Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematicredirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged.Be bold!
If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases,place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start arequested move.
If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects thatdo have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See§ When to delete a redirect for more information.)
Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.
Current and past redirects for discussion (RfD) discussions
The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result isdelete.
Redirects nominated in contravention ofWikipedia:Redirect will bespeedily kept.
RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. TheG6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
The major reasons why deletion of redirects isharmful are:
a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects orfrom elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
You might want todelete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:
The redirect page makes itunreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article onAdam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
It is across-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are thepseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence ofnamespace aliases such asWP:.Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other thanCategory:,Template:,Wikipedia:,Help:, orPortal:.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted underspeedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
If the redirect is anovel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular,redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers arecandidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect forG6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with thesuppressredirect user right; available topage movers and admins), perform around-robin move. If not, take the article toRequested moves.
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
If the redirect ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page or a page performing a disambiguation-like function (such as a set index of articles).Speedy deletion criterion G14 may apply.
They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (seeWikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aidaccidental linking and make the creation ofduplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links arenot candidates for deletionon those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the{{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at thePennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, includingCamelCase links (e.g.WolVes) and oldsubpage links, should be retained in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Please tag these with{{R from old history}}.See alsoWikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using thewikishark orpageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
Just as article titles using non-neutral languageare permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral butverifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with{{R from non-neutral name}}.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per thewords to avoid guidelines and the generalneutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "AttorneygateAttorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are notestablished terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps underdeletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstreamreliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind thatRfD is not the place toresolve most editorial disputes.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.
Please donot mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
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.
This is an implausible redirect. While the target is appropriate, the name of this redirect is an unconventional construction that is unlikely to serve a navigational purpose. Redirects to personal views that are unlikely to warrant their own articles are also unconventional. The only use-case I see for this redirect is the unlikely event that an unpiped link to the relevant section is required. ~Pbritti (talk)18:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overly vague redirect -human behavior is also a potential topic that falls under "human appearance", which appears to be why the target is called "human physical appearance" in the first place. It should likely be disambiguated or simply deleted.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)14:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this one actually seems kind of on point. I don't think that this could be interpreted as behavior, but I did immediately think of something like the appearance of humans in the fossil record, or something like that. Still though, I'm not sure what other kind of appearance you'd be looking for here. Happy to reconsider with more input though.35.139.154.158 (talk)16:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense if this redirect would redirect to Category:Living people, since this is where one can and would usually expect to find BLPs and not just unreferenced ones.RaschenTechner (talk)11:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't disagree with your logic, but it has been used in some discussions and I think it could lead to some misunderstanding if it is renamed. With that said, it's less used than I'd expect hence myweak keep.Casablanca 🪨(T)12:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect that, when it was created in 2004, made sense as it was listed as an alternative name as perthis 2004 edit. Computer engineering being called "Computer Systems Engineering", however, is not listed on the page today nor does it seem to be a proper alternative name for computer engineering. Not likely to be a useful redirect target for people searching specifically for computer systems engineering as that is a specific college major.SmittenGalaxy|talk!10:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly. Standard kind of joke among computer nerds. Strictly speaking, that's theASCII encoding of the characters "Binary" plus thecontrol character forline feed (00001010), but extended from seven bits to eight, so even more strictly speaking, it's not even ASCII proper. Anyway, ASCII is not the same as "binary code", it's one particular encoding. —Chrisahn (talk)11:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an implausible search term, doesn't have a good target, and I don't think it is suitable for a dab page. There are dozens of lists of French words of different origins, lists of words in other languages that are of French origin, andHistory of French. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a plausible search term. The page received hundreds of views in April 2024 and March 2025, though I don't know what accounted for those spikes. The target article includes links to many related articles, and serves as a good place to get readers oriented on the topic. -Eureka Lott21:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot reasonably believe readers will search this phrase intending to find the language, which is not an example of the redirect.Steel1943 (talk)01:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I request that wenot bundle primarily since this discussion is well underway. I can also see arguments for different fates for each of these. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)17:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely vague search term. Existence of this redirect is actively harmful, impeding the normal search function. Stop treating users like idiots who need such pointless redirects just to find an article so fundamental as "French language".35.139.154.158 (talk)05:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I closed this discuss as a Delete which was challenged. I have no deep-seated reason, that's just how I read consensus but since my closure was challenged, I'm relisting this discussion and letting another closer take a stab at this in a week. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!07:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No reasonable person would expect "French word" to take them to an article on the French language, or anywhere really. It may be a plausible search term, but there are no plausible targets (alternatively, there are way too many, given the vagueness, as pointed out above by others). Mediawiki has a search feature for a reason; let it do its job and stop trying to guess where people want to go based on vague inputs.35.139.154.158 (talk)16:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but refine with a section redirect toFrench language#Vocabulary (which specifically mentions "French words"), since someone looking for a "French word" will not be looking for the geographic distribution of the language or the like.BD2412T18:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would not considerHistorical figure a better redirect thanCelebrity, as I think 'famous' describes the latter better than it does the former. However, I'm not sure if it could be considered too vague? Before I decide, I'd like to know how many hits the redirects are getting.Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk)07:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬06:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is indicative of the need for aWP:BROADCONCEPT article on the concept of "fame". Until then, it should be left deleted due to vagueness, as "celebrity" does not fully encompass the idea of fame.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)15:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just came acrossMount Elbert where someone tried to cite a journal using this template. It resulted in an infobox being inserted into the references section. As this redirect is now unused in the article space, i would recommend deleting it to prevent ambiguous usage.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)02:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:RETURNTORED orrestore stub? This was previously a stub and eventually a redirect to a section on anti-elitism. That section no longer exists and there is no discussion of anti-elitism at the target. There's a brief statement listing (some) "beliefs that are in opposition to elitism" in the lead but this is neither comprehensive nor synonymous with "anti-elitism". It's tagged as{{R with possibilities}} (among others) and past discussions indicate some editors think it should be a standalone article. Until then, this redirect isn't helpful. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk19:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore stub. "Anti-elitism" is a topic of significant serious academic research and I'm shocked we don't have an article on it already. 162,000 results on Google Scholar, there are multiple books written on the subject.Katzrockso (talk)22:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. none of the stubs from before had any sources, and none of the content on them was useful (or particularly coherent). if we have no meaningful info on this, a redirect will imply we do, and promptly disappoint a readerconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear on the history. Was there a discrepancy in sources about the year of release or was 1982 simply an error? Are there sources that have called the movieHighway in English? I want to make sure I'm not missing a good reason why these titles were used in the first place. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)19:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Clarification on Myceteae's questions and points would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Left guide (talk)23:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article it points to (Tropical Storm Melissa (2025)) has been moved to mainspace, I don't think this redirect should exist anymore. As invest names are rotated, the number 98 will certainly be used in the next season, if not this one, and having this point to a specific storm is not needed. Previous storms have also been designated as 98L/AL98 as well.HurricaneZeta (T) (C)23:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This cross-namespace redirect has existed for 3 years, but I believe there is also a reason to delete: Seethis. Additionally, moving this redirect to the project space is not a reason to keep because there is already a project space page with the same title. -BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk,contributions)22:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to see all these deleted as unnecessary and undesirableWP:cross-namespace redirects. Even where they are not ambiguous, it seems unlikely that someone who knows enough about Wikipedia to know that pages can be protected, would not know about project space.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)17:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Sexual laws" could be laws on rape, selling sex, the age of consent, etc. Personally I'd prefer deletion as this seems like a rather strange construction but I could see a dab as well.Sexual law redirects toSex and the law, which contains very minimal country-specific content.Rusalkii (talk)21:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The designation exists. It appears onthis chart from Bode's Urangraphia and is shown inUranometria Argentina. Gould lists it as HD 17627, magnitude 6.9, although it seems to me more likely that it would be magnitude-5.9 HD 16975. Lacaillie's planisphere seems too simple to determine for sure and Bode's star positions are somewhat fanciful. Either way, the name has dropped out of use.Lithopsian (talk)16:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Does the newly-claimed existence of this designation warrant keeping the redirect? Or should it still be deleted? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Left guide (talk)19:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that all the pages with thePages for deletion prefix were moved to the versions withArticles for deletion when the venue was renamed at some point. Thanks,1isall (he/him) (talk |contribs)01:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all toWikipedia:Deletion_process#Deletion_discussion_venues per Consarn, except I wouldn't even add a hatnote. We shouldn't care about what something may or may not have been called for a short period ages ago. And even if we did care it's not even clear going to AfD would be correct, as the relevant era was before individual deletion discussion venues were split out so there is no equivalent to the old VfD.* Pppery *it has begun...14:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a small capitalization difference. The extra lemma is useless and disturbing when searching, the article can be found without problems with the search engineDovaModaal (talk)12:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure about this redirect. A paperhanger refers to someone who lays wallpaper, although we do not appear to have an article on this. Someone encountering the term in that context will be confused to end up here. I think wallpaper might be a suitable target but the page doesn't discuss those who lay wallpaper. Of the 3 mainspace uses of this redirect all are not referring to the criminal activity but instead wallpaper hanging.Traumnovelle (talk)06:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have never been mentioned at the target. I looked. This is a quote from a novel byRobert Anton Wilson, but not mentioned in the article. I don't think he originated the quote since it appears in some older magazines but mostly him. This pops up in like a dozen of his books with no meaning and no context. I added it to Wikiquote, because it's funny, but there is no reason for it to redirect here.PARAKANYAA (talk)06:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The saying isn't explained anywhere and is not unambiguously associated with a single subject. Several sources online indicate it originates fromWest Point. There isa 1956 episode ofTV Reader's Digest about a West Point cadet titledNo Horse, No Wife, No Mustache (same phrase just re-ordered). West Point and Wilson are the most common references I found but there's also a seemingly non-notable album with this name. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The impression I have is Wilson read the Reader's Digest piece or something like it and then just started inserting the phrase in all of his books like his own personalOccult Hand.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? Not mentioned at the target and I'm not sure it's entirely synonymous nor is it common.Woke is listed under 'See also' but otherwise not mentioned. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk04:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could.Liberal elite isn't exactly used favoringly. A search forwoke elite mostly turns up references to a book byMusa al-Gharbi. May be point there and add a mention? His usage doesn't perfectly map to how I understandliberal elite; I've skimmed through a couple interviews and haven't found concise definition. I'm sure he's not the only person to have come up with the phrase. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention of "woke elite" toMusa al-Gharbi#Career. It's kinda buried. Poking around a bit, it seems he doesn't ever give a concise definition. I'm not yet convinced this is a strong redirect target. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(nominator)Delete. I agree with Sangdeboeuf and my findings are consistent. The term has been independently coined multiple times without a clearly defined, consistent meaning. Coverage of al-Gharbi's 2024 book dominates recent search results but he did not originate the term nor has his usage taken hold elsewhere. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe soft redirect towikt:wokerati. The section no longer exists and the term is not used. It's not a synonym forwoke orwokeness but is a pejorative for people who might be dismissively referred to as wokeSJWs. The meaning is non-obvious on its own. I'd understand it if I read/heard it in context but presumably anyone searching for this has encountered it somewhere and is seeking clarification. Some will be able to infer the meaning it but it seems more helpful to send them somewhere that actually defines it. It does appear in several articles, mostly but not exclusively in reference to the incredible quote "Guardian-reading,tofu-eating wokerati". --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk04:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The space in particular seems really implausible. I would understandMINECRAFT as that's how the logo's stylized, but nowhen in MC's history has the logo ever been stylized with a space - not even in the Alpha releases, where the logo looked more like it was crafted using cobblestone blocks. Even though Amazon listings have occasionally used "Mine Craft" to try to get around copyright, I couldn't find a single usage of "MINE CRAFT" anywhere. The second redirect is even LESS plausible than the first, as if you'd wanted to know about their music you'd most likely already know how to properly spell Minecraft.User:Someone-123-321 (Icontribute,Talk page so SineBot will shut up)06:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I thinkMine Craft is plausible, the combination of the caps and space together is implausible and would also be covered since the search is case-insensitive. Same thing for the 2nd one, even moreso.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)19:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. Redirects are to help people find articles, but exactly which people are going to findantisemitism this way? Directs are not a way to list offensive epithets.Zerotalk06:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Term not mentioned at target. I would redirect it toattentat (the word simply means a criminal attack in French, usually in reference to terrorism), but this word does not have a diacritic in it.PARAKANYAA (talk)05:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerThe Battle Against Anarchist Terrorism, theattentat was the French term for the assassinations and bombings carried out by anarchists during the late-19th and early 20th centuries. The term isn't yet included in the article because this is one of countless articles I have on my "get to improving when I'm less burnt out" backlog. --Grnrchst (talk)09:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and it doesn’t have the diacritic. This is certainly not the ptopic for the rather common word “attentat” (which is used in many terrorist cases, not just that time)PARAKANYAA (talk)14:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a word used to refer to terrorism, and the page history refers to something else. This is a type of environmentalism[1]. Could be retargeted somewhere related to that but this is never in reference to terrorism.PARAKANYAA (talk)05:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a variant method of speed reload publicized by Wick, which we don't mention in the target article. Also somewhat ambiguous with "Wick flick" as in "movie about Wick", though the speed reload meaning seems primary after a quick search.Rusalkii (talk)04:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be deleted perWP:REDLINK as an unhelpful redirect with potential. Its target doesn't explain much about it and it's a potentially viable place for an article.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)02:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The plural is not so distinct as to make a clear change in primary topic. It's common to refer to a type or species of animal in the plural (e.g., constructions like "Razorbacks are found in…").Feral pig addresses the ambiguity/inconsistent terminology as applied to pigs. The hatnote first listsFin whale as the next most likely meaning of "razorback" and then points to the dab page for other uses. As another animal species, the plural is also a common way to refer to the whale. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)18:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toArkansas Razorbacks. As a plural and a search term, I think it's far more likely to be used to refer to a sports team than to those teams' namesake, and of those, Arkansas is by far the PTOPIC. There are a handful of links in article space to this currently, some of which are going to be wrong no matter what's decided, so that's sort of a wash. A hatnote can point people back to the dab page if they were really looking for something else.35.139.154.158 (talk)15:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear what Hervis is. Is it a company, a sponsor, a person's name, the Slovenian word for football? There's no mention at the target. But the article was known by this title for a year in 2007-2008. Delete if there is no useful info. Jay 💬19:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pokal Hervis seems to be an alt name for the Slovenian Football club. Hervis seems to be the person who at one point sponsored the cup.2011–12 Slovenian Football Cup uses 'Pokal Hervis' interchangeably with 'Slovenian Football Cup' suggesting that they're either the same thing or that the 'Pokal Hervis' tournament forms a part of the Slovenian Football Cup. In any case, it seems like a term used by native speakers to refer to the Football Cup. Anyone searching for 'Pokal Hervis' would be looking for 'Slovenian Football Cup'.Katiedevi (talk)17:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toTelevision in Ukraine. The National Television Company of Ukraine (NTU) and Suspilne are completely separate entities, operating under different ethics and legal frameworks, with the latter replacing the former as part of Ukraine's transition from state to public broadcasting. The Suspilne page contains almost no information on NTU beyond naming it as its predecessor, whereas the Television in Ukraine article situates NTU within the wider history of television broadcasting in Ukraine, providing the necessary context that the current redirect lacks.Agwjkl (talk)20:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unconvinced that this is a valid case for a foreign-language redirect as explained in RLOTE. Those tend to be for things that either have some kind of official/proper name (like of places, institutions, etc.), or some special cultural significance. But copyright law is generic; every country has its own, and simply attaching "in country X" doesn't automatically grant special cultural significance to country X (or usefulness). The example at RLOTE is a particular food item that has a foreign name. The prospect of making "Thing/Concept X in Country Y" redirects for the countless such articles we have for every official language of country Y is silly on its face.35.139.154.158 (talk)17:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created it because I saw a misspelling done on a shampoo bottle in a hotel. I saw it as plausible because the misspelling had happened: plausible means there is a real chance of somebody making that kind of misspelling, and that was done.WhisperToMe (talk)18:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unhelpful for searching, since it'll match any casing already anyway. Less than 100 views over a ten year span, which is easily editorial background noise. Serves no purpose.35.139.154.158 (talk)06:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I might have expected it to redirect toChampagne as it was fairly common for posh twits in the UK to refer to champagne as "shampoo", or just "poo", in the 1980s. --DanielRigal (talk)02:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting "anti-trans laws" to 2020s anti-trans laws in the United States looks like a clear case of Americentrism and recency bias.Mosplot (talk)17:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "1969 Syrian incident". I'm sure there were a lot of incidents that occurred in 1969 in Syria. Redirect is currently vague as is, although contains history as a GNG failing article.Utopes(talk /cont)09:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
move without redirect to something like "1969 syrian partial coup d'etat" per nom, and thenweak retarget tohafez al-assad#"duality of power" as a seemingly better target for the specifics of the events (so i think, anyway). alsodon't restore per nom, as there's deliberately nothing that states that blars have to go to afd and no actual disagreement about its content. i'm only seeing good enough sources for it in the current and proposed targetsconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)23:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬16:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phrase not mentioned at the target article. This is apparently an album, but without any discussion about it at the target page, people looking for information on this album are left without any.Utopes(talk /cont)07:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was mentioned at the target until last month[2] but then removed, for unclear reasons. Perhaps that removal should simply be reverted.Fram (talk)08:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target; will be confusing and not provide context for searchers. Google informs me that this is a reference to the main character's girlfriend having a female ex.Rusalkii (talk)07:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague. Lots of people have a or speak of a sexy phase! It's a generic concept, although I don't think there's an article to be written about it. Google gives a surprising number of hits forsexual response cycle; they don't call it "sexy phase(s)" but I see the connection. I know there's a range of opinions about movie lines. At a minimum, they need to be distinct to be considered. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)14:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no sources that support the (personally unverifiable) book citation. Though there is apparently a gene known as BIG[3][4] for which we do not have an article.⇌Synpath18:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rule atWP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the targetand it's"a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". Redirects should not be deleted if the connection to the subject is obvious to most people, or if the redirect is correct but not appropriate for inclusion in the article, such as{{R from brand name}}. . There are licensing/copyvio problems with deleting this; very few{{R from merge}} pages should be deleted. We could make it aWP:DAB page toGene Deal and the other pages, though.WhatamIdoing (talk)04:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to note, the nickname is listed at Gene Deal's infobox only, and is unsourced. The merged content was at the target for about a year after being merged, then removed. It was a couple fairly banal sentences, and I don't think that should necessarily stop us from deleting the redirect if that's otherwise appropriate. This is someone boldly merging article A into article B, someone else reverting the merge, and then article A later being deleted, which should be ok.35.139.154.158 (talk)14:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To consider the newly suggested target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Rusalkii (talk)06:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no article onGene Deal. The only other plausible redirect is totitin which is also largest known human gene encoding a protein, but I cannot find any support for this description for titin.Boghog (talk)14:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing toRedirect toDystrophin after reading Jay's comments above.Titin is a much larger protein than Dystrophin but Dystrophin is the much larger gene due to the enormousintrons it contains. It comprises a remarkable 0.1% of base pairs of the human genome! Also the Dystrophin gene has been explicitly referred to the big gene in the scientific literature:
PMID26295289 – discusses its “giant size” and intronic expansion as a defining feature of the big gene problem in Duchenne Dystrophy research.
PMID26140716 - introduce the phrase “big gene therapy” for therapeutic approaches developed specifically for DMD.
PMID33602943 - uses the phrase “big gene challenge” when discussing AAV capacity limits: “Dystrophin represents the prototypical big gene for which delivery remains the main hurdle for gene therapy.
PMID38713520 - s DMD as “the big gene problem in AAV‑mediated therapy,” describing the full‑length dystrophin cDNA (~14 kb) as “too large for viral packaging” and thus the archetype of big‑gene therapeutics.Boghog (talk)11:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refine toGene#Size. This section discusses gene size and gives several examples, including DMD.Dystrophin/DMD is too specific. Big ≠ Biggest. I imagine there are other organisms with bigger genes although a quick search only turns up results for largestgenome, which is unhelpful, but information about non-human genes could be added here one day. A more general target on gene size is better. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)21:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, retarget toSexual practices between men or somethingBook of Leviticus related, or… ? I retargeted a handful of other redirects away from the current target toSexual practices between men, which is the more general article on the subject rather than specific "men who have sex with men" ("MSM") terminology used especially in public health contexts. "Lie with" can be a direct substitute for "have sex with" here and this specific phrasing has religious and cultural connotations that don't apply to the others so I'm unsure what to do with it. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's fine. MSM is a pretty common term, and lie with is basically a synonym. I'm not that prejudiced towards the retarget though.Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk)13:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag with{{R from euphemism}}.Lie with is a euphemism forhave sex with, so someone typing this is most likely specifically looking forMen who have sex with men. Someone looking for information about the Bible is more likely to type something more specific, such as a direct quote. Trystan's arguments do not convince me because redirects are cheap.–CopperyMarrow15(talk⋅edits)17:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or convert todisambig page. The fact that it isused nowhere in Wikipedia (except in references to this discussion or redirect) might argue for getting rid of it (although search logs might show otherwise), however ngrams show aminiscule (but non-zero) use of the term in books. Checking those books that are in the2019–2022 cohort, they are almost all religious references (mostlyLeviticus 20:13[redirect], also Corinthians, Timothy). If someone comes to Wikipedia because that is the term they have been exposed to, we should take them to the right place. Which place that is depends on what they are searching for, and it seems most likely that they are wondering about the topic ofmale homosexuality ormen who have sex with men. Unless we do a poll to see what searchers really want to know, we won't know for certain, however redirecting toThe Bible and homosexuality seems a bit like lecturing someone who came here with a legitimate question which they couched in the only terms they are familiar with, so I would lean against that. We could cover the uncertain intent by making it a disambig page, which could includeLeviticus 20:13,Male homosexuality,Men who have sex with men,Sexual practices between men, andThe Bible and homosexuality.Mathglot (talk)17:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is anythingbut unambiguous. There areso many "Do not" Wikipedia policies, and this redirect only exists because it was once redirected toWP:NOT and the double redirect fixer "fixed" it. This redirect shouldn't be deleted, but seriously should either be retargeted or become a dab page.SeaHaircutSoilReplace14:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate perAltenmann, I think deleting is too harsh and, frankly, it made me think ofWP:DON'T since that's just a contraction. It might take a while to put all the don't and do not pages in one dab though...Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk)19:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disambiguation because it could no longer be used as a shortcut for any of these pages. Shortcuts are short and as such are ambiguous by nature. Just pick the target that makes the most sense—the current one is fine. --Tavix(talk)01:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well,WP:NOT includes 'do not' imperatives such as:do not use Wikipedia for any of the following,do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia,Do not insult, disparage, harass, or try to intimidate,Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats, etc. That said, I'm fine with any target suggested except for disambiguation. --Tavix(talk)18:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orKeep w/ hatnote orRetarget toWP:DON'T w/ hatnote, per Tavix's reasoning and Drunk Experiter. I am persuaded that a dab page defeats the purpose of a shortcut. We tolerate many ambiguous WP: and MOS: redirects, although it's reasonable to avoid creating new ones. Since this doesn't have much use and is ambiguous, deletion is reasonable but so is pointing it somewhere a little more intuitive. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Dos and don'ts per IP35. Do the same for WP:DONT and WP:DON'T, or bundle those with this discussion. Jay 💬17:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this exists. The party wasn't created in 2025 and there are no other Liberal Democrats in the UK to distinguish it from.Loytra✨15:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Edit: I've now just realised that this redirect was created by virtue of editors updating the party's infobox colours on the{{party color}} template. As the Lib Dems adopted a new colour in 2025, this page exists to allow editors to use both the new colours and old colours in different scenarios. I'll still be leaving this RfD up as this method seems a bit unusual to me — I've seen party colours be updated before but never have I come across it necessitating the creation of a new, unneeded redirect.Loytra✨15:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I was the one who created the redirect, for the exact reason you later mentioned. Using the redirect and it's own page name, we can preserve the historical colour of the Liberal Democrats on various parts of Wikipedia in use already. I would suggest leaving the redirect and page intact as it is benign at most.Into oblivion (talk)23:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now- ideallyTemplate:Party color would be improved with a new "year"/"version" parameter added to allow two different colours for the same party at different times. For instance "{{party color|Liberal Democrats (UK)|2025}}" to state that the post-2025 colour is used. However, at the moment the template does not have that functionality and I wouldn't be confident adding it myself, which means that the only way to use the Lib Dems' new colour in post-2025 topics without inaccurately using it for pre-2025 topics is the workaround of having "Liberal Democrats (UK, 2025)" as the party name in the template.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can someone update the module to eliminate the issue? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,voorts (talk/contributions)02:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toMake America Healthy Again per Shocksingularity. On theMaha disambiguation page, there are only two options that "MAHA" could refer to as an all-caps acronym. Of these,Make America Healthy Again appears to be theprimary topic in thisWP:ONEOTHER situation. Because there's only two possibilities, and one has 10x the pageviews, hatnotes should be used to navigate instead of disambiguation pages. This should go the slogan's page, with an added hatnote saying: "MAHA redirects here. For the anemia, see 'microangiopathic hemolytic anemia'. For other uses, see 'Maha (disambiguation)'".Utopes(talk /cont)01:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell when Hockey Manitoba changed their name. It doesn't get any traffic fromMaha, at least not in July and August. If there's reason to believe Hockey Manitoba is still a plausible candidate for co-primary or co-secondary topic, a hatnote is still reasonable perWP:TWOOTHER. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it legally changed its name in 2015, but had been using Hockey Manitoba alongside MAHA for a number of years previous. I don't oppose hatnoting, I was just noting it might need two hatnotes.Casablanca 🪨(T)23:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed the May RfD. (Disclosure: I was the closer). Keep per that RfD. Too soon for renomination, and there wasn't anything newer from the previous nomination. Jay 💬17:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we're staying in the realm of the Lion King,Scar (The Lion King) specifically mentions the line as an example of foreshadowing in context of the Hamlet references. However, the phrase is also just a general statement but I don't know if there's a good singular target likeNihilism that would be a good match.TNstingray (talk)12:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who types out four sentences in this situation, already knows who Inigo Montoya is (they had to include the name in the quote). This quote is not currently mentioned in the article, and people searching for the page for "Inigo Montoya" would not spend time writing out the four short sentences he says.Utopes(talk /cont)02:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To weigh in on this suggestion, this phrase is not mentioned at the film's article either. An uninformed reader has no reliable way to figure out which of these targets this redirect would take them by looking at it, as it's basically a coin flip. Neither page gives the necessary content, with mention, to satisfy people deliberately searching for thequote instead of searching for the film, or character. If someone don't know the name of the film, searching this quote in Google would give the name straightaway. Wikipedia is not a script database, redirects for important lines from the movie are an exception, not standard.Utopes(talk /cont)09:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was mentioned in the article untilremoved by the nominator (reverting that edit would be more helpful than deleting this redirect). Useful to people who remember the iconic phrase but do not remember his name, as just typing "Hello my name is" will bring it up. No policy based reason for deletion has been given. —Kusma (talk)18:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have restored the line to the article and added two sources noting how iconic the line is for the character, and that in preparing to save those lines Mandy Patinkin walked around the grounds of the castle thinking of his own father's death from cancer, and imagining his confrontation with the six-fingered man as a way to go back and save his father from that cancer.BD2412T19:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks to BD2412 for the work on the article. Any article on this character should clearly have this line and as long as it's mentioned the redirect is obviously useful.Rusalkii (talk)19:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a vintner (scientific term for people who make adult grape juice) from ancient egypt or something. currently unmentioned. is apparently an r from merge, though i genuinely don't see what could have been brought in, and even if something was, it's long gone (aside from coincidentally citing the same book that served as the blar's only source). while i found a couple sources, i'll have to check them in a while, though they might not be reliable, and seem to only have the text string in them by coincidence
Formerly a stub for a person attested from goods inTutankhamun's tomb. Seems like maybe worth mentioning in that article and then redirecting there? If any images of the goods could be tracked down that seems like the thing to do to me. --Slowking Man (talk)04:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EitherDelete orredirect tolist of ancient Egyptians. The source for the original article wasVintage: The Story of Wine (1989) by Hugh Johnson. I know nothing about that book, but I'd be more comfortable with an Egyptological source. But I don't think Kha'y, or any variant of that name, is mentioned in the books about the tomb on which the tomb article is based. As he was reportedly a royal chief vintner, there might be reference to him in some other text—but I looked atWho's Who in Ancient Egypt (1999) by Michael Rice, which is the closest thing I know of to a biographical dictionary of ancient Egypt, and Kha'y is not listed there.A. Parrot (talk)18:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia,Sudafed is a redirect toPseudoephedrine, despite the fact that if you go into a drug store in the United States and you find pills on the shelf that are sold under the Sudafed brand name, they will definitely not contain that drug. The drug they will contain instead is something else that has been shown to be ineffective for the purpose that it is primarily purchased for, so the current redirect seems actively misleading and thus not good from a health information perspective. Historically, "Sudafed" was a brand name used for pills containing pseudoephedrine, but that drug has been the subject of legal restrictions in the United States for about 20 years that include prohibiting its availability directly on store shelves and special identification and information tracking requirements for purchases. To get around the legal requirements, the Sudafed brand name is being used for a different (ineffective) drug. Although the brand name continues to also be used for pseudoephedrine, the product that is readily available on store shelves is not that one. If you send someone who doesn't know this to the store to buy "Sudafed", they will probably return with the other medication, because that's what they will find on the shelves and they will not know there is something else available if they make a special request for it at the pharmacy counter. (I happen to know this from personal experience.) To make matters worse, the generic name of the other drug –phenylephrine – also looks similar to pseudoephedrine at first glance. The redirect's edit history shows there have been differing opinions about what the redirect's target should be. An alternative target isCold medicine#Brands. The claim of effectiveness of the other drug was withdrawn by the FDA in 2007 and its ineffectiveness was confirmed by an FDA panel in 2023. Even if the other drug was not ineffective, leading people to information about the wrong drug is undesirable. — BarrelProof (talk)21:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toPseudoephedrine#Brand names, where it is listed. It's a reasonable search term that some readers will likely use. I appreciate the complex issues raised in the nomination statement, but those things should be addressed through content at the target page. --Tryptofish (talk)22:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree, since that just exacerbates the problem. At least in the United States, this is primarily not a pseudoephedrine brand name, and that article contains none of this information – and it would probably be inappropriate if it did contain much about it, because such a discussion would be off-topic for a list of pseudoephedrine brand names. I thinkCold medicine#Brands may be a better target, because that does not imply the use of a particular chemical ingredient, although colds are not the only reason someone might seek adecongestant. — BarrelProof (talk)23:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to making the target Cold medicines, instead, but the fact remains that Sudafed is currently listed at the target I recommended, where it says: "Sudafed Decongestant (made byMcNeil Consumer Healthcare) — contains 60 mg of pseudoephedrine hydrochloride. Not to be confused with Sudafed PE, which contains phenylephrine". The solution to "the problem" would be a brief clarification/correction/update at the target. If kept brief, it would not be off-topic. As noted by other editors below, another alternative, and perhaps the best one, is to recreate a full article on Sudafed. But, whatever the decision is about that, readers will potentially use this search term, so simply deleting it would be suboptimal. --Tryptofish (talk)00:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two thoughts:
We shouldn't write articles about worldwide brands/products as if the US were the most important frame of reference.
The original, pseudoephedrine-only Sudafed is available behind the counter in the US, complete with the brand-name box. Your local pharmacy probably even has signs up next to the cold medicine shelves that tells you how to get the real stuff.
This is not a US-only phenomenon, as has been pointed out repeatedly. Some editors appear unaware of which active ingredient are sold under the Sudafed brand and the restrictions on OTC PSE in their own countries, which speaks to the problem. But even if this were primarily an US problem, why would we dismiss that as a source of ambiguity? --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar situation with Tylenol, which hada prior RfD and is the subject ofa current RM.Cold medicine#Brands may be the best option here. I'm not how to assess the notability of an OTC drug brand for having its own article. A lot of these companies don't have SIGCOV but are extremely well-known and offer a range of products with different ingredients, making the brand name ambiguous. (Note thatSudafed PE redirects tophenylephrine, which is appropriate since the 'PE' is specific to this active ingredient.)— Precedingunsigned comment added byMyceteae (talk •contribs)22:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that the medicine sold as "Sudafed" in the UKdoes contain pseudoephedrine[5] so deletion on the grounds that it doesn't in the US doesn't represent a worldwide view. That doesn't necessarily mean the current target is best, but things are more complex than the nominator presents.Thryduulf (talk)23:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I made any claim that the situation in the U.S. is the same outside of it, but the U.S. is a major market of this brand, and I believe it has been this way for decades. — BarrelProof (talk)23:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect to say that "the medicine sold as "Sudafed" in the UKdoes contain pseudoephedrine" – some of it does, but some of it does not. Thelink provided above shows that pseudoephedrine is sometimes branded as Sudafed, but it does not show thatall Sudafed in the UK is pseudoephedrine.Here is a link to some Sudafed for sale in the UK (andanother link to a similar one). It does not contain pseudoephedrine.Here is another link to another different Sudafed for sale in the UK. It also does not contain pseudoephedrine. — BarrelProof (talk)04:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We hada substantial article at the title, Sudafed, until 2016, when it appears to have been rather summarily redirected. It seems obvious to me that with the tortured history of products sold under the brand name, weshould have an article at this title.BD2412T23:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that the US is the only country where sudafed does not contain pseudoephedrine, it doesn’t make sense to change the target when the name is still largely associated with the current target. people searching for sudafed are probably looking for the page on PSE. However i do think it would make sense to add a note that the US version does not have PSE.IntentionallyDense(Contribs)04:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to their websites, Sudafed markets PE products inthe UK andAustralia as well. These products have various names but the boxes all have SUDAFED emblazoned on them in big letters. The old Sudafed article and the current PSE article describe similar situations in all these countries, where one cannot just walk in and grab a box of PSE off the shelf as easily as one could in the 90s. In the US, you can also still getSudafed branded PSE products from the pharmacist. Does the average reader know that Sudafed and Sudafed Blocked Nose are different? Or that SUDAFED SINUS CONGESTION and SUDAFEDPE SINUS CONGESTION are different? Tough to say. If the old article is restored, there can be further discussion about whether it should live atSudafed (brand) and whether there is a primary topic forSudafed. A separate article would provide a prominent place to point people to. I think pointing to a brief description of Sudafed products atCold medicine#Brands is another reasonable solution, if the brand doesn't warrant its own article. Another option is for Sudafed to be a dab page. This is the current situation withTylenol though the RM discussion is moving towards pointing this to the brand, rather than the active ingredient most associated with Tylenol, which I find somewhat baffling.Zantac is a dab page, reflecting a change in active ingredient. My sense is that "Sudafed" is still more associated with PSE than any other single ingredient but that public understanding of the situation is poor. The name most accurately describes a brand that markets a variety of products in different countries. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The PE variant is also sold in New Zealand. In some places, there's also something called SUDAFEDOM withoxymetazoline as the active ingredient, although in New Zealand it appears the "OM" lettersare omitted. Even in the US, the "OM" part is not included in theproduct title on Amazon. There are also no suffix letters on anotherSudafed withxylometazoline as the active ingredient offered in New Zealand. The United States, UK, Australia, and New Zealand seems to cover a big percentage of the readers of the English Wikipedia. New Zealand seems to have similar restrictions on the availability of pseudoephedrine as in the US. Searching one particular NZ vendor's site for "Sudafed" yieldsthis;none of the 12 products listed in the top section of that page contain pseudoephedrine. Hidden down at the bottom, marked "In Store only" are two that contain it (and one that doesn't). All with no real explanation of the differences. — BarrelProof (talk)03:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wager that the average person thinks thatSUDAFEDPE is "Sudafed". If you look at the packaging, you'll see that the "PE" is in a very small font with a different color that is styled as a superscript. The letters ofPE seem to be less than half the height of the word "SUDAFED" on most of the packages. Also, as mentioned above, "Sudafed" without the "PE" is not available on store shelves, so anyone looking for Sudafed is only going to find SUDAFEDPE or some other non-pseudoephedrine Sudafed unless they already know enough to ask whether there's something else hidden somewhere. — BarrelProof (talk)03:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some "Sudafed" (without "PE" or any other suffixed or superscripted letters except®) that doesn't contain pseudoephedrine and doesn't contain phenylephrine either. Andhere is another one with yet a fourth active ingredient (with no suffix). Those two are in New Zealand. Please see another comment from me above that shows some offerings in the UK. One difference in the UK seems to be that instead of being called SUDAFEDPE there, the phenylephrine pills in the UK seem to just be called SUDAFED without thePE. — BarrelProof (talk)03:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep orRetarget toPseudoephedrine#Brand names - It is clear that the brand has fostered some confusion in marketing phenylephrine under confusingly similar names, and that is unhelpful. But we need to start from the perspective of an information seeking reader. If they type in Sudafed now they land on the page for the drug the brand was named for, but additionally they see a hat note prominently alerting them to the existence of Sudafed PE, containing a different drug. The brand names section suggested by BarrelProof contains the same information. Absent a specific page about Sudafed, this is the best presentation of the information. I don't think we should restore a largely unsourced page on the brand, but there is nothing preventing someone rewriting that and boldly restoring the article. That is, re-creation is certainly allowed. Before that could happen, secondary sources need to be located. The above discussion finds plenty of evidence that this brand is marketed in a somewhat misleading manner, but we don't make articles from original research. If there are secondary sources talking about the brand, an article can be re-created. Otherwise we are inWP:NOPAGE territory, and the article this points to is the best one to maintain the information that best meets the reader's information need.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)08:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: TheTylenol RM recently closed as consensus to make the brand the primary topic, rather than disambiguate or make the active ingredient the primary topic. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree that it is quite slimy of them to sell pills that don't do anything to an unwitting public, on the basis that nobody will read past the brand name, or that nobody will understand the brand name means nothing and the INN is what you actually need to read. We should not aid them in this snake-oil. Probably, there should just be an article called "Sudafed" in its own right, which clearly covers the distinction here. There are lots of brand names that refer to multiple things, e.g. "Tylenol" (paracetamol) and "Tylenol #3" (paracetamol and codeine). But it's fairly uncommon that a company will start using a brand name to refer to products withentirely different drugs and not the original one (inb4 "Coca-Cola"). I am against there existing a redirect which, essentially, lies to the reader about what's in a pill.jp×g🗯️20:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. I've read all the comments, some of which aren't factually correct (eg go to Tesco in UK and find PSE from a pharmacist, but PE from an unsupervised shelf in the store). The answer is a short disambiguation page:
brand name of a drug in some markets with active ingredientPseudoephedrine
brand name of a drug in other markets with active ingedientPhenylephrine, sometimes branded Sudafed PE
I'm not sure a dab page/list is appropriate. A partial list of active ingredients found in some Sudafed products is out of step with the typical structure and function a dab page and if it's created a 'helpful' dab gnome may come along and 'fix' it. Sudafed is a single brand that markets a bunch of different Sudafed-branded products. They also sell combinations with various antihistamines, analgesics, etc. I don't know that a comprehensive list of products or active ingredients is appropriate. I agree that PSE and PE are the two most important and then perhaps the two nasal sprays. The description atCold medicine#Brands is probably sufficient although that entire section could use some cleanup. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)18:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should just have an article called "Sudafed" that explains what's in "Sudafed". People looking up common medications deserve accurate information presented in the clearest manner possible.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)01:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The meme is not the primary topic here so these should beRetargeted to the67 dabpage. Also, the first one is malplaced since the base title redirects to a title with a disambiguator.ArthananWarcraft (talk)04:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepfor now with no prejudice against re-evaluating in as little as 6 months, maybe sooner, and periodically thereafter, as meme popularity is volatile and unpredictable.6-7 (meme) is seeing a huge amount of traffic—daily averagealmost 90k this month! It would be interesting to look at the WikiNav for67 for September and October. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk02:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to RM per above. There is a strong possibility that the meme is the primary topic and should be moved to6-7; I'm not seeing anything at67 which is ambiguous.162 etc. (talk)18:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anything,6–7 (meme) should be renamed to6-7; really not saying anything in67 that is ambiguous with the search term “6–7” — going by just a pronunciation (e.g. the rap group) is not enough IMO.❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at02:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget: as the requested move has indicated, "6-7" is a less common name for the meme compared to "6-7", but of course "67" cannot redirect to the meme. There is also the issue of the rap group, as mentioned above, so I would support retargetingsix seven to the dabpage.Somepinkdude (talk)13:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leave current target (or move6-7 (meme) to6-7): There's no obvious reason for someone to spell other kinds of "67" in one of these weird ways. If readers come here trying to figure out WTF some unusual expression means we should take them to the answer they're looking for. Someone aiming for the dab page can click the hatnote. –jacobolus(t)03:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to disambiguation page. ArthananWarcraft wrote above that the rap group and the meme are pronounced "six seven", so the disambiguation page prevents (rather obviously) ambiguity. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester)15:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects were all mass created for the recently createdLGBTQ issue, the content of which was subsequently merged intoLGBTQ people postAfD/DRV/Merge talk page discussion. These redirects may wrongly imply that LGBTQ people are "an issue" with the redirects pointing to LGBTQ people, so they should be deleted as unlikely search terms. I have moved the LGBTQ issue toIssues affecting LGBTQ people which is a more appropriate title for the redirect that needs to remain due to its history needing to continue existing for attribution purposes of the merged content.Raladic (talk)07:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LGBTQ issue. The nominator's undiscussed move of the LGBTQ issue redirect (without leaving a redirect) has been undone. This is an exceptionally plausible search term. Keep the rest as well. Also plausible. The stated concern the redirectmay wrongly imply that LGBTQ people are "an issue" is not not a reason to delete. The likelihood that someone will type in LGBTQ issue thinking "fixing the problem of all these LGBTQ people existing in the society" is pretty much zero, and even if someone does that,LGBTQ people is still a relevant topic for that user. The "X issue" title of the former (now merged) LGBTQ issue article was modelled afterSocial issue. There are other "X issue" redirects, such asGender issue.—Alalch E.— Precedingundated comment added10:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mhh, this framing device is covered at fairly great lengths in history in school, at least in Europe.
The framing device of "GroupXTopicX Issue/Problem/Question" is historically as old as day, and we have some articles as I just listed that discuss these historic events in context. And while sometimes some historically negative terms have been reclaimed by groups (e.g.queer having been reclaimed by many people in the LGBTQ community from its prior use as a pejorative slur directed at them), many have not, and this framing device is not one that I've seen reclaimed in any contexts I'm aware of.
So, your redirects now present LGBTQ, gay, lesbian, bisexual people as being a similar such issue linguistically. This is very problematic as such framing has historically been typically used in extremely negatively way, in many cases with the intent and acts of murdering/eradicating groups of people.
If there was an article that would discuss such historic events where people have used the phrase as a propaganda mechanism and we document those atrocities, that's a different thing, but redirecting a phrase that has historically been used as a linguistic device in connection with considering the word before "issue/problem/question" to make group "the problem" does have an extremely offensive connotation.
This is different to if the redirects you had created were called "LGBTQ people's issues", "Gay men's issues", "Bisexual people's issues", "Lesbian women's issues", like sayWomen's issues - this makes it clear that there are issues affecting a group - hence my move of theLGBTQ issue toIssues affecting LGBTQ people as that meant we have a redirect from a plausible neutral term.
So, I must assume you accidentally left the English possessiveapostrophe s to title them to be issues affecting this population. So, we can either move all of these to "Issues affecting GroupX" like I did for the one that we can't delete because attribution history, or we delete them, but redirecting them as they currently are, is extremely problematic without the target discussing them (like say if a historian were to liken some of the current events to historic events and points out some dictators or the like's use of the phrase in connection to it).Raladic (talk)20:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
while i'll disagree with the nom's rationale that it implies they're the issue,delete all except the first one as vague anyway. there are a few issues involving them, sure, but maybe a few too many, since it goes beyond what issues involving lgbtq people currently has, so people looking for more specific topics under those vague titles will want more specific stuff.weak retarget the first one to match with lgbtq issues, but if taken to rfd again, i'd support deletion outrightconsarn(grave)(obituary)11:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nom's move without redirect was a misuse of page mover rights perWP:PMRC, and thanks to Alalch for reverting it. The singular ones may bedeleted as recently created, and not used / will not be used, for linking. The plural ones may be kept, or retargeted per Myceteae. If there are articles for the other preposition titles related to "issue" per Paradoctor, they may be disambiguated, but nom has not listed any such articles. Jay 💬14:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK withdeleting the singular forms per Jay's suggestion if there is more consensus there. I still argue for retargeting/keeping the plurals per my earlier statement. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)16:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excessively premature, and therefore unhelpful; no content about the 2028 and 2030 renditions or anything related to them at the target. Nominating fordeletion.Left guide (talk)21:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and updated the table to include 2028 and 2030 (with confirmation that the number of teams will increase to 16). However, I was unable to find confirmation of a host for the 2030 edition. --Tavix(talk)13:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a host listed is a minimal piece of information about the event, and nothing relevant to the qualification. Qualification 100% cannot be kept based on that irrelevant information, and it's not really enough to warrant a redirect for the W20WC redirects either.Joseph2302 (talk)15:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/retarget toPsychoactive drug, which is a better target than the current one. I oppose retargeting toAntipsychotic, because those are the exact opposites, despite sounding similar – that would be like redirecting "good" to "bad", or "up" to "down". (I agree with the nom that the term is an incorrect one, but since it could be a search term, at least send the reader to the closest correct match, where it might be appropriate to have a hatnote telling readers about antipsychotics.) --Tryptofish (talk)17:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but I was trying to indicate that "psychotic drugs", whatever that means, is the opposite of medicines used to reverse psychosis. I see your point below, that it's not a good search term, but I think it could be search term used by confused readers, and I would rather send them to the right place than to leave them confused because we decided that we should not honor a flawed search strategy. --Tryptofish (talk)17:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be search term used by confused readers, and I would rather send them to the right place than to leave them confused because we decided that we should not honor a flawed search strategy. The challenge is thatpsychotic drug(s) sounds close to multiple different targets. On what basis do we decide which real thing editors are most likely looking for with this bad search? --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good question, and the best I can offer is to send them to a relatively broad topic, where they can start reading and then decide if they want to look somewhere else, and that's what I was aiming for by retargeting to Psychoactive drug. --Tryptofish (talk)00:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense, thanks for expanding on your thinking. I'm on the fence. On the one hand,Psychoactive drug is the umbrella category that includes all the other possible targets. On the other hand, it barely addresses the topics we think readers might be looking for, and we are still only making a best guess at what they might mean bypsychotic drug(s). --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All results I found for this term are either partials of "anti-psychotic drug", or of "psychotic drug user(s)". This term is not in use, andnot a good search term.Paradoctor (talk)21:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since deletion is still being considered as an option by the nom. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!10:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: no one has said anything outside of relists since 6 October Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Oreocooke (talk)00:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider retargeting? Unsure what a proper target would be, but the section it's targeting no longer exists.Environmental hazard has a "not to be confused with" hatnote pointing here but I'm not actually sure what the difference is.SomeoneDreaming (talk)00:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to delete is that the meaning is vague. Environmental risk could refer to risksto the environment (e.g., pollution) or risksfrom the environment, which can be further divided into different meanings. Risksfrom the environment could be risks related to climate or weather or things like the social environment. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk01:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: easier to just do it know than to remember to do it in 2 hours Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Oreocooke (talk)00:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Altenmann. This abbreviation is used in a few sources in the article and I easily found other sources that use it even though it's not one of the official airport codes. I agree we don't need redirects for every possible typo/misspelling and a redirect based on a correct spelling/abbreviation is almost always more appropriate than a misspelling. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)20:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to Steel1943's comment. Is IKIA a plausible phonetic misspelling ofIKEA? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!23:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a plausible phonetic misspelling, but the acronym sees use. A hatnote might barely be justified from the lead ofWP:HATNOTE, but I find it a little awkward to disambiguate what is probably an uncommon a typo at the top of an article like:
"IKIA" redirects here. For the furniture company, seeIKEA.
Move per nom. I created this probably because at the time, "It Ends" was marketed a lot. Since redirects are cheap, I figured I'd make that in case people thought that was the title. We are past that now, so I support this change of focus.Erik (talk | contrib)15:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a polish game seemingly only known for having been published byakella in russia. where i come from, that means it's a 2/10 at best. only mentioned inthe mark (capital m, no disambiguator), so this redirect only really tells the average reader about the game's genreconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)15:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if it's actually mentioned anywhere, i don't think it should be akella. the game is seemingly best known for being published by them in russia... but it's not a game developed by akella, nor did it publish it in any other languagesconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)17:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's not a reliable source, though. hell, it seems to be more of a piracy site than anything else, so it's especially unusable here (even if i support the act of piracy, i love downloading old games that aren't being sold)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree these seem implausible and anyone who would search these is clearly looking for something more specific thancrayons. The history atOrange Crayon, whichis funny, is not encyclopedic. It's OR, if you can even call it that, and cites no sources. It can be deleted.Red Crayon has no history other than its creation as a redirect. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)21:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for what it's worth, i don't think retargeting would be a good idea. crayola is only one crayon brand, and retargeting to those would imply that it has primary topichood for the concept of crayons. both mentions are also unsourced, which is annoyingconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)21:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This supposed alternative name for theOkapi has been added repeatedly by two IPs: once in 2014 (rev.598279984 and once in 2017 (rev.804881518). It was removed in 2014 before the article went through the GA process (rev.643298559), but by that time it had already disseminated through Wiki mirrors. A redirect was created from the term in 2017, I believebased on those mirrors/sources, despitenot being present in the article.
Since then, somebody has tried to source the name, but it's simply only present incircular references and mirrors. I've spent several hours looking for a pre-2014 or pre-2017 source for the name "zebra giraffe" and have been coming up pretty blank - nothing in Internet Archive, nothing in Google results sorted by date, and no real mentions inGoogle Books orGoogle Scholar prior to 2017. If this was a common name, I'd expect to find something. The redirectdoesn't get many views - I suspect some are curious people, typing in zebra, and wondering what on earth our auto-suggested "zebra giraffe" could be, weird spike in 2020 could have been an offsite link).
(NB: IP data is stale but I suspect they're the same person - they both nearly exclusively edited articles on the same set of kids TV shows. I suspect they were a child, no idea about faith or competence )GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋20:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like in the first half of the 1900s, they were occasionally referred to as a "zebra-giraffe" (including the hyphen maybe exclusively?) in news reports about their discovery/bring to Europe/America (from newspapers.com:[7] "is, in fact, a sort of zebra-giraffe",[8] "Capturing alive the first okapi (zebra-giraffe)",[9] "Okapi, Sir Harry Johnston's short-horned zebra-giraffe",[10] "... the okapi does not Inherit. The British Government is now engaged with experiments with this zebra-giraffe hybrid"). I think it is likely that adding it as a name at the top of our article caused it be used again. There's a smattering of usages through the newspaper archive similar to the clips above but starting in 2014 after the first addition there's[11] from Aug 2014 about an event at a zoo where the write-up says "visit with Corky, one of Brookfield Zoo's okapi, also known as a zebra giraffe", which sounds like Wikipedia. And then a Mark Trail Sunday strip from Sep 2014 has[12]. Okay so for this redirect, I am leaning toward aweak keep since it's nottotally a Wikipedia invention (if we ignore the hyphen) and maybe a useful search aid at this point as its out in the wild as I don't think there's anything else ever referred by this. But open to be convinced otherwise. I think the article itself should not include it bolded in the lead.Skynxnex (talk)21:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G6, unambiguously created in error (as a redirect), and then immediately moved, leaving the error. (what's the second typo besides the missing apostrophe?)35.139.154.158 (talk)21:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose retargeting tosexism. We say thatsexism is "prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but primarily affects women and girls." Meanwhile,misogyny is "hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls ... sexism, which denotes sex-based discrimination". A source says "Sexism: discrimination against women ... Misogyny: hatred of women".[13] Another source says "Misogyny may be distinguished from the closely related word sexism, which signifies discrimination based on sex (although it most frequently refers to discrimination against women)".[14] This would revert the result ofWikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_7#Discrimination_against_womenUhoj (talk)19:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sexism is general, convering discrimination against men as well as women, whereas misoginy is the one focused on women. I don't know that it's thebest target, but IMO it's better thansexism.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}19:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's important to consider the content of each article. Discrimination against women and girls is discussed throughoutSexism and is much more the focus of that article. I understand the argument thatSexism is too broad, butMisogyny seems too narrow. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)16:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is named "Pearson type II distribution" in the article. Even if it is an old new or not the common one, alternative names are valid redirects.jolielover♥talk17:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's extremely common for anything eponymous to vary between the attributive (Name foo) and possessive (Name's foo) forms. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)17:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ethaniel: Recall that "it is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate." You've nominated this page twice without observing this basic courtesy. Please be more thoughtful about notifications going forward.pburka (talk)14:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plausible search term. 13 views from the past year, possible they were specifically seeking the target audience. Also, the redirect was created from a user request.jolielover♥talk17:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah it's uncommon, but that's not a reason for deletion, that's the reason it isn't the name of the article. It has been and is occasionally still used – seeGoogle Scholar.Qwfp (talk)18:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Create disambiguation page. When the redirect was created (in 2011), Jelcz was owned by JZS (Jelczańskie Zakłady Samochodowe), and that should still be mentioned in the article.StAnselm (talk)16:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Myceteae: better toretarget it toTingui-Botó people to be honest (I never proposed the deletion for someone to vote keep...). The fact that they speak Dzubukuá is merely a claim (and likely unfounded). Not even the source appears to support it: "Os Tingui-Botófalam o português à moda das populações rurais do nordeste. Alegam, porém, falar sua língua ancestral no ritual secreto do Ouricuri. De acordo com o cacique Eliziano de Campos e o pajé Adalberto Ferreira da Silva, sua língua é designada Dzbokuá[sic]".Yacàwotçã (talk)06:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kepler-1229b, just noting Campbell equating one language to the other is explicitly based on Glottolog (circular reference). He further clearly states Ethnologue classifies it as dormant and unclassified, so it's at least disputed. By the way, on the source it reads, "They retain some of their ancestral language for ritual purposes, but this language is Dzubukuá". "But" is an adversative conjunction, so apparently they were not supposed to speak Dzubukuá. Glottolog's source to state this ishttp://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/povo/tingui-boto/1050, which in turn seems to be based on a single person claiming to speak "Dzbokuá" [sic].
All that 'but' means is that their liturgical language is not a distinct Tingui-Botó language. Harald's source is Vera Lúcia Calheiros Mata.[16]
There is nothing extraordinary here to require extraordinary evidence. The relevant passage in Calheiros Mata isDe acordo com o cacique Eliziano de Campos e o pajé Adalberto Ferreira da Silva, sua língua é designada Dzbokuá.— kwami (talk)05:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thereare lots of extraordinary things here, one of them being the allegation that a language documented only twice in 1702 and 1709 is actually miraculously alive, with two people claiming to still speak it in a secrete (!) ritual... Come on.
No studies on it? Queiroz wrote two thesis on the language last decade and accidently missed out this extraordinary fact? I repeat: this is solely based on this claim by people who can't even write the name of the language correctly, and unfortunately some sources replicate it without due diligence. No need for more circular reference.Yacàwotçã (talk)05:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no one claims it's miraculously alive. if you have a better or contradictory ref, please present it.
what do the catechisms have to do with anything?
also, i wasn´t aware it was a written language.
but of course two things having the same name doesn´t mean they're the same thing, though it would be OR to make such a claim.
you can of course write harald and ask if the similarity in name is all he has to go on, which would be quite weak evidence indeed.— kwami (talk)07:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toFeminine hygiene, which is whereMenstrual hygiene productsMenstrual hygiene products redirects. I confess my ignorance here but I don't think there are menstrual products that are outside the 'hygiene' category as described in the article. Even if there are, this article covers the major examples of menstrual products readers are likely looking for. There is a sectionFeminine hygiene#Menstrual hygiene products but I would just target to the main article. 'Menstrual hygiene products' is bolded in the lead and treated as the major category. My sense is that 'feminine hygiene products' is often used euphemistically to refer specifically to menstrual products but can also refer to the broader category of products that are covered later in the article. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)20:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely unrelated, none of these redirect titles are ever mentioned in the article. As seen from their page information, they are barely used. These should be deleted. —EarthDude (Talk)02:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page has multiple incoming links from Lieber's other projects. If she is indeed not notable, then this redirect should just be deleted, as she is clearly notonly known for this film (and if anything, her role in it seems fairly minor). —Anonymous23:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article and consider AFD for proper assessment. The article was recently BLAR'd (May 2025). It was getting >700monthly pageviews pre-BLAR and continues to get ≈400 views per month post-BLAR. Quite possibly just an artifact of being linked in a few high-traffic articles. Linking to a random movie she appeared in doesn't make any sense. Even if this is her most high profile role, the article (appropriately) contains zero biographical information and doesn't even discuss her performance.If found non-notable at AfD this shouldnot be made to redirect back to the film. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)18:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ugh...delete anddo not restore unless someone actually thinks the sources are usable. as is, citation 1 is a filmography and not usable for notability, citation 2 only mentions her in passing in the context of one random episode of friends where she's one of two actresses for the same character, citation 3 only mentions her in passing in the context of a one-off appearance in seinfeld, and seems to be from a blog, and i have to wonder what the hell citation 4 is doing there because it seems to be nothing but the headline followed by a picture of her and who i'm assuming is her husband. as is, i found some seemingly usable sources for her, but they're not in the article, so a closer would be restoring a filmography with effectively one source that doesn't prove notability, meaning she unambiguously doesn't meet gng as is, and if an article were to be made from those sources, it would be underwp:tnt, whether the creator wants that to be the case or not. honestly, people saying that it should be taken elsewhere without actually assessing the stuff they want taken elsewhere should stop, since it only actually means they want someone else to deal with a potentially really simple caseconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)22:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is pukovnija "regiment" and Pukovnija "Regiment", the latter being a territorial division of (among others) theAustrian Military Frontier ("Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products"). I will change the target to the relevant section of the Military Frontier article.Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ)23:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak nom, if this needs clarifying. also, my suggestionisn't to delete. feel i should get this out of the way early so it's not misconstrued(again)
the use in the context of wikipedia seems to be the primary topic by a pretty wide margin. for example, a search for "fancruft" net me 4630 results, while "fancruft -wikipedia" got 571, and those were pretty much all in the context of pages in other wikis using the term in the context of wikipedia (or shamelessly taken from it), but that happened to not mention it (hell, one was from wikt-pt). thus,retarget towp:fancruft?consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jay-Z's son, not mentioned in the target presumably forWP:BLPNAME reasons. We shouldn't have a redirect as long as he isn't mentioned in the article, and additionally there is no reason to prefer Jay-Z's article to Beyonce, his mother's, if we did.Rusalkii (talk)18:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This probably shouldn't exist. While crapola is generally synonymous with crap in terms of something being junk, none of the disambiguated terms for crap really match up with what crapola means. I don't think there's a great target for this, so it's likely best deleted.Casablanca 🪨(T)18:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect towikt:crapola. There is a never-ending interest in obscenities and related word forms. Many prominent examples are described on en-wiki, possibly increasing the likelihood that this one will be searched for. I agree that the brief definition atCrap fails to capture the meaning ofcrapola. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)21:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is any potential for lack of unanimity while closing, I am perfectly okay with soft redirect if consensus continues to head that way.Casablanca 🪨(T)01:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No explanation at the target as to why does this redirect exist. It's a name redirecting to someone with a different given name but the same surname.SuperΨDro17:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious if Lee Teng-hui is the primary topic for this. Based on my own Google search, Lee Teng-hui is the first topic. However, the first page also has links to John Dewey and Larry Diamond (seehere). With the recent creation of bothMr. Democracy andMr. Democracy (disambiguation), I thought it would be worthwhile as a community to determine whether this is a correct primary topic.Significa liberdade(she/her) (talk)15:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not blocking a move (or at least was not) perWP:MOR, which allows moving over a redirect if the redirect only has one history entry and is targeting the page being moved to it. The next race at Atlanta for the series as well is going to be under the O'Reilly Auto Parts moniker, so I don't think it's too premature either as ticket listings for next year are listing it as the O'Reilly Auto Parts series (c.f.Fr8 208 and Bennett 250).Casablanca 🪨(T)14:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect title is not used in a single neutral and reliable source which I could find online, including both news sources as well as scholarly one. None of them have characterised this as a massacre. Worst of all, over the span of more than a decade, the redirect has barely gotten above a thousand views and it is clear it is seldom used. It should be deleted. —EarthDude (wannatalk?)18:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's strong evidence for deletion, or at the very least for converting to a disambiguation page, though I wouldn't support such. The second source refers to the redirect target; the third source refers to the aftermath of theDemolition of the Babri Masjid, two years later; the first source does not specify, but is clearly not referring to the redirect target.Vanamonde93 (talk)18:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93 I completely missed that the years don't line up. That's entirely my bad. I'm striking my vote and comment, but leaving the articles because they do support your point.Casablanca 🪨(T)18:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬13:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What does "seemingly no affinity" mean? Sotong literally means squid in both languages... I know we don't encourage excessive use of foreign terminology in articles and redirects, but it wouldn't be an unusual term to see and we have several articles on Malay dishes that use it. Perhaps aretarget toSquid as food would be better.Reywas92Talk13:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"affinity" here means how significant any given alternate language term is to its topic in general, and how plausible that would make a redirect from that language. for example, "brasil" is a plausible redirect tobrazil since it has demonstrably high affinity with portuguese (why is beyond me, though, don't they speak spanish?), butब्राजिल, which is nepali for brazil, doesn't have affinity because there's no demonstrable relation between them that could warrant a redirect like that being plausible. in this case, indonesia and malaysia don't have any particular affinity with squid as far as wikipedia cares, with the word and countries both being unmentioned in the target and your proposed target
don't they speak spanish? Nope, they speak Brazilian Portuguese, a fact noted on theBrazil Wikipedia page-- which is *why* thebrazilianportuguese name of the country has affinity, a country's name written in its own native tongue will always have affinity.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)17:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC) (edit 17:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Retarget toSinglish vocabulary#sotong is the most helpful course of action. It has a link towikt:sotong, both the squid and cuttlefish definitions, and a couple of extra definitions. It doesn't comment on Indonesian, but it is a very similar language to Malay. Alternative good options are keep (redirects from synonym, even without definition, tend to be understood by readers very naturally and easily) or retarget towikt:sotong which has the most comprehensive set of definitions. Not enamoured with either deletion or disambiguation as a useful option here, so I don't think we can fit in the mention atSo, Communication.J947 ‡edits20:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a reasonably common typo, is not new and is harmless. How might deleting it improve the encyclopaedia? How does nominating it improve the encyclopaedia? It doesn't: It wastes the time of several people which could be spent on constructive work. All the best:RichFarmbrough08:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as a random typo. It's one thing to have useful shortcuts and synonyms for templates, but it's quite another to have obscure typos. Why this and not every other letter transposition for every template in existence (including redirects thereto)? Not existing would be better, as the mistake is immediately obvious, and doesn't obscure template usage for those looking for it.35.139.154.158 (talk)17:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Peter Ward mentioned in the target article. Google suggests there's a Peter Ward engaged in some kind of spat with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, but I don't think it's due weight to include in the article as is.Rusalkii (talk)02:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of these two? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!01:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (andrefine to #fricatives).This sound, in case anyone is wondering. It is referenced in the article, and has been hypothesised for several languages. I am altering the redirect target to the relevant section.Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ)16:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Иованъ as a heads-up, you don't actually want to retarget a redirect mid-rfd. on top of generally disrupting the process, closures can also target it elsewhere anyway. here, it effectively means that your vote is actually torefine to #fricativesconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)17:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is apparently an archaic spelling of "federal" (sometimes with the œ digraph), one which died out well before the modern state that this refers to came into being, so there's no particular reason that this should exist.35.139.154.158 (talk)04:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it shouldn't exist is that it's useless. No one is plausibly going to use the archaic spelling (do you even know what archaic means?), and if they do, they should have no expectation that it would work.35.139.154.158 (talk)15:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't buy the argument that it's useless"Facepalm, really? really? You're going to sit here with a straight face and suggest someone might actually type this in? Really? Really? Come on, even in 1791, the latest quote given in the Wiktionary entry, Google ngram viewer shows a 250:1 preference for "federal" over "foederal". And yes, useless redirects are a maintenance burden and should be deleted with extreme prejudice. The hypothetical redirectFedderral rePUbliK of jermeny would have a clear, unambiguous target, and it should still be deleted as useless. The only resource intensive part of this is having to deal with the people that show up here arguing to keep these because "oh noes someone might delete a precious redirect" or something. Come on, enough is enough already.35.139.154.158 (talk)16:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete there is under one page of google hits of which all but two appear to be wikipedia or scrapers, suggesting this is in fact a very unlikely error. The two that don't seem to be scrapers look like transcription errors rather than a deliberate use of the archaic form. On the other hand, it's harmless and unambigious.Rusalkii (talk)21:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. can't really see what would give an archaic (out of fashion, no longer in regular use), obsolete (powercrept, outdated) spelling of a word affinity with a country that not only doesn't even have english as its primary language, but whose existence under the name "germany" seems to postdate the word going out of style. also, germany has replacedœ withö, which is kinda funnyconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)11:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whileföderal (on typewriters without umlauts speltfoederal) is the German translation of federal, this mix of German and English is of no use. And as an English word it never was in existence since the founding of theBundesrepublik. Grüße vomSänger ♫ (talk)07:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) orRetarget (2nd choice) toLes Sans Culottes as{{R from member}} (😏),{{R from misspelling}}, and{{R from miscapitalisation}}. The drummer is named Jacques Strappe and the standard is to redirect band members to the band page, when they don't have their own article. He's mentioned in the history section and listed in the infobox. This is a plausible misspelling; Jacques is a name people have trouble with. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 14:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Edited !vote. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)00:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still prefer deletion due to the combination of the misspelling and capitalization error, but Myceteae's retarget suggestion seems reasonable also.Rusalkii (talk)21:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I've amended my !vote. My main position isdo not keep. Deletion is reasonable given the combination of errors. If not deleted, the band is a better target theSimpsons episode or the current title. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)00:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Created because of a line onWP:RWW, but this is not mentioned anywhere on the page, nor does it seem to be a likely synonym. Tertiary sources are not necessarily "reference works".Utopes(talk /cont)07:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Heck, I think the target article needs a new name since a "tertiary source" (or heck, even a "secondary source") doesn't necessarily refer to references or documents. I've heard the phrases used quite a bit when it comes to secondary or tertiary sources ofelectricity for a building or device. (Yeah, this is a discussion for a different time, but still ... I just realized that there seems to be no mention of this concept on the English Wikipedia.)Steel1943 (talk)21:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a reasonable synonym or at least an important category oftertiary source. The target describes tertiary sources that are reference works, such as encyclopedias and dictionaries. It provides a broader definition oftertiary source and addresses some of the ambiguity with the terminology. This redirect is unlikely to cause confusion. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this makes sense as a redirect. While this is obviously a natural mishearing/spelling for "Secret O' Life", it's a very common phrase. We have a number of plausible other targets, including the three atThe Secret of Life. Possibly this should be added to the dab and redirected there?Rusalkii (talk)22:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget The Secret of Life: Partners, Volume Two has 2,519 views, the song has 183 and the album has 66 compared with only 221[[17]] for Secret O' Life. Given the other 3 uses all use "Secret of Life" rather than "Secret O' Life" (apart from the article and sub title) I would argue that the other uses are more likely than the current target. Perhaps perWP:DABNAME the DAB should be moved here.Crouch, Swale (talk)19:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to dab pageThe Secret of Life.The secret of life is a common phrase and (when capitalized) is the title of several works.Secret of Life isn't substantially closer toSecret O' Life orThe Secret of Life as a PTM. And yes,addSecret O' Life to the dab page. It's very similar and apparently the James Taylor song is sometimes styled this way. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)00:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree — don't change the dab page name. It includes threeThe Secret of Life's, oneSecret O' Life, and not a singleSecret of Life. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)15:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very general term. Not mentioned in target, and the chaos meaning doesn't seem to be primary. The first page of google hits is almost entirely RPG related, but we don't have any content on that.Rusalkii (talk)00:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as hopelessly vague. results i got were either assorted math stuff or a recurring gameplay element inmonster hunter games... but the latter is actually called "critical distance", so i have no idea what it's doing there. no wiktionary entry eitherconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)12:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague. This has a variety of specific uses that we don't use or define on en-wiki so there is nothing to dab. It's also a rather generic phrase that can appear in any number of unrelated contexts. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)17:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I doubt there's reliable sourcing that would pass muster on WP, this is the joke/meme we're talking about. A prankster announces: "Oh, it's so sad that Steve Jobs died ofligma" hoping for a dupe to respond, "What's ligma?". But someone wise to the ligma joke retorts, "Who the hell is Steve Jobs?" implying thatligma is so well-known that it eclipses the fame of what's-his-name at Apple.BBQboffingrill me00:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is, literally a joke, but "redirects are cheap" perWP:RFD and cataloguing humor is part of building an encyclopedia, as it is part of human culture and experience. For those voting "delete", it's no laughing matter, but in future years, if you ask for the best medicine, remember this day.BBQboffingrill me04:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeic/regional name, used for several different types of animal - the OED specifically defines it as a "A snake, slow worm, or lizard"[18]. My own google search seems to confirm that "snake" is a more common meaning[19][20][21]. Um... I don't know how to bundle RfD nominations, but same goes forLong crippleGreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋23:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overwhelmingly, the most common meaning online is actually: "A drinking game where a coin is placed between the buttocks, and the player attempts to drop it into a cup by squatting. The rules can vary, but typically if the coin is dropped in the cup, everyone else drinks, and if it's missed, the player drinks." There are a couple less common uses, including anal sex. These should bedeleted. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)23:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? This is contrary to my findings. Urban Dictionary does include your definition but almost every single Google hit was for the supposed party game. The 'anal sex' meaning possibly originates withSuperstar (1999 film) but I found references to the party game going back to the 2000's so it is nearly as old and far more common online now.[22][23][24][25] Unsurprisingly, reliable sources don't define the term but I'm finding next to nothing to support theanal sex meaning and dozens of forum, social media, and blog posts about the game. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)18:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently an alias he used when banned from a Tetris tournament for being too good[26]. Funny story, but we don't discuss anything about his tetris career in the article let alone this nickname.Rusalkii (talk)23:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no relation to the topic provided, not existing as an established brand or technical term. Should be deleted. Longer: Android is a operating system of smartphones. A lot of smartphone manufacturers use it and sell (marketing term) so called "flagship". There is no reason to redirect to a arbitrary selected manufacturer and even more arbitrarily select a modell of this company.Amtiss,SNAFU ?22:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's promotional and could apply to any number of phones. I quickly found reviews describing dozens of different Android phones as "flagship". —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)23:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is not an arbitrary manufacturer: Android is Google product and Google Nexus was, at one time, an "official flavor" of Android as opposed to manufacturer modifications. Google Nexus phones were also often the first release phones with the latest Android versions.MKFI (talk)13:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this is the literal meaning of "Ye olde" I do not expect most of the (very few) people searching for "The old" to be looking for the phrase "ye olde", the entire point of which is the weird spelling. This primarily has the effect of cluttering search for anything starting with "The old".Rusalkii (talk)22:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's not exactly "vandalism" and may be have been well intentioned but this redirect is disruptive. Unlikely search (for this target) that is impeding search for PTMs and other targets that are far more likely. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)18:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nickname (?) not mentioned in target. Our results are for a variety of minor planets, a highway in Poland, and transit lines; google gives an assortment of random product IDs. Either delete or dab.Rusalkii (talk)21:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DABify whilst it is a nickname for the cricketer (mostly in non-reliable source and his own social media), no evidence this is the primary thing people are looking for. As multiple reasonable options, DAB page seems sensible.Joseph2302 (talk)10:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusalkii: Just a heads-up, I bundled in several other seemingly related redirects created by the same author around the same time, so we've got a total of seven now. Feel free to remove any of my additions you disagree with.Left guide (talk)01:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unclear as to if it refers to the ammo or any given part of a weapon being made from iron, and the target doesn't have enough info for either. existed as a stub mostly dedicated to mentioning that it was infable 2, and most of the results were related to that gameconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence that this is a synonym for herpes,cold sore, etc. When I searchheat sore (without quotes) on both Google and DuckDuckGo I get results forheat rash and some results about treating sore muscles with heat. The pages do not use "heat sore" as a synonym for heat rash. When I search with quotes,"heat sore", I get more sore muscles results including a lot of hits for a product called Cool and Heat Sore Muscle Roller. Google Scholar turns up nothing about herpes. Google and DuckDuckG both have suggested searchheat sores on lip that do turn up results related to cold sores as well ascanker sores and other lip/mouth sores but I'm not finding sources that actually use "heat sore" and results are essentially the same as simply searchingsores on lip. I expected to at least find Quora posts if this is a term used by some with this specific meaning. I'm inclined todelete as this phrase is not really found anywhere except incidentally and has no clear meaning. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)20:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"From the early 1990's through the beginning of the 21st Century auniverse existed, created by the good people at NBC. This universe was primarily made up of the fictionalized version of New York City. It housed the entire worlds of at least four popular NBC sitcoms, which areSeinfeld,Mad About You, andCaroline in the City."
this be a confusin' one, lads. while i got more results than some of me trips(to schools) got me loot(stolen, often piratedmockbuster cds), they be of the terms together in a sentence, an' not of a term with that name. stuff along the lines of"'pirate' and 'piracy' be terms for those fierce sailers who plunder at will an' the stuff they do, respectively" or"the terms 'pirate' and 'piracy' be ambiguous with those louts who think sailin' the net an' plunderin' code be the same as sailin' the seas an' plunderin' booty. an'this, i thinkconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)18:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did research before nominating and was aware that it exists, but I am challenging its utility since there is no relevant content at the target.Left guide (talk)23:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm incredulous that the pathological behavior described at the target is what most readers think of with "lip biting" and all but certain the emoji is never used this way. I suggest retargeting🫦 toflirting but there may be better options. Several sources describe it usage this way, or as indicatingsexual arousal.[27][28][29][30][31] Keepinglip biting as-is may be the best option but I'm nominating these together for full consideration.I amnot proposing deletion. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep I don't know if there is a PRIMARYTOPIC, but I'm pretty sure BFRB is not it. It should be noted that, besides the deliberate use in flirting and sex, (non-harming) lip biting is also a form ofstimming. Furthermore, the term is ambiguous with "biting someone else's lips", as an erotic behavior.Paradoctor (talk)22:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Per my below, change my !vote toDisambiguatelip biting and redirect🫦 there. Unless a clear primary topic can be demonstrated, of course.
Not sure why the contribution is unsigned but I'll chime in. While I don't think we need to review every prior emoji discussion each time a new one comes up, the history provides relevant precedent for how we have handled these.WP:REMOJI gives a more succinct summary. Emoji redirects are rarely deleted. When the meaning is obvious we point to the subject that corresponds with its meaning (🦁 →Lion). A few likeEggplant emoji (🍆) have their own article and a few are a soft redirect to Wiktionary where they are defined in detail. Others point toMiscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs orList of emoji or a similar list/article where they are included. I still favorFlirting for🫦 butJennifer Daniel (illustrator)#Unicode and emoji work would be a reasonable target since it provides some interesting background on this emoji, or one of the aforementioned pages that lists numerous emojis. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk03:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unicode defines the symbol as BITING LIP,[1] so the emoji goes whereverlip biting goes. The problem is that "lip biting" has several very different meanings, and, prima facie, no primary topic. Writing this, I realize that the issue here is how to disambiguate. Assuming nobody finds actual data supporting a clear primary,lip biting should be a dab page.Paradoctor (talk)03:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ioppose pointing🫦 andLip biting to the same target on the basis of the Unicode definition since the emoji has a fairly well-documented meaning or set of related meanings that does not includeBFRB,Dermatophagia, orStimming. In addition toFlirting,Sexting is another plausible target for🫦. I would not create a🫦 dab page so if I a single target can't be agreed upon then I would point it to one of the pages where it is listed. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What more do you need??? I provided the link toWP:REMOJI describing how these are typically handled. REMOJI includes a link to the 2023 RFC atWP:😃↪️📊2️⃣, which summarizes the consensus for emoji redirects as:discrete target if unambiguous, else page that serves to disambiguate, else list of symbols. (I'm not aware of an example where a dab page lives with the emoji symbol as the title, but I am aware of examples like🥙, which redirects to a set index article that serves a dab-like function.) @Enix150 (I think) provided links to multiple past emoji RfDs, which you dismissed as tl;dr. I provided five links in the nomination that describe the 🫦's use in flirtatious messages, often to indicate sexual arousal or anticipated sexual activity. This is consistent with the descriptions atEmojipedia andUrban Dictionary. Admittedly, these aren't the highest quality sources but the standard for an appropriate redirect is not the same as what we require for an actual article title. We frequently use slang, nicknames, and informal terminology to redirect to the appropriately named article when there is sufficient evidence of unambiguous usage or that the redirect is a reasonable synonym for or subtopic of the target. The official Unicode name is a consideration in these discussions but when actual usage differs from the official name, common usage prevails or we point to a list of emojis or a page where the specific emoji is described. What citation do you have to support 🫦 being predominantly used to mean any of the subjects that have been suggested for the phrases "biting lip" or "lip biting"? Creating aLip biting dab page and pointing🫦 there makes sense only if there is evidence to support a coherent set of topics to which "lip biting" refersand evidence that 🫦 is frequently used to refer to all or most of these same entries. Otherwise, it's appropriate for these to have different targets. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh,Dermatophagia is worse thanBFRB. Lip biting is also mentioned there (at the current target). Google, Google Scholar, and DuckDuckGo all turn up hits for BFRB on searches forlip biting so our current target is at least consistent with search engines. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk14:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that strongly either way about it, keepingLip biting as a redirect toBFRB is fine by me. I honestly thought an article would've been written by now on Lip biting as a topic.Enix150 (talk)01:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. "Lip biting" is a general phenomenon: I realized I was gently biting by lower lip while I was reading the nomination statement, because I was concentrating one something. Nearly everybody does this sort of thing. I agree that the emoji should target the same place as "lip biting", but since there's no viable target for the first redirect, they should both be deleted. I think the emoji is too ambiguous to refer toflirting orlips.Cremastra (talk·contribs)02:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬16:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listing this one separately because the target does cover a wildfire in the state of Alaska with the name 'Michigan'. However, I believe someone searching this would be looking for a wildfire in the state of Michigan, which is not covered in the target. --Tavix(talk)14:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the target article does not currently have any information on wildfires in these states. Maybe it will in the future, but wecannot guess. Also note that Wisconsin and Delaware are misspelled. --Tavix(talk)14:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. These aren't entirely harmless because people are prone to forget which year a fire occurred in a given state. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)17:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. People are likely to forget which year fires occurred so are potentially misleading, in addition to being simply incorrect. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)17:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment other Cloud platforms also have us-east-1s, though I think the only one we mention is Google and that's typically rendered us-east1.Rusalkii (talk)23:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for being a plausible redirect from a non-notable article but nevertheless related subject, and I'm going to quick close the discussion since you did not list any deletion rationale perWP:SKCRIT.Go D. Usopp(talk)12:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reopened. "Useless" is arguably a deletion rationale. It's also not good form to close a discussion that you have participated in. --Tavix(talk)13:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The lead notes that the champions cup will be played in 2027 in a T20 format. Redirects are cheap. This one's not misleading.Katiedevi (talk)03:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say 'implausible'. A reader could be confused by whether it's a cup or trophy but still remember all the other details. In my opinion, there's a weak link between 'trophy' and 'cup' which is why I suggested 'weak keep' and not 'keep'.Katiedevi (talk)01:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was released less than a week ago and it's been averaging 605 page views a day for the past 30 days and it's near and above 1,000 for the past week. There probably are external sites linking to this redirect. Should reassess deleting it after page views go much lower.Skynxnex (talk)14:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect currently links to a disambiguation. The article was previously of poor quality before being reverted to a redirect. It serves the same purpose as "Gaza war ceasefire".DS21948 (talk)00:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"remanié" is a term only mentioned in passing. results imply the primary topic is a surname or a french word (which is completely unrelated to fossils), and i only got one result actually related to fossilsconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)12:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & update target toFossils#Derived or reworked (remove the comma). There is a prominent, italicized usage and definition in the first sentence of this section:Aderived,reworked orremanié fossil is a fossil found in rock that accumulated significantly later than when the fossilized animal or plant died. On Google, I get a mix of dictionary definitions and geology sites that confirm this definition, French–English dictionaries, and a few sites that list other uses in English that are French borrowings.Wiki search mostly turn up quotes in French. This appears to be the most common meaning in English and is the only one for which we have an encyclopedia entry. This is an appropriate{{R to diacritic}} although I'm unclear whether that should be used with an{{R to section}} or only to matching page titles and list entries. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague;weak retarget toConscience as distant second choice. The first thing I thought of was the ‘issue’ of healthcare workers refusing to provide certain services like birth control that conflict with their personal moral ‘conscience’. Just about everything having to do with conscience could be called aconscience issue. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk13:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: this two-word term is a very common way of talking about conscience votes (which are definitely not a niche part of the Westminster system). I'm unconvinced that this is a commonly-used term in any other context. If the reader is looking forconscience, there is a prominent link in the first sentence of the target.J947 ‡edits02:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it's a niche part of the Westminster system, I said that it's a niche topic and that it's about the Westminster system. It can be a relatively prominent part of the Westminster system -- it's still a niche topic. The term is commonly used in the context of this niche topic, but commonly used in the context of a niche topic is still not more frequent than even less-than-commonly used in the context of all the other possible, general topics, like religion for example. When I perform a Google search for "conscience issues" all of the results have something to do with religion and not with the Westminster system.—Alalch E.02:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't say that you said that. I was simply clarifying as those words could be read that way. My Google results are dominated by NZ politics, but there's still quite a few on religion (you can see similar if you add the name of a country that uses the Westminster system to the end of your search). I'm not sure we've got a good target for the term in religion, or even whether it has a consistent meaning. But we've definitely got a good target for the former.J947 ‡edits03:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My Google results are dominated by the Christian concept, usually calledissues of conscience butconscience issues is used synonymously. Next most common are philosophy and neuroscience articles about conscience, sometimes in relation to consciousness. Not a single reference toconscience votes or NZ politics/Westminster system on the first three pages of Google results. Several references to the health care law issue in the United States. DuckDuckGo gives different results, more definitions but some Christian sites and nothing about Westminster system. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although AWN was the name this historical noticeboard had before it was moved out of userspace all those years ago, I believe that an entry forAnimation World Network should be added toWP:RSP so that the shortcut can be retargeted to there instead.Not a whole lot of pages link to this shortcut, so the worst-case scenario is that a user digging through archived discussions (and lacking prior knowledge of the historical context) is left puzzled as to how a troublemaker could've been brought up at an RSP entry for one particular source.
Keep perWP:R#K4 unless someone is willing to go back and updatethe links to this redirect. Breaking internal links is not something we should start doing precisely because people going through historical discussions might get confused. Even then, links found in edit summaries and old revisions will be broken no matter what if the redirect is retargeted, but we should at least fix the links we can.AW probably stood for "Article Writers'". Seethis old revision ofWikipedia:Content noticeboard/Navbox.Warudo (talk)13:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The combination of issues makes this extremely improbable. This redirect has only302 "all-time" views (of which 6 appear to be a result of this listing). This is low even compared to many other redirects that are deleted as implausible/useless. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)20:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Note that the camel case TrailBlazer styling was also used at one point for theChevrolet S-10 Blazer. My understanding is that they officially dropped camel case for both current Trailblazers but usage in the wild can be inconsistent. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)20:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
self-explanatory... or at least it would be, if the concept was defined at the target beyond the name, and not subject to varying definitions of "total" and "energy" depending on context. was blar'd for merging, but there was nothing actually worth merging, so there's no reason to worry about that part. incoming links also seem to be using it for varying definitions as well, so that's annoyingconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)18:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep (Speedy Keep). The reason why there are more than one definition in the article is because there are! They are not really that different, rather connect to context/discipline/application. I read the articleEnergy and saw nothing wrongexcept for the "See also" section where someone had incorrectly added some topics related toWikiproject Energy. There are also many pages that link toEnergy which should not, e.g.Andalusia, this is something which WikiProject Energy should cleanup. It is probably appropriate to expand the hat at the top ofEnergy slightly to try and avoid such errors of fact. This topic has little to do with that project, but is relevant to almost every other science includingWP:WikiProject Chemistry,WP:WikiProject Engineering...
As an addendum, if needed, the term "Total energy" is a reasonable search term and should redirect to Energy as it currently does. There are some others such as "Total Free Energy", "Total Kinetic Energy" which could also be similarly redirected. I cannot see any rationale for aWP:RETURNTORED, a "Total Energy" page would be inappropriate via either or bothWP:NOTDICTIONARY &WP:CFORK. I think this is an inappropriate nom, hence my vote of Speedy Keep.Ldm1954 (talk)02:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Ugh. These lists are a MeSS. But the target is unambiguous and the wording makes sense in the context where it's used. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)20:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this was created many years ago because it is a Medical Subject Heading of the US National Library of Medicine. As such it is a term used in many sources. -SimonP (talk)22:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned in the target article. Was an unreferenced stub article in 2006 until it was redirected to a character list in 2007 which was then deleted in 2024.Mika1h (talk)12:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While he is nicknamed "AD" and does play in the NBA I can't find any evidence that he is commonly referred to as "AD NBA". A search just gives a bunch of results like "#AD #NBA".Rusalkii (talk)21:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe that Anthony Davis isWP:PTOPIC even for AD within the NBA, as noted aboveAdrian Dantley. It was also the nickname for Arnold Duggger who was drafted into the NBA, but didn't play any games, although that's not a great argument related to PTOPIC either way. I think between the David/Dantley ambiguity and the way it is a non-standard disambiguator, this would probably be best deleted. As an alternative,AD (disambiguation)#People could work. I just added Dantley to the DAB. I do think deletion works better though because it is a nonstandard disambiguation method.Casablanca 🪨(T)18:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently an unreleased album that is not mentioned anywhere at the target article. People looking for information about this unreleased album that was supposedly recorded in 2023, will not be able to read about their search term at the target page. "Bad Bitch Playbook" is not mentioned anywhere on all of Wikipedia.Utopes(talk /cont)06:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsMario97:, there is a difference becauseDonda: With Child is mentioned atDonda#Background, where the context for the search term is given as:The album had its name briefly changed to Donda: With Child, which was later reversed., with a citation for this. On the contrary, there is no such mention for "Bad Bitch Playbook" on Vultures 1 (which is a very different name), nor is it listed as an unreleased project on the linked list.Utopes(talk /cont)08:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find reliable source saying this was a former name or working title forVultures 1. The suggestions from ItsMario97 and Easternsahara that it could plausibly targeteitherVultures 1 orList of unreleased projects by Kanye West are nonsensical. If it *was released* under the titleVultures 1, why would it point to a list of unreleased works? If it *was not released* why would it point to an album that was? The contradictory suggestions indicate that there is no good target. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)20:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is a useful redirect as is, or if it should go to a Unicode page. This appears to be aWikt:◌̷, or a "combining short solidus overlay"? Someone searching for a specific unicode character probably wants to read about the character rather than striking through things in general.Utopes(talk /cont)08:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, you've been really active here lol. Uh, yeah that's fair. I don't have an opinion either way on that redirect, but I do think it's still somewhat useful.Gaismagorm(talk)13:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen a few of these combining character redirects and I think all of them should be deleted. The fact that you can't even click on the links makes them useless for links and hard for moderation.CheeseyHead (talk)00:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refine toStrikethrough#Unicode. I don't anticipate this will be a common search term but I agree that someone looking for information on the Unicode character is among the likeliest scenarios. Sending readers to that information in the context where the this character is used is more helpful than just sending them to the main article. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)20:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a connection between Moodle and ErfurtWiki, but it is not mentioned at the page and I cannot find a great source to add it in.Casablanca 🪨(T)02:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comment in the AFD is incorrect. Moodle was not built on top of ErfurtWiki. You can create wikis inside Moodle as an activity. It is only the wiki created as an activity through Moodle that is based on ErfurtWiki. It's like redirecting 'Meat' to 'Sausage' because sausages contain meat, but they are not the same thing and redirecting in this way is misleading. Sausages are made of more than meat and meat contributes to more than just sausages.DrKay (talk)16:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete During Peter's reign, Georgia existed as a triarchy with the Kingdoms of Imereti, Kartli, and Kakheti. None of these were controlled by Russia, so there is no affinity.Casablanca 🪨(T)20:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refine toNeo-Nazism#Sweden; anyone searching that term would most likely seek info about the subject in Sweden. It would also be a good idea to add the redirect as a langx template in the "Sweden" section.Retarget toNazism in Sweden#Neo-Nazism; anyone searching that term would most likely seek info about the subject in Sweden. It would also be a good idea to add the redirect's term as a langx template in the section.𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞?17:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word "nynazism" itself does not mean Swedish specific Neo-Nazism though it just means literally Neo-Nazism. If a Swede is talking about non-Swedish neo-Nazis this is the word they would use, so anyone searching this would expect to find the main neo-Nazi article without a specific section. No one would search it to find specifically Swedish Neo-Nazis so this still failsWP:RLANG... also, whywould you mention it as a langx there? Do we give the local language for all English words that appear in articles if the article they appear in happens to be discussing another country? Should still be deleted.PARAKANYAA (talk)05:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target nor atTonsillitis. This appears to be a rare manifestation of syphilis and a rare cause of tonsillitis and therefore likelyWP:UNDUE for inclusion at either target. Per the edit summary, this was created as part of aWP:DERM initiative to create articles or redirects for every single entry atList of skin conditions and every rare disease mentioned in a well regarded dermatology textbook. Lacking suitable content, this should bedeleted. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)01:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a synonym of "syphilis" so the language cited atWP:RFD#DELETE #8 is irrelevant. Anyone searching this already knows it has something to do with syphilis and sending them to a 6,000 word article that doesn't describe the condition isn't helpful. It's more considerate of readers' time to identify that the topic is not covered. They might then go to a search engine where they will find several case reports in a matter of second, as we both did while looking into this. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)13:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know this surprises some Wikipedia editors, as we're generally quite literate, but the fact is that not everyone who sees that name (e.g., on a medical report) will actually know that it's the 'syphilis' part of the name that matters instead of the 'tonsiliitis' part, especially when it's obvious that it's your throat that hurts.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readers with low literacy/health literacy are even less well served by this redirect. When someone searches for a specific complication of syphilis, we should not send them to a page that does not address it at all. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)14:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with retargeting. As someone who speaks Australian English, the first thing I think of when I hear "dictation test" is the immigration policy of Australia, since every child in this country learns about the dictation test of theWhite Australia Policy during third grade of primary school. Not everyone who uses Wikipedia uses American English or British English, and while you claim that it "doesn't seem like it would be what a user... would want to see",that is not what a typical Google search seems to corroborate, the top 50 results all relate to Australian immigration policy. Unless you can provide ample evidence that a "dictation test" is acommonly used synonym for a dictation exercise, I am in favour ofkeeping the redirect, or at the very least, converting it to a disambiguation page. --benlisquareT•C•E13:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Benlisquare: Thank you for the information. However, I have used four different search engines and only Google has a search result for the Australian immigration test, and Bing has a search suggestion for "dictation test australia".[35](Google),[36](DuckDuckGo),[37](Bing), and[38](Startpage). To ensure fairness, screenshots were taken by zooming out to the minimum zoom allowed, and taking a screenshot.
Thus, I conclude that our google searches aren't enough to determine this since they contradict each other.
So I searched Google Ngram ([39]), and the correlation between the two terms seem to be not insignificant, but not decisive either, looking purely at the recent usage. Any ideas on what else might help determine this, or whether there is a flaw in my reasoning?
Also, please note that while Australian English's use of "dictation test" to refer to what the redirect currently points to is significant, it's probably more important to focus on how the majority of English speakers use it, and your comment appears to overemphasise the Australian usage of the term. (I checked Google Trends ([40]) and it looks like Australia accounts for 1/3 of the global usage.) But that aside, thank you for the useful information.
Tex82 is mentioned but no longer has a section; however, the more prominent issue at hand is that "TeX 1982" does not seem to be used to refer to TeX82 much at all. This is probably best deleted as it is not covered by name at the target and it is not seemingly a commonly used term. I will note, it is hard to find if this term is used because results forTex (film) kept popping up because that movie is from 1982.Casablanca 🪨(T)00:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target. It is not a synonym but is a rare[41] or at least rarely reported[42] manifestation of secondary syphilis that has a variety or presentations. It is mentioned atNecklace of Venus, which is just one such presentation of LS, but that target seems to narrow.Syphilis has a wide spectrum of presentations and manifestations and it would not be appropriate to try to list them all in the article. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)23:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target and not synonymous. It can be caused by other infectious diseases such asyaws. It is mentioned in the article for one of the physicians who discovered it,Édouard Jeanselme, but not the other,Adolfo Lutz (except that the 'See also' includes a link to this redirect). Redirecting to one seems arbitrary. It is not listed atList of eponymous diseases. It could be added there but should not also redirect there as this would create a circular link. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)23:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects to a different episode, "Remember". The episode title "Once In Your Life" is nowhere to be found in the episode list.Jameboy (talk)22:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the history the is an{{R from move}} but it's not tagged as such. Not clear why the episode article/redirect was changed completely. Error?Delete unless I'm missing something. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)22:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a mass redirect creation spree possibly by AI. Unhelpful redirects as there are no confirmed wildfires for 2026, and thus no relevant content at the respective targets. Proposing todelete all.Left guide (talk)22:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that all the mentions of this are gone from the target (although I don't know if they've ever been there?), how about redirect to wiktionary?Stumbling9655 (talk)07:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RetargetHodl toHödl as per Shhhnotsoloud, tag asR to diacritic. It's plausible that someone could type in Hodl while meaning for Hödl; not everyone has access to the keys that would allow someone to type an ö character. On the flipside,DeleteHODL as perWP:RETURNTORED. Vgbyp may be right in that there's enough info to make a full article for this topic; in that case, we need to delete the redirect, so that someone in the future will be alerted that we don't have information on the topic, rather than pipe it to Wiktionary.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)00:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also reaffirming retarget/delete as per Pppery; one sentence with a link to wikt isn't enough to support the redirect, especially when, even after getting to the section in question, you still need to CTRL-F to *find* this tiny piece of discussion of the term. We'reWP:NOTWIKTIONARY.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)03:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hodl. Mention is there, and was there at the time of nomination too. To be fair, the term was bundled here by Shhhnotsoloud, and not by nom. Also tag it as an{{R from merge}} asit was merged to the target, as mentioned atthe second AfD. Second choice, retarget to the Hödl dabif the Bitcoin entry is added there. If the uppercase HODL is used for the same term, keep, otherwise delete. Jay 💬09:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it has a mention, which it does at this time. And as long as the mention indicates that "Hodl is a term meaning..." and links to a source that uses "HODL" in all caps (which it does), thenHODL is a fairly harmless alternate-cap redirect. The solution should be adding a hatnote saying "Hodl redirects here, for the surname, seeHödl".Utopes(talk /cont)02:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RetargetHodl →Hödl anddeleteHODL. Redirects to diacritics are quite useful for en.wiki readers. "HODL" is barely mentioned in the Bitcoin article. It would be more useful to send readers to search, where the term is mentioned in several articles.{{Wiktionary}} and{{canned search}} forhodl,HODL, etc. could be added toHödl to help readers typing "hodl" instead of "HODL". --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Myceteae. The current target's text never mentions the all-caps variant; as long as it doesn't warrant mention in the text, it looks like an error. No objection to recreation if consensus holds that HODL should be present in the article. And the various Hödls are seemingly more long-term significant than this slang term; we can just throw aSee also ==> bitcoin§Use for investment and status as an economic bubble into the Hödl disambiguation page.Nyttend (talk)21:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to the simple fact that a close was disputed. For that reason, this discussion may potentially need more time. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Steel1943 (talk)18:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Hödl as a surname is very minor and can be handled with a hatnote. The "hold on for dear life" backronym lends credence to all-caps usage. --Tavix(talk)14:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as I’ve added previous afds here and ontalk:Hodl which were previously invisible. The momentum seems to be shifting away from retargeting to Wiktionary as was first suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Thepharoah17 (talk)21:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment this exists because i do csd maintenance sometimes and got very upset about how many g11s use bare urls (that is if they use urls at all)Oreocooke (talk)21:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are plenty of similar things out there that might get confused besides just words, where someone would use the phrase "not to be confused with ...".35.139.154.158 (talk)23:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a common phrase that does not have a corresponding encyclopedia article. I wasastonished to see what this targets. The article does not even describe the most common uses, which are fordifferent words that are spelled or pronounced similarly or concepts that are often confused or conflated (which may have very dissimilar names). —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)01:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because a corresponding encyclopedia article doesn't exist doesn't mean there doesn't have to be a template/redirect. (That is very common (such as{{Uw-move3}}). Plus "Not to be confused with" is what the{{Distinguish}} hatnote produces.Cyberthetiger🐯 (talk)02:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or DAB) This needn't (and shouldn't) be mentioned at the target, but I can see it helping readers. It is, as noted above, a rather common mispronunciation of the target. I think itbenefits the reader to keep this. There is a bit of ambiguity as there is a part ofNick Arcade that is called the Specific Ocean, as is a color for theJackson Soloist SL4X, aKyo Maclear title, and a track onGuerrilla (album). With that said, I do believe Pacific Oean to be the overwhelmingPTOPIC; however, it is very hard to quantify given the way it exists. If not, a DAB could work as well. Deletion should likely not occur given that multiple Wikipedia articles mention this specific term.Casablanca 🪨(T)22:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DABify with Casablanca Rock's suggestions. The opener could be something along the lines of:
Specific Ocean is a mispronunciation or mishearing ofPacific Ocean. It may also refer to: (…)
DAB pages thatonly consist of humorous or erroneous entries don't make a lot of sense but here we have several things actually named Specific Ocean. I agree that the Pacific Ocean is the likely PTOPIC but people searching this may be looking for an explanation of this usage (which we appropriately do not provide atPacific Ocean) or one of the other documented uses. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)14:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I call for deletion since it didn't happen and it may be misleading for those (newbies, visitors and editors alike) who may want info on this without the overview one. It's not even listed on its organizer'sCAF website to boot!Intrisit (talk)12:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the target indicates that this tournament did not return after its initial run in 2023 and ispresumed to be defunct, but we don't have the information that it actually is. It's just a prospective event that didn't happen. It's probably harmless, it's just also useless. Probably2023 African Football League should be merged intoAfrican Football League, I don't see the utility in having separate league and season articles for a football tournament that only happened once.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)21:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple places with the same name - notably one near Datchworth. I created this vaguely accidentally - should have created Bull's Green, Norfolk directlyBlue Square Thing (talk)10:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate the one in Hertfordshire is larger and has its own pub while the Norfolk one appears to just be a few houses. All Google results appear to be for the Hertfordshire one.Crouch, Swale (talk)18:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬10:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well given how non-specific they are, those sound like they should be retargeted to disambiguation pages because there are definitely more examples throughout history of capitols being taken over~Gwennie🐈｟💬📋｠18:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect looks more likeWP:CIRCULAR as this was created to be directed back to itself. I call for deletion until an actual target can be found or an actual article can be created for this.Intrisit (talk)12:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to removing the circular link, but should Equity Pictures be mentioned in the article? Equity Pictures (2003–2013) is listed as the predecessor in the infobox but otherwise not mentioned. The History section describes other predecessors and related entities going back to the 1980's but says nothing about Equity Pictures. A quick Google search forequity pictures turns up mostlyDEI-related diagrams and a few mentions of what I assume is the subject of this redirect in non-RS's. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk19:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the article, it seems unclear how this redirect is a likely or helpful redirect, given that "0280" and "COD" seem to be mentioned now there in the target article.Steel1943 (talk)03:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When this redirect was created in 2018, the directive was a draft, andwas mentioned as such. Now, it is confusing why a 2019 directive is referred to as 2016.Delete - without mention, these are just some numbers and letters with a burden of verification. No reason to use draft version codes. I unpiped it fromPhotoDNA. Jay 💬05:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of the redirect because it matchesWP:R#DELETE (3. The redirect is offensive and, asWP:RNEUTRAL requires for deletion, this is a case ofnotestablished terms and are unlikely to be useful) as well as two of theWP:DEL-REASON: 3.Vandalism, includinginflammatoryredirects; 6. Articles thatcannot possibly be attributed toreliable sources. The redirect should be deleted, because the term "Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region" returns 0 results onGoogle Books andGoogle Scholar. Overall, this is clear vandalism, because Lithuania cannot occupy its own capital (which Vilnius was according to its Constitution) any more than the United States can occupy Washington D.C. or France occupy Paris.+JMJ+ (talk)18:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a redirect describing the time period from a Polish (nationalist?) point of view, as evidenced by the article title of the target on the Polish Wikipedia. I see no evidence of "vandalism" here (so I declined speedy deletion of the redirect). —Kusma (talk)18:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's... not what vandalism is. you can argue it's inflammatory, sure, but that's a different thing. to be both, it'd have to be something like "that time those lithuanian chuds squatted on vilnius territory" or somethingconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fromPolish–Lithuanian_War#Aftermath it seems that it was internationally accepted that Vilnius was part of Poland at the time (of course that wasn't accepted in Lithuania), and so it makes sense to have a redirect describing that point of view. —Kusma (talk)09:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no opinion on what to actually do with this redirect, butdon't delete as vandalism or inflammatory per above. unfortunately, it seems the nom's got some definitions wrong. no objection to deleting it over pretty much any other criterion, but vandalism almost definitely isn't it. if it's from a polish pov, itmight be inflammatory, but i'm not experienced enough in this area to confirm that it comes from just really hating lithuania beyond "it seems lithuania and poland were wrestling over it for a while", to which mild confusion seems just as likely of a reason to search for something like this mid-studying-about-events-that-happened-during-hitler's-existenceconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself acknowledge your lack of experience and knowledge in this area. It most definitely is vandalism, unless you think that seriously talking about a "Japanese occupation of Tokyo" or "Russian occupation of Moscow" is not inflammatory.+JMJ+ (talk)21:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except as far as I know, "Japanese occupation of Tokyo" and "Russian occupation of Moscow" are not terms that people use. On the other hand, "Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region" appears in Polish sources and according to the links provided by the (now blocked) redirect creator the related term "Lithuanian occupation of Vilnius" appears in English sources as well. Translating a foreign name into English and redirecting it just isn't vandalism. It might be POV pushing beyond whatWP:RNEUTRAL allows, it might failWP:FORRED orWP:R#D8 but in general you can easily imagine an editor in good faith doing it to facilitate searching byESL users of the encyclopedia. Note that like consarn, I don't have an opinion on the redirect beyond "it's not vandalism".Warudo (talk)23:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's... still not what vandalism is. it's geographically wrong, sure, but it's got mentions, and the redirect seems to have been created based on them, and not in an attempt to deliberately disturb the wiki or take a shot at lithuania. you also haven't really argued for why you think it's inflammatory beyond "it clearly is", so the best assumption anyone can make is unfortunately pov pushing
of course, this doesn't disqualify the redirect from actually being pov pushing itself, but that seems to be on a per-reader basis. as for me, with the evidence currently presented, i don't see how that would be the caseconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if comparisons are needed, i don't think many places have had situations like this, where places have been wrestled over to the point where some povs could argue that they've usurped themselves... or at least not any that don't involve brits being brits or americans "manifesting destiny"
i think a more accurate comparison would be to the8 january brasília tussle, where some could argue that it wasn't acoup d'etat, and some would argue that it was. this doesn't immediately confirm either viewpoint as deliberate vandalism (or as inflammatory)... but unlike in this alleged occupation, it actually was a coup d'etat, so people arguing against it were mostly just shadowboxing a wall, and losing, so that's where the comparisons end.really, the one thing they got done was annoying me with incoherent videos that kept getting spammed everywhereconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isWP:OR,WP:FRINGE. The Lithuanians and Lithuania can never "occupy" their historical and current capital city (Vilnius) and its region (Vilnius Region) because Vilnius was Lithuania's capital city since 1323 until Lithuania was destroyed by Russia in 1795. In 1918, Lithuania wasrestored and once again declared Vilnius as its capital city. Lithuania continued declaring Vilnius as its capital city even when Poland controlled Vilnius and its region in the interwar period. This claim "Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region" is as much unscientific as a page "French occupation of the Paris Region" would be becauseGermany controlled Paris and its region for some years. We all know that such a page about Paris would not last long, so there also should not be a page called "Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region". --Pofka09:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Translationsare not OR. Again, "French occupation of the Paris Region" is irrelevant whataboutism because no one has produced a source that uses that phrase, unlike "Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region".Warudo (talk)13:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Occupation" of your own country's capital city isWP:FRINGE. No matter what country you pick, especially in a case of Lithuania which was first mentioned in 1009 and Vilnius has been Lithuania's capital city since at least 1323 (first mentioned as such in theLetters of Gediminas, a Lithuanian monarch). If some authors write that a nation can "occupy" their own capital city then it means that such authors areWP:FRINGE and perWikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia should not be used in Wikipedia. --Pofka18:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's not true that the nation cannot occupy a city that considers its own capital. Great example is Italy and Rome, which is a very similar case to Lithuania and Vilnius. In 1861 unified Italy was formed and Rome was declared its capital, although it was held by a Papal State, and recognized as part of it internationally (French troops defended it), Florence was made a temporary capital of the new state. In 1870 Italian troops occupied Rome, but the Pope didn't reconigse it until 1929. And the phrase "Italian occupation of Rome" is used byRS.Marcelus (talk)21:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page with history. Creator now blocked. No mention of this particular "Cerco 99" operation at the target page; readers who search for this will not be able to read about it.Utopes(talk /cont)03:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-redirect page does say the operation to capture him was called by this name, and there are multiple refs. If the operation is known by a more popular name, it needs to be updated in{{Campaignbox Peru conflict}} instead of this redirect. Jay 💬18:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not keep all redirects? No one has ever found it useful, any more than any other nonsense typo. I could not disagree with that essay more.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraging the creation of a useless redirect for every biography on the site to the tune of 2 million, when they have 0 use and should never be linked perMOS:LINK, is harmful, a la Neelix.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of other redirects like this is a Good Thing andshould be encouraged. Due to a bug in the MediaWiki software, theMOS:PIPESTYLE trick does not work with possessives. The apostrophe and everything after it gets left off the link. As someone who has deleted thousands of Neelix redirects, I can confidently say that Neelix is irrelevant here. --Tavix(talk)01:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever an article is introducing someone as a possessor of something. If an article is describing "Anton LaVey's Satanism" and that's the first mention of LaVey, it'd be useful in that instance to link to LaVey's biography and the easiest way to do that is[[Anton LaVey's]] Satanism. --Tavix(talk)01:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does look right and is a more faithful way to produce the link. The subject of "Anton LaVey's Satanism" is the particular doctrine he founded, not the man himself. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)13:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you specifically want the doctrine he founded, it'd beLaVeyan Satanism. My example presumes there's another place to link to that article, and the author is wanting a concise way to link to LaVey's biography. Not a perfect example I admit, but it's simply for the purposes of illustration. --Tavix(talk)14:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this illustrates the problematic nature of these redirects. The possessive changes the subject. We are no longer referring to Anton LaVey but to something he owned, originated, is strongly associated with, etc. Most plurals don't have the same problem although of course we can come up with examples where the meaning is different. I don't know whetherthis not PIPESTYLE not working with apostrophes and other punctuation is truly a bug or is a feature, but it makes sense. Such modifications typically change the meaning of a word, whether as a possessive marker, for negation, or even variant plurals (1990's ≠1990). —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)19:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...but we're still referring to Anton LaVey in some form. To readers who want to learn more about him, a link to his biography is helpful. --Tavix(talk)13:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unnecessary, bordering on a skill issue. linking words and then having an apostrophe immediately following them is fine, piped links are fine, really, there's no problem with the solutions presented. creating an entire redirect for just one type of contraction, though... nah, too much time and effort to avoid pressing ctrl + k a little early, pressing backspace twice, or even just clicking on what will usually be the first result when linking something with the link button (or ctrl + k as i mentioned before). i'll also note that some tools automatically convert stuff like "ball's" into linking the whole word, but some don't, and i think that could very easily be made into a universal functionconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)12:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the second, the section it links to (Songs) no longer exists. Could it be referring to "Kasane Territory ~ Always Teto’s Turn", which is mentioned atthe Character section?
For the third, it's not mentioned anywhere in the article, and I doubt readers are trying to look for it.
Delete all. Triple Baka is a song topic that is not mentioned. Teto Territory is a song topic that is not mentioned. Teto Pear is a meme that is not mentioned. Without a mention, people who search for these subjects will not be able to read about it, and will be left looking for material that doesn't exist.Utopes(talk /cont)02:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update; I see now that "Kasane Territory" is mentioned, not Teto Territory. I still thinkWP:RETURNTORED applies here because this refers a song that could potentially be an article, but the only mention of "territory" is used as a source for Teto's age, calling it "popular" without any reference. I think this is a disservice as a redirect target because someone who searches for "Teto Territory" already knows who Kasane Teto is, and there's no suitable discussion of the song that they decided to search for instead of the general character name.Utopes(talk /cont)09:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteTriple baka has 3 characters in it's music video (teto doesnt even say anything in that song, its mainly just miku doing the talking), so delete that one.DeleteTeto Pear because it is sadly not mentioned in the article.KeepTeto Territory because it is mentioned in the article and is very popularmicroTato(🗯️)(✍🏻)13:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quote that apparently never actually happens. This is a meme where apparentlyWalter White says "Jesse we need to cook", but not actually in the show, I don't think. Because of this, it's not likely to be a useful redirect, especially so that it is not mentioned anywhere at the target.Utopes(talk /cont)07:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is very different than "Luke, I am your father", as the Star Wars misquote is an R to section for the movie it comes from, toThe Empire Strikes Back#Legacy, where the line is mentioned and discussed at the target. I.e., the article saysThe revelation that Vader is Luke's father continues to be seen.... The redirect in question here does nothing of the sort, does not target a section, not discussed at the target, and{{R from meme}} is for subtopics of the redirect target, and this non-existent line from no piece of official media is not addressed as a subtopic. Readers are gonna want to read about this line if it's a meme. In terms of a suitable target, they might want the article for Jesse, or they might want the article for Walter (the person who would be speaking this line as a meme), or they might want Breaking Bad as a whole, or the episode where the "cooking" takes place. Wherever the content exists. And no content exists to my knowledge.Utopes(talk /cont)02:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since the nom opposes keeping due to a lack of mention at the target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!08:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just created this redirect ... but now, I'm not sure if it should be "retargeted toJorge Ibargüengoitia as a{{R from work}}" (1977 novel written by this author) or "keep" (target subject is based on the novel created by the aforementioned author). Thoughts on this? (At the present time, we seem to not have an article for the novel.)Steel1943 (talk)19:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Straight to the point – Reasons 1 and 5 ofWP:RFD#DELETE: Transpeptidation → delete Transpeptidase (disambiguation) – three options: → 1: delete both target page and this redirect → 2: delete target instead, move its contents into this redirect → 3:[added. 12:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)] make target into an article, make this redirect into an actual disamb page as named so.
Both link to a disamb page; you'd think the page with "(disambiguation)" literally in its name/title would be the disamb page, but no! It also doesn't make sense to redirect "transpeptidation" to "transpeptidase" – that's like redirectingpolymerization topolymerase, and the latter is just a disamb page anyway (despite not having "(disambiguation)" in its name/title). I also don't think that a disambiguation fortranspeptidase needs to exist; it's a class of enzymes, it's not exactly a "may refer to" situation since nobody uses the word to mean specifically a particular protein, unless they specifiedthat protein.Since I don't have enough knowledge for either subject to make them into articles myself, I decided to choose deletion, hoping it becomes a red link somewhere for someone see and turn it into an article.
If I recall correctly, I only just discovered transpeptidation/-ase because I saw the former word mentioned inpeptidyl transferase center, and I tried to wikilink that until I discovered... (Perhaps no wonder it wasn't hyperlinked?) And that's why we're here now.CheckNineEight (talk)20:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it's decided onlyTranspeptidase (disambiguation) should be kept. Also, I forgot that I had a 3rd option for that, which is: swap it with its target and make Transpeptidase – the one without the parentheticals – into its own article (no deletions, but no more redirect – just an article and a disamb). Speaking of options, I realized that I could have worded my original post much better, and I also forgot to put "(disambiguation)" in "Transpeptidase – two options:". (Can I edit my post?)CheckNineEight (talk)05:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is basically a contest to the redirection to its current title perWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drifter (upcoming film). (Note: I chose not to do aWP:DRV for this since I do not think that would have been applicable since I'm debating theredirect,not thearticle.) Unfortunately, since the content that was formerly at this title was deleted, I cannot validate the problem I am about to state which should result in this redirect beingdeleted rather than redirected:
The fact that one of multiple potential biographical subjects (seeDraft:Drifter (upcoming film) for reference) was chosen as a redirect target for this redirect is a combination ofWP:UNDUE,WP:RSURPRISE, andWP:XY issues. (I also made this point atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaadhal Konjam Thookala.) This redirect really should be deleted perWP:REDLINK in the event the subject ever becomes notable enough for an article, or at the bare minimum, not be a redirect pointing towardsany biographical article. (With all that being said, by default, I have no opposition to targeting to a valid non-biographical target [provided one is found].)Steel1943 (talk)20:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but the general consensus at WP:FILM has been that a movie can redirect to a valid target as an alternative to AfD. The validity of the target and whether or not the film actually merits a mention on Wikipedia is kind of murky. For example, back in March there were some articles nominated for deletion where this guy had come to Wikipedia to promote himself and his documentaries. All of the coverage was either local or unusable for establishing notability. Even the local stuff was kind of iffy because the guy's dad was a former mayor, so it's not impossible for the dad to have pulled some strings to get the paper to cover his son. I'm not going to name the guy's name, but this was a very clear attempt to promote himself. He even did the half-truth things, where he took very small claims and tried puffing them up to make his part look more important. One of his films was redirected to a list of films about a major war. Both of the sources used to justify including it in that page were local. I brought this up at WP:FILM and the consensus was that the redirect would be a valid enough alternative in situations like that. Admittedly they were looking at it more generally, but in so doing were supportive of a redirect in that case.
My point in bringing that up is that if WP:FILM is going to argue that some guy's promotional articles could redirect to an already lengthy film article, they're going to support redirects for something like this, where there are actual famous people involved and sourcing from mainstream outlets.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)15:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome you describe in the other case is at least consistent withWP:NLIST, which says that individual entries on a list don't necessarily need to be independently notable. Not saying this was right or wrong, not knowing all the facts, just noting the decision was justifiable beyond a purely local consensus concerning films. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense that the article for the writer-director-producer would have details about an upcoming film. As a general matter, I think the person, studio, etc. most associated with an upcoming film is a plausible target if there is suitable coverage. I'm not sure NFF should provide more explicit direction than that but AfD discussions should consider whether any redirect makes sense and not just pick a random person whose name has been associated with a project. On this specific case, I'm on the fence. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepRefine toSung Kang#Filmography based on discussions above andpageviews showing a fair amount of continued traffic since the closure of the AfD. Certainly, the target can be changed or deletion can be revisited as the film's status and/or coverage on en-wiki evolves. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 23:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC) Edit. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
Done. I went ahead and bundled your nominations.CycloneYoristalk!04:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would not considerHistorical figure a better redirect thanCelebrity, as I think 'famous' describes the latter better than it does the former. However, I'm not sure if it could be considered too vague? Before I decide, I'd like to know how many hits the redirects are getting.Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk)07:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:speedy retarget
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:speedy delete
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:procedural close/speedy keep
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:Moot.jpg)
fromPiperium (chit-chat,i did that) at09:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm, really? really? You're going to sit here with a straight face and suggest someone might actually type this in? Really? Really? Come on, even in 1791, the latest quote given in the Wiktionary entry, Google ngram viewer shows a 250:1 preference for "federal" over "foederal". And yes, useless redirects are a maintenance burden and should be deleted with extreme prejudice. The hypothetical redirectFedderral rePUbliK of jermeny would have a clear, unambiguous target, and it should still be deleted as useless. The only resource intensive part of this is having to deal with the people that show up here arguing to keep these because "oh noes someone might delete a precious redirect" or something. Come on, enough is enough already.35.139.154.158 (talk)16:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree — don't change the dab page name. It includes threeThe Secret of Life's, oneSecret O' Life, and not a singleSecret of Life. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)15:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation draft requested.Left guide (talk)07:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 26#Famous person
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:disambiguate
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:no consensus
Note:@CheckNineEight: I've combined these into a single listing. I will update the link atTranspeptidase (disambiguation) so it points to this discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]