Weak retarget. Regarding adding its def somewhere, I googled for phrases like "Paleocytology is", "called Paleocytology" and the like, found nothing. The term is used, "everybody knows" what it is, (cytology of ancient/archaeological remains), but nobody cares to define.--Altenmann>talk18:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I confess I did not search around for usage of this term–I fell into that "everybody knows" group because the meaning is obvious to me, having studied related fields. I don't think it would be obvious to a general readership. Google Scholar hasonly 28 hits and assumes it is a misspelling ofpaleontology. Combined with your findings, this term appears to be relatively obscure. This does strengthen the case for a Wiktionary redirect. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)00:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not described at the current target nor atMajor depressive disorder. There is a brief mention of depression severity atMajor depressive disorder#DSM and ICD criteria and the word does 'severe' appear multiple times in the article. Formal severity ratings and diagnostic categories don't map cleanly to the everyday sense of "crippling depression". This is a fairly common term that people may search for and anyone doing so expects to find an actual description. This informal usage is unlikely to have a consistent meaning used in reliable sources. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)22:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No standard for the addition of adjectives commanding independent pages, nor should there be. Agree with Myceteae that this is an informal phrase meant to express the already covered depression.FlederMaus9 (talk)23:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is arguably a worse target. Someone could have "crippling depression" withbipolar disorder or anotherdepressive disorder. This target doesn't exactly answer the question of what "crippling depression" means—no target can since it is not well-defined in reliable sources—but might erroneously suggest that it is exactly synonymous with one of these more well-defined syndromes. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No redirect is unnecessary, unless it's implausible, and I can see the letter swap (crusades>cursades) happening easily. While there HAS been only a total of three views, the redirect has also only existed for two weeks, so pageviews aren't a good tool re: gauging usefulness.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)21:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target nor anywhere else on Wikipedia regarding Star Wars. I don't know if there is a better target connected to the Turkana people or not. Probablydelete.TNstingray (talk)15:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I recommenddeletion.Department of Biochemistry was moved toDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Oxford in 2007 and this redirect was created as a result. There was some back and forth with this as a woefully incomplete DAB page and this was converted to a redirect yesterday byUser:Cfls. The target does not discussdepartments. There is discussion of training and employment atBiochemist but I don't think this is particularly helpful to readers searching forDepartment of Biochemistry and merely adding a mention there that some biochemists train or work in such a department doesn't improve the encyclopedia and may be seen as obvious to many readers. This certainly should not target a specific department such asDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Oxford; the move should have been completed without leaving a redirect. A DAB page orset index article would be unwieldy. The years-long history indicates there was not much interest in compiling a comprehensive list, anyway. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The harm is that it contains essentially no information about the very specific search term. When a target does not actually discuss a topic, sending readers there wastes their time and is a disservice. It is highly unlikely someone searching "Department of Biochemistry" wants to read a nearly 5,000 word article about the field of biochemistry. This would qualify asWP:RSURPRISE although readers might initially assume the articledoes cover biochemistry departments explicitly and in detail and will leave frustrated or confused. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Department of Biochemistry" is a generic descriptor (academic department for studying biochemistry) rather than a distinct encyclopedic topic with a single natural target. I don't see this as a WP:RSURPRISE case in practice: the redirected-from notice is shown immediately, and Biochemistry is the closest general destination absent an institution qualifier. Readers are unlikely to be surprised and confused about this redirect.Cfls (talk)23:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not genuinely confused by the association but I find it frustrating when redirects from a very specific search term take me to a general article that doesn’t address my specific query. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)00:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The town one is probably worth disambiguating. The village one I'm not so sure. We don't have any "villages" officially here in Georgia (USA), as they do inNew York, for example, AFAIK. I think, legally, all Georgia municipalities are cities, but town is definitely colloquially used for smaller ones. "Village" is really more of a Northern US dialect. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)04:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually wondering if these two should be unbundled and nominated separately, based on the discussion so far. This all hinges on specific meanings and usage ofvillage,town, andcity in the context of the state and the country. I don't think we're necessarily inWP:TRAINWRECK territory with just two redirects but the decisions could diverge. I wouldnot bundle these with the ongoing discussion atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 30#City (Georgia). Adding two new redirects so late and after so many different opinions have been expressed there is likely to prolong the discussion and make it more difficult to assess consensus. The eventual outcome there may be informative for handling these redirects but I think it will likely come down to whether and how each designation is used in each Georgia. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)17:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. I withdraw my merge suggestion. It's pretty clear thatVillage (Georgia) will have no usage in connection with the US state, and I can find no mention of a similar concept for the country of Georgia either, so I support deleting it. (Some places in the country of Georgia are described as villages (e.g.Lalisquri), but that seems to have no specific meaning beyond the everyday one of 'small settlement'). However,Town (Georgia) is different, There are many places in Georgia US that call themselves towns, even though there is no legal distinction, so it's valuable to have that redirect to take people to an article which explains that. I would like to see the links toCity andTown in articles on cities and towns in Georgia US and in templates such as those inCategory:Georgia (U.S. state) county navigational boxes tightened to use the Georgia-specific redirects. As for disambiguation, I doubt anyone would use either of those as a search term, so I don't think it's necessary to disambiguate it. All similar articles about the country of Georgia (such asList of cities and towns in Georgia (country)) lump together cities and towns without distinguishing them.Colonies Chris (talk)14:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to see the utility of keeping this redirect, then. If it's not for searching and only for linking in articles aboutGeorgia (US state) andGeorgia (country), why not just use theTown link in such articles? Why use a redirect that implies a more specific subject but just points toTown, where readers will have to search for whichGeorgia they are interested in? Or why use a link at all, sincetown is a fairly generic concept and we don't have anywhere more specific to send people? —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)14:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TheTown (Georgia) link is only intended for use in articles about Georgia (US). There appears to be no call at all for a similar link for the country of Georgia, as our articles don't make that city/town distinction.
Why use a redirect instead of a direct link to the target article#section? To quote two paragraphs fromWP:REDIRECT,
Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links.
and
Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.
And why use a link at all? Because readers will tend to assume that a town and a city are different, and in some states they are and in others they are not, so it's helpful to clarify that distinction (or lack of it, in the case of the state of Georgia).Colonies Chris (talk)21:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The article is explicit that a city isthe only type of municipality allowed in Georgia and later describes (emphasis added)hamlet, village and towntypologies. I readvillage,town, andhamlet as having the colloquial or generic meaning but the discussion there could perhaps be clarified or simplified. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)17:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteVillage (Georgia). First, the 'delete' arguments forCity (Georgia) atthe concurrent RfD generally apply here and I agree with them. This is an unusual way to form a disambiguation and is not a plausible search term. More specifically to this redirect, as detailed in the discussion above,village has no special meaning in either the state or country of Georgia. It'sa fairly common word that has a colloquial, if imprecise, connotation. It may be used to describe human settlements in either Georgia but there is no specific meaning and no encyclopedic content to add anywhere. Pointing this toVillage (United States) risks misleading or confusing readers. Sincevillages are legally defined in other US states, readers might erroneously assume the same is true in Georgia or they'll be left scratching their heads wondering why we've sent them to an article that doesn't address the redirect topic. I'm unsure what to do aboutTown (Georgia) at this time.—Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)01:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
NeitherCity (Georgia) norTown (Georgia) are plausible search terms, but that's not their purpose. They're intended for use in articles about towns and cities in the state of Georgia, to lead the reader to an article#section which explains the significance of those terms in Georgia. The fact that they're not likely search terms is a benefit - it means that disambiguating them between the two Georgias is unnecessary.Colonies Chris (talk)13:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with these arguments from the other RfD and I still find the 'delete' arguments more persuasive there. But again I have specific objections toVillage (Georgia), which I have detailed. Those are far more relevant to this discussion. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)21:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a challenge because there is substantial coverage of the same or related topics at multiple targets, and the content is appropriate for multiple articles. Ideally, there would be one main place with the most detail on trans men and sexual orientation and trans women and sexual orientation and we would point the redirects there, and the other articles would link via hatnote or use excerpts. It's not obvious to me what the best solution is given the coverage across multiple articles and multiple similar redirects pointing to different places. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the second so it's no longer a double redirect, in hopes this will make for a cleaner close. (At nomination, it was still pointing toTemplate:Gaza war infobox.) We can use{{avoided double redirect}} if needed, but "have something be a double redirect" isn't a valid outcome. That's not even a matter of opinion—even if discussion formed such a consensus, a bot would fix it shortly thereafter. --BDD (talk)20:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Such trivial attribution can be given with an edit summary (we are dealing with key-value pairs which I highly doubt can be copy-right in any country and is certainly not in the US). This never should have been in a stand-alone template.Gonnym (talk)19:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like it's actually just a way to cover your eyes so you can avoid seeing the ambiguity of the phrase. Obviously "Have a cow" as a phrase exists and has meanings relevant to encyclopedic senses.BD2412T22:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely useless. For crissakes, no one who wants to learn about the cattle industry is going to search for "have a cow". I think my brain is leaking out of my ear. (And both the simpsons catchphrase and the two-cows thing are fixed and not subject to alternate formations). Dab pages exist to disambiguate (shocker) things that could reasonably be titled the same, not for vague guesswork bespoke search engine results. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per above. My weak preference is for a single dab page covering both "have" and "don't" have senses as there is some overlap but if others prefer separate ones that's also fine by me.Thryduulf (talk)01:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Myceteae: "I want you to get that particular point. There are so many fellows trying to feed poor cows profitably. You can't do it You have got tohave a cow. When I say a cow I mean a cow that is a cow that makes a profit, not these old skates that you find around on a good many farms".Erf, Prof. Oscar (1923). "The Subject of Feeding for High Production".The Jersey Bulletin and Dairy World.42: 1295.BD2412T04:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 I'm not denying that the wordshave a cow appear in other contexts, including the literal meaning. But it's a well-known idiom that is even defined in many dictionaries.[1][2] Someone searching this is almost certainly looking for this set phrase. It is highly implausible that someone would read a passage like tho one you shared and decide to learn more about the subject by searchinghave a cow. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)04:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given enough people, highly implausible things will happen. I could at least see someone looking forYou have two cows this way. In any case, if we have a soft redirect to Wikitionary, readers will have to make the same number of clicks to get to that Wiktionary entry as if we have a disambiguation page including the same Wiktionary entry at the top of the page. Ergo, there is no real downside to disambiguating.BD2412T04:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but DAB pages are for compiling wiki-ambiguoustermstopics where everything has the exact same name/title, or at least iscommonly called by that name. In assessing for primary topic we don't give highly implausible referents equal standing. The overwhelming primary topic forhave a cow is the sayinghave a cow. We don't typically compile markedly different phrases ("You have two cows") or things that could theoretically be described that way but where it would be highly unusual to do so (Calf (animal)#gestation). We might a well add "Havingcowpox" and "Have a nice day" which are about as similar as the other entries suggested. I remain unconvinced that this is an appropriate DAB page. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)05:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Revert The relevant content lasted quite a while, untilNovember 2022. The editor,@ELdEL69:, appears inactive, but I'll ping anyway. They removed it since the Yaka only appear in "Legends", akaStar Wars elements that became non-canonical with the Disney acquisition. ELdEL69 also started a discussion on the talk page, so all in all I think the removal was fine perWP:BOLD, but from what I can tell, none of the lists excludeLegends content as part of their criteria. Some of it is explicitly included and marked. So I suggest we simply revert the removal. --BDD (talk)01:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably this was removed because it lacked sources, so this would mean restoring uncited content:==Yaka== TheYaka are a race of near-human cyborgs. They were transformed after their home planet was invaded centuries ago by superintelligent inhabitants ofArkania, a neighboring star system. The Arkanians forced the Yakas to undergo surgery in which they implanted cyborg brain enhancers, increasing the species' intelligence to genius level. Thus, the brutish-looking Yakas are much smarter than they appear. A side effect of the implants is a twisted sense of humor that all Yakas possess.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}} –wbm1058 (talk)15:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Palestinian genocide allegations per Thryduulf, same target as Israeli genocide. Should be categorised as redirect from non-neutral name, plural, other tense, etc.CNC (talk)08:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Thryduulf with tagging as per CNC. I'm not convinced by the argument that this is implausible, and the Palestinian genocide allegations article is more broad. If the user was looking for the article specifically about the Gaza genocide, that's easily reached via existing hatnote.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)22:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a minor variation of the established terms "Israeli genocide", "Gaza genocide", and many other similar ones that are the entire subject of the article.Thryduulf (talk)21:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Israeli genocide" is not an established term, and "Israelis committed genocide" is not aminor variation of "Gaza genocide". That's at least my take, which is why I thinkdelete is the appropriate way to go.Coining (talk)22:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have an entire article on allegations of "Israeli genocide", the exact term gets multiple pages of results on both Google Books and Google Scholar, it is undeniably an established term. Even if it weren't it is unambiguously a useful search term, so, no, deletion is not the appropriate way to go here.Thryduulf (talk)00:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If by "an entire article" you mean the page you've proposed retargeting to,Palestinian genocide allegations, then it proves my point that "Israeli genocide" isnot an established term. I doesn't use the phrase "Israeli genocide"even once in its text.
Even less of an established term is "Israelis committed genocide", which is what this redirect actually is. Even assuming that "Israeli genocide" is an established term, and that that's the reason it already redirects toPalestinian genocide allegations, that wouldn't imply that "Israelis committed genocide" should be its own redirect, just like we don't create redirects for every misspelling that someone could type into Wikipedia.Coining (talk)01:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be snarky - the redirect isn't for "Israeli genocide" it is for "Israelis committed genocide". I'm sure there are a bunch of folks who believe that every time theworld word Israel is uttered, it should be followed by "genocide" -- that doesn't make it an appropriate redirect.Coining (talk)09:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are a bunch of folks who believe that every time the world [sic] Israel is uttered, it should be followed by "genocide"You do realize that this is you admitting that this is a plausible, actively-used, established phrase, then?𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)16:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If by "an entire article" you mean the page you've proposed targeting to.... then it proves my pointI also don't get how "pointing something to the article that talks about it" is, in any way, shape, or form, proof that that something is an unused term. Either way, the very first sentence of that article isSince its foundation in 1948,Israel hasbeen accused of carrying outgenocide against Palestinians during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.There. Right there, I spelled it out for you.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)17:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The articledoesn't talk about the phrase "Israelis committed genocide" -- the phrase simply isn't used in the article. I'm not objecting here to the redirect fromIsraeli genocide toPalestinian genocide allegations. Under the theory being proposed for retargeting, there should be redirects for "Israeli genocide", "Israelis genocide", "Israelis committed genocide", "Israel is a genocide committer", "Israel is genocide", and so forth. It is simply not the case that the association of Israel with genocide means that any phrase that uses versions of both words deserves a redirect.Coining (talk)00:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Under the theory being proposed for retargeting, there should be (other redirects that don't exist)This is aWP:PANDORA-style argument; thus I'm going to bring inWP:BACKINBOX. We shouldn't be worried about whatother redirects do or don't exist, we need to focus on THIS one and look at ITS merits. (I'd also perhaps like to bring inUser:Bugghost/essays/Keeping_isn't_creating-- keeping this redirect won't force us to create any of the other hypothetical redirects you just mentioned.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)05:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing for those other redirects. What I'm saying is that the arguments for THIS redirect are actually arguments for a redirect on "Israeli genocide" (a redirect that separately exists), not arguments for THIS redirect. That can be seeing in phrases likeThis is a minor variation of the established terms "Israeli genocide" andWe have an entire article on allegations of "Israeli genocide", as well as the link above tohttps://www.google.com/search?q=israeli+genocide&oq=israeli+genocide. Iagree that the focus should be on THIS redirect. Which is why THIS redirect should be deleted, and your concerns should be directed to all those who are acting as though this were a redirect from "Israeli genocide", which it is not.Coining (talk)15:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I'm wondering ifthere's some sort of gap between what you're thinking of and what we're thinking ofquoting myself there lolWhen I parse the term "Israeli genocide", my brain comes up with "A genocide that's either caused by, or committed against, the Israeli people". Given where it's targeted, it's clear that that's the correct way to parse it-- specifically, "a genocide that's caused by the Israeli people" is whatPalestinian genocide allegations is talking about.Meanwhile, when I parse the term, "Israelis committed genocide", it comes up with much the same-- "A genocide that's caused by the Israeli people". Thus, in my eyes, it should be targeted to the same location--Palestinian genocide allegations.I'm over here wondering ifthat's where the issue lies-- if whenyou parse one of those two statements, you'renot getting the same results.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)22:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of parsing. I don't see sufficient evidence that the term "Israelis committed genocide" is an "established term". The applicable guideline doesn't say "established term or parsed or derived ancillary terms", so on what basis, even if your statement about parsing were correct, wouldn't it be appropriate to delete this redirect?Coining (talk)23:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The applicable guideline doesn't say "established termor parsed or derived ancillary terms"Honestly, the issue I have is thatthis position is just... flat-outpedantry. Who rightlycares if the established term does or does not include the word "committed", given its meaning with or without the word isthe exact same?Even throwing out the "...okay you're just being pedantic now" argument, there IS something that says that "...parsed or derived ancillary terms" is an okay thing, and that'sthe existence of avoided-double-redirects. If a given term would, for some reason or another (typos, misspellings, et cetera) redirect to a title that is itself a redirect, that's an avoided double redirect and should target the same target as the otherwise-target redirect. Bythis logic,Israelis committed genocide would be an ADR ofIsraeli genocide.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)00:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who rightlycares about the "established term"? It's the phrase used inWP:RNEUTRAL.
Definitely not delete as there's an there are multiple articles named "The Grip" listed on the dab. It was common to call influenza "the grip" in the 1800s and early 1900s (Spanish flu § Descriptive names andEpidemic Influenza; Commonly Called "The Grip." (1894) for example). But given the rarity of that now,weak retarget to the dab page given there's an album calledThe Grip. Separately someone could refine the reference to influenza on the dab to make that more clear if they decide it's an improvement.Skynxnex (talk)19:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The dab page would be better than the current target. "Grippe (influenza)" is listed under 'See also'. A more specific entry for "The grip" could be added elsewhere on the dab page, pointing either toInfluenza orSpanish flu. Per your description,Influenza would be the better dab page entry since this term was apparently used to refer to (epidemic) influenza more broadly. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)22:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh, retarget toThe Grip I guess, since that's at the base title and capitalized...this could also refer to one or two other works there, but this one is currently primary. The only other possibility is really influenza; I've always seen that as "the grippe" instead, but apparently this exists as well...both are archaic though, so I'd favor this as a title of a modern work over that, even despite the capitalization. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)01:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No other information about this person is known or reported in RS. (We don't even know if this is a real person who prefers privacy, or a pseudonym). If not for the latest file reveals, this person would not be getting any coverage at all. Notnotable, and noverifiable information availale.I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me22:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe Guardian is reporting that Salvatore Nuara, Leonic Leonov, and Zurab Mikeladze were in the files because they were part of a photo line up; they don't have ties to Epstein.Anybar (talk)21:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Spanish flu would be a more reasonable target but between the misspelling and the vague intended meaning of 'consequences', this is a bad redirect. It was originally a long but poorly written article with zero references. It survived for less than an hour before being BLAR'd in 2004. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why would someone search "Black key" if they're looking forThe Black Keys? If there are multiple things it could be without a primary topic, why are you advocating for deletion instead of disambiguating? --Tavix(talk)20:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
this is kind of a double whammy, since it's both a lot of stuff already covered inkey, and not actually a plausible search term for any of them without a disambiguator or already knowing what the target's title is (no more plausible thanyellow key orred key, for instance)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)21:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Black key" is the specific name of a type of piano key. It's not the same thing as "a key that is black", so it's absolutely more plausible than "yellow key" or "red key". What else atkey is known as "black key"? --Tavix(talk)21:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toMusical keyboard per Deacon Vorbis, who made a good point regarding non-piano keyboards. The current target is therefore too narrow. I'd prefer not to refine to a section though given that the note on harpischords is in a different section (although I wouldn't fuss too much either way). --Tavix(talk)15:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominator doesn't adequately explain why this is not aprimary redirect. The black key is ubiquitous as one of two colors of keys on a standard piano or other musical keyboard (the other being white keys), and is known as such. I don't see anything else atKey with a black version commonly called "black key". IfThe Black Keys is a plausible secondary search term, then a{{redirect}} hatnote can be added to the current target. If there was at least 3-4 other unrelated topics atKey with "black key" discussed in article text rendering a hatnote unwieldy, thenmaybe I could see grounds for deletion or disambiguation.Left guide (talk)21:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The 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 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 target doesn't necessarily imply that the conclusion is incorrect (intentionally or otherwise), only that it's irrelevant to any given issue. for example, i can say that pushing ai is bad because it's hogging ram i want to use to playultrakill, and while both claims will be true (hence, not a false conclusion), the conclusion will be irrelevant to the claim because it misses the wider points in favor of an admittedly really good game.good thing i'd never deliberately pull a trick like this
other fallacies seem to not be all that accurate to this term either. most have the chance of false conclusions, but aren't reliant on them, and some do rely on the conclusion being incorrect in the contexts of its own arguments, but not necessarily on the conclusion actually being incorrect
Weak keep. This got 43 hits last year, which is way more than I would have expected so I went to Google to see how common a typo it is. What I found was a mix of results about a basketball player namedTaihland Owens about whom we have only a couple of passing mentions that I've found, and typos for the country. It's not common enough a typo to be a clear keep, and the basketball player means we can't be certain that all 43 users were people were looking for the country, but on balance since it's not harming anything (I've not investigated whether the sportsperson is notable enough for an article, but if they are the article will be at their full name not their first name) so it's enough for a weak keep.Thryduulf (talk)17:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is strikes me as an implausible misspelling/typo for the country, although I take Thryduulf at their word that they encountered such examples in the wild. My search on- and off-wiki overwhelmingly returns hits related to the basketball playerTaihland Owens, who, as noted, is mentioned in two articles. At best, this is ambiguous and, for the average reader, the redirect effectively blocks search results that do reveal (limited) coverage of the basketball player. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)17:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For an English speaker, this seems to bemore plausible phonetically than the correct spelling if someone knows there is a "h" in there somewhere (the correct spelling implies a pronunciation of/θaɪ.lænd/).Thryduulf (talk)18:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. Non-negligible views, presumably stemming from knowing there's an "h" in Thailand but not being quite sure where. This sort of thing is much more likely to occur in searches than printed content, given you'd hope people would check the spelling before publishing information. I find the basketballer's first name an unlikely search term. His name is probably a misspelling of Thailand anyway, adding to the plausibility of this search term.J947 ‡edits21:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no one has demonstrated any real plausibility to this, and I see none either. On the contrary, this is actively harmful, as a cursory web search finds pages of nothing but a college basketball player with this as a first name, so it gets in the way of searches for him (of which there are in fact a couple hits). While omitting the 'h' from Thailand is a phonetically plausible error, sticking in some random place two letters later isn't. Could people ever make this error? Probably, but redirects that cover spelling errors should be plausible, not just possible. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)19:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while moving the letter 'h' by two letters is an unlikely typo, it's a plausible misspelling because (1) it's not pronounced with a "th" sound, (2) it's common to remember the letters but not the order, and (3) moving the 'h' only one letter (Tahiland) is clearly incorrect due to adding a syllable.Jruderman (talk)22:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteTaihland andTailand. Although both are phonetically closer to the correct pronunciation thanThailand, they're still not common enough to warrant a redirect. (Plus, Tailand also implies a pronunciation of "tail-land.") If we deleted the redirect and someone did happen to search either of the misspelled terms, Thailand will still be the top option.
Keep: It's very possible to misspell Thailand asTaihland. Most people know how to spell "land", but "Thai" can be difficult to spell, given the "th" is not pronounced as it is in "the". Because of this, people may drop the h and think ofTailand. But since apparently this "implies a pronunciation of "tail-land", someone might add an h after the i to makeTaihland. A native English speaker might find this unlikely, but it's more likely for people who aren't native English speakers. For the issue of ambiguity withTaihland Owens, it's better to targetThailand even if he had an article because the basketball player is not known by his first name, but the country is known by a single word. It's the same reason thatCanidate redirects toCandidate instead ofTrung Canidate: candidate is a single word (and is also what most people are looking for). If someone was looking for a specific person, they wouldn't search for a specific single name unless it was the person's common "known as" name, which is not the case forTaihland Owens.Mathguy2718 (talk)15:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
keep and refine synthetic big watermelon per my above reasoning, butdelete synthetic watermelon because it feels a lot less plausible, potentially due to the fact that i've never seen it phrased that way before, only things like "synthetic big watermelon" and the mentioned "merge big watermelon".User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sunand it shines)02:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
As denoted by the page, Aladdin X is a company that is mainly focused on projection hardware; Suika Game's success happened by accident. I can see someone trying to look up information on this company and getting reallyWP:SURPRISEd when they see this.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)15:04, 1 February 2026 (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).
Add mention and keep but mark as a{{R from misspelling}}. Most of my Google results were partial title matches for the "PS Seabird Survey" by the Washington Ornithological Society (I'm guessing that "PS" stands forPuget Sound here). However I was able to find[4] which states "In 1868, [paddle steamer] Seabird was engulfed in a fire and at least 100 people lost their life through fire or drowning." but I don't know how reliable that site is.This book is reliable and confirms the existence of the ship ("Among the other notable boats were theSeabird and theEliza Anderson. The former carried immense crowds, but drew too much water for the river trade.") but doesn't say anything else about it.This Facebook post about a different shipwreck includes the sentence "The Alpena was purchased by Goodrich in 1868 From Gallagher to replace the Steamer Seabird which burned off of Waukegan IL in 1868." That led me to[5] which contains more than enough referenced information about the sinking of a paddle steamer named "Sea Bird" offWaukegan, Illinois on 9 April 1868 for an entry, indeed it looks like there is enough information to write an article. "Seabird" is very obviously a plausible search term for "Sea Bird".Thryduulf (talk)14:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a{{R from move}} but it is ambiguous with teams representing the United Arab Emirates in other sports, although as far as I've found none of those have separate articles for their records. There also isn't at present a disambiguation page listing all the country's sports teams this could refer to. I'm bringing this here for discussion rather than recommending deletion, or any other specific action (see also#Welsh national team).Thryduulf (talk)14:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
pretty confusing history with nothing worth keeping, but the only mention of penne actually being baked in the target is effectively in passing (as the more important details are the other ingredients and appearance), as are the results, and it's in the context of only one dish
Deleet. This may be an example of1337 but since it is not mention and does not appear to be a notable example of the 'language', this redirect is unhelpful, especially for the uninitiated. I can't phantom a situation where we would take a random word or phrase from a language and target it to the article about that language. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)04:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is almost always the wrong venue to contest a blar, but in this case if we restored the pre-blar content it would be speedily deleted (it's either an A10 duplicate ofleet or with an uncharitable interpretation of the creators edit summary A11 as made up). That out the way,hacker language is a red link and an internal search for the exact phrase found no relevant results in the article namespace (just a few instances of "Hacker" on the line above the label "language" in infoboxes). My first thought was theJargon File, but I can't find any evidence that this title is used for that, indeed the only result on google for"A guide to the hacker language" -Wikipedia is a page on onelook.com (a dictionary aggregator) for "Words that start with "agui"" (of which this obviously is not an example).Thryduulf (talk)00:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially per Thry's reasoning, but I also want to add the reason we can skip the trip to AfD or usage of any CSD, is because the page would have aWP:SNOWBALL's chance in hell to survive either process. A CSD couldn't be used, however, because the redirect does deserve a non-speedy discussion. Deleting something the slow wayperWP:SNOW is not an argument you get to make every day, haha!MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!04:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as perWP:SNOW (the "This is the wrong venue but it would last five seconds in the correct venue" sense, not the typical "yeah it's been five seconds but there's already enough to establish a unanimous consensus" sense), as per Thryduulf and MEN KISSING.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)21:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Target doesn't mention any specific future conclave in contrary to the redirect name, and therefore seems frankly unuseful. The discussion inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next papal conclave ended indraftifyDraft:Next papal conclave, an article which has since becomethe conclave that we eventually got. But in the absence of an article about the future post-Leoine conclave, I don't think a reader would be helped with a redirect essentially amounting to "the next conclave will be a conclave". I suggest we delete this pagename, or possibly turn it into an article about the post-Leoine conclave specifically (though I doubt there are sufficient sources for that right now).Rose Abrams (TCL)13:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like similar 'Next Fooian election' and 'Next king of Foo', this may have served a purpose and had an appropriate target at one time, but it no longer does. The current target describes general conclave procedures but does not really cover the concept of the 'next' conclave. The only history here is the creation of the redirect and multiple retargets. There is no article content that needs to be preserved. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nextfoo redirects are valuable assets when we have content about the next foo, about when the next foo is likely/scheduled/expected to happen, or a list of foos that will reliably contain a link to the next one. It's uncommon that we have this content for foos that occur on a somewhat predictable schedule and/or are the subject of notable speculation about the timing/content. We have no such content about the next papal conclave beyond that it will occur shortly after the current pope dies or resigns, but someone using this search term will almost certainly already know that.Thryduulf (talk)00:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
come on, why's this gotta be unmentioned? where's myrocket lawnchair? i guess results are generally lackluster and torn between differing definitions of both halves of the term, literal or otherwise, and also between the specific ways in which they're then associated with each other (rockets strapped to a chair, a chair strapped to a rocket, a chair inside a rocket, a rocket-branded chair, etc.)... but that's boring and besides the point, i want a metal slug meme older than some people in mainspace, but sources don't seem to be in the mood to cover it or variations of it, least of all enough to justify this redirect's existence
I'm certain there has to be (or should be) somewhere on Wikipedia that goes into better detail on the topic of strapping rockets to a chair. If not, though, then I think we should at leastretarget toWan Hu, as the Chinese official who (according to legend) actually had a literal rocket chair built and then attempted to fly in it.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!04:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo,retarget toJet pack#Rocket chair, then. Or, I suppose you've already retargeted it. Which you're technically not supposed to do for a redirect under discussion, but in this case I can't imagine it would have anything less than unanimous support.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!22:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target. I'm inclined to delete, sort of perWP:RETURNTORED, although the edit history reveals some editors consider this a non-notable subfield. It is a real thing, has a few incoming links, and the phrase is used in other articles, includingHistory of molecular evolution. That is not a suitable target as the terms are not synonymous and it includes a minimal description of what comparative biochemistry is. There is a DAB pageComparative Biochemistry and Physiology which includes three articles that are partial title matches. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Restore orretarget tomolecular evolution. In this case I think we should see what the editing process can do for us. If restored, no predjudice againstWP:AFD, though I would note deletion is not cleanup, despiteWP:TNT. The stub in the history equated comparative biochemistry and molecular evolution, and while not necessarily synonymous, perhaps we do only need a single article, and not sure which title is best. But the page history should not be deleted here at Rfd.Mdewman6 (talk)07:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If retargeting, the sectionMolecular evolution#History might be better since it uses the term. I find the coverage somewhat deficient but targeting to the section helps to avoid readers erroneously concluding thatmolecular evolution andcomparative biochemistry are exactly synonymous. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)14:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was all set to recommend deletion per the nominator, but when I checked to see examples of other things it could refer to I found thatSpotify andAmazon at least regard "1997-2004" as the full title of the album, and it's not actually implausible given the only other text on the cover of all the album in all the pictures a Google image search is showing me is the band's name. The only other things this is a specific name for are clearly partial title matches (And Love Said No: The Greatest Hits 1997–2004 andBest Of (Chapter One 1997–2004)) or a subtitle (From Here on In (The Living End album)). The only other results a search for"1997-2004" site:en.wikipedia.org brings up are1997 in British television (and clearly nobody using this search term is looking for that article), and four articles about British train operating companies (West Anglia Great Northern,Arriva Trains Northern,First North Western andScotRail (National Express)) which fall squarely within my area of core subject matter knowledge and as such I can categorically state that this is not a remotely plausible search term for these articles.Thryduulf (talk)19:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Edit actually, I've just spotted there are more pages of search results but all of them are equally improbable search terms relating to things like Barak Obama's tenure in the Illinois Senate, Paul Scholes playing career with the England football team, Mary McAleese's first term as President of Ireland, the product lifespan of the Chevrolet Corvette (C5) 2-door coupé.Thryduulf (talk)19:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why does it matter? The character is still in the list article. Why would you make it harder for users to find information that still exists on a page?Gonnym (talk)07:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of this redirect showing up on search results makes it look to readers like we have an article on the Italian alps. We don't, not even a section at the target. We could retarget toNorthern Italy#Geography, which is reasonably informative, or delete the redirect.Cremastra (talk·contribs)20:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Italy is mentioned dozens of times inAlps. Shouldn't that article just be improved to further clarify the geography of the mountains in the countries they overlay?BD2412T22:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit shocking that unlike other languages (d:Q3509494) we don't have an article here. There's theFrench Alps,Swiss Alps, and even an article onthe very delimitation of the Alps, but not the Italian Alps. Over 100 articles link to this redirect. But given how the Alps are traditionally divided East/West rather than North/South, an article would be a bit of a hodgepodge. That can be seen in other languages' articles. In the interest of avoiding redundancy and helping the very many readers who come across redirect, I think a better idea than a redlink, which still encourages article creation, is a very shortbroad-concept article that briefly discusses Italian aspects of the Alps (likeFrench Alps does) but mostly focusses on directing readers to the different subranges of the Italian Alps (e.g.Cottian Alps,Bergamasque Alps). Likeit:Alpi italiane, but for now in much less detail.J947 ‡edits22:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful for navigation. When we delete XNRs, it's because they're liable to confuse readers, not because we think all XNRs should be deleted on sight.Cremastra (talk·contribs)16:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There were no submarine with this name neiter in Alfa class nor in Soviet Navy, so I propose to delete this redirect. According to яussian souяces K-64 have never had this name.Rave (talk)05:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete I didnt find neither "K-377" nor "К-377" submarines (although I did find some amusing things, such as "Preciosa Czech Bead Kit for Embroidery Pattern # K-377 , "Birds"" :-) --Altenmann>talk02:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect contains "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page. Distrito Federal has not been a disambiguation page since 2018.Mathguy2718 (talk)05:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete, only sort of per nom. it's kind of hard to disambiguate a term that only actually has one possible target, that being thefederal district (whoa)
...is what i would say, but it turns out that people referring to it will almost invariably slap a year on it (such asin ptwiki) or just skip the middle man and call it "rio de janeiro" because that's what it's been for longer than anyone around here who isn't a math or history teacher has been around, so there would be no need for a dab when a hatnote can and already does do the trick, and the current federal district is the primary topic by a really wide margin, so it does pretty much only have one possible target
...is what i would say, but- actually, i don't have a third plot twist. only two terms actually exist that this name could refer to, and neither of them are or need a dab, so i'm just gonna nom those redirects as wellconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)23:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
no, wait, i did find a third plot twist by looking at the pre-blar content ofdistrito federal for about 7 seconds.mexico city actually also was a federal district. frankly, i'm not even entirely sure mexico knew that, so it can just be added to a hatnote and nothing of value will be lost.don't restore that, though
except i lied, because i have a fourth plot twist!! buenos airesalso was one, and let's already get to the much more boring fifth plot twist that the fourth plot twist is a lie, as it doesn't seem to have ever been known as a federal district, meaning i accidentally told the truth (ew)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)00:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Upon a quick web search, it appears there are quite a few people by the surname of "Jickling." There are two article pages here that cover two people with this last name, while the redirect itself appears to be unused, which makes it unnecessary to have.8BitBros (talk•edits)04:53, 10 February 2026 (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).
Propose deletion of redirect. Individual Girl Guide group is not mentioned at target. Nor should it be. (Individual Guide groups are not independently notable.)Guliolopez (talk)02:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Redirect contains "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page, thoughHaitch used to be a disambiguation page. On a side, I found this redirect throughthis search method that finds pages that contain "disambiguation" but don't target disambiguation pages, which are mostly errors with a few exceptions.Mathguy2718 (talk)01:15, 10 February 2026 (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).
I've been looking at this redirect for a while, and determined that its current target doesn't sit well. I'd think someone looking to this redirect would be searching for something likeWikipedia:Naming conventions (name) orWikipedia:Naming conventions (names); however, neither one of those exist. It seems the intent of this redirect upon its creation is to redirect to a naing convention for "people", but even then, it could potentially be ambiguous with the advice atWikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Style advice#Titles (which should probably be its own "Naming conventions" page [or section of another naming conventions page] at this point, but that's a discussion for another day.) In addition, we also haveWikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which includes the word "names". Quite frankly, it's not clear what readers may be trying to find when searching this shortcut, but it really cannot be assumed it's about people; the fact that the redirect doesn't have any incoming links doesn't make it any clearer.
With all that being said, my preferences for the fate of this redirect, in order of most preferred to least preferred, are the following 3 options:
Delete due to lack of clarity of what this redirect is meant to refer.
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.
Delete, "⟨Name⟩ movie" is not a reasonable format for redirects to filmographies, especially when it's just a first name. I'm especially dubious of the reasoning above where Lebron James is freely assumed to be the PTOPIC for "Lebron", but the specific movie isn't (even though one of those movies is far more well known), especially in light ofShooting Stars, which isabout him, but doesn't feature him in the cast, and so isn't listed at the filmography section at his article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)16:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, which is that you're okay with having a PTOPIC for "Lebron", but you don't even consider the possibility (or didn't indicate that you did and dismissed it) that "Lebron movie" might have a PTOPIC itself (spoiler, it doesn't, because of what's mentioned above). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)18:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The arguments against a redirect in favor of delete are pretty convincing, but let's see if we can get more involved in the discussion and gain a clear consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Servite et contribuere (talk)00:26, 10 February 2026 (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).
Done (Rationales were identical). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)21:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The edit history forDepartment of Biochemistry includes a note fromXFDcloser. I cannot find any prior RFD discussions viasearch andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Biochemistry does not exist. If there was a prior discussion, I cannot find it. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 17#Biochemical analysis