not made significant progress in improving or expanding it. One of the few useful pieces of information to be found there is that the Apioideae Subfamily contains approximately 380 genera of flowering plants. This includes notable vegetables and plants like celery, carrots and hemlock. The target page currently lists three.
Furthermore, this redirect is coming from a page concerning the tribe Tordylieae. According to wikispecies, this tribe is one of 23 that fall within this subfamily. Lo and behold, the only tribe mentioned on the target page happens to be in a header, the same header targeted by this redirect. A header that was added the same day this redirect was created. By the same user. Who is also the user who turned the target page back into an article last August. I want to assume good faith, but this smacks of adding a header just so it can be targeted by a redirect; possibly with the intent of turning a redlink into a blue link without having to add meaningful content.
If any other redirects to this target exist, they are probably RfD candidates as well, but I have no idea how to search for redirects to a specific page.~2025-35665-72 (talk)08:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apioideae has no other redirects to it. Steps: Go to Apioideae > What links here > check "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" > Go. Jay 💬10:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann: I don't think these should be bundled since the uppercase version seems less ambiguous. I find it much less plausible for "Iranian Plate" to be thought of as referring to dishware or vehicle registration. I think the spirit ofWP:DIFFCAPS (interpreted for redirects) applies here.Left guide (talk)03:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TheZagros fold and thrust belt was formed by the collision of two tectonic plates – theIranian plate and theArabian plate...The process of collision continues to the present and as the Arabian plate is being pushed against the Iranian plate, the Zagros Mountains and theIranian plateau are getting higher and higher.
The first hit on Google is forarticle with this title on The Disney Wiki, and that begins:Supers are superpowered humans in the world of the Disney/PixarThe Incredibles franchise. The lead of our article includes the lineThe franchise takes place in a fictional universe where superheroes, also known as "Supers"..., so there is clearly a connection. My first thought wasSuperintendent (police), but google also tells me there is a mini series with this title (we have no content I've found, I don't know if we should), something related to on-screen graphics (we have no content I've found, it seems likely we should) and various clippings other other nouns starting with "super" includingsupermodel andsupertanker. I think the best bet is toretarget this toSuper (disambiguation) and expand that to cover "Supers" as well, including the Incredibles usage.Thryduulf (talk)02:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to dab page per Thryduulf. We probably want to addBrights movement to the dab page - "Supers" is a term Dawkins suggested to refer to his opponents (see, for example,this page) which is briefly mentioned at the "Brights movement" article.Tevildo (talk)08:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate between the four/five meanings pointed out by the nom. Definitely enough for a dab page even though it looks a little iffy at first glance. Note the current target is also known as "The Sex of Angels" (that's its literal translation).J947 ‡edits01:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Central Asian Commonwealth" isn't mentioned at the target. There is a mention atCommonwealth of Independent States: if that were to be the target then the circular wikilink would need to be removed. I'm listing for discussion here because these organisations are often translated differently and there may be a reason for the current target that I'm missing.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)11:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow this slipped past the radar quite recently and became aXNR. I thinking it's worth quoting the aforementioned essay here:Currently, the general consensus seems to be that most newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted, but that very old ones might retain their value for extra-Wikipedia links. It is true that this term is primarily associated with Wikipedia, but the policy when it comes to XNRs is that they are preferably (when they exist at all) not common search terms, as they are meant for editors, not readers. I think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is fine.— An anonymous username,not my real name01:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This case makes sense as an exception, since the Wikipedia essay is theWP:PRIMARYTOPIC and provides more information than the Wiktionary entry. This term doesn't appear to have a meaning outside of Wikipedia, so anyone searching for this is likely looking for what this means on Wikipedia.I2Overcometalk08:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline you cited is about disambiguation/article titles, not redirects. It could be argued that any Wikipedia-specific topic would have more information in projectspace, but there is a pretty strong convention against doing this for the sake of keeping the editor and reader sides of the encyclopedia separate.— An anonymous username,not my real name18:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the previous rfd. i couldn't actually find a single use that didn't refer to or come from its use on wikipedia, and evenwikt:fancruft describes it as wikipedia slang. unless an article happens to pop up, this would be the best target. it also doesn't trample wp:xnr or anything for more or less the same reason as something likeedit request, where it's very easy to tell that a reader would specifically be looking for the info on projectspaceconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)13:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep, and ideally delete. It's a completely inappropriateWP:XNR from a search topic to a Wkipedia essay. It's also not appropriate to make a Wikt soft redir (it almost never is, for reasons I've gone into before). I'm sympathetic to EL's retarget suggestion above (and if it absolutely can't be deleted, that's probably the best option), but looking at the source, it's just a quick use and not actually defined, and there's not really enough here to really justify the redirect. Even the source doesn't justify the WP article's use of "derogatory" on top; it's used more neutrally instead. Leaving this as a redlink to aid searching would most benefit our readers (remember that such a search will show the Wikt entry and a link to it right at the top!). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)17:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
even ignoring that that section explicitly describes it as something from wikipedia, i think the essay would still do a better job at it, so for what it's worth and considering my previous vote, i'll mention that i'll also oppose retargetingconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)01:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or revert to previous target? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Thepharoah17 (talk)01:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Maybe redirect it to MechWest as Bermudez voices a protagonist? In the others, it seems the roles are secondary characters. Does that reasoning make sense?Historyday01 (talk)22:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The content still exists, but the section header was removed byN6gik withthis edit last April.Template:Estonia topics includes the label "administrative divisions", which is linked to the article about the counties - a situation unchangedsince 2013. The counties article gives a much better overview than the municipalities article, so that's the better target of the two but I'm wondering whether the section header on the main article should not just be restored?Thryduulf (talk)02:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toCounties of Estonia. It is the top-level subdivision, which is often what people are looking for. It also explains the subdivisions below it (within each county), catering for those who want deeper information.CMD (talk)03:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the latter two both direct readers to the former, I say this should uncontroversiallyretarget toAncient Estonia. Besides, the § Ancient Estonia: pre-history section is basically aWP:CONTENTFORK of the Ancient Estonia article and the § Estonia prehistory section is just a summarized overview.Red Shogun412 (talk •contribs)23:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also HIGHLY question the utility of a bot looking forWP:PTMs and adding one into discussion of redirects; here it was actively detrimental to discussion givenEstonia is on literally the entire other side of Europe from Greece???? And either way the reason this redirect was listed was it targeting a nonexistent section?Vanderwaalforces why is your bot doing this𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)02:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It says the bot is only supposed to find double redirects, avoided double redirects, and redirects pointing to the same target that differ only by case or diacritics, none of which apply here.I2Overcometalk02:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
user:Vanderwaalforces when you see this I have three things that you should probably do: 1: Make the bot sign its edits 2: Move said edits, it should be in the comment/discussion area rather than in the middle of the nomination 3: Fix its ability to determine a redirect's target and presumably whether its title "differ only by case or diacritics" because "Estonia" and "Greece" are two different words lol𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)03:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied your comments (and added some of my own) to the BRFA page. I think the source of the Greece error is because that redirect (for some reason) transcludes{{Prehistoric Europe}}, which includes the redirect under discussion here.Thryduulf (talk)04:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Thryduulf. I'm sorry on behalf of VWF botRusalkii and everyone, for the third point, it is most definitely what Thryduulf just said that was the problem. Since we're still trying it out, I can simply just fix it hopefully.Vanderwaalforces (talk)07:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambiguous terms that are not mentioned or defined at the target. Soft redirect to Wiktionary may be an appropriate alternative. Dictionaries give several definitions including bisexuality, intersex, sexually ambiguous, and unisex. (See:wikt:ambisexual andMerriam-Webster.) The sole use of any of these redirects in articles was a link toambisexual in a direct quote atAlgie the Miner#Analysis. The intended meaning there appears closer to sexually ambiguous/gender ambiguity; I have removed the wikilink perMOS:LINKQUOTE. Aninternal search reveals thatambisexual is used with different meanings on en-wiki; for example, as synonymous withintersex in a footnote atGender symbol and as sexually ambiguous/ambiguous gender atUrsula K. Le Guin § Gender and sexuality. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The scale considered people between K=1 and K=5 as "ambisexual" or "bisexual".
The next paragraph in the same section includes this line:
However, Kinsey himself disliked the use of the term bisexual to describe individuals who engage in sexual activity with both sexes, preferring to use "bisexual" in its original, biological sense ashermaphroditic…
This passing mention is not enough to justify a redirect here and doesn't actually address the various meanings ofambisexual but instead provides one example of historical usage. This includes a now-obsolete meaning ofbisexual but doesn't address current or historical meanings ofambisexual. Taken together, the descriptions in this section are more likely to mislead readers into thinking thatambisexual unambiguously maps to the modern meaning ofbisexual, when the opposite is true. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmentioned redirect that is either an error or a very obscure someimes-synonym with an ambiguous meaning.wikt:amphisexual defines this as "Able to develop into either sex." The redirect appears to be a frank error but it's possible this is an also a very obscure synonym for bisexual orambisexual which has multiple meanings.Internal search reveals that the word is used only twice, in references tothis article which refers to paternal care of eggs in the insectRhynocoris tristis—"bisexuality" is not a plausible reading of the meaning here. Note thatDraft:Amphisexual was never a draft ofBisexuality but was a draft ofAmphisexual. This was always a soft redirect to Wiktionary, which as noteddoes not define this as synonymous with 'bisexual(ity)' (!) before being redirected to the current target —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't meet the guidelines atWP:SOFTSP orTemplate:Wiktionary redirect.Amphisexual is notcommonly wikified—there are no links in article space to this redirect—and the word itself never appears in the body of articles. Pageviews are low which indicates readers rarely search Wikipedia for this word. (The spike in views on January 29 is best explained by my prior RFD listing and as many as half of those might be from me revisiting the history and usage of this redirect.) The original Wiktionary redirect appears to be the product of a well-meaning but over-zealous editor who is mistaken about the word's meaning. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amphisexual per nom. (DISCLAIMER: I was the closer of the 2024 RfD which resulted in the retarget.) Delete the draft as connected with Amphisexual, and nothing else. Jay 💬13:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmentioned, undefined redirect perWP:R#DELETE#8 and as ambiguous.wikt:ambosexual lists this as a rare synonym forambisexual and defines it as "hermaphroditic, or unisex". Additional definitions ofambisexual do supportbisexuality as one of several meanings but the term is ambiguous and neitherambisexual norambosexual are used at the target;ambosexual appears nowhere on en-wiki. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See also my response above in theamphisexual discussion.Ambosexual has higher pageviews thanamphisexual but also is not linked in articles and the word itself does not even appear in articles. This doesn't meet the criteria for a soft redirect petWP:SOFTSP andTemplate:Wiktionary redirect. The Esperanto Wikipedia article onBisexuality is titledeo:Ambaŭseksemo.wikt:ambosexual has no entry for Esperanto and only includes the (obscure) English meaning. Google givesambaŭseksema as the Esperanto translation forbisexual and does not detectambosexual as a word in Esperanto. I don't speak Esperanto and I realize that the sources I've consulted are not definitive, but I can't find any support for this assertion. Even if I could, this doesn't justify a redirect, 'soft' or otherwise. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:29, 31 January 2026 (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.
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:delete
Comment: the target is at afd:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli invasion.Thepharoah17 (talk)12:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation draft requested(done)Thepharoah17 (talk)05:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are several redirects from adjectival forms likephysicochemicalphysicochemical that I have intentionally not bundled. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)22:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:speedy keep
Done (Rationales were identical). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)21:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 17#Biochemical analysis
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:setindexify
Agree andSupport that all the redirects should have the same target. Anythng else would be ridicuous. They are redirects from the surname.
Disagree andOppose that the surname redirects should link to the composer, since he is simply a well known gentleman of that surname. While the concept of not setting a precedent on Wikipedia is well understood, it is custom and practice to use the surname to disambiguate between even well known people.
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:retarget
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:no consensus