This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 17, 2026.
I was going to create a redirect toElina (musician) from her given name,Elina Stridh. I'm not sure how I managed to include the quotation mark or the lowercase e, but this redirect definitely does not need to exist.Sock(tock talk)07:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete perCSD G7 and I've tagged the redirect accordinglyDuckmather (talk)07:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be an established transliteration of this Korean-language term (at least not according togoogle); maybedelete?Duckmather (talk)06:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at target (nor anywhere else on enwiki); the original creation edit summary wasCreating a temporary redirect for the Burmese musical artist
. Maybedelete perWP:REDYES?Duckmather (talk)06:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at target; maybedelete unless someone has an explanation?Duckmather (talk)06:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The worst day of your life so far
[edit]Since we're on the subject...this isn't mentioned at the target. Not having seen the Simpsons Movie, I immediately instead thought ofOffice Space instead, which has a pretty memorable scene featuring something very much like this. But either way, again, it's not mentioned, so it's useless to those who know it but are looking for more information, and confusing to those who don't know it, so it should be deleted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)22:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since this is the third in the series of redirects pertaining to the Simpsons Movie's nude scene, I mentioned in another RfD that this is a well-known meme template.Xeroctic (talk)22:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This misspelling might be unambiguous (even then, that's a bit uncertain), but definitely is not plausible. I seriously doubt anyone these days would misspell neologism as neolism. 🤨SeaHaircutSoilReplace05:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Biochemical analysis
[edit]Bot note:Biochemical analysis (disambiguation)Biochemical analysis (disambiguation)(talk ·links ·history ·stats) is a related redirect of "Biochemical analysis "
This may have a suitable target but I'm not sure which is best; deletion is not unreasonable for this unmentioned, vague/ambiguous term. This could refer tobioanalysis,blood tests and othermedical laboratory analyses, various topics listed atOutline of biochemistry#Applications of biochemistry andOutline of biochemistry#Biochemical techniques, and probably others… —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I really want to say retarget tobioanalysis, but that article is pretty underwhelming and could use some major expansion for such an important and large topic, and technically, bioanalysis i.e. bioanalytical chemistry is more specific than biochemical analysis, the former being more quantitative, and the latter including more qualitative aspects like protein structures and such. So I am on the fence between that and anotherWP:RETURNTORED situation, where we really need a broad concept article at this title, pulling together the disparate content, like bioanalysis andBlood_test#Biochemical_analysis. We could try for a sort of disambigation page, but I don't really like that idea at all, as I don't think we can pull together enough links in a sensible way.Mdewman6 (talk)02:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambig, you said it yourself: it is an ambiguous term with no better primary target, because it may refer to any type ofanalysis ofbiochemistry. We have at least tree items to start a valid disambig page:
- --Altenmann>talk21:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone can demonstrate that hex is more affiliated withAqua (color) and rgb is more affiliated withCyan, these redirects should have the same target.Mathguy2718 (talk)05:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these redirects need to exist at all. Wikipedia article titles do not need to be a service for resolving RGB color triples to CSS color names. –jacobolus (t)06:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This redirects to the street circuit in Exhibition Place that is used for racing. I don't believe that this is the appropriate target for this redirect and I think it should be a disambiguation page or redirect to a different target. Previously, many pages that mentioned the Exhibition Place street circuit linked to this redirect, but I bypassed them.Cyrobyte (talk)04:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that technically those bypasses were done out of process.Keep - "Streets of Toronto" as a proper noun iscommonly used in the racing press, community, and vernacular to refer to the street course used for theMolson Indy Toronto (and referring to it by that name probably dates me!). -The BushrangerOne ping only04:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Taiwan is notThai, making this anon-recently createdR3 situation. Delete?𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝)03:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topic may not just be thePlatycorynus peregrinus, retarget toBlue Beetle𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝)14:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Archiveiya74codqgiixo33q62qlrqtkgmcitqx5u2oeqnmn5bpcbiyd.onion
[edit]CSD declined, this is a difficult retarget to consider and it's not mentioned in the targeted article. –The Grid (talk)21:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete sadly this isn’t the onion.Thepharoah17 (talk)22:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]- keep. i'm not entirely sure what this is about, since... itis mentioned, and seems to have been mentionedsince 2020consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)23:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to be an onion/TOR link. It's still not directly mentioned, just another way to redirect to the website.Template:Onion URL is sufficient for its job. We don't need redirects like this. –The Grid (talk)23:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless there is sufficient evidence that the redirect is about as notable asdQw4w9WgXcQdQw4w9WgXcQ (the redirect, not the target).Steel1943 (talk)23:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Itwas added byChaetoLv some years before the redirect was created. Maybe remove it per nom, or have a talk page discussion first? Jay 💬11:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I added that onion URL, which has existed since at least 2019, toArchive.today. However, it seems too long to use as a redirect, so I doubt anyone will use it.ChaetoLv (talk)13:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw thatCategory:Redirects from .onion domain names was made by the same author. I don't believe that's the correct intention of the parentCategory:Redirects from domain names. It's a redirect but not where it's also a shortcut. I could include the other 2 redirects with the category for this RfD...–The Grid (talk)13:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:WP:Cheap and reasonable.Aaron Liu (talk)16:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Search results for this term point to a board gameabout the war, not the American Civil war itself. This board game is not mentioned at the target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. I recommend deletion in order toreturn this term to red.Chess enjoyer (talk)17:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Is the board game notable? Either way, I think it's dubious that a board game about an event would be the primary topic over the event itself. Search results tend to skew towards commercial products as they get a cut for items sold from their link, so I'm not surprised that search results would point that direction. --Tavix(talk)17:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, now I'm a little confused. I just used a different search engine, and it pointed me to a bunch of civil war stuff, but none of them actually use the term "war of the states", just some terms that look similar. For what it's worth, this term also doesn't appear inNames of the American Civil War.Chess enjoyer (talk)17:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't seen Tavix's second response when I wrote this.Chess enjoyer (talk)18:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from the nominator: I went on anarcheological expedition (or, asLunamann calls them, a history dive). This redirect was created back in 2007, and it was not mentioned in the target atthat time, either.Chess enjoyer (talk)17:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- It'd be a variant of "War Between the States", which has a section atNames of the American Civil War#War Between the States. We could retarget there if desired. --Tavix(talk)17:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'd prefer a retarget to the status quo.Chess enjoyer (talk)17:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Delete I did some digging but only foundone source that seems to use the term to refer to the war specifically. There are some other hits on Google Books, but the actual texts seem to use the more commonWar Between the States. I don't think there's enough usage here to justify adding a mention at the current target orNames of the American Civil War. Thus, I think people using this phrase are likely looking for the board game which may or may not be notable enough for an article. A redlink seems like the best solution here. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)18:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget toNames of the American Civil War#War Between the States as suggested. "War of the States" and "War between the States" were descriptive idioms commonly usedduring the war itself for the conflict, and not so much these days. Redirecting to the naming pagespace subhead "informs the controversy" better than a redirect to the main article. This is a good discussion to create, however.BusterD (talk)18:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This redirect got only 67 hits all last year[1] and had only one incoming link, which I just changed to point directly toAmerican Civil War, so deleting it probably wouldn't hurt anything. On the other hand, it's been around 19 years without causing problems, so there's no urgent need to change or delete either. It's not a common term for the Civil War, but I could see rare instances of someone possibly confusing War Between the States for this term. If someone wants to write an article about the board game, they can write right over the redirect as easily as if it were a redlink.Station1 (talk)23:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
May also refer to quizzes usingGender schema theory.Abesca (talk)21:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Usage in articles does largely refer tosex verification in sports. Most of these articles cover a couple of the same cases, so this may reflect usage by one or a handful of editor working on similar articles rather than broader usage. A Google search turns up many results related toprenatal sex discernment. This could possibly refer to other entries atSex determination#Discernment of an organism's sex. Of course, "gender" is conflated with "sex" if we keep, retarget, or DABify using any of these. Good redirects sometimes anticipate such things, but pointing readers to any of these without addressing thesex–gender distinction is inappropriate. So I'm unsure what the best course of action is. I find the nom's suggestion of a quiz ongender schema theory, or simplygender theory, quite unlikely. These articles don't coverexams on the theories, anyway. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)02:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the google results,prenatal sex discernment seems the much more common usage of this term. I agree that a quiz on gender theory seems very niche in comparison. Happy for this to change to a disambiguation withprenatal sex discernment andsex verification in sports as the main things to be disambiguated, and incoming links updated.SFB12:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-target tosex determination, which seems to be our disambiguation page for the various topics this might refer to ... and add any that are missing.Justlettersandnumbers (talk)14:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the edit summary of this redirect's creation, I would not call it "valid and proper".— An anonymous username,not my real name04:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:SSRT, the main purpose of having a soft Wikt redirect is either for commonly used terms without articles or to discourage the creation of articles for topics that don't need a Wikipedia article but are repeatedly given one. Neither applies here; this page has a single mainspace incoming link and has apparently never existed as an article. If anything, its history shows that it's become a target for vandalism by unregistered users. Delete.— An anonymous username,not my real name03:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Problem of refugee in Jeju Island
[edit]Was original page title, structured oddly, deleteThepharoah17 (talk)03:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't it also refer toGender nonconformity as well? Note it was originally pointed toandrogyny and there's already a hatnote forAmbiguous gender andAmbiguous genitalia.Abesca (talk)03:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
List of mayors of Byron
[edit]Target article don't have list of mayors.Ckfasdf (talk)02:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above; redirect target was never expandedTotallynotarandomalt69 (talk)04:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
