This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 23, 2025.
BBC Two Something Else television series
[edit]Implausible search term.Go D. Usopp(talk)09:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its mostly a misspelling ofIKEA.StevieStandardNo1 (talk)15:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep valid redirect. I dont see muuch evidence in google seacrh that it is a typo. There are infinite opportuunitioes for typos;Typpo,tipo,rypo,ttpo,gypo,yypo,tupo... aretypos fortypo. - I dont think it is wise to proliferatetypo into multitudes redirects and dabs --Altenmann>talk15:40, 16 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]
- Comment: Possible phonetic misspelling ofIKEA?Steel1943 (talk)03:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- it might be.
- probably justkeep and add a{{dist}} pointing toIKEAOreocooke (talk)21:58, 24 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, see
IKEA.
An alternate name for the film not mentioned at target. "It Ends (film)" also exists.I am RedoStone (talk)22:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- move per nom et erikOreocooke (talk)21:55, 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]
- Eitherdelete orretarget toAkella and add a mention to that article.2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:2A2E:3F49:20E:BBE6 (talk)17:45, 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]
crayon time babyyyy
[edit]weirdly specific, not very plausible without other matching redirects, and not very plausible with them. also, check the history on the second one, it's really funnyconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:55, 16 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]
- Delete to prevent toddlers from munching on 'em.monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk)22:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- actually, that'd be more of a reason to create green crayon. sorry, those are the tastiest, i don't make the rulesconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)23:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have archived the funni version of Orange Crayon asUser:Someone-123-321/orangecrayon, and as such these redirects no longer serve even the most miniscule of purposes.User:Someone-123-321 (Icontribute,Talk page so SineBot will shut up)03:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a useful redirect.LDW5432 (talk)20:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget per Tavix.PokémonPerson04:20, 23 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]
Software developare
[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasspeedy delete per author request.✗plicit23:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely combination of errors for "Software developer".Rusalkii (talk)21:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasprocedural close/speedy keep. i'm counting it as socking, lack of a coherent rationale, trolling, and withdrawn at the same time, and recommending that the next nominator develop free will(non-admin closure)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)01:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
XfDXfD →XFD (talk ·links ·history ·stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
This was ambiguous, and not enough disambiguation nor a helpful redirect, thusdelete. The redirect should bedeleted as ambiguous.74.195.77.161 (talk)21:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy close and procedurally close perthe previous rfd. the sock's back at it again and has returned to do the do the same actions, with unexplained repetition and a lack of explanation for the repeating of statements, his own or otherwise, and independent of whether or not he actually made itconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)21:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as ambiguous,weak close anddelete as not enough disambiguation.74.195.77.161 (talk)22:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- that's completely incoherent and more of the exact same thing you've already been blocked for. either explain what your relation toreset9290 is or stop thisconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)22:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And according to the blocking administrator, his account has been blocked from editing indefinitely for double voting to cause confusion. If you check his contributions, you will find the block notice saying his account has abused multiple accounts.74.195.77.161 (talk)22:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- and for socking concerns, which you've done nothing to answer. if you don't have an answer for whatever it is you're doing, don't do itconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)22:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep perconsarn.74.195.77.161 (talk)22:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
Delete: implausible misspelling ofGalle Marvels in 2025 (up for RfD).J947 ‡edits21:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: they redirect to different pages. if not delete, then retarget toGalle MarvelsOreocooke (talk)21:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SeeTalk:Okapi#Common names for background
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:[2] "is, in fact, a sort of zebra-giraffe",[3] "Capturing alive the first okapi (zebra-giraffe)",[4] "Okapi, Sir Harry Johnston's short-horned zebra-giraffe",[5] "... 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[6] 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[7]. 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]
Rasmussen s Encephalitis
[edit]Combination of two wildly implausible typos and bad capitalizationThe Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)20:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- what is the second tpyoOreocooke (talk)21:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The capital E. The "bad capitalization" part was meant to supplement, not exclude.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)03:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete apparent error. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)14:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination against women
[edit]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".[8] 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)".[9] 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]
- opppose per above and previous discussionOreocooke (talk)21:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Log-Pearson type III distribution
[edit]named “log-gamma distribution” for decades, unused redirectionEthaniel (talk)17:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pearson type II distribution
[edit]named “symmetric beta distribution” for decades, unused redirectionEthaniel (talk)17:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pearson's distribution
[edit]uncommon naming, unused redirectionEthaniel (talk)17:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per aboveserious
and also bc ethaniel cannot be trusted[Humor]Oreocooke (talk)22:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pearsonian distribution
[edit]uncommon naming, unused redirectionEthaniel (talk)17:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why this even points to Jelcz. It's not a typo, not an acronym for anything Jelcz-related AFAICT...
So I suggestdelete. Alternatively, it could be retargeted toJournal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research which sometimes used JZS as an abbreviation e.g.[10].Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}16:28, 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]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasMoot. There's an article in place of the redirect.(non-admin closure)Thepharoah17 (talk)21:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I rather expected this to go to a section of an article about insects that mimic leaves, likeleaf-mimic katydids. I propose retargetting toCamouflage#MimesisCremastra (talk ·contribs)17:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose While I agree that the target is not appropriate, the alternative is not better. A mimicry example should not redirect to camouflague, a form ofCrypsis.
In common usage, mimicry is a situation in which an organism resembles another, while in crypsis an organism resembles its background.
Endler, J. A. (1981). An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16(1), 25-31. Since there are both plant and animal "leaf mimics", I think the redirect should point atMimicry.Johnjbarton (talk)20:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] - A quick look at Google Scholar indicates thatleaf mimicry is used to describe the phenomenon in both plants and insects. Perhaps more for insects but I haven't attempted to assess the quality of sources. If something more specific thanMimicry is selected, we should have a hatnote to (an)other related article(s). --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk14:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- NotifiedWikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects andWikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk14:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the redirect should point atMimicry since, as pointed out above, both plants and animals can mimic leaves and the term "leaf mimicry" appears in both botanical and zoological literature.MossOnALogTalk15:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cremastra Would you agree to repoint toMimicry? I think the other editors would be satisfied with that outcome.Johnjbarton (talk)15:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not super keen on it, because it doesn't specifically discuss "leaf mimicry" in much capacity. (There's a brief mention of leaf mimicry in katydids.) I feel like that makes it a deceiving target for readers. Lacking a good target, perhaps deletion is a good option, pending the creation of more detailled articles.Cremastra (talk ·contribs)16:00, 15 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 💬15:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite as a full article. I've sketched the kind of thing the article could consist of on the page itself (I wasn't sure if I could remove the redirect link directly, obviously we need to do so as soon as possible), and added sources for both animal and plant leaf mimics. There is plentiful scope for expansion with interesting examples and many available sources.Chiswick Chap (talk)21:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
Tingui-Botó language
[edit]No idea why it was redirected toDzubukuá language.Yacàwotçã (talk)11:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- because that's where the ISO code of the language is.— kwami (talk)12:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kwamikagami and why is it there? lmaoYacàwotçã (talk)08:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (1st option) orretarget (2nd option). Both Glottolog[1] and Campbell (2024)[2] explicitly equate Tingui-Botó with Dzubukuá.🪐Kepler-1229b |talk |contribs🪐15:40, 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].
- I seriously question whether this is a factual claim because theDzubukuá Lord's Prayer version they use hasnothing to do with theDzubukuá Lord's Prayer translation by Bernard de Nantes... more like a constructed language. We shouldn't desperately use any source we find (specially if they're written in a language we don't speak) to support extraordinary claims (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). I wish Dzubukuá was still spoken, but it isn't anymore unfortunately, and its revitalization project looks absolutely sloppy if anything. If at least they were supported by specialists...@Myceteae andKwamikagami: pinging just in case.Yacàwotçã (talk)03:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- All that 'but' means is that their liturgical language is not a distinct Tingui-Botó language. Harald's source is Vera Lúcia Calheiros Mata.[13]
- 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]
- @Yacàwotçã If the redirect cannot be feasibly kept, then I support aretarget to any relevant article, for exampleTingui-Botó people.🪐Kepler-1229b |talk |contribs🪐16:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Community Corrections Center
[edit]Targets a now non-existent section that was deleted for being unsourced.SmittenGalaxy|talk!07:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
White House Liaison
[edit]TheWhite House Liaison is a formal position that coordinates between the White House and respective departments and agencies on staffing. It is not under theWhite House Office of Public Liaison and has a different mission. Redirect toWhite House Office (because it's not technically under theOffice of Presidential Personnel either.Longhornsg (talk)06:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agnes of Bohemia (Q3505610)
[edit]PerWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 5#Wikidata redirects* Pppery *it has begun...02:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this redirects to a more niche (and not super well defined imo) article. Personally, I think it should have its own article, but it def should not redirect toMenstrual hygiene managementShocksingularity (talk)02:21, 16 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]
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh redirects
[edit]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]
Not mentioned at target; searching this term in quotes in google/bing yielded zero results for me. I don't see the connection here.Zzz plant (talk)01:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
