Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
Discussion venue for potentially problematic redirects
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared. |
| Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives |
| V | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 106 | 162 | 268 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| FfD | 0 | 2 | 5 | 30 | 37 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 90 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects 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 a requested 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 that do 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
Current discussions
Redirects that have been nominated for discussion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.
Old discussions
After 7 days, RfDs nominations that have finished their discussion period are eligible to be closed following the deletion process.
Before listing a redirect for discussion
Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:
- Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.
The guiding principles of RfD
- 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 is delete.
- Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily 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. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
- In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
When to delete a redirect
| This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history) |
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such as links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from 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.
Reasons for deleting
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably 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 on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
- The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
- The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Banana". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
- It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-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 of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
- If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy 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 a novel 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 are candidates 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 for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the
suppressredirectuser right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested 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.
Reasons for not deleting
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia: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 aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate 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 are not candidates for deletion on 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 the Pennsylvania (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, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage 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 also Wikipedia: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 the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
- The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
Neutrality of redirects
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are 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 but verifiable 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:
- Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
- Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumorBarack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
- 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 the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "AttorneygateAttorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled 2006 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 not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.
Closing notes
- Details at Administrator instructions for RfD
Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).
How to list a redirect for discussion
| STEP I. | Tag the redirect(s).
Enter
| ||
| STEP II. | List the entry on RfD.
Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
| ||
| STEP III. | Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName 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 using What 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. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current list
March 22
Wikipedia:♠
- Wikipedia:♠ → Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This is unhelpful and defeats the purpose of a shortcut Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
XICS
- XICS → Internet Chess Server#Protocol and access (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This redirect is tagged R from merge, but it is confusing because "XICS" is not mentioned at the target. Is it suitable for a retarget to Free Internet Chess Server ? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Operation Epstein Fury
- Operation Epstein Fury → 2026 Iran war#Politicians (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned, let alone described, at the target, 2026_Iran_war#Politicians. “Epstein”, in “Epstein files” is mentioned only once, and the connection of the 2026 Iran War to “Operation Epstein Fury”, while probably a fair satirical critique of the underlying motivations, is not encyclopedic, but is attempting to be clever rhetoric. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not encyclopedic at all Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Redirects are cheap and, on cursory Googling, this seems to be a fairly broad hashtag already covered across several news articles. If the article doesn't currently mention the massive criticism of Trump's attack as a wag-the-dog situation distracting from Massie & co's work in Congress, it should be added. The only issue might be that other articles on Epstein and Trump might be better targets for the redirect than the main Iraq War article, but that depends on their coverage and quality. — LlywelynII 13:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: This redirect has already got over 600 views in the fairly short time it has existed, so I don't think deleting it would be a sensible idea even if you don't think it's "encyclopedic" (we have lots of non-neutral redirects anyway, and many of them are a lot more obscure than this one). —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I am a new editor on Wikipedia, but using view count as a primary/significant argument for promoting specific wording feels contrary to the ideal of building an encyclopedia, and indeed downright dangerous towards that goal. Sensationalist things will always win the view count battle, resulting in a serious problem of prejudicial effect outweighing probative value. It's my understanding the Wikipedia aims to prioritize the latter.
TL;DR are we building a clickbait website here? Beeswax1999 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)- Nobody's trying to rename the article to Operation Epstein Fury, this is just a redirect. The high view count shows that it's a plausible search term, and one of the main purposes of redirects is to make it easier to search for stuff. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- As mentioned RDs need not be neutral or encyclopedic at all as long as they are possible search terms (where view count is an astute measure) we are good to go. Gotitbro (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I am a new editor on Wikipedia, but using view count as a primary/significant argument for promoting specific wording feels contrary to the ideal of building an encyclopedia, and indeed downright dangerous towards that goal. Sensationalist things will always win the view count battle, resulting in a serious problem of prejudicial effect outweighing probative value. It's my understanding the Wikipedia aims to prioritize the latter.
- Keep, per above. And probably Operation Epstein Files should be created as well Yacàwotçã (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, obviously not encyclopedic DiodotusNicator (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep and refine to 2026 Iran war#Hostilities, where Operation Epic Fury is mentioned. One of the purposes of redirects is to direct non-neutral titles to neutral ones; we have Trump-Epstein files → Epstein files, for example. I2Overcome talk 22:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Whether satirical or not it is a likely search term. If target mention is a problem, satirical names are detailed at reactions to the 2026 Iran war and that maybe a more apt target. Gotitbro (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to appropriate location in Reactions to the 2026 Iran war — mentioned here but not at current target. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support this retarget to Reactions_to_the_2026_Iran_war. The phrase is mentioned and explained there:
. The phase remains unused and unexplained at the current target.Other critics of Trump, including Democratic politicians, social media influencers and users, referred to the war with satirical names to allege that the war aims to distract Americans from investigations into Trump's past with the financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in the Epstein files like the "Epstein War" and "Operation Epstein Fury" (or "Operation Epstein's Fury"), the latter being a reference to the operation codename "Operation Epic Fury".
- - SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Prefer Relationship of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein#Commentary per Scyrme below. That section explains the term in the lede sentence
making it a much better target. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)During the 2026 Iran war, critics of Trump mocked him by nicknaming the war the "Operation Epstein Distraction" or "Operation Epstein Fury" (in reference to the codename Operation Epic Fury), alleging that it was launched to distract from the Trump–Epstein relationship.[183]
- Prefer Relationship of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein#Commentary per Scyrme below. That section explains the term in the lede sentence
- Keep Plausible search term. Not opposed to shifting the target to the reaction article. BSMRD (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Relationship of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein § Commentary. It's also mentioned at this target, and the article overall provides the relevant context as to why this name exists to begin with. While it's also mentioned at Reactions to the 2026 Iran war, that mention is buried deep down within the "United States" section so is more likely to surprise (WP:RSUPRISE). Oppose keeping it as the current target doesn't mention it or provide context. – Scyrme (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Tol and SmokeyJoe: Would you also prefer this target, or do you have a reason for preferring the Reactions article? – Scyrme (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- If there are multiple places that describe the phrase, then either use disambiguation, or simply delete and allow the Wikipedia search engine to serve its purpose. Oppose the current targeting. Oppose a redirect that hides one target by sending readers to the other. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Scyrme: I still have a slight preference for the reactions article. It seems to me that the term is more closely associated with and in direct response to the war rather than the Trump–Epstein relationship, and the reactions page links to the relationship page to provide more context. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to the reactions article per Tol. I agree it's more closely related to that topic and that would be the less surprising place to end up from a search. To avoid the concern mentioned by Scyrme, we could add an anchor link on the appropriate paragraph to link directly there. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Anchor is a good suggestion. I'd be fine with that target as an {{r to anchor}}. – Scyrme (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose retarget as the many other editors already effectively did above. The redirect is pointing to the subject many people are searching for as already attested by multiple reliable sources. Something similar to what's currently at the Epstein/Trump article could work with the Iran War hatnoted in the section, but the section needs to be something stable and specifically Iran focused. "Commentary" is an incredibly bland name that is either going to get removed, reworded, or refocused onto other commentary on other aspects of the Trump/Epstein relationship. Meanwhile, the Iran War is sitting right there and is already what WP:READERS are looking for, such that not using it is actually violating WP:RSURPRISE. Alternatively, if it's phrased correctly and stable enough, Reactions to the 2026 Iran war is the far more natural and neutral retarget, if people only want to focus on the redirect as a vibe as opposed to an alt name for the actual war. — LlywelynII 10:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to the reactions article per Tol. I agree it's more closely related to that topic and that would be the less surprising place to end up from a search. To avoid the concern mentioned by Scyrme, we could add an anchor link on the appropriate paragraph to link directly there. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Tol and SmokeyJoe: Would you also prefer this target, or do you have a reason for preferring the Reactions article? – Scyrme (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Wanggiya (surname)
- Wanggiya (surname) → List of Manchu clans (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
As I know, "Wanggiya" only means the Manchu surname, which is a variant of Wanyan, and there is no need to disambiguate by parentheses. Therefore, I suggest to create the redirect "Wanggiya" (without parentheses) which would be redirected to Wanyan and delete this redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahogany115 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have gone and redirected Wanggiya (and Wanggiyan) to Wanyan as alternative transliterations. This seems to be a R from unnecessary disambiguation; I don't think it needs to be deleted. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Syrian Civil War, November 2012 – March 2013
- Syrian Civil War, November 2012 – March 2013 → Syrian civil war (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Syrian Civil War, November 2012 - March 2013 → Syrian civil war (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Clearly incorrect, the war was not ended in March 2013 A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to 2012–2013 escalation of the Syrian civil war Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Israel (Bible)
- Biblical Israel → Ancient Israel and Judah (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Israel (Bible) → Jacob (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Shouldn't it have the same target? Or at least hatnote each other. Abesca (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- One is a place, the other is a person. A disambiguation page might be in order, but in lieu of that, definitely hatnote each other. Lychniis (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- One is a place, the other is a person who isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the namespace. Retarget so both point to the place with a hatnote disambiguating the alternative name for the guy. — LlywelynII 13:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't Land of Israel a better target for Biblical Israel? If it's ambiguous, Israel (disambiguation) would be the appropriate target for these. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget both to Israel (disambiguation) Even if we presume the place is the primary topic, is the reader looking for a general article about the region? Or one about the polity referred to as the "kingdom of Israel"? And, of course, there is the off chance they are looking for an article about Jacob. Ultimately, there's too much ambiguity here for me to identify a primary topic, and this isn't a case where there are only two possible targets. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget both to Israel (disambiguation) as {{r from incomplete disambiguation}}. Even in just a Biblical context this is very ambiguous. Could be the land, the kingdom, the name, or a metonym for the Israelites or people of Israel in general. All of these are linked at the proposed target. – Scyrme (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- There's also The Israel Bible, which dab should mention. Abesca (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Security minister of Israel
- Security minister of Israel → Ministry of Defense (Israel) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Suggest delete since there is Ministry of National Security (Israel). Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Instead of deleting, couldn't we just redirect it to Ministry of National Security (Israel) then? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Kel Gleason
- Kel Gleason → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Kel gleason → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC))
I'd like to list this redirect as part of the multi-nom section about contestants appearing in only Survivor: The Australian Outback. Nonetheless, how he was eliminated from the season was... well... Actually, I was hoping some buzz about that. Alternatively, the "Jerri Manthey" article mentions her interactions with him and his elimination. Preferably, the page should be redirected to The Australian Outback article as, like other contestants, he hasn't appeared in later Survivor seasons as of now. George Ho (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
K. B. Hedgewar redirects
- Doctorji → K. B. Hedgewar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Doctor Ji → K. B. Hedgewar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
In many Indian languages, ji generally functions as an honorific suffix, comparable to "Mr". The redirects in question point to K. B. Hedgewar, founder of the Indian right-wing paramilitary organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. As they stand, the redirects are extremely broad; most readers searching for the title would be unlikely to have Hedgewar in mind. Moreover, the two pages have collectively attracted a little more than 60 views over the entirety of the past two years, as seen from their page information; clearly, they aren't being used. Given their novelty and general obscurity, they are never going to be useful and should therefore be deleted. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep - Agree with comments above by EarthDude, but seems reliable sources are using this term for this person. e.g. see this source, maybe seems this also - seems many like that. However, the target page has no mention of this term. Asteramellus (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
(Re)Connect
- (Re)Connect → List of Disney+ original programming#Unscripted (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This is an {{R without mention}} that I think should probably be deleted. I'm not entirely sure, but (Re)Connect appears to have been an early working title for Family Reboot, which is listed under List of Disney+ original programming#Reality. There was some reporting about the then-upcoming show (Re)Connect in 2019, including the sources used at Disney+#Original unscripted content, where this redirect link is used. Family Reboot eventually premiered in 2022 and the description is similar to earlier descriptions of (Re)Connect. Readers who search this or click the link will be WP:RSURPRISEd to land at a list that does not include this show. I don't know if Family Reboot is notable but it doesn't have an article and I've found no suitable place where content might be added to explain its development history—assuming (Re)Connect was a working title, which would need to be verified if such content were added to support this redirect. There is a song called "[re]connect" mentioned at Mother (Veil of Maya album)#Track listing; I don't think that's a suitable target. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
ZF-UDS-7329
Unmentioned, delete. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Owww, my legs! This is the worst pain ever!
- Owww, my legs! This is the worst pain ever! → Little Big Mom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Unlikely search term. ... discospinster talk 02:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Well, I don't need safety gloves, because I'm Homer Simp-*gets zapped*
- Well, I don't need safety gloves, because I'm Homer Simp-*gets zapped* → Homer's Enemy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Unlikely search term. ... discospinster talk 02:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Duck, duck, duck, duck, duck, duck, duck, duck…
- Duck, duck, duck, duck, duck, duck, duck, duck… → Sleeping with the Enemy (The Simpsons) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Unlikely search term. ... discospinster talk 02:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Say “goose,” you stupid freak. *Ralph runs away while crying*
- Say “goose,” you stupid freak. *Ralph runs away while crying* → Sleeping with the Enemy (The Simpsons) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Nobody would search this. ... discospinster talk 02:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Coco 2
- Coco 2 → Coco (franchise)#Coco 2 (TBA) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Coco 2 (film) → Coco (2017 film)#Sequel (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
It is not useful for two redirects that have the same meaning (since "Coco 2" only refers to the film) to redirect to two different articles that both go to sections that do not exist. Ideally, these redirects should 1: redirect to the same article unless there is justification that adding (film) creates a different meaning; and 2: not redirect to a nonexistent section. Also, note that Draft:Coco 2 exists and Draft:Coco 2 (film) redirects to that draft. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Coco 2 (film) as unnecessary with no history of value. Retarget Coco 2 to Coco (franchise) § Coco 2 (2029) because that is where the most information is available for this forthcoming film. Seems like a simple enough solution to me. If the "(film)" DAB redirect is not deleted, then it should also redirect the same as what I have suggested, and be tagged as an avoided double redirect. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 01:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
List of political parties in Calabria
- List of political parties in Calabria → Politics of Calabria#Parties and elections (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
There is no list of political parties in Calabria at the target or (as far as I can find) anywhere on Wikipedia. Additionally, due to the lack of content on political parties at the target article, I renamed the section simply to Elections, and now the redirect goes to the top of the article. Redirect is misleading and unhelpful, I propose Delete. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Swedish White Elkhound
- Swedish White Elkhound → Jämthund (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not listed on the article. Listed as a separate breed on elkhound. UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 00:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Honorary member
- Honorary member → Academician (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
I don’t know if the redirect makes too much sense. Surely there are honorary members in all kinds of organizations, not only in academies. Geohakkeri (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with the nominator. Ideally this would target an article with some content about the concept of honorary membership, the closest I've found is Title of honour, but that doesn't feel quite right. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 00:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Don't keep per above. Honorary membership isn't a thing limited to academies, so that's not a good target. Delete if a better target can't be found. If we don't have an article on that adequeately discusses it, then it's better to leave it to search results. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Obamna
Primary topic should be the listing at List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. Not unilaterally redirecting since this is a fairly popular redirect Mach61 04:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- N.b., That listing appears to fail the list's inclusion criteria. See Talk:List of nicknames used by Donald Trump#obamna. From my knowledge of the "nickname", it's a meme favorite, but probably doesn't meet any of the four criteria (and entries are supposed to meet all four). --BDD (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- If it gets removed from that list I suppose it can stay as is, but currently its still on there Mach61 21:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Just don’t delete it pla Idibiks (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- pls Idibiks (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:CHEAP. It's useful for someone. guninvalid (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 00:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Abdallah Husseini
- Abdallah Husseini → List of Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Abdullah Husseini → List of Guantanamo Bay detainees (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Should point to the same place but not mentioned at either target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC) - Comment: Per this New York Times piece, Abdallah Husseini is an alias of Labed Ahmed, mentioned on List of Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay with isn 703. मल्ल (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per मल्ल Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like a reason to keep might be established but not which target would be best if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 00:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Access 1 disorder
- Access 1 disorder → Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders#Multi-axial system (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Access 2 disorder → Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders#Multi-axial system (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Access 3 disorder → Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders#Multi-axial system (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Access I disorder → Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders#Multi-axial system (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Access II disorder → Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders#Multi-axial system (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Access III disorder → Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders#Multi-axial system (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Acess III disorder → Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders#Multi-axial system (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The section target is broken and the terms aren't mentioned in the article. The redirects were created in 2009 but I can't find mentions of the terms in the article from that time and a search didn't bring up enough sources that I think it warrants adding the terms to the article. Suonii180 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak refine all to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders#DSM-IV multi-axial system where the mention now lies. "Access" is a plausible enough mishearing of "axis". The last one being a typo on top of that is stretching plausibility; possibly delete that one. I2Overcome talk 03:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 00:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Some ambiguous redirects
- Pro-Independence Movement → Independence movement in Puerto Rico (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Movimiento Pro-Independencia → Independence movement in Puerto Rico (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Independista → Independence movement in Puerto Rico (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Independenista → Independence movement in Puerto Rico (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Independentismo → Independence movement in Puerto Rico (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Independentistas → Independence movement in Puerto Rico (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Independentista → Independence movement in Puerto Rico (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
They're really ambiguous. Retarget "Pro-Independence Movement" and delete the rest. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Tagged redirects since they weren't tagged by the nom. @Candidyeoman55: Please note that you need to add the RfD tag to each redirect before nominating them here. CycloneYoris talk! 00:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I forgot to do it, sorry. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- No worries. CycloneYoris talk! 02:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I forgot to do it, sorry. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
March 21
Walt Disney Japan
- Walt Disney Japan → Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pinging LTPHarry who created this on 22 September 2020. Like, since when has this rdr been thought of, especially when currently un-notable Dlife currently redirects to Disney Channel (International)?! Intrisit (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: Walt Disney Japan is the theatrical and home entertainment division of The Walt Disney Company Japan. It used to be called Walt Disney Studios Japan. Sure, it’s a confusing name, but it doesn’t have any connection to DLife, which is operated by TWDCJ itself. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Amiga Games
- Amiga Games → List of Amiga games (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This a fake blue/green link for an unlikely capitalization error, while this should be a red link for the notable magazine (de:Amiga Games). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Not clear to me that the magazine is notable but I buy it per SMALLDETAILS —BrechtBro (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep - harmless redirect going to the correct place. I do not agree that the magazine
supplementis notable, even if it has an effectively sourceless dewiki article. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Post-industrial (music genre)
- Post-industrial (music genre) → List of industrial music genres#Post-industrial developments (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Post-industrial (music) → Industrial music#Post-industrial (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This redirect targets List of industrial music genres, however Post-industrial (music) targets the more general Industrial music. Both target pages have sections which discuss Post-industrial music. Given how similar the titles of these redirects are, I think they should target the same section. However, it is unclear to me which target is preferable. Uffda608 (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note I've added Post-industrial (music) to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment the hatnote at Post-industrial society (where Post-industrial redirects) links to List of industrial music genres, but should probably follow the outcome of this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Conical Peak
- Conical Peak → Boundary Cone (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This redirect was created in 2010 when the page was moved due to the title being incorrect. Conical Peak is not an alternate name here. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
T20 World Cup
- T20 World Cup → Cricket World Cup (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Currently redirects to dab, as both Men's T20 World Cup and Women's T20 World Cup have articles on Wikipedia. There has been some back-and-forth with certain editors preferring a primary redirect to Men's T20 World Cup; posting here for discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete The Cricket World Cup disambiguation is too general since it covers all international cricket world cups whereas T20 is its own format,so it deserves its own redirect rather than something too general which most people may not be looking for. Not only that, but when people type "T20 World Cup" on Wikipedia or on Google but come to Wikipedia,they likely want to see the men's tournament since that is more widely searched,looked at,and more popular as well. Its better to redirect it there than having to go through a whole disambiguation to find what they actually are looking for or having to search longer titles(Men's T20 World Cup but searching up T20 World Cup is easier). This is distinct and should have a redirect of its own tournament which you have to understand. Also,on the top of the men's tournament I added an about template so users can have the link to the Women's tournament if that was what they are looking for,that should solve this dispute. Darrrrmilk (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've reverted the hatnote at Men's T20 World Cup pending the result of this discussion. See WP:NAMB. 162 etc. (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- not related Darrrrmilk (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've reverted the hatnote at Men's T20 World Cup pending the result of this discussion. See WP:NAMB. 162 etc. (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: there's absolutely no PRIMARYTOPIC between men's and women's events. Redirecting to the disambiguation page is the most sensible option here. Vestrian24Bio 10:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Men's T20 World Cup. The pageviews show that the majority of readers are looking for the men's world cup. Redirects are meant to assist readers and most readers are looking for the men's world cup. It is also more common for men's competitions to be referred to without a gender designation, but much less common for women's competitions. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep, especially for now since the women's edition is just a couple of months away and readers will mainly be looking for it during its duration. A 5:1 pageview ratio, and readers being comparatively more likely to intend the men's edition by omitting disambiguation, is not quite sufficient for a primary topic in my opinion. At least for the next 4 months, targetting the disambiguation page is clearly superior. In my opinion there's no primary topic, but even if there's consensus there is, for a high-traffic, well-watched redirect like this one I think there's a strong case for the effectiveness of a temporary solution. J947 ‡ edits 22:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- What would be sufficient for a primary topic in your view then? Because if having more than 5 times the pageviews and being the common usage of the term isn't primary then nothing is seemingly primary. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Normally I'd suggest a reader ratio of roughly 6:1 is sufficient for a primary topic (when it comes to usage). Frequent RM participants would have a better idea of the bar. In this instance, I'm raising that bar a bit, since it feels wrong to redirect "T20 World Cup" to "Men's T20 World Cup"; the ICC always uses the disambiguator in official materials. J947 ‡ edits 00:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Pageviews alone doesn't determine PRIMARYTOPIC, The usage in reliable sources has included the gender since the rename to T20 World Cup. The historic value is equal for both events. Vestrian24Bio 12:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- What would be sufficient for a primary topic in your view then? Because if having more than 5 times the pageviews and being the common usage of the term isn't primary then nothing is seemingly primary. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per J947 NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Thunder Radio
Potentially if not definitely ambiguous; while this is the former branding for KNDS-LP (now call sign-branded), it is the current branding for at least two other radio stations, KBWG and WMSR (AM). There is also a Thunder Radio Network associated with the Oklahoma City Thunder basketball team. At best this should be a disambiguation page. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Let people search for the entity they wish to find. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NOPE
- Wikipedia:NOPE → Wikipedia:What notability is not (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Why specifically WNIN? I don't see why "Nope" would refer to that article in particular. In general, "nope" is not very formal, so I doubt it would make for a good project-namespace redirect. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 13:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Leaning delete. This seems hopelessly ambiguous to me. Anything that would engender a "nope" under a given policy could be the target of this link. BD2412 T 19:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Though this could refer to some of the pages located at Wikipedia:NO, most pages using this shortcut do refer to Wikipedia:What notability is not, specifically that notability is subjective. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Trubik's Cube
- Trubik's Cube → Rubik's Cube (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Implausible typo, very few page views Pizzachu44 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Head to Head
- Head to Head → The Gilded Age (TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
While Head to Head is an episode of the TV series in the current target, we have ordinary meaning of this term, see wikt:head to head and wikt:head-to-head. And searching "head-to-head" on Wikipedia also yields a lot of pages about head-to-head results between sport teams. To me, I was trying to find if there is an article about head-to-head battle or similar on Wikipedia, but I ended up in a TV series. Hence, I think it can be misleading and confusing (especially it's only an episode without its own section). Sun8908 Talk 15:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Listing pages on Wikipedia that mention "Head to Head":
Pages containing "Head to Head" |
|---|
Also: |
- In addition, there is Head 2 Head, and this does not include the actual uses in sports and other things related to "head-to-head". Though not everything I listed would be searched primarily as "Head to Head", it is unlikely that "Head to Head" would most likely refer to an episode in The Gilded Age (TV series). Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per findings by Mathguy2718. George Ho (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION. Draft disambiguation page started below the redirect. - Eureka Lott 23:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Seems like a helpful disambiguation page to me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Sadisticon
- Sadisticon → Marquis de Sade (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This was a 2-entry disambiguation page that I PRODed with rationale "Sadisticon is not mentioned anywhere in Enwiki or wikt". The PROD was removed and the article redirected to the current target by @PokemonPerson:. The difficulty is that there is still no mention of "Sadisticon" in this article or anywhere else, creating possible confusion for the user. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Minoa (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - only hit in google is for a World of Warcraft character by that name. There is no apparent primary connection to de Sade or anything similar. The original dab page was created by a user with only a single edit, and is of the same name, so it may be something self-serving.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Karytaina-Dimitsana Road
- Karytaina-Dimitsana Road → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Karítaina-Dimitsána Road → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Karýtaina-Dimitsána Road → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Karitaina-Dimitsana Road → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Karítena-Dimitsána Road → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Karýtena-Dimitsána Road → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Karitena-Dimitsana Road → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Karytena-Dimitsana Road → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
I think we should delete the redirects, because there is no National Road that runs between Karytaina and Dimitsana. For more information about the list of extant national roads, see National roads in Greece. Minoa (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- It seems that this was once a standalone article but was later merged to Greek National Road 76, which itself was redirect to the highways list, hence why we have the current redirects. Despite it being said as being a merge Markussep never merged any content so we do not need to maintain the page for attribution. Whether someone thinks the page history is worth keeping is another matter but given the article was entirely unsourced I'm in favour of deletion. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Kelly Wiglesworth
- Kelly Wiglesworth → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Kelly wiglesworth → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- Kelly wigglesworth → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
In my mind, she is best known as a runner-up in Survivor: Borneo, while she was eliminated in Survivor: Cambodia. Perhaps the page should be redirected to the Borneo page due to how far she has come. I doubt that sources covering her Cambodia appearance would justify retargeting the page to the Cambodia one.
Indeed, plenty of reliable sources covering her Cambodia gameplay discuss mostly her elimination. This mag piece deeming her a "boring" TV character of Cambodia would be one of grounds to restore the article. So would how Cambodia has changed her life. Unfortunately, a draft article about her that I made (Draft:Kelly Wiglesworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) wasn't approved, so good luck to those favoring an article restoration.
I can't help wonder how the current target destination has helped readers seek her name. Indeed, they would have to look for her name, click/tap on either the season that she first appeared in or the subsequent season that she also appeared in. Also, how much data has the MediaWiki server infrastructure handled over the years since it was retargeted from Borneo to the list?
If the list is no longer a suitable target for this person, then the page should be (again) retargeted to, preferably, Survivor: Borneo. George Ho (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC); edited, 17:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
List of religious studies scholars
- List of religious studies scholars → Religious studies (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- List of religious scholars → Religious studies (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- List of religion scholars → Religious studies (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Was previously an article which was BLARed. However, there is no list of religious studies scholars at the target so the target is misleading. Also nominating List of religious scholars, List of religion scholars, which were redirects to that. Restore? Delete? Send to AfD? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- All of these redirects seem pretty pointless, and would probably confuse someone searching for them. Delete. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- There's no list on the landing page so delete. UnilandofmaTalk 17:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we send it to AfD though? Since there was an article that got deleted without discussion? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete, because there is no list on the target page. --Minoa (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Restore article given the existence of list of historians, list of economists, list of psychologists, etc. I'm not enamoured with the merits of these lists which perennially suffer from issues of incompleteness, but there's been editorial consensus against deleting them in the past, so AfD is the least this article deserves. J947 ‡ edits 23:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Restore List of religious studies scholars as a contested WP:BLAR and as non-redundant per WP:CLNT. Deleting the page here would amount to a backdoor deletion. - Eureka Lott 00:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Xamnei
- Xamenei → Ali Khamenei (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Xameneye → Ali Khamenei (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Xaminei → Ali Khamenei (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
At the very least these should be redirected to Khamenei family as no less ambiguous than Khamenei which already points there, however is there any evidence these alternate transliterations are actually used? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
2014 civil war in Syria
- 2014 civil war in Syria → Syrian civil war (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Incorrect, the Syrian civil war was not started in 2014 A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Timeline of the Syrian Civil War, where information on events that occurred in 2014 is discussed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Timeline of the Syrian civil war per Presidentman. Hardly incorrect. The current target is less helpful, and 2014 in Syria less still. J947 ‡ edits 23:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Honorary Membership Award
- Honorary Membership Award → Society of Vertebrate Paleontology#Awards and prizes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This target is far too specific for such a general search term, even as a proper noun it is not unique to this one organisation (and the target article suggests that the title of the award there might just be "Honorary Membership"). Ideally this would retarget to some content about the concept (probably as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Honorary member (currently being discussed at #Honorary member; I have no objection if someone wants to combine the two, I debated it), but the closest I've found is Title of honour which isn't quite right I don't think. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Lancashire county cricket teams
- Lancashire county cricket teams → Manchester Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. Superseded by Lancashire county cricket team (pre-1864). Jack (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambig, possibly at Lancashire cricket team, between Lancashire County Cricket Club, Lancashire Women cricket team, Manchester Cricket Club (the target of Lancashire county cricket team (pre-1864)), Lancashire Cricket Board, Lancashire Thunder, East Lancashire Cricket Club, Lancashire and Cheshire Women cricket team and Category:Lancashire League cricket clubs. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'd suggest Lancashire County Cricket Club, the county club article, as the most logical choice. Jack (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 21:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Nottinghamshire county cricket teams
- Nottinghamshire county cricket teams → Nottingham Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. Superseded by Nottinghamshire county cricket team (pre-1841). Jack (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambig per my comment at #Lancashire county cricket teams. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'd suggest Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club, the county club article, as the most logical choice. Jack (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 21:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Yorkshire county cricket teams
- Yorkshire county cricket teams → Sheffield Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. Superseded by Yorkshire county cricket team (pre-1863). Jack (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambig per my comment at #Lancashire county cricket teams. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'd suggest Yorkshire County Cricket Club, the county club article, as the most logical choice. Jack (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 21:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
GameCibe
Improper typo. ~2025-42974-91 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Kind of torn on this one. Its not like a "Gamecibe" is...anything it was ever accidently called. But is it a plausible typo considering its just one letter off, and the two letters in question, u and i, are right next to each other on the keyboard? Maybe? 21:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC) Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep very much a standard {{r from typo}}. "U" and "i" sits next to a keyboard. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Anything can be a typo, and this certainly isn't a common one. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 19:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Neutral; I can see the meanings behind all arguments in this discussion. The typo can occur due to the positions of U and I on the keyboard, but it may or may not be frequent enough, and I personally haven't seen any instances of it online. 1isall (talk | contribs) 00:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep as r from typo, as per miminity. One-character typos are keepable as per prior consensus. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Cibe does not seem to be a common typo for Cube. It's an acronym here on Wikipedia. This isn't a game or other thing related to something like China International Beauty Expo (a result from searching "cibe") or some 2012 film; GameCube is related to the shape of a cube. In addition, this redirect doesn't solve any problems because if it never existed, anyone (if at all) making this unlikely typo will understand what went wrong and see corrected results, but now, there is this redirect that is for some reason mentioned a lot in Indonesian Alibaba and hinders search for other terms. For example, if I search for "GameCibe controller", if the typo redirect is kept, I would not get any result on GameCube controller. (This does not apply now since the redirect is currently being discussed; however, try "GameGube controller".) Random typos like this are not helpful for searching. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as an uncommon typo. --Minoa (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per RHARMFUL. Only hinders search for search terms which include "GameCibe", the majority of which are intended to access the target of this redirect anyway. J947 ‡ edits 23:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Greece "Interstates"
- Greece Interstate 70 → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Greece Interstate 74 → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Greece Interstate 76 → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Greece Interstate 82 → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Greece Interstate 91 → Highways in Greece (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
I assume the unused redirects refer to the EO70 road, EO74 road, EO76 road, EO91 road and EO91 road respectively, but I am proposing to delete because there are no interstates in Greece, and interstates are exclusive to the United States: in Greece, there are motorways (Ax), national roads (EOx) and provincial roads (EPx). Minoa (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Minoa: mind if I refactor your nominations to bundle them? Duckmather (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Duckmather, I have already merged them myself. --Minoa (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Rabbism
It appears based on a cursory google search that "rabbism" might not be a real word. So I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete I did find two uses on Google Books of the term, but it seems to be a pretty obscure term. I think D8 applies here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per Presidentman. --Minoa (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
March 20
Homosexual necrophilia in animals
- Homosexual necrophilia in animals → Animal sexual behaviour (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. This has been retargeted multiple times. Necrophilia is defined but not otherwise discussed at the target, with no mention of the homosexual variety. There is also no mention of homosexual behavior at Necrophilia except in the title of one of the references. A single case report seems undue for coverage in this article. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Rape flight
- Rape flight → Animal sexual behaviour (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned or defined at the target. There is a passing mention ducks and geese combining sexual intercourse with violence
at Animal sexual behavior § Sexual coercion but the term "rape flight" is not used here nor at Sexual coercion among animals. The term is used at Mallard#Breeding and Necrophilia#Other animals. The Mallard coverage gives the most general description of the behavior but targeting here might suggest the behavior is exclusive to mallards. I suggest deletion unless a suitable, general description is added somewhere. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Outline of ethology
- Outline of ethology → Outline of biology#Ethology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The target is not actually an outline of ethology but is instead the list entry for Ethology under Outline of biology § Branches. Delete or maybe retarget to Ethology. This gets about 2 pageviews/month—some months more, other months zero—despite no incoming links from articles. I'm not sure what readers expect when they search for this. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers are likely unfamiliar with WP:Outlines —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Ethology, which isn't much more than an outline anyway. J947 ‡ edits 23:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
DZTG
No longer mention of DZTG at target after tagged for unmentioned since August 2025. Update: DZTG is mentioned at several other page including Template:Tuguegarao Radio. Delete per WP:REDYES as encourage article creation ~2026-15650-77 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment:
By 1967, it had expanded to seven radio stations nationwide, including DZRR and DZAX in Manila, DZBS in Baguio, DZTG in Tuguegarao,
It's mentioned once in the article. UnilandofmaTalk 17:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Refine to Radio Philippines Network#Early years (1960–1972) as the only enwiki content. Don't delete to encourage article creation: this was an article and it was redirected. J947 ‡ edits 23:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Phal
WP:DABCOMBINE with FAL or Pahl? Check also Phall, Pal, Palh, and Phalli. Abesca (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep unless there's something else actually referred to as "Phal". Those are similar titles, which might be worth a {{distinguish}} hatnote, but they don't challenge Phalaenopsis's primarytopicness. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC) - Weak keep, or possibly disambiguate between Phalaenopsis and Phall. I don't see any other topics at nearly the same level of notability on a cursory google search. Duckmather (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Search results are overwhelmingly for Phalaenopsis. There's already a hatnote in place pointing to Phall and it may be reasonable to add a {{distinguish}} hatnote for other articles with similar spellings or pronunciation although I don't know how likely readers are to mix up some of the example pages listed. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Church lands
- Church lands → Dissolution of the monasteries (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. There's no reason for the generic name to redirect to a government confiscation of some instances of the subject. The English confiscation is far from even being unique in world history. Astro.furball (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Churchlands, Western Australia as a plausible misspelling, second choice delete. Even in a British ecclesiastical context I would say that the primary topic is land owned/controlled by the Church of England not the dissolution of the monasteries, but (a) I can't immediately find an article on that topic, and (b) as the nom rightly points out we cannot assume that context. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Glebe is the appropriate article for the CofE usage. (We don't have Glebeland or Glebe land redirects - perhaps they should be created). For this redirect, I would recommend Retarget to Churchland, perhaps with some additions to that dab page. Tevildo (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Expanding that dab to cover "Churchland", "Church land", "Churchlands" and "Church lands", including an entry for Glebe (I don't think I'd have found that as I didn't know the name) would seem to be a good solution. I don't think dissolution of the monasteries should be an entry there, although a see also to Secularization (church property) might be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate At minimum, Glebe, Properties and finances of the Church of England, and Temporalities all seem to fit the bill of "church lands." (Hawaii Reserves also exists, but I'm not sure if such a specific example would be warranted at a DAB page. We don't seem to have a BCA on the property of the LDS Church. Finances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only has a few brief mentions of property owned by the church.) "Church lands," to me, are sufficiently distinct to where targeting Churchland would be a surprise for most readers. Second choice delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
ScanScope Virtual Slide
Does not seem useful without an explanation at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep Let's add an explanation at the target rather than deleting the redirect. A single sentence to the effect that "ScanScope Virtual Slide" format is another name for TIFF is what I am thinking. The harder part if finding a citation to show that we've verified that. I'll give it a try... but if you have such a citation handy, please post it here. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've added TIFF § SVS. Please critique or improve. Hopefully, this is enough of a start to justify keeping the redirect currently being discussed, either as a redirect to TIFF or to TIFF#SVS. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
THE ANNOYING ORANGE
- THE ANNOYING ORANGE → Annoying Orange (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete as unnecessary and redundant; the redirect The Annoying Orange already exists. This redirect was recently created, and, when searching for The Annoying Orange from a Wikipedia page on the legacy Vector skin, it overrides its properly-capitalized counterpart on the autocomplete menu. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Probably could've been R3'd as an implausible misnomer. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
BBC Radio Sessions
- BBC Radio Sessions → The Bluetones (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
There are 100s of albums and EPs () called "BBC Radio Sessions", as well as the sessions themselves, which have been run since 1967 at least. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Adding: this might be better as a dab page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
List of channel 7 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 7 TV stations in the United States → Trans7 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This page redirects to a completely different Channel 7 article, so it should be deleted. Chuterix (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Channel 7#United States where there are a few lists on the topic. -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Channel 7#United States. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Channel 7#United States Looks like we ended up with a double bot borking that wasn't caught for eleven years, so that might be among the longest rectifications we're ever dealt with here. Nathannah • 📮 02:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- retarget per above --Lenticel (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Some redirects
- Tharun Mannepalli → India national badminton team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Liao Jui-chi → Chinese Taipei national badminton team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Lim Zhi Shin → Malaysia national badminton team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Margaux Lasis → France national badminton team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Shan Zi Oo → Malaysia national badminton team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not a part of their respective national teams, erroneous redirects. Previous similar nominations of this user's redirects resulted in delete. zglph•talk• 15:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Zglph, Lim Zhi Shin is specifically mentioned as part of the Malaysia team at that target. Tharun Mannepalli is also mentioned at the target. How do you know that these redirects are erroneous? J947 ‡ edits 23:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- It just enlists players who are or were at top 100, not necessarily part of the core team. zglph•talk• 03:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Shan Zi Oo as well. If they are not part of their national teams, their entries should be removed from there. Having redirects to their entries doesn't make them erroneous redirects. Jay 💬 11:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Noted the disagreements, so I'm providing a new rationale for deletion. Per RETURNTORED and searching for these players is likely to give more information on the subjects than these redirect targets. I request someone to relist this discussion. zglph•talk• 20:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The target articles contain virtually no information about these players, who are mentioned in several other articles. WP:RETURNTORED applies if any of these athletes are potentially notable. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
2026–27 Indian Super League
- 2026–27 Indian Super League → Indian Super League (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
No relevant information at the target about the specific season, making it misleading for anybody who searches for the term and expects to find relevant information about the season. • Quinn (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Business First
- Business First → American City Business Journals#List of publications (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Business Review – no consensus
Per this log, it seems that the contents of this title were merged into its now disambiguated title, Business First of Louisville, which is itself currently a redirect to this target indicated, maybe/possibly out of notability concerns. What is mentioned at the target is instead "Louisville Business First", as to whether they are related or not, you the WP community are to judge whether this should be retained as is or retargeted! Intrisit (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Intrisit: maybe we should restore this version, since you've not noticed even one of the five listed items with this name. An editor, now blocked for disruptive editing, retargeted to the list. As to the idea that these are all non-notable journals, tell that to the random editors who link to these titles, or to simply Business First without disambiguation, when citing them as reliable sources. – wbm1058 (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't see it because per the page history, I only saw "merged" edit from SilkTork at the bottom of that page rather than the content that is/was merged. And yeah, The Banner, blocked for a DE tireless banter with another editor without any compromise; I just saw it per your statement! Well, if it's restored, then this and the bottom one can be snow closed because as at now, it's not the current revision! Also, aren't so.e or all of these/those entries renamed/rebranded already?! Intrisit (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Intrisit, I'm not sure what you're asking for here. It looks like you're asking for the redirect to be moved to its existing target. Is that what you intended? If so, given that it is what already happens, perhaps it would save time to just withdraw this request. SilkTork (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- The answer to this is at the last two lines of my statement above, if only you're seeing it at face value without the digging!
I'm not sure what you're asking for here.
Not from you, as you aren't an admin! You were pinged due to your name appearing at the bottom of the page history page as its earliest editor with the edit summary, "Merged", but you didn't actually HM!It looks like you're asking for the redirect to be moved to its existing target
, which to me sounds impossible to do as I like you am not an admin! Or should I state that it's not mentioned anywhere at the target apart from the Louisville one, hence my reason for nominating these two!Is that what you intended?
If that was my intention, I won't have listed these two here from the start, so no! So now you know! Intrisit (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- The answer to this is at the last two lines of my statement above, if only you're seeing it at face value without the digging!
- The history of the redirect is more confusing than it looks. There was an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Business Review), in which Business First is one of those listed. There was no consensus to delete, though there was a vague consensus to merge. It looks like my edit was the first edit, that is because it was moved to Business First of Louisville (which was later redirected to The Business Review). The contents of the original page can be seen here: . It was nominated (by me) for merging: , when there was no objections, I did the merge the next month. I'm still not clear what it is you want, but no worries. I am an admin by the way. I resigned as an 'Crat, and gave back all my other advanced positions when I left ArbCom. But I kept the admin tools, though I don't use them much these days, and may resign them this year. SilkTork (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- wbm1058, I can see that you changed this from a direct redirect into a run-around redirect, in which people typing in "Business First" are not sent directly to American City Business Journals#List of publications, but to a disamb page of five different redirects all of which go to the same place: American City Business Journals#List of publications. What is the thinking here? In both cases people end up at the same place with the same information; but going via the disamb page distracts and takes up time, and also disappoints as it looks like there is going to be individual information on those titles. I can image the frustration of someone clicking on one of those links, ending up at American City Business Journals#List of publications, going back and clicking another link, ending up at the same place, thinking they made a mistake, going back and trying again, and so on. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but that might happen. SilkTork (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: This is kind of like an American version of Your Local Guardian, so maybe a page like that would be better than a redirect to a list. This isn't the easiest thing to deal with. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Intrisit: the reason I history-merged Business First into Business First of LouisvilleBusiness First of Louisville is that the article started out as an overly-specific version about the Louisville paper, rather than about the generic title, and then the title was natuarally disambiguated via copy-paste. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Which then brings me back to my nomination rationales for the two; are they for the legal attribution requirements that they are left as is as redirects to internally-undesirable targets or that the WP community couldn't find anything notable about them to make articles of them? Either way, the title as at now goes to no DAB page, to which I find laughable with the TA editor removing the G14 tag from the bottom entry, which started all of this as I saw it! I've already pinged that TA to account for the CSD reversal; if the response had come, that would have solved this conundrum already! Intrisit (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: I created the disambiguation after User:Jmg38 declared this generic title to be an {{R from incorrect title}} rather than simply a valid {{R from short title}}. This required that the incorrect title Business First be changed to the correct title, e.g. Columbus Business First, so I created the disambiguation to assist my correction of the incorrect titles. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ha, this whole thing is a confused mess. I can see it was created as "Business First", then the editor realised it should be called "Business First of Louisville", but didn't change the page name: . Looking at the current target I'm not seeing a significant or notable difference between the newspapers in the group which are termed "XXX Business First" and those termed "XXX Business Journal". There is also "XXX Business News" and "XXX Business Review". The choice of title may be determined by if there is already a newspaper in XXX which is called "Business Journal" so "Business First" is chosen instead. Anyway, diverting though this has been for a quiet Friday afternoon, I don't think I can intelligently add anything more to this discussion other than a gentle bemusement that this redirect has had such an interesting history, and is now up for discussion to remain as it is (I think!). SilkTork (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- I may have misinterpreted application of Incorrect name versus Incomplete name, was trying to figure out how a list of multiple different products, as seen in this log, would simply be a single Incomplete rather than a complete mess that spills into Incorrect territory. Not being a smartalec, truly thought that multiples kind of went beyond a reasonable test of only a single Incomplete. Look forward to seeing how the community warks this out, as I was clearly already stumped three years ago when adding the Rcat. (slightly unrelated – I do thank wbm1058 with a good catch of my Louisville vs St. Louis on one of the individual pages for one of the multiple"s" redirects) Jmg38 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Business First (disambiguation)
- Business First (disambiguation) → American City Business Journals#List of publications (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Nominated this here on behalf of Shhhnotsoloud, who requested a G14 that was undone by the TA ~2026-14944-70. The rationale for this is almost the same as above with one exception; this has the "(disambiguation)" disambiguator, which apart from the aforementioned "Louisville Business First", has no "Business First" title mentioned! The TA's rationale of Lists are an explicit example of pages performing "disambiguation-like functions"; that does not mean this must remain, only that WP:G14 is inappropriate
is laughable considering the revelation I just gave and that that one "list" there, apart from the Louisville one, mentions nothing called "Business First". I have no opinion on this; just listing it here for you the WP community to judge whether this should be retained as is or retargeted! Intrisit (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per my G14 submission, one of many for redirects that are useless clutter. The target is not a disambiguation page and does not otherwise provide a list of articles that might otherwise be titled "Business First". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
X bomb
"X bomb" is unmentioned and was created from a disputed page move. Search results gave an item in Super Smash Bros. and then some bombs and safety gear, but nothing related to Twitter. Adding Twitter to the search gave mostly random posts. "X bomb" could also refer to an episode of Astro Boy (1963 TV series). It might also possibly refer to Fritz X Bomb, which was the actual bomb that came from googling "X bomb". I propose deletion as I couldn't find reliable sources that called "Twitter bomb" an "X bomb", and even then, that wouldn't be the primary meaning. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nowhere good (I would say) to retarget to, and not a good article name either. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per the above. I also tried getting rid of
on X: bomb
(which was the most common kind of false positive on the google SERP) and still got very random looking results. I agree the most notable-looking topic "X Bomb" could refer to is probably a type of fictional bomb in Super Smash Bros., but even then I can't imagine this getting more coverage on enwiki than as a list item. Duckmather (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC) - Delete. I agree with the nom and other commenters. This is an {{R from move}} where the move should have been completed without leaving a redirect. The term "X bomb" has a variety of uses, so someone might search for it, but these aren't covered anywhere. It is not in use as a synonym for Twitter bomb. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Sexual abuse perpetrated by children
- Sexual abuse perpetrated by children → Child-on-child sexual abuse (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not the same thing, though it's true that many cases of sexual abuse perpetrated by children are perpetrated against other children. This broader concept, however, including juveniles/children who assault older peers/adults, is out of scope for this article. The easiest to find wiki-notable example is the case of Alfonza Smalls and Richard Henyard(''Teenager convicted of raping mother, killing her 2 children'). Juvenile delinquency#Juvenile sex crimes provides more information, and either links or can easily link to the COCSA article, but it's very much just focused on the legal status of juvenile offenders in the US which is why I'm favouring delete GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Strong retarget to Juvenile_delinquency#Juvenile sex crimes internationally, as well as merge that section with Juvenile_delinquency#Juvenile sex crimes to have a more worldwide view of the topic. PokémonPerson 15:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Eth0
Not mentioned at target; not sure if we have a really suitable target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to Consistent Network Device Naming, where the ethN naming convention for network devices in Linux is briefly mentioned. I'm not sure if there's a better target, but if not, I also wouldn't be super opposed to a delete instead. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 07:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's a bit weird that the Ethernet and Network interface controller articles barely mention the concepts of drivers or software. This is a term that relates to the last 30-odd years of Linux history, and seems plausible as a search term, but it's hard to see where to redirect it at this point that would really be an improvement over the bland, generic disambiguation page (for the base "eth" term). --Joy (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC))
- Weak retarget to Consistent Network Device Naming per above Toarin (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Hetero-curious
- Hetero-curious → Heteroflexibility (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Heterocurious → Heteroflexibility (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Straight-curious → Heteroflexibility (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Hetroflexible → Bi-curious (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Invert the targets? Also, there's no homocurious/homo-curious redirect(s). Abesca (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Redirect Hetroflexible to Heteroflexibility. No opinion on the others. TNstingray (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Invert, curiosity should redirect to curiosity and flexibility should redirect to flexibility. Further, I am going to put a hatnote on both because they are similar-ish terms. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- retarget {hetero-curious, heterocurious, straight-curious} → bi-curious, and hetroflexible → heteroflexibility, current targets seem to be the wrong way around, at the very least the one that is a misspelling of 'heteroflexible' should redirect to the article on heteroflexibility caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 09:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per caesar. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget Hetroflexible → Heteroflexibility. Not sure if a redirect can be both an {{R from misspelling}} and an {{R from adjective}} but if so, these both apply. It's simply a misspelled adjective form of the word Heteroflexibility. Note that the correctly spelled HeteroflexibleHeteroflexible redirects to Heteroflexibility and HetrosexualHetrosexual exists as an {{R from misspelling}}. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Hetero-curious, Heterocurious, and Straight-curious. These are not synonymous with either heteroflexibility or bi-curiousness. At a minimum these terms require more explanation, which is not found at either target, though it's possible they could be defined in these articles or some other article as related concepts. Bicurious typically describes a straight-identified person whereas hetero- or straight-curious describes a gay-, lesbian-, or otherwise queer-identified person. Bicurious people are "curious" about sexual or romantic engagement with the same gender while heterocurious people have similar "curiosity" about the opposite gender (or a gender different from their own, depending on definition). Heteroflexible is an identity unto itself although may also describe someone who also identifies as or is assumed to be straight/heterosexual. Keeping or retargeting these indicates that these terms are synonymous with heteroflexible or bi-curious. These all receive minimal pageviews and none are linked in articles. Thus they do not qualify for soft redirects to Wiktionary per WP:SOFTSP and Template:Wiktionary redirect. All of these terms may have somewhat squishy and context-dependent definitions. Reliable sourcing may be a challenge but these need to have a clear definition or discussion of varying usage if they are to be targeted anywhere. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- homoflexibility redirects to its antonym. And it doesn’t seem that there are only one case of bicurious or only one definition for heterocurious. It’s not rare to find uses while searching for this having the same meaning of bicurious, especially when most results in my first googling were porn. However, I found some definitions in scholar:heterocurious:
By ‘heterocurious’ we mean those individuals who consider themselves heterosexual but like to engage in sporadic homosexual relations.
So it’s either a subtype of bicurious or itself. Abesca (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)- HomoflexibilityHomoflexibility may need to be considered separately. I maintain that all the straight/hetero-curious redirects should be deleted unless and until they are discussed in an appropriate article. The fact that the definition is squishy is all the more reason why an appropriately sourced discussion is necessary to support these redirects. My finding is that definitions vary but part of the base definition of 'bicurious' is straight or straight-leaning while part of the base definition of 'heterocurious' is (often) non-straight. Unexplained redirects will either indicate that these are always completely synonymous with 'bicurious' in all its uses or will leave readers scratching their heads wondering why they landed at an article that doesn't describe the redirect—WP:RSURPRISE applies. With only 21 hits on Google Scholar, this terminology appears rather obscure, hence my earlier statement:
Reliable sourcing may be a challenge but these need to have a clear definition or discussion of varying usage if they are to be targeted anywhere
. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- HomoflexibilityHomoflexibility may need to be considered separately. I maintain that all the straight/hetero-curious redirects should be deleted unless and until they are discussed in an appropriate article. The fact that the definition is squishy is all the more reason why an appropriately sourced discussion is necessary to support these redirects. My finding is that definitions vary but part of the base definition of 'bicurious' is straight or straight-leaning while part of the base definition of 'heterocurious' is (often) non-straight. Unexplained redirects will either indicate that these are always completely synonymous with 'bicurious' in all its uses or will leave readers scratching their heads wondering why they landed at an article that doesn't describe the redirect—WP:RSURPRISE applies. With only 21 hits on Google Scholar, this terminology appears rather obscure, hence my earlier statement:
- homoflexibility redirects to its antonym. And it doesn’t seem that there are only one case of bicurious or only one definition for heterocurious. It’s not rare to find uses while searching for this having the same meaning of bicurious, especially when most results in my first googling were porn. However, I found some definitions in scholar:heterocurious:
- Notice placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
All caps country names (A-C)
- AFGHANISTAN → Afghanistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- ARMENIA → Armenia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- AUSTRALIA → Australia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- AUSTRIA → Austria (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- AZERBAIJAN → Azerbaijan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- BANGLADESH → Bangladesh (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- BELGIUM → Belgium (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- BHUTAN → Bhutan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- BOSNIA → Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- BRAZIL → Brazil (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- BRUNEI → Brunei (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- CAMBODIA → Cambodia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- CANADA → Canada (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- CHINA → China (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- CUBA → Cuba (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- CYPRUS → Cyprus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- CZECH REPUBLIC → Czech Republic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
All implausible. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Seems a few you get used no? - was there some sort of investigation? - Are we sure cap locks is implausible? Moxy🍁 01:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- My thoughts below, based on checking disambiguations:
|
Note: these thoughts are based on whether there exist any items in all caps and not based on links or views. Besides, any links should use the correct capitalization anyway (like CANADA being replaced with Canada).
|
- The use of caps lock could be plausible if they are looking for something that is stylized in all caps. Note that these thoughts were solely based on checking disambiguation pages and seeing if an all-caps stylization is used, so the ideal situation for these redirects may not match what is provided. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- The use of caps lock is plausible, but it's also something automatically handled by the software. Search an article title in all caps and unless there is an article at that link (eg. WASP) then the search will convert it to sentence case. CMD (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- That doesn't work if you search via URL. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LATVIA does not take you to Latvia. -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- The use of caps lock is plausible, but it's also something automatically handled by the software. Search an article title in all caps and unless there is an article at that link (eg. WASP) then the search will convert it to sentence case. CMD (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- If we move away from primary redirects to the lowercase meaning, we should at best retarget to the generic disambiguation page. We should not short-circuit en masse to any topics other than the most obvious one, especially not to relatively niche entertainment topics. If there are actual cases where it's plausible that there's another primary topic, each such discussion should be held separately and notifications should be made accordingly. --Joy (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep as {{R from miscapitalization}}. It's useful for those searching in all caps, but otherwise harmless. I reject the claim that these are implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep all per Tavix. We have many all-caps redirects for higher traffic pages. No one would be helped by deleting them. I don't think targeting disambiguation pages would be helpful, in general, if per WP:SMALLDETAILS another article is more notable in all caps than the country, then WP:RM. I very much doubt that any other topic not in all caps would be primary for all caps over these countries. Skynxnex (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Do not retarget to any of Mathguy's suggestions. I don't buy the idea that stylized all-caps on movie posters or album covers makes any of those primary topic by usage, and certainly not by long-term significance, for any of these country names. Weak keep all, I guess. I would classify these as redirects we don't really need but that are ultimately harmless and unambiguous. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Hjsakldfhl
March 19
Table of country-related information
- Table of country-related information → Lists of sovereign states and dependent territories (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The redirect can be seen as misleading since the target does not contain any type of table. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of sovereign states which does contain a table of country-related information. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Voorts attempted to relist this on January 26 however it seems the relist didn't go through properly. Bringing this back into the fold.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 23:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Survivor: Africa-only contestants
- Diane Ogden → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Jessie Camacho → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Carl Bilancione → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Linda Spencer → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Silas Gaither → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
- Lindsey Richter → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
- Clarence Black → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
- Brandon Quinton → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
- Frank Garrison → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
- Teresa Cooper (Survivor contestant) → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
- Teresa Cooper (Survivor) → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
- Kim Johnson (Survivor) → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
All of the above appeared in only Survivor: Africa. As a no-brainer, should be retargeted to that Africa season article, accordingly. (will add more soon...) George Ho (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC); completed, 23:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- George Ho, for the future, you can also retarget them yourself if you believe that would be the best solution.
- RfD is mainly for deletion (if the nominator cannot perform it) and general discussion when an option is not readily visible. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm just using RFD as an enforcer, especially to Survivor fans to think twice before bold reverting and re-reverting. George Ho (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
RfD is mainly for deletion (if the nominator cannot perform it) and general discussion when an option is not readily visible.
- Plenty of non-deletion reasons to list redirects. Indeed, the intro of WP:RFD can allow retargeting-focused discussions:
George Ho (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
- I spot checked the history on several of these and I didn't see a lot of back-and-forth or evidence of controversy about the targets, although most were retargeted at least once. I guess I see these as borderline cases. These seem straightforward but if a target has changed a couple times I can appreciate being conservative and seeking consensus. If there's a history of other Survivor cast member redirects being contentious, it does help to have that context. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget all per nom. The Survivor:Africa article has more details about these characters and if this was their only Survivor appearance it makes sense to target there. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Military industrial oligarchy
- Military industrial oligarchy → Military–industrial complex (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
No mention of oligarchy on redirect target. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep. This is a term that gets used in the wild (although more often the first two words are hyphenated), as a whole phrase almost exclusively in the context of the United States and as part of "clerical-military-industrial oligarchy" in the context of Egypt. Someone using this term is not going to be surprised to end up at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment This redirect was not tagged until now. Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try, on account of there not being any !votes since the previous relists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Capitols of ancient Rome
- Capitols of ancient Rome → Ancient Rome (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Capitols of the Roman Empire → Ancient Rome (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete, article does not discuss topic. Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Centres of governance in the Roman Empire as {{r from misspelling}}s of Capitals of ancient RomeCapitals of ancient Rome and Capitals of the Roman EmpireCapitals of the Roman Empire, respectively. - Eureka Lott 22:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC) - Idk, there is also the Capitoline Hill and I don't think such a misspelling is likely enough for a redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC) - Retarget to Capitoline Hill. "Capitol" isn't necessarily a misspelling; it's an actual English word (wikt:capitol) which, among its definitions, refers specifically to a citadel or building complex which resembles the historic Capitolline Hill. Searching online and in books, one finds that "Roman Capitol" is used synonymously with the Capitolline Hill complex (eg. , , ). This same usage can also be found on Wikipedia, eg. at Clivus Capitolinus. The traffic states show these redirects are used, so it would be helpful for these to go to a relevant target, yet when I attempted to search on Wikipedia (
"Roman Capitol"
), Capitoline Hill wasn't among the results. Without a redirect readers wouldn't find what they were looking for. Capitoline Hill explicitly describes it as the etymon of the modern English word "capitol", so wouldn't be surprising as a target. In contrast, Centres of governance in the Roman Empire doesn't use the word "capitol" or even refer to the Capitoline Hill so isn't very helpful. – Scyrme (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)- Also, for clarity, the Roman Capitol is built on the hill, it's not identical with the hill itself; hence the hill is "Capitoline" (an adjective) but not a synonym for "Roman Capitol". However, the Roman Capitol built on the hill is discussed at the article for the hill, so is still the appropriate target. – Scyrme (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- If the nominated redirects were singular, I might agree with you, but I expect that anyone searching for the plural "capitols" isn't looking for Capitoline Hill. - Eureka Lott 23:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also, for clarity, the Roman Capitol is built on the hill, it's not identical with the hill itself; hence the hill is "Capitoline" (an adjective) but not a synonym for "Roman Capitol". However, the Roman Capitol built on the hill is discussed at the article for the hill, so is still the appropriate target. – Scyrme (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Rape gangs
- Rape gangs → Grooming gangs scandal (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Newly created link to Grooming gangs scandal which is a UK based politicised issue regarding specific instances of group based child sexual abuse with an underlying racialised narrative. Academic literature often calls it a moral panic. The page is controversial, and geographically localised to the UK. The incoming link is not justified by sources, which overwhelmingly talk of the the grooming gangs, or, in academic literature, as group based CSE.
Redirecting to Gang rape would be one solution, although this may be a case of it being better to simply delete the redirect, as this would red link the term, and it is at least plausible that there is sufficient literature on a concept of rape gangs that would justify a page that describes the phenomenon from a global perspective. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please see my comment above. Respectfully, your arguments could be read to imply that we ought to delete redirects in order to drive down page views rather than prevent confusion. Riposte97 (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- And yours (as the creator of the redirect) would thus appear to imply we ought to have redirects to drive up page views rather than because the target meets the information need of the information seeker. You are using a generic term to direct the user to a specific page they were probably not looking for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I suppose to some extent it depends on our judgement, as we can’t collect data on what users expect. On that basis, I won’t push it if others share your view. I will just note that you’re correct that most sources use ‘grooming gangs scandal’ for the topic. However, it doesn’t follow that the most common use of ‘rape gangs’ doesn’t also refer to this. Riposte97 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- And yours (as the creator of the redirect) would thus appear to imply we ought to have redirects to drive up page views rather than because the target meets the information need of the information seeker. You are using a generic term to direct the user to a specific page they were probably not looking for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Re-target to gang rape, our article on the topic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. Gang rape does not mean the same thing. Historyexpert2 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
2024 Games
- 2024 Games → 2024 Summer Olympics (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- 2019 January 3 § 2022 Games – Delete
- 2024 May 22 § 2020 Games – No consensus
Too vauge, Summer Olympics are not known simply as "Games", see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 28#2020 Games A1Cafel (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note that per the previous RfD, the nomination statement is incorrect and Summer Olympics are referred to as just "Games". Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Per my initial Google and Google News searches of "the 2024 games" (with quotes), the majority of hits on the first two pages of each do refer unambiguously to the 2024 Olympics. This occurs almost invariably in prose after the subject has been more fully introduced. A few referred to other "games" (i.e., Crossfit Games), again after first introducing the specific games in question. However, a Google search for "2024 games" (with quotes and without 'the') mostly turns up hits related to video games. There is possibly a WP:DIFFCAPS argument to differentiate Olympic Games from video games and a primary topic argument to differentiate Olympig Games from, e.g., Crossfit and other proper name "Games". Possibly, but I'm not yet sure it holds. I agree with Thryduulf that the Olympics are and can be referred to as simply "(the) Games".—Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No votes here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
2020 Games
- 2020 Games → 2020 Summer Olympics (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- 2019 January 3 § 2022 Games – Delete
- 2024 May 22 § 2020 Games – No consensus
Too vauge, Summer Olympics are not known simply as "Games" A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment the previous RfD contains evidence that the Summer Olympics are often referred to simply as "Games". Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Olympics are often referred to as "Games", and seems the 2020 Summer Olympics also uses the term "2020 Games", but the term "2020 Games" does not seem to be commonly used. "Tokyo 2020 Games" seems more plausible. Also, I see that there is redirect for 2024 Games (which can also be grouped here for RfD), but redirects for other similar Olympic Summer games (e.g "2010 Games", "2014 Games") do not exist - which suggests that just "Games' is not commonly used by itself to refer to Olympic Summer Games. Asteramellus (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- What other games are known as the 2020 Games? If unambiguous, Keep per my vote at the 2024 RfD. Jay 💬 13:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Jay's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
LITHUANIA
Implausible capitalization. Not mentioned as that anywhere I could find. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 19:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Unhelpful. Lethoto (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- DELETE. This shouldn't exist because LATVIA and ESTONIA do not. ~2026-17261-30 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I purposefully declined those (LATVIA and ESTONIA) at WP:AFC/R, but I would imagine you knew that. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- SPEEDY DELETE. ~2026-17261-30 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- This will mean that LIETUVA should also be deleted. Kirghizia (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm preparing to nominate all all-caps country names in batches. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- DELETE per nom. Nothing at Lithuania (disambiguation) is in all caps either. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please indent properly, people. Replying to the editor above you rather than the normal practice of creating a bulleted
*reply to the nomination creates accessibility issues for people trying to make sense of the discussion. This includes not using the Reply tool, since it works poorly at best on XfDs. J947 ‡ edits 23:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please indent properly, people. Replying to the editor above you rather than the normal practice of creating a bulleted
- DELETE per nom. Nothing at Lithuania (disambiguation) is in all caps either. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm preparing to nominate all all-caps country names in batches. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- This will mean that LIETUVA should also be deleted. Kirghizia (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- SPEEDY DELETE. ~2026-17261-30 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I purposefully declined those (LATVIA and ESTONIA) at WP:AFC/R, but I would imagine you knew that. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- DELETE. This shouldn't exist because LATVIA and ESTONIA do not. ~2026-17261-30 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep as an {{R from miscapitalization}}. It's useful for those searching in all caps, but otherwise harmless given the lack of competing topic. -- Tavix (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- That's not actually true. ESTONIA doesn't exist, but Wikipedia automatically takes you to Estonia anyway when you type it in all caps into the search bar and hit enter. Same for EsToNiA. So long as the all lowercase version exists, Wikipedia's software can automatically correct searches with weird capitalisation even if no redirect exists (it may actually be faster without a redirect, since you end up at the page directly). The nonexistence of the strangely capitalised titles only affects anyone who either goes to the URL directly (as you would if you wanted to create the page) or attempts to link to it in an article. – Scyrme (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not if you search via URL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTONIA does not take you to Estonia. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I said that; that's "go[ing] "to the URL directly". Going to the URL directly isn't a "search". The search engine isn't used. – Scyrme (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- ...and going to the URL directly is a search. One doesn't need to use Wikipedia's internal search engine to "search". My previous comment was a direct refutation of
That's not actually true.
-- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)- I don't see how going directly to a URL could possibly count as a "search". Going directly to a destination isn't a search. The only way it could be a search is if you're trying multiple random URLs for some inexplicable reason. Regardless, what reader would actually do this? Manually type out the exact URL, entering in the title in all caps when the rest of the URL has no caps, and hitting enter to go there directly? – Scyrme (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- ...and going to the URL directly is a search. One doesn't need to use Wikipedia's internal search engine to "search". My previous comment was a direct refutation of
- Yes, I said that; that's "go[ing] "to the URL directly". Going to the URL directly isn't a "search". The search engine isn't used. – Scyrme (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- This is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. ESTONIA and LATVIA would fall under the same category. Or rather, they will, as I am about to create those redirects. guninvalid (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Guninvalid: ???? My post had nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was only using ESTONIA and EsToNiA as examples to point out that redirects with capitalisation don't need to exist for readers to end up at the article when using the search bar, that's all. Did you mean to reply to the earlier discussion where an unregistered editor argued
DELETE. This shouldn't exist because LATVIA and ESTONIA do not
? Additionally, given other editors here have already expressed that they would object to those redirects existing, you shouldn't have made them until the consensus against it had changed. – Scyrme (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Guninvalid: ???? My post had nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was only using ESTONIA and EsToNiA as examples to point out that redirects with capitalisation don't need to exist for readers to end up at the article when using the search bar, that's all. Did you mean to reply to the earlier discussion where an unregistered editor argued
- Not if you search via URL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTONIA does not take you to Estonia. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- That's not actually true. ESTONIA doesn't exist, but Wikipedia automatically takes you to Estonia anyway when you type it in all caps into the search bar and hit enter. Same for EsToNiA. So long as the all lowercase version exists, Wikipedia's software can automatically correct searches with weird capitalisation even if no redirect exists (it may actually be faster without a redirect, since you end up at the page directly). The nonexistence of the strangely capitalised titles only affects anyone who either goes to the URL directly (as you would if you wanted to create the page) or attempts to link to it in an article. – Scyrme (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:CHEAP. It's useful for someone, and putting country names in all caps is acceptable when the rest of a text is in all caps. guninvalid (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- When would it be acceptable for the rest of a text to be in all caps? MOS:ALLCAPS discourages using all caps, with exceptions only for things like acronyms or Unicode code points. – Scyrme (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: Regarding the recently created ESTONIA and LATVIA, I see typing in all caps as an intentional search to look something else other than the country, since countries are written in title case. In case of these two redirects, I would say retarget to Estonia (TV series) and delete, since the first uses all caps in big letters and nothing at Latvia (disambiguation) would use all caps. Things like songs, albums, and films are more likely to be in all caps than the countries themselves. I still think LITHUANIA should be deleted, though searching revealed that "Lithuania (song)" (a redirect) uses all caps. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- WEAK KEEP. Zakhstan (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per Tavix and RHARMFUL ("consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones"). J947 ‡ edits 23:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Lordly
Malplaced redirect, soft redirect to Wiktionary (as the adjective/adverb form of lord) or move? ArthananWarcraft (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Lord as {{r from adjective}} - I doubt this song is the primary topic. (Edit: I'm also fine with moving the article over the redirect.) – Scyrme (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Move song to base title per WP:MALPLACED. Adjectival forms are weak search terms and shouldn't trump things with them as their actual title. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Move song to base title per Deacon Vorbis. "Lordly" isn't mentioned even once at Lord, so this search isn't useful for someone intentionally adding "-ly". In addition, no articles link to "Lordly", and the redirect has referred to the song for almost 10 years now, so keeping the reference to the song is fine. I could see disambiguation if there isn't a primary topic, but adding "-ly" would suggest searching for something specifically referring to ""Lordly"; only the song refers exclusively to "Lordly". Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
no articles link to "Lordly"
- This may be because very few articles link to the song, and using this redirect as to link to Lord wasn't possible while it was still a redirect to the song. Editors may have been piping the link instead. Is there a way to see how many articles include the text[[Lord|lordly]]? That would give some indication as to how many articles might've used the redirect if it had been retargeted earlier. – Scyrme (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)- Zero. There are none for
[[lord]]lyeither. In fact, most mentions that display a link as "Lordly" are piped as[[Lordly (song)|Lordly]]except at List of English words of Old English origin, which uses[[Wikt:lordly|lordly]]. No links in articles displayed as "lordly" link to lord. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Zero. There are none for
- Move per Mathguy2718. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Told
Malplaced redirect, soft redirect to Wiktionary (as the past tense of tell) or move? ArthananWarcraft (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Move the article over the redirect (or Delete to make way for the move, if "move" isn't an appropriate outcome for an RfD, as this isn't a requested move) - Unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation.The word "told" isn't an encyclopedic topic."All pages with titles beginning with Told" suggests disambiguation isn't viable; the village seems to be the only topic with this title.– Scyrme (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. The current target is surprising, given that the first 10 pages of results when searching for "Told" gave no mentions of Hungary. Anyone looking for the village would search for something like Told, Hungary anyway. (The village is the first result when searching "told hungary", so the link being red now doesn't matter that much.) "Told" could refer to songs in Quality Time (album) and Gang (mixtape). In addition, the history shows "Told" briefly redirected to an episode of Band of Gold. Disambiguation allows for all of these meanings to be searched under "Told", including the word through {{Wiktionary}} to told. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate between the village, songs, and episode now that other relevant topics mentioned on Wikipedia have been found. I don't think there's a primary topic, and my previous argument was based only on there being no other topics to list. – Scyrme (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak disambiguate while WP:NOTDIC may apply there is also Shane Told though they are a PTM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Surname usages are generally not considered PTMs due to the propensity of sources to refer to people by surnames alone. BD2412 T 22:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- @BD2412: They normally are unless like Abraham Lincoln otherwise people are normally referred to by first name as well first. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Surname usages are generally not considered PTMs due to the propensity of sources to refer to people by surnames alone. BD2412 T 22:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. I'll start drafting one. BD2412 T 22:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
De Concini
- De Concini → Corrado de Concini (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
There is also Ennio De Concini, as well as differently spelt Dennis DeConcini, Evo Anton DeConcini and John DeConcini. Not sure where the disambiguation page should be located. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Concini. I've added the various spellings that include de there. -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Waffle fries
- Waffle fries → Crinkle-cutting#Waffle fries (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Used to be its own article but was converted to a redirect. Since then has been flip flopping between targeting Crinkle-cutting#Waffle fries and French fries#Variants. The section no longer exists at Crinkle-cutting, is retargetting to French fries#Variants best, or is there an alternative target/other outcome that would be better? Golem08 (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to French fries#Variants per nom. An alternative target is Belen, New Mexico#History, my second choice. J947 ‡ edits 23:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget → French fries#Variants per nom. This makes the most sense. A brief description of the history and a link to Belen, New Mexico#History could be added to the entry at French fries#Variants to provide additional background information. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Timeline of X
- Timeline of X → X (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Target doesn't mention Timeline of X (social network). Abesca (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Too vague to redirect to Timeline of X (social network), and no mention at target. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Move Timeline of X (social network) to Timeline of X. Nothing else named 'X' has a timeline article. -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's just generally a confusing title, though, and readers don't know that there isn't any other timeline article with X. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- There's nothing confusing about searching for "Timeline of X" and being directed to a timeline of a product called 'X'. If someone is looking for a timeline of a different X, they wouldn't find what they were looking for no matter what so there's no need to cater to them. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- It would be significantly more clear if, in the title, what X was is specified. "(social network)" does this. The disambiguator is needed. "
If someone is looking for a different X, they wouldn't find what they were looking for no matter what so that doesn't matter
" is ridiculous to say. We don't want to inconvenience readers... 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 19:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)- If you don't want to inconvenience readers, then it's ridiculous to want to delete this redirect. Anyone searching for "Timeline of X" is going to be helped by this redirect if they are looking for a timeline for the social network. Deleting it makes it harder to find that content, and is thus an inconvenience. As for the title, it's not the job of the title to explain the article—that's the article's job. Including "(social network)" is unnecessary so long as there is only one Timeline of something named X. -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- It would be significantly more clear if, in the title, what X was is specified. "(social network)" does this. The disambiguator is needed. "
- There's nothing confusing about searching for "Timeline of X" and being directed to a timeline of a product called 'X'. If someone is looking for a timeline of a different X, they wouldn't find what they were looking for no matter what so there's no need to cater to them. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Another redirect that is malplaced currently is Middle Eastern crisis. Abesca (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why is that relevant here? – Scyrme (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- it's incorrect as some are suggesting about retargeting Abesca (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand. How is that redirect relevant to this discussion about Timeline of X? Did you intend to post this as part of a different discussion? – Scyrme (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- it's incorrect as some are suggesting about retargeting Abesca (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why is that relevant here? – Scyrme (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's just generally a confusing title, though, and readers don't know that there isn't any other timeline article with X. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Draft:Untitled Looney Tunes film
Survivor: Borneo redirects with various casings
- Sonja christopher → Survivor: Borneo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- B. B. andersen → Survivor: Borneo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- B.B. andersen → Survivor: Borneo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- BB andersen → Survivor: Borneo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Ramona gray → Survivor: Borneo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
- Dirk been → Survivor: Borneo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
- Joel klug → Survivor: Borneo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
- Greg buis → Survivor: Borneo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
- Gretchen cordy → Survivor: Borneo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC))
I recently redirected the above pages to Survivor: Borneo per decision made on similar pages but with correct casing/capitalizations. Nonetheless, recent votes against such pages have made me reconsider whether these pages should be kept. George Ho (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC); completed, 08:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Uncapitalized redirects generally shouldn't be created, but, per WP:CAPITALIZATION, these redirects are harmless. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete all as implausible (and with same rationale as my previous !vote on the similar nomination). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: per RHARMFUL, old redirects that are harmless should be kept. J947 ‡ edits 23:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- @J947: Checked what link to any of redirects. Most of them are linked by pages using article alerts. None in article mainspace, any user talk page, or any project talk page. WP:RHARMFUL doesn't seem to address redirects lacking prior useful history logs, e.g. previous revisions of a then-article.
- @Organhaver: Checked WP:RDELETE and WP:R#DELETE; doesn't seem to address various capitalizations.
- @~2026-16755-69: WP:CAPITALIZATION is a sister page of WP:NCCAPS, which addresses how to name an article and properly case a letter of the article title suitably. How about WP:RKEEP or WP:R#KEEP instead, especially its #5 rationale (i.e. someone finds it useful)? George Ho (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Ryan asselta
Because this American TV anchor was found non-notable at AfD, policy indicates he won't be mentioned in the talent listings of the articles of the TV stations he worked for, WFXT and WFTX-TV. This was a separate page AfDed and redirected (by mistake, to WXFT, an unrelated TV station) in 2009. He is mentioned in List of Stonehill College alumni, where he shouldn't be listed, and gratuitously in Saint Joseph Regional High School, where he apparently works now (I wouldn't keep either mention). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Unmentioned, not notable. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete and remove mentions per nom. (Nominate Ryan Asselta too.) J947 ‡ edits 23:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Two Amir Nosrat'ollah Balakhanlou redirects
- Amir Nosrat'ollah Balakhanlou -- امير نصرتا... بالاخانلو → Amir Nosrat'ollah Balakhanlou (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Amir Nosrat'ollah Balakhanlou -- myr nSrt... blkhnlw → Amir Nosrat'ollah Balakhanlou (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
These redirects are not useful for searching. It is unlikely to search for something in both Latin and Arabic and with "--" and "...". Not sure how these two pages get any nonzero number of pageviews. Note that the first redirect was the original page title for 5 minutes before being moved to the current title. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Very unlikely search terms. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
X killer
Anachronistic term not used by any actual sources, also see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_March_11#X_(formerly_Twitter)_killer मल्ल (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Should've been bundled with the last one. Using "Twitter" in this case is historically accurate. He was arrested, tried, and sentenced all before Twitter was renamed to X. He was never known as the "X killer" because it wasn't even possible; "X" was still only known as "Twitter" at the time. Robotically substituting X retroactively into every reference to Twitter isn't helpful. – Scyrme (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jlwoodwa @Yacàwotçã @Organhaver @Abesca @Alextejthompson @Kepler-1229b Tagging users from previous discussion. मल्ल (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the mention, मल्ल. Delete per my previous comment here. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete He may have been alive when Twitter was renamed, but he was not known as the X killer. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep he was still alive when Twitter was rebranded. Abesca (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but he acquired the name for seeking out suicidal people on the platform while it was still Twitter, and the media gave him that name during his trial (long before the rebrand), not while he was awaiting execution in the following years. He didn't seek out suicidal people on X, so applying the name retroactively makes no historical sense. – Scyrme (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The closest mention on Wikipedia is the character X (Dark Horse Comics) with an alias of "The X-killer". "X" isn't even mentioned in the current target, let alone "X killer", and searches reveal mostly a non-notable musician and the character. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nom and the other 'delete' arguments here and in the prior RfD. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Semi-decidable
- Semi-decidable → Undecidable problem (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Semidecidability → Decidability (logic)#Semidecidability (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Semi-decidability → Decidability (logic)#Semidecidability (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Semidecidable → Computably enumerable set (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Semideciding → Computably enumerable set (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
These should lead to the same target. Some discussion has previously occurred at Talk:Semi-decidable. For comparison, Undecidable is a disambiguation page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Create a disambiguation page at semidecidable or semidecidability (the spelling with a dash seems to be less common), retarget all others to it. The disambiguation page should have links to Decidability (logic)#Semidecidability, Recursively enumerable language and Computably enumerable set (but no other pages; Undecidable problem isn't appropriate). These three are related but separate subjects. I think none of them can claim to be the "main" kind of semidecidability. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- I hope it's ok if I ping a few users who seem to be around and have contributed to these or related articles: @D.Lazard, @David Eppstein, @Jochen Burghardt: What do you think? (I bet there are many others, but I'm not very active in that area...) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- As I just wrote on the talk page: I don't understand what distinction is being made here. Decision problems (as specifications of which inputs should have the answer yes and which no), languages (sets of strings, the strings for which the answer should be yes), and sets (maybe of natural numbers rather than strings) are all equivalent formalizations of the same concept. Why do we have three different link targets, none of which clearly state that these are all equivalent ways of thinking about the same thing? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I replied at Talk:Semi-decidable#What is the best redirect target? — Chrisahn (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- As I just wrote on the talk page: I don't understand what distinction is being made here. Decision problems (as specifications of which inputs should have the answer yes and which no), languages (sets of strings, the strings for which the answer should be yes), and sets (maybe of natural numbers rather than strings) are all equivalent formalizations of the same concept. Why do we have three different link targets, none of which clearly state that these are all equivalent ways of thinking about the same thing? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I hope it's ok if I ping a few users who seem to be around and have contributed to these or related articles: @D.Lazard, @David Eppstein, @Jochen Burghardt: What do you think? (I bet there are many others, but I'm not very active in that area...) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate Semidecidable as Chrisahn suggested, retarget all others to it. Even if there's a primary topic, we currently don't have an article about it. I think Semidecidable is the best title for the disambiguation page because:
- Semidecidable has the most incoming links (7, second place belongs to Semi-decidable with 4).
- This is used much more commonly as an adjective than as a noun in our existing articles, in a hypothetical article about semi(-)decidable problems, and, according to Ngram, in books.
- The variants without a hyphen are the only ones used in the current link targets. We should either hyphenate this everywhere or nowhere.
- As D.Lazard pointed out here, it would be good to have an article on Semidecidable problem, and once we do, it might become the primary topic. If that happens, we can move the disambiguation page to Semidecidable (disambiguation), retarget everything to Semidecidable problem, and include a hatnote there. Personally, I'm against this idea. Anyone who uses the search box for "semidecidable" will immediately see Semidecidable problem thanks to the autocomplete, and these redirects could cause editors to link to the wrong article by accident.
- David Eppstein and Chrisahn noted here that we could at some point turn Semidecidability into an article about the general concept, and maybe even merge some or all of the link targets into it. If that happens, obviously we should retarget everything there. Streded (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
list of hoaxes on wikipedia
- List of hoaxes on Wikipedia → Reliability of Wikipedia#Notable incidents (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- List of hoaxes on wikipedia → Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia hoax → Reliability of Wikipedia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia hoaxes → Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Hoaxes on Wikipedia → Reliability of Wikipedia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
wha? why does a simple difference of using a capital letter or not on 'wikipedia' lead to different pages? i think they should both have the same target, specifically project page for list of hoaxes on wikipedia, since i would expect that's what most readers would be looking for caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 19:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak project space as it seems more useful to direct people to a project space list when the title includes "list" than an article section that discusses other issues. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Note: bundled in 3 more -- they don't have "list", but are similarly split between targets and could also benefit from discussion here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)- Delete both the "list" redirects; none of these should target project space and are improper WP:XNRs. For the "list" redirects, there is no such list at the remaining "Reliability" article, so shouldn't point there either. Target mainspace reliability article for the other 3. Again, project space is inappropriate here, but there is information about hoaxes on WP scattered throughout the Reliability article, so those are reasonable to point there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete the "list of" redirects. I don't think we can assume that "on Wikipedia" is an attempt to search for the Wikipedia namepsace. Reliability of Wikipedia § Incidents is prose, not a list, and covers more than just hoaxes, so isn't a suitable target. Could plausibly point to List of hoaxes as readers with less familiarity with Wikipedia or search engines in general may not be aware that "on Wikipedia" isn't necessary to include if you're search for this while on Wikipedia, but readers who search this could also specifically be trying to get hoaxes which occurred on Wikipedia itself so that's not a perfect target. I don't think we need redirects that include "on Wikipedia" like this in general. Let Wikipedia's search engine handle it.If it is not deleted, my second preference is to target List of hoaxes with a hatnote to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia so the redirect doesn't cross namespaces but still directs readers to both lists. – Scyrme (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- For the other redirects which were recently bundled, target Reliability of Wikipedia as that article does discuss hoaxes on Wikipedia (in prose), as Deacon Vorbis notes. – Scyrme (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Retarget list articles to List of Wikipedia controversies, where several notable hoaxes are listed but an XNR is avoided. (I am personally more open to XNRs than many users but prefer to avoid them when possible). Landing at a list of "controversies" does not seem surprising or implausible if one is searching specifically for "hoaxes." Keep/Retarget the others to Reliability of Wikipedia as suggested above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- I concur with Scyrme and Deacon's concerns about cross-namespace redirects. However, rather than deleting the "list of" redirects, I would prefer retargeting both to List of Wikipedia controversies. Similarly, I would suggest retargeting the remaining redirects also to List of Wikipedia controversies instead of to Reliability of Wikipedia. While "Reliability of Wikipedia" is a plausible target, "List of Wikipedia controversies" is of a narrower scope and covers more of the specific hoaxes directly pertaining to Wikipedia that users are more likely to be looking for, rather than a broad article about the site's reliability in general.
- On that note, I would also support Scyrme's secondary proposal of adding a hatnote at List of hoaxes pointing to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Indeed, the See also section of that article already points users to the Wikipedia-namespace target, so this should simply be moved to a hatnote for easy cross-namespace navigation and to make it more readily visible to our readers. Furthermore, since all five redirects would, under this proposal, point to "List of Wikipedia controversies", a hatnote should also be added there pointing to "Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia", ensuring that users whose search was specifically intended for that Wikipedia namespace page can navigate there easily.
- To summarize, I would retarget all to List of Wikipedia controversies and add hatnotes at List of hoaxes and List of Wikipedia controversies pointing to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, but I would also support retargeting the non-"list of" redirects to Reliability of Wikipedia as a secondary preference if that option is more preferable. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget all to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. It's a valid CNR. consensus can change, but this discussion established that "X on Wikipedia" shouldn't point towards the main page. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- The discussion you cite had consensus to delete redirects that needlessly used "Wikipedia" in the article title where its inclusion is not part of the subject of the article. The history of these "List of" redirects suggests that they were created and have largely served as CNRs, not as a needless use of "Wikipedia" in an article/redirect title. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry to trainwreeck this discussion further, but I don't buy the the argument that the "list of" titles should be treated separately from the non-list titles. Reliability of Wikipedia#Notable incidents is close enough to a list to me. And I prefer that target to List of Wikipedia controversies because many Wikipedia controversies aren't hoaxes. And given that we have said mainspace list of hoaxes, there's no justification for an XNR. Retarget most to Reliability of Wikipedia#Notable incidents. However, I would delete Wikipedia hoax; there's no one canonical Wikipedia hoax nor is Wikipedia a hoax so that implies something that isn't really there. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget the "list" redirects to List of Wikipedia controversies and Keep/Retarget the others to Reliability of Wikipedia#Notable incidents per Presidentman. -- Tavix (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK, I would ask future commenters to express if they have a preference over List of Wikipedia controversies or Reliability of Wikipedia (possibly directly to the "Notable incidents" section) being the target and whether the "List of" articles should be handled differently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Boys Voices
2006-era BLAR of a stub made the same day as the BLAR. Notably the stub is a two-sentence blurb about the current target. That said... I can't be the only person that thinks that this title is way too vague to specifically be talking about castrati, right??? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- dabify between castrato, boy soprano, and treble voice, as it appears to me that this term could refer to all three, though feel free to add any other articles this could refer to as well if i've missed any (well, in the event of dabification, the dab page should probably be change the title to match standard article title style, and this should be retargeted to that) caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 12:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Would Boy's voice work as a title for such a dab? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- ya, seems fine to me caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 13:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Would Boy's voice work as a title for such a dab? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambig at Boy's voice per above, and include a link to Boys' choir and voice change (despite the generic sounding title, the latter article is specifically about the changes occurring at male puberty). Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation draft requested * Pppery * it has begun... 17:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)- Retarget to Voice change, which would be the general topic of a boy's voice (contrasted with an adult voice). Surprisingly, it also has links to the related topics of Boys' choir and Castrato so in the event someone was looking for that more specific topic, they'd be able to get to it from that article. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per above and then retarget to that disambiguation page. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Baked mostaccioli
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
as an aside, why was this moved to "baked mostaccioli" when the pre-blar content clearly referred to a cooked dish? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 14:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- AKeen had renamed and redirected it to Baked ziti, a similar article at the time in 2007, about the baked dish. Mention of "baked mostaccioli" was removed by an IP in 2015 without explanation (it was unsourced though). Baked ziti was eventually merged-and-redirected to Ziti, and if it makes sense, mention of "mostaccioli" may be added back. Jay 💬 11:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to mostaccioli, {{R with possibilities}} for sourced content. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete to encourage article creation. It's a notable Midwestern American dish, particularly in the Chicagoland area, but I did find some results for St. Louis variants as well. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Redirect with possibilities with no content at the proposed targets. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Shikuramen
I was guessing this is the Japanese-ified transliteration of "Cyclamen", and my guess was confirmed by the ja.wiki title, "シクラメン" (shi-ku-ra-me-n). Since cyclamen are not found in Japan, there is no affinity; delete per WP:RLANG. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. मल्ल (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:FORRED, no relation to Japan. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
March 18
Resignedly
- Resignedly → wiktionary:resignedly (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Same as before. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Should probably be bundled with the one below. Originally a redirect to resignation. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think these need to be bundled, for what it's worth. The reasoning is the same but the words themselves are unrelated and Wiktionary redirects are typically case-by-case assessments based on each word's usage, meaning, plausibility as a search term, etc. Perhaps I'm overly cautious/WP:TRAINWRECK-phobic. I don't expect these to be controversial, but you never know. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Eh, different enough. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per my reasoning at the other linked discussion. The meaning/usage of resignedly does not align with the sense of resigned covered at Resignation, so that is a very poor and frankly misleading target. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Interfusing
- Interfusing → wiktionary:interfusing (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary, with an average of 4 views per day (in the last 30 days). The views were mostly from what I assume would be this page, since it thinks the soft redirect is an article.
Otherwise, nothing meaningful links to it (no articles), so it does not fit the criteria to have a soft redirect in the first place. Originally created by Neelix (of course), and should've been just deleted... 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Very unlikely search term, scant information at Wiktionary. Surprisingly, this has no relation to boobs. In all seriousness, this was originally a redirect to amalgamation, but I don't think it should be retargeted there. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nom and ~2026. This does not meet the standards for a Wiktionary redirect described at WP:SOFTSP and Template:Wiktionary redirect. It is not
commonly wikified
—there are zero links in articles—and the 4 visits per day are best explained by this 'article' being the #1 entry listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles, which gets about 10 views/day. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Survivor: The Australian Outback-only contestants
- Debb Eaton → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Debb eaton → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Maralyn Hershey → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Maralyn hershey → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- Maralyn "Mad Dog" Hershey → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- Maralyn "Mad Dog" hershey → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- Maralyn "Mad dog" hershey → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- Maralyn "mad dog" hershey → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- "Mad Dog" Hershey → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- "Mad Dog" hershey → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- "Mad Dog" (Survivor) → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- Maralyn "Mad dog" Hershey → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- Mitchell olson → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- Mitchell Olson → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- Rodger Bingham → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
- Rodger bingham → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
Listed here are the contestants who appeared in only Survivor: The Australian Outback and no other. That's it. The above redirect pages should be retargeted to The Australian Outback season. (actually, will add more soon...) George Ho (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC); completed, 20:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget Debb Eaton, Maralyn Hershey, Maralyn "Mad Dog" Hershey, Maralyn "Mad dog" Hershey, Mitchell Olson, and Rodger Bingham to Survivor: The Australian Outback per nom.
- Delete the rest, because that is just a load of implausible lowercasing and rewording. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Replied to you in another log page about WP:RDELETE and/or WP:R#DELETE. George Ho (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Connaître
"Connaître" means "to be familiar with" in French; it is not synonymous with "connoisseur". So I suggest deletion per WP:FORRED. Duckmather (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. I was initially inclined to support deletion but connaître is defined in the lead of Connoisseur. The definition is highly relevant to the encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but including and redirecting to a dictionary definition or gloss is often appropriate. There is no WP:FORRED problem here. Connaître is prominently defined as a related word, not a synonym. The 'special affinity' with French is obvious here and the French origin of the English word connoisseur is explicitly described in the lead, including the connection with connaître. Perhaps we didn't need this redirect but it is harmless and straightforwardly has the potential to be helpful to some. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Somebody searching for the word connaître is unlikely to be actually looking for one word that derives from it, and even if they were, why give preference to connoisseur rather than, say, cognizance? (I realise that none of the articles on the various meanings of cognizance currently mention the etymological link, but that's not really the point). If the redirect is kept, wikt:connaître would be a better target IMO. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep, synonymous or not, it's mentioned. You can tag with {{R from related word}}. Abesca (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Mentioned at the target, relevant. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
The Lion King (movie)
- The Lion King (movie) → The Lion King (franchise)#Films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Retarget to The Lion King and tag as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}? This was the original and longstanding target prior to the 2020 RfD. The concern at the time was that the redirect is ambiguous with The Lion King (2019 film). Six years later and the article about the 1994 film still lives at the base title The Lion King. The original film's primary topic status was affirmed at a 2024 RM which had many more participants than the prior RfD. It makes no sense to treat The Lion King (1994 film) as the primary topic but treat the parenthetical The Lion King (movie) as ambiguous. If the primary topic needs to be revisited, there should be a repeat requested move discussion. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Notices placed at: Talk:The Lion King (disambiguation), Talk:The Lion King, Talk:The Lion King (2019 film), Talk:The Lion King (franchise), and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom. Quite surprising the previous discussion didn't consider The Lion King (film)The Lion King (film). --BDD (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Nurul Amin (politician)
- Nurul Amin (politician) → Nurul Amin (Chittagong politician) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Retarget to Nurul Amin who is also a politician, and, as the primary topic for the base name, by definition the primary topic for this disambiguated term. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)- I've never interpreted PDAB that way. But, I guess it could be. If the consensus here is to redirect to Nurul Amin (disambiguation) instead then I could live with that. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- I reckon it makes some sense. If you go to the effort of typing a disambiguator, that tends to make me think you want something different than the primary topic. In this instance, I've got a slight preference for Nurul Amin (disambiguation)#People. J947 ‡ edits 09:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've never interpreted PDAB that way. But, I guess it could be. If the consensus here is to redirect to Nurul Amin (disambiguation) instead then I could live with that. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom. PDAB would be relevant here if there were a primary topic and that primary topic were not a politician. By contrast, PDAB would much more directly apply if we were discussing Nurul Amin (Bangladeshi politician). The disambiguation page lists multiple Bangladeshi politicians by that name. One could potentially argue that one of those entries is more prominent than the others, while still not more so than the primary topic, and that "Nurul Amin (Bangladeshi politician)" should target that person's page, or be its title. (N.b., Nurul Amin (Bangladeshi politician) was red when I wrote this, but I'm going to redirect it to the disambiguation page.) --BDD (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: retarget to Nurul Amin or Nurul Amin (disambiguation)#People?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC) - Retarget to Nurul Amin per nom, he's the primary topic. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Nurul Amin per nom and other replies here. I get the PDAB argument but I don't read the guidance that way and I find the arguments against that line of reasoning more persuasive. If the parenthetical were a more obscure descriptor, and some other Nurul Amin were more well known for fitting that description, then it might be a different story. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Stacey Stillman
- Stacey Stillman → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- stacey stillman → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
I'd like this page listed into the multi-nomination section. However, this concerns the person related to controversy about her elimination and all. Should be, preferably, re-targeted to Survivor: Borneo#Controversy... or simply Survivor: Borneo. Well, she hasn't reappeared in any other season after Borneo. George Ho (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Found her name at Survivor (American TV series)#Controversies and legal action. Perhaps a good alternative target, though I prefer Survivor: Borneo. George Ho (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC) - Weak retarget to List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants#Seasons 1–10 (2000–2005). It's probably better if it goes to a section where she is listed rather than a controversy, but the controversy is also a valid target. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Either retarget Stacey Stillman to Survivor: Borneo#Controversy or Survivor: Borneo. Delete stacey stillman as implausible due to both lowercases (I don't even know how the first letter is lowercase). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- "stacey stillman" = "Stacey stillman". Technically, the first "s" is auto-uppercased, especially if not using {{lowercase title}}. George Ho (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also, replied to you in another log page about WP:RDELETE and/or WP:R#DELETE. George Ho (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Puzzle (video game)
- Puzzle (video game) → Puzzle video game (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Usually, "Foo (video game)" is for a specific game, not genre. The current target is about a genre, and while it mentions a single specific game (a redirect to American_Video_Entertainment#Puzzle), this is also not ideal. That game may be notable (MobyGames has 2 reviews: , which makes it borderline notable), but in addition, there were many other games named just "Puzzle" . At least one other has a review in MG, and MG is far from a complete database (I found a review of another game called "Puzzle" in a non-indexed Polish magazine, for example). Anyway, right now choices are: 1) keep (which I don't like due to reasons explained) 2) retarget to American_Video_Entertainment#Puzzle (the only article that mentions a specific game called "Puzzle") 3) turn into a disambig using data from MobyGames (problem is we cannot be sure these other games are notable). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Ultimately, no result for a video game simply named "puzzle" is going to be notable enough to outweigh the WP:SURPRISE of landing anywhere other than Puzzle video game. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- I would expect the title to redirect to the element of puzzles in video games, not the genre as a whole. Delete unless a stronger argument is shown. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as misleading. I don't think there's a Wikipedia page on any video game just titled "puzzle". ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Do not keep; this isn't how disambiguation works on Wikipedia. Not only could this refer to a specific video game called "Puzzle", but my initial thought was that it was about puzzles as elements of video games, not as a type/genre of game, which is rather different. It wouldn't be unreasonable to retarget back to its original, which does have a listing of a game simply called "Puzzle", but given both the obscurity of the title and genericness of the name, I doubt how helpful that would be. If there are any other titles actually called "Puzzle" that are currently listed, a dab wouldn't be totally unreasonable either, but I'm not sure if that's the case or not. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. This has no primary topic and does not seem to be a good candidate for disambiguation. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Homepage
I suggest this should be a disambiguation given Wikipedia:Homepage (new user feature). I think the term homepage is increasingly used for that new concept. I also suggest creating and redirecting WP:HOMEPAGE to the new disambig. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 01:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Check also Wikipedia:Homepages of Non-English Wikipedias. Abesca (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose I've looked at 12 months of pageviews (up until 8 March 2026, i.e. just before this discussion started) and the evidence is that the redirect under discussion is the primary topic. Hence, there should be no change. Schwede66 22:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 But while usually that would be a valid argument for putting a hatnote at the target, we can hardly do it for the main page... and those are valid, if perhaps niche, optional targets some may look for. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC) - Weak keep Redirect exists in the spirit of HomePage, which was the main page's original title. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per other arguments. Most people want to go to the mainpage, and the amount of people who want to go to the newcomer homepage is significantly less, I would imagine. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. The Main Page is straightforwardly the en-wiki homepage. The page the nom suggests is careful to distinguish this new feature/concept from the generic Wikipedia homepage. The redirect posted uses '(new user feature)' as parenthetical disambiguation. This is described throughout as the "newcomer homepage" although "homepage" does appear unqualified after the feature has been introduced. Also, this seems like relatively niche usage. The "newcomer homepage" would only be familiar to new editors who have interacted with it and to mentors and editors familiar with the Growth team. To the vast majority of editors, the home page is the Main Page or perhaps https://www.wikipedia.org. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Skeleta
This can also be a plural of skeleton. 1234qwer1234qwer4 08:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- keep as {{r to diacritic}}, the term skeleta to refer to skeletons doesn't appear to be the common plural in use, i would expect it's more likely that the average reader would search for skeleta in reference to the album, not having or knowing of a means of quickly typing á. we can always add a hatnote if necessary caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 10:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Nonstandard plural form, so it's far more likely as an r from diacritics, since many keyboards can't type diacritics. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep with hatnote. The use of "skeleta" as a plural is common in mathematics, so I almost favored that per WP:SMALLDETAILS, but a search for "skeleta" finds a surprising amount of tangential results about the album, so I think it's fine as is; a hatnote to the dab page should suffice to catch any stray readers. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- keep with hatnote per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Kiryu (film)
- Kiryu (film) → Mechagodzilla (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
-TalkTuahLunchly — Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak delete Potentially misleading, target isn't a film. However, the redirect likely refers to film as in film character. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Sleeveless
- Sleeveless → Sleeveless shirt (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Totally an adjective, IMO. There are also a sleeveless sweater and a waistcoat. I could convert the page to a dabpage, but that would go against WP:PARTIAL, right? If so, and if there's no other way, then the page should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep but add information on other types of sleeveless tops to sleeveless shirt. Alternatively, information on sleeveless tops can be added to sleeve. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: It could also refer to a song called "Sleeveless" from the album Declaration of Conformity (Wellwater Conspiracy album). This is probably not what someone inputting "sleeveless" would be looking for, though, but it wouldn't be a partial title match. Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Queen of Alternative pop
- Queen of Alternative pop → Melanie Martinez (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Judging from searches, it appears this nickname has been applied to at least Lana Del Rey and Billie Eilish. Possibly others as well. Even without knowing the details the current target is clearly untenable. So what should we do here, convert to nickname set index, retarget, or delete? ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. This is very subject term and clearly violates WP:PUFFERY. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak delete Might be valid to redirect to honorific nicknames in popular music if multiple people have the nickname, but the name currently isn't mentioned there, and it appears to be pure WP:PUFFERY. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Honorific nicknames in popular music. The 'honorific' is ambiguous and this is the target for similar redirects such as Queen of Country MusicQueen of Country Music and Princess of PopPrincess of Pop. A Google search confirms this is often applied to Lana Del Rey and Billie Eilish and has been used with other artists including Lorde. Lorde is already listed as the "Queen of Alternative" at Honorific nicknames in popular music and it would be reasonable to add Billie Eilish, since at least one reliable source uses "Queen of Alternative Pop" to describe her. Lana Del Rey, Melanie Martinez, and other artists could be added with appropriate sourcing. Honorific nicknames in popular music includes many instances where the same or very similar titles are used for multiple artists. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: The WP:SELCRIT for inclusion at Honorific nicknames in popular music is at least three reliable sources. Lorde apparently meets that for "Queen of Alternative". I've not found enough reliable sources for the other candidates but I still find this ambiguous given that only a few RS use this for Lorde and many wiki-unreliable sources use this moniker for other artists. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
March 17
Software life cycle
- Software life cycle → Systems development life cycle (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Software lifecycle → Software development process (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Software life-cycle → Software release life cycle (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Software development life cycle → Systems development life cycle (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Software development lifecycle → Systems development life cycle (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Software Development Life Cycle → Systems development life cycle (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Software Developement Life Cycle → Software development process (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Software development cycle → Software development process (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Phases of the software development cycle → Software development process#Software development activities (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Development cycle → Software development process (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Dev cycle → Software development process (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Software engineering lifecycle → Software development process (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Program development cycle → Software development process (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Program Development Cycle → Software development process (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Application lifecycle → Software development process (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
These redirects all use the word "cycle". I would assume that these should all either target Systems development life cycle or Software release life cycle, not Software development process, but I may be totally wrong. That is, assuming that Software development process, Systems development life cycle, and Software release life cycle should be three separate articles under those titles. Melozone crissalis (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I added bold text for alternative names under Systems development life cycle. This is probaby this best place for these various "life cycle" and "lifecycle" redirects to go. But the ones with just "cycle" rather than "life cycle" would be best to go to Software development process, as many of them do currently. These refer to a process cycle rather than a life cycle. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- I support retargeting the redirects as specified by Jonathan. Side note: although there is some overlap, the articles cover different processes so they should be separate. Rosaece ♡ talk to me! 10:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced the three existing articles are the best organization for the material. ATM I don't have any strong feelings about how the redirects work or how to better organize the material. I have added a few See also links as a temporary stopgap to better tie things togehter. ~Kvng (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Bunonematoidea
- Bunonematoidea → Rhabditida (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Retarget to Bunonematidae. Appears to be the remnant of a page move, yet the two terms are not synonymous. Bunonematidae is a better target. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Lean keep per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) § Redirects:
Redirects should be made to the article from…any lower taxa or other subtopics that do not have their own articles
. The rank (suborder? superfamily?) isn't clear to me and I'm not a taxonomy expert, but Bunonematoidea is listed under Rhabditida#Families as a lower taxon, of which the only member is the family Bunonematidae. Assuming the taxonomy is correct, this redirect is appropriate. Unfortunately, the result is that this article section contains self-referential redirects that point back to the target article, since ranks like RhabditinaRhabditina and Bunonematoidea don't have their own articles. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Touch Fuzzy, Get Dizzy
- Touch Fuzzy, Get Dizzy → Yoshi's Island (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Apparently a level from the game, but not actually mentioned at the article. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Redirect is from moving an article into the Draft space (see:Draft:Touch Fuzzy, Get Dizzy) corresponding to a level in the game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - As is right now, it should be deleted, but I honestly think that its far less viable as a stand alone article, and often times the content of failed drafts get dumped into parent articles. In a scenario like that, if someone took info from the draft like "Polygon identified 'Get Fuzzy, Get Dizzy' as a standout level from the game", then all of a sudden a redirect target of Yoshi's Island#Reception is a valid redirect (albeit probably unlikely to get used much.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm opposed to a separate article or a whole section, but Kung Fu Man has demonstrated it's pretty easy to integrate a mention that doesn't sound forced. Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - Actually, while not referred to by name, it is mentioned with "...a psychedelic undulating effect when Yoshi touches floating fungi." during the development section's mention of examples for the Super FX2 chip effects. From what I researched, it seems like the only level with this effect and, correct me if i'm wrong with my claim here, the most notable stage in the game. COOPER COOL 23 user page 14:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I added the level's name and the citation from the other article to it. That should fix the issue.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. I've reverted the addition is an irrelevant detail. Mentioning the name of the level the effect was used in is pretty irrelevant to discussing the effect itself, which was already really only there as an example of what the GSU was used for. Even if it were still there, the reader would get no other information about it, other than it's a level in YI, so it's still kind of useless without further discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep @Deacon's assessment that the level counts as fan wiki level content to mention I feel is misplaced after doing a thorough WP:BEFORE: . As you can see here, we have sources that a) discuss the level as THE standout of the game, b) observe how its absence or alterations affected some releases of the game (in fact even the Edge source cited in the article makes note that game's levels don't react its creativity), c) examine Super Mario Wonder briefly through its scope, d) use it as a benchmark for testing a emulator, and e) how it was seen as a euphonism for drug use, specifically LSD. Now to be frank, I don't believe this warrant a split; to understand the level you still need to understand Yoshi's Island enough, and outside of the reception there's not a lot to say about the level itself. But I do believe it warrants a mention or at least a paragraph in the game's reception, not unlike how we do with some characters that don't achieve enough notability/sustained to split from their parent article (case in point, Yasuke (Assassin's Creed)).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: The issue of whether or not to include content about this level should be addressed before this RFD proceeds. Ideally, that should be hammered out at Talk:Yoshi's Island. My opinion ultimately rests on whether or not there is sufficient coverage of "Touch Fuzzy, Get Dizzy" at the target. Currently there is no mention and the prior mention has been challenged. Kung Fu Man presents reasonable evidence that expanded coverage could be included somewhere. If that is added and survives deletion, we should keep and refine to the appropriate article section. If there is no mention, this should be deleted. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Between my proposal and Kung Fu Man's proposal - which are both different places where where different sourced mentions could be added - I really don't understand a valid reason not to include it. As someone else noted, for quite some time, its been discussed in the article, (and still is), just not by name. The opposition to listing 4 short words to identify what is being discussed is baffling to me. Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree, based on my limited knowledge drawn from this discussion. But if other editors dispute the inclusion of this content, RFD is not the ideal venue to hash that out. As it stands, in this discussion, there is more support for including content about the episode than there is for excluding it, so it would be reasonable to add a more detailed description that summarizes Kung Fu Man's sources. But if there's a lot of back-and-forth about it, there should be a discussion on the articles' talk page. In my view, keeping this redirect requires explicit coverage of the level, by name, and ideally more than a passing reference. If someone searches Wikipedia for "Touch Fuzzy, Get Dizzy" they are looking for details about this specific level. We should maintain this redirect if and only if we can point directly to such details. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Between my proposal and Kung Fu Man's proposal - which are both different places where where different sourced mentions could be added - I really don't understand a valid reason not to include it. As someone else noted, for quite some time, its been discussed in the article, (and still is), just not by name. The opposition to listing 4 short words to identify what is being discussed is baffling to me. Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep and expand per others. There's coverage to include in the parent that warrants a redirect, and the only argument for not keeping it are Wikipedia:WRONGVENUE arguments, which seems a bit odd given the heavy consensus here toward keeping and incorporating more content. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. This is the best option per the discussions above. This can be re-nominated if appropriate content is not added after a month so, or if the coverage is subsequently removed or is felt to be insufficient to justify this redirect. If there is disagreement about the content, that should be hashed out on the article's talk page prior to any repeat discussion here. It is certainly not my intention to needlessly prolong this discussion or delete on a 'wrong venue' technicality. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Günter Bechly
- Günter Bechly → Center for Science and Culture#Staff (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Recently afd:d , and not mentioned at target. He's also dead, so he doesn't fit under "Staff". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Not mentioned, no longer relevant to the subject. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Noting that the creator of the redirect now changed it to Meganeura#Evolution_of_large_body_size, which does mention him, but doesn't tell the reader anything about him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ping to @Star Mississippi, who closed the Günter Bechly afd a few days ago, if you want to have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång
- No opinion here, just read the AfD consensus. I don't read German so won't be of help in finding sources with which to add info to the target to help the reader. Star Mississippi 21:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Consider SALTing or some other form of protection, or close monitoring in the event that such protection becomes warranted. The current target is inappropriate for the reasons stated by the nom. He is mentioned in the Meganeura article but this contains no biographical information about him, nor would it be an appropriate place to add such content. There are similar mentions in a number of other articles, such as Makarkinia and Manipulator (insect). It's worth noting that his article has been repeatedly created and deleted over the years. The recent edit history for this redirect and Meganeura has the appearance of an attempt to right a great wrong by inserting aggrandizing content about Bechly and creating a redirect as an indicator of his importance. This is obviously inappropriate and, ironically, has the effect of obscuring the totality of content about his contributions whereas search results reveal multiple pages where his work is discussed. When a non-notable subject is mentioned on multiple pages, and none contain general biographical information or an overview of their contributions, we should delete rather than arbitrarily selecting one of several mentions as the target or "primary topic". The fact that this redirect and whatever article it targets are likely to be magnets for disruptive editing is all the more reason to get rid of it. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Devanagari + anything else
- Bharti Airtel Ltd. - भारतीय एयरटेल लिमिटेड → Bharti Airtel (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- CHHUR (छुर) → Chhur (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Chand Kings (चंद नरेश) → Chand dynasty (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Chand Kings (चंद राजा) → Chand dynasty (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Charaut Math (चरौत मठ) → Charaut Math (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Hindi Ka (क) → Ka (Devanagari) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Janakpur Bolts / जनकपुर बोल्टस् → Nepal Premier League (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Jhumlawang Village (झुम्लावाङ्ग गाउँ) → Jhumlawang (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Kshetrapa (क्षेत्रपा) → Chhetrapa (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Mirkoy VDC (मिरकोट गा. वि. स.) → Mirkot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Tarang(तरङ्ग) → Toast (honor) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Umaidpur उमेदपुर, Bihar बिहार → Umaidpur (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Village: Than (ठाॅॅँ, ठान), on Kandi-Saroor Road → Than, Kandi Dholran (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- שभोजपुरी → Bhojpuri language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- मराठी language → Marathi language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
I got a setup for matching titles that mix Devanagari and non-Devanagari characters (except modifier letter apostrophe) at quarry:query/103274. These are all the extant mainspace results that are redirects, except for:
- Effective. Power لُلُصّبُلُلصّبُررً ॣ ॣh ॣ ॣ 冗 (a notable bug)
- Gangs of वासेपुर, Gangs of वासेपुर 2, and Gangs of वासेपुर II (first and third are the titles as spelled on the film posters, second replaces the numeral II in the third)
- Thirty Three & 1/ॐ (a stylized album title)
- The following pages with disambiguation suffixes: पर्वत (album), ॐ (Album), and ॐ (album)
- ॐ (film) (nominated separately)
They are all mixed-language names presenting a phrase in multiple languages, except the one that begins with the Hebrew letter ש and मराठी language. Most are former titles of pages that got moved to the correct pure-English names. It is likely that this pattern will be added to the title blacklist, which already contains similar rules for several other Indic scripts, if these titles are deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
ॐ (film)
- ॐ (film) → Super (2010 Indian film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Didn't find an obvious connection. Search results point to Om (1995 film). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep The film officially has no name and its symbolic "👌" title has been interpreted in different ways. Per body: "The nameless film was originally represented only by the hand symbol (seen in posters) and Upendra wanted the audience to name the film. The hand symbol could mean zero, or three or the Om symbol or Vitarka Mudrā (an ancient Buddhist gesture), public and media stuck to calling it Super." Gotitbro (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why not add it to Om (disambiguation) and redirect there? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget → Om (disambiguation)#Fiction to align with Om (film)Om (film). Add Super (2010 Indian film) to the list with a brief explanation. It makes no sense that a film that is not actually titled "Om" or "ॐ" would be the primary topic for ॐ (film) over the multiple films listed on the dab page. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
War of choice
- War of choice → War of aggression (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Perhaps I am missing something here as I'm not an expert in this topic area, but this doesn't seem a perfect redirect. While a war of aggression is definitely a war of choice, pretty much all wars are down to a decision at some time or another and the term "war of choice" isn't elaborated at the redirect. GnocchiFan (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep This is in contrast to a "war of necessity" i.e. a war "without the justification of self-defense". Gotitbro (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Neologism, seemingly from a book about the Iraq War. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Black mirrors
- Black mirrors → Claude glass (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Black mirror → Black Mirror (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Black Mirrors for the plural one (or hatnote) and probably Black Mirror (disambiguation) for the singular one? (or even move dab to that title) Abesca (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget both to Black Mirror (disambiguation) ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Point both to Claude glass per WP:DIFFCAPS and add a hatnote there. It's the only lower-case item on the disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 20:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget Black mirror to Black Mirror per WP:DIFFCAPS ("And a well-known concept may still be the primary topic for a variant styling or incorrect spelling, even if a much less well-known subject uses that spelling"). Retarget Black mirrors to Black Mirrors per nom and add hatnote to Black Mirror (disambiguation) NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Realized I said retarget for Black mirror when it is already targeted at Black Mirror; I meant that as Keep. Also updating my vote on Black mirrors to Keep with the addition of a hatnote to the disambiguation page—I think that makes more sense based on page views per Myceteae and Mathguy2718. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep both. Searching up "black mirror" gives mostly results about Black Mirror. This is supported by the TV series getting about 75-100x more views of claude glass. On the other hand, searching up "black mirrors" gives mostly results about actual mirrors. Black Mirrors gets about 10-20x less views than claude glass. See this pageviews analysis (best in logarithmic scale). Hatnotes would be useful for both cases. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep both. I agree with Mathguy2718's assessment based on pageviews. I disagree with the application of WP:DIFFCAPS suggested by Eureka Lott. DIFFCAPS applies in situation where capitalization is assumed to most often represent a deliberate choice by readers to refer to a specific topic. This most often applies with the inclusion of capitals, not their omission. It is a common practice online to type in all-lowercase, especially in search bars. Unlike Wikipedia, most web searches are not case sensitive and readers often 'lazily' omit capitals when searching. Given the overwhelming popularity of the show Black Mirror, it is likely that this is the intended target for the vast majority of readers searching black mirror. The plural is a different story. Readers are less likely to pluralize the proper name of a TV show. Hatnotes should be added to Claude glass pointing to both Black Mirror (disambiguation) and Black Mirrors just in case. WikiNav also supports the current setup. WikiNav for "Black Mirror" shows that the dab page is not in the top 10 pages readers navigate to. This indicates that a large number of readers are not landing here on accident. WikiNav for "Black Mirror (disambiguation)" shows that most readers do arrive here from Black Mirror but Black Mirror and Claude glass are neck-and-neck for the #1 destination. Overall, these redirects are consistent with typical practice with respect to capitalization and plurals and are supported by pageviews and navigation stats. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have the impression that article titles ending with "(disambiguation)" or parentheses in general typically have less views than disambiguation pages without title disambiguators. And the search tool avoids showing disambiguations at the top, probably because of wikilinkings. Abesca (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
2004 election in progress
- 2004 election in progress → Timeline of the 2004 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This redirect is not named in a clear manner. You can see that the title is irrelevant to now because the election is over, whereas this title implies that the election is still going and that is obvious from the date this redirect was created. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Unclear, ambiguous as there were multiple elections in 2004, and outdated, in the spirit of WP:UFILM. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as outdated and unclear per above. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and others. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
March 16
American Drum Horse
- American Drum Horse → List of North American horse breeds#American Drum Horse (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This redirect should instead point to Glossary of equestrian terms#American Drum Horse (seen here), which contains actual explanatory content, and not to a blank line in a table of a WP:CATALOG article.
Background: In WikiProject Equine, we have many old articles that are uncited, fail notability for standalone articles, or rely solely on primary and self-published sources. Articles about organizations that "register" horses that are not actual breeds, and that function as minor vanity registries ("my horse has papers"), fall into a group of articles that are routinely handled by blank-and-redirect as failing GNG. Even articles titled as "breed names" originating from these niche registries fall into the same category; for example, American Drum Horse and Baroque Pinto. If the concept is close enough to the parent- or source-breed, and there's a standalone article, then relevant content could be merged there (such as, Pinto Horse Association of America). But when the "new breed" is too much of an offshoot/variant/outcross, the parent-breed article is an inappropriate target. In those cases, the Glossary of equestrian terms is the best place for a brief mention, and it should be the target of the redirect. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Update: The proposed target has been removed since this nomination and can be seen in this version: . ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep unless a section at the proposed target is created, in which case it should be retargeted there. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- It was already there ... until Montanabw made 3 dozen edits last night to remove it, along with thirty-five (35) other terms & definitions they didn't want in their vision for the glossary. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support in part, oppose in part these minor “breeds” don’t need standalone articles, but the Glossary of equestrian terms is a carefully curated list of “horse words” not a catchall for cruft. I think a redirect to List of North American horse breeds is best, because that is the “parking lot” for the things that need to have redirected (so that the same vanity article isn’t just recreated again). Montanabw(talk) 01:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. An obscure, non-notable "new breed" is not really an "equestrian term" and filling Glossary of equestrian terms with such entries seems a poor practice. I would give some deference to editors active in this space but American drum horse is not mentioned there currently and is not an obvious fit. I agree with the nom that a blank list entry is also of little help to readers but the current target seems a better fit than the proposed alternative. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Myceteae: It was removed since nomination. Can be seen here: ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. List of North American horse breeds is a more appropriate place to catalogue notable and non-notable breeds than Glossary of equestrian terms. I have added the description that used to live at Glossary of equestrian terms to the entry at List of North American horse breeds#American Drum Horse (see: Special:Diff/1344128566). This addresses the concern that the redirect pointed to a list entry with no additional information. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Trace map
- Trace map → Tensor product of modules#As linear maps (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The more widely known Trace (linear algebra) is also a map. There is also a the notion at Sheaf_of_modules#Operations (which generalises the case of modules). The most general notion is probably Categorical trace. Specific maps called "trace maps" also occur in the context of Serre duality/the dualizing sheaf (though the latter article calls it trace morphism, which should probably redirect somewhere as well) and in algebraic K-theory (though there is not a lot of information on it in that article). 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate, innit? Paradoctor (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate as an ambiguous term. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- It might be best to just list the meanings at Trace#Mathematics. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Iranian strikes on Cyrpus
- Iranian strikes on Cyrpus → 2026 Iranian strikes on Cyprus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
deletion, there is a typo Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 15:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- This redirect attracted thousand 1,277 pageviews. And Cyrpus is a redirect, so I guess this is a common misspelling for some reason. Abesca (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: This was the original title for 30 minutes before being moved to the correct spelling. The page is also currently a double redirect with the article currently titled 2026 Iranian strikes on Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Would've been a speedy delete (WP:R3) if it had been nominated earlier. This is a simple one-off mistake. The pageviews noted by Abesca are misleading and are due to what Mathguy2718 pointed out already. Those views are a blip that lasted for 1 day, and dropped off immediately afterwards. The few residual views are likely due to people checking its history, etc. from this RfD. – Scyrme (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak delete Cyrpus isn't that unreasonable of a typo, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, but this is probably not a very likely search term. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Criticism of artificial intelligence
- Criticism of artificial intelligence → Ethics of artificial intelligence (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Criticism of AI → Ethics of artificial intelligence (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The criticism of AI is not limited to ethical issue, also include copyright and other issues A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- The target article "Ethics of artificial intelligence" isn't ideal. Perhaps "Artificial intelligence controversies" would be better, although it's more about specific events than general criticism. Alenoach (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to Artificial intelligence controversies, or maybe disambiguate between both targets or delete per WP:RETURNTORED to promote article creation, since there is a lot that could be said on this topic. I2Overcome talk 08:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Based on a quick skim, there's a lot of content at the current target that would likely find a better home at an article dedicated to the topic of criticism of AI as a whole, rather than specifically the ethical considerations. Ideally, that content should be split from the target into an article at Criticism of artificial intelligence. That's not really an outcome that an RfD discussion can force, though.
- Aside from all of that, the redirects are fine as is. Returning it to red might not be ideal, because we should be encouraging a content split, not a completely fresh article. Keep. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)- Philosophy of artificial intelligence is the broader topic Abesca (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Agree with MEN KISSING above - "Criticism of artificial intelligence" ("Criticism of AI") is broader than the current target and other targets mentioned here. I think better to return to red and develop a new article covering concerns including ethical issues. Asteramellus (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per Asteramellus. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Anti-AI should be bundled with these. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- What about AI veganism? Abesca (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
College fest
- College fest → Festival#Types (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Broken redirect, not even mentioned in target page Kailash29792 (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Would it better redirect to Cultural festival (India)? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to CollegeFest. I am open to other possible targets that may relate to college festivals, but I'm not sure about retargeting to Cultural festival (India) because India, though significant, isn't the only country where college festivals exist. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to CollegeFest; this one actually would be a plausible error, and I don't see any other reasonable targets. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- • Comment: Would this be worth disambiguating? with entries for CollegeFest, Cultural festival (India), and any other relevant articles NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- THIS is what the guy who created the redirect had in mind; the non-sourced content they added to the target article. India. Other than the one CollegeFest in Boston, I haven't seen much evidence that this is much of a thing in the United States, outside of Boston. Whereas, we have an entire list of festivals in Indian colleges. True, not the only country where these exist. Cultural Festival also points us to Cultural festival (Japan). – wbm1058 (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also Category:College festivals in India. India is the primary topic for this thing. The Boston CollegeFest is an outlier. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)- Retarget to Cultural festival (India) and potentially add a hatnote to CollegeFest; based on wbm1058's input, I agree there is a clear primary topic and not worth disambiguating per my previous comment. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to cultural festival (India) with a hatnote to CollegeFest per WP:PRECISE, as "college fest" isn't a CamelCase term. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Subjugate
- Subjugate → Slavery (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Subjugated → Slavery (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Subjugation → Slavery (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Slavery is only one specific form of subjugation, and the words are usually used to talk about other things. In particular, I checked about half of the incoming links from mainspace articles and none referred to literal slavery. All the links I checked were unnecessary and can safely be removed. Making this a red link would discourage unnecessary linking in future. Alternatively, the three redirects could be redirected to their respective Wiktionary entries using Template:Wiktionary redirect, but I think it's better to discourage linking these words using red links. Un assiolo (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Conjugation is a dab. Couldn't this be too? ZNático (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- What would that look like? Conjugation lists the many different things called "conjugation" or "conjugate" (possibly with added nouns and/or adjectives) in various sciences. How many different things called "subjugation" are there? It would look more like a dictionary or thesaurus entry than a disambiguation page. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- This has repeatedly been made an article then deleted or redirected as a dictionary definition. I don't know why: this looks like a very plausible encyclopaedic topic and a definition is the natural starting point. We've got big popular articles on less cohesive topics (e.g. subversion). J947 ‡ edits 22:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate Subjugation is a very broad term, more so than slavery. While both have similar meanings in a metaphorical context, the article about slavery is about it as an institution rather than it as a literary term. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Ico (playstation)
Ambiguous redirect, both two PlayStation versions existed. Absolutiva 05:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Absolutiva: The present target, Ico, appears to cover both the PS2 and PS3 releases, so I'm unsure what you mean. Is there another article this redirect could plausibly point to? I was only able to find Ico and The Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection, but the latter is a compilation so isn't an appropriate target for a redirect which refers to only one of the games included in that compilation. The compilation is also linked to in the lead section of Ico, so if that was what a reader was looking for they'd still likely find it. – Scyrme (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete If this was to distinguish between the PS2 and remasterd PS3 version, that disambiguation provides zero help. Masem (t) 14:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's probably to distinguish it from the lowercase entries at ICO, rather than to distinguish the original and remaster. – Scyrme (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- On closer inspection of the article history, it appears Ico (playstation) is the result of Ico being boldly moved to that title briefly, before being moved to Ico (video game) then, after an RM, back to Ico. At the time there were no lowercase entries at ICO, but there was confusion on the talk page around how to handle capitalisation since Ico is stylised as in all caps. So apparently it was actually meant to distinguish it from all the all caps entries at ICO. – Scyrme (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep as a harmless {{r from unnecessary disambiguation}} (or a {{r from other disambiguation}} if the proposed move of the target article is successful). - Eureka Lott 17:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC) - Keep Redirect from unnecessary disambiguation, both versions of the game are in the same article and released on the PlayStation. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
God's Beads
- God's Beads → List of programs broadcast by JTBC#Saturday–Sunday (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Recently created redirect after this was moved to draftspace without leaving a redirect per this discussion. It is mentioned at target, but this should be get deleted and become a WP:REDLINK to encourage editors to work on the draft page at Draft:God's Beads. This might also meet criteria for WP:SD, although I don't think it does as this is a redirect, unlike the deleted content which was an article. Still, I think it is best to Delete and WP:RETURNTORED and link where it is mentioned to encourage work on the page in draft space. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I just saw the note that the draft is mentioned at redirect note, but I honestly still think it is best to delete, because it is not guaranteed everyone will just click on the redirected from note. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: Valid redirect to a section where the series is listed and mentioned. The title is a plausible search term and the redirect helps readers locate the existing information and prevents the
creation of duplicate articles
. The {{R with possibilities}} also guides editors to the draft where improvements can continue until it meets notability guidelines. At that point, a robin-swap can be performed. Deleting the redirect to force a redlink is unnecessary and may instead lead to repeated recreation or duplicate drafts rather than improving the existing draft. Do note that this series isn't expected to premiere till December 2026. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC) - Keep Mentioned in the section. Can be speedied per WP:G6 when Draft:God's Beads is ready to be in the article namespace. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Green leafhopper
- Green leafhopper → Cicadella viridis (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Several species in the genus Nephotettix are also called green leafhoppers. Rather than redirecting only to C. viridis, perhaps this page could be turned into a disambiguation page? Uffda608 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate, provided the name is mentioned in those articles. Paradoctor (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- dabify per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete most leafhoppers are green. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 14:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Citation needed. See the images at Leafhopper.
- More to the point, there is a distinction between "green leafhopper" as a description and "green leafhopper" as an epithet. Especially as the
forewings are [...] blue or dark bluish in males
of cicadella viridis. Paradoctor (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation draft requested * Pppery * it has begun... 15:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)- Retarget to Nephotettix. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate, delete, or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)- Disambiguate per nom. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Many leafhoppers are green. While consensus can change, this probably should be deleted, just like yellow fly, as it's too ambiguous. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Missed this? Paradoctor (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Yellow fly" is also a formal name that refers solely to the yellow fly of the dismal swamp. However, that is far from the only yellow fly, much like how cicadella viridis is far from the only green leafhopper. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Descriptions or epithets? Paradoctor (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Yellow fly" is also a formal name that refers solely to the yellow fly of the dismal swamp. However, that is far from the only yellow fly, much like how cicadella viridis is far from the only green leafhopper. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Apologies for missing this earlier: Deletion is out anyway. Given that "green leafhopper" is a name of Cicadella viridis, the only options on the table are keep/retarget/dabify. Paradoctor (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Missed this? Paradoctor (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Trials of the Nazis
- Trials of the Nazis → Nuremberg trials (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ambiguous; cf. Category:Nazi war crimes trials. Not sure if there is any good target discussing this more generally (The Holocaust#Criminal trials is rather specific, and does not have as much information). This gets around 2 pageviews a month so it might be best to just delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hmm...this does feel ambiguous, but, OTOH, the Nuremberg trials are probably the primary topic here. List of Axis personnel indicted for war crimes is another possible target that is more comprehensive. But I'm leaning keep based on the likely primacy of the current target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete no good target at present or likely to be in the future because Nazi trials could include not just war and holocaust-related trials but also such events as the Trial of Neumann and Sass and Beer Hall Putsch trial. (t · c) buIdhe 13:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep, but create a disambiguation page listing the other possibilities and link that in a hatnote. BD2412 T 15:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- What exact content do you envision being listed? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- The phrase "Trials of the Nazis" can be read at least two ways, one being trials in which the defendants were Nazis, already discussed in this thread, and another being trials conducted by the Nazi German government in support of its aims (see Law of Nazi Germany#Legal system for some discussion of this). BD2412 T 21:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- What exact content do you envision being listed? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep with hatnote to disambiguation page, as suggested by BD2412.The current target is the primary topic, and the redirect is useful for readers who are aware that leading Nazis were put on trial at Nuremberg, but don't know or recall where those trials happened. – Scyrme (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Category:Nazi war crimes trials as a valid WP:CNR. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
LENS
Originally a redirect to European Laboratory for Non-Linear Spectroscopy. Lens (disambiguation) also mentions Laser engineered net shaping (though the article only uses the initialism in a link). Probably retarget to the dab page (per WP:DIFFCAPS)? 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- It needs to redirect to Lens (disambiguation), which I'll do right away. This page was overlooked when the dab page was moved in 2019. It was always supposed to redirect to the dab page.--Srleffler (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Srleffler please do not change the targets of redirects while they are being discussed here. It only leads to confusion (e.g. does someone recommending "keep" believe it should have the target it did when nominated or the target it has after it was changed?) and thus reduces the chances of a consensus. I've undone your change to reduce the likelihood of issues. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to European Laboratory for Non-Linear Spectroscopy or the DAB, it makes no sense to have the current target which doesn't seem to be known in all caps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC) - Retarget to European Laboratory for Non-Linear Spectroscopy with a {{Redirect}} hatnote to the disambiguation page for other uses. Laser Engineered Net Shaping seems unlikely to be the primary topic for the acronym when it's not even the common name for the topic it refers to. – Scyrme (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Lens (disambiguation). The redirect points to Lens because that used to be the location of the dab page. When the dab page was moved to allow the article to use that title the redirect was mistakenly not updated. --Srleffler (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus of which target yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to European.... There are only two acronyms at the dab page -- this or laser metal shaping. That gets a good sight more page views, but it's very unlikely that people are getting there are associating "LENS" with it, which as noted, seems to be a little-used trade name. A hatnote to either it or the dab page would suffice to catch anything else. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Lens (disambiguation). One of the acronyms is non-English, and having it retarget there might be a WP:SURPRISE. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would surprise, given it's already mentioned in the lead paragraph in bold just as is suggested by WP:RSUPRISE. – Scyrme (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Nazzi
While this is not an implausible mispelling of "Nazi", most hits are for other topics, including Faggin–Nazzi alphabet, a Stefano Nazzi, and several other people with "Nazzi" as a given or surname. I would prefer deletion to let search work properly, but a dab page would also be preferable to this redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- weak keep as a plausible misspelling, i searched for pages to see if there were any on individuals with the surname 'nazzi' but none seem to exist. perhaps if some did exist we could have a surname dab page with a hatnote to redirect readers who misspelled their search term, but currently there doesn't seem to be any need caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 10:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)- Disambiguate per nom. This is a plausible misspelling/typo. However, as the nominator pointed out, there are other similar titles. A disambiguation would definitely be appropriate. Said dab page should also contain a see also pointing to either Nazism or Nazi (disambiguation) or both. The see also would solve the typo problem hopefully. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I am also okay with keeping the redirect as an alternative. If a dab page turns out to be inappropriate. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per nom. This is a plausible misspelling/typo. However, as the nominator pointed out, there are other similar titles. A disambiguation would definitely be appropriate. Said dab page should also contain a see also pointing to either Nazism or Nazi (disambiguation) or both. The see also would solve the typo problem hopefully. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep or delete, but don't disambiguate. RfD has started churning out low-quality, unhelpful DAB pages. It's not clear what there is to disambiguate that actually has a Wikipedia article. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. I do not agree that this is a plausible misspelling. External search results (for
"Nazzi"
, including quotes to search for this exact spelling) simply don't provide any evidence for that. They instead provide results for people whose surname is Nazzi, some of whom apparently have been mentioned in news articles so might be notable. The aforementioned Stefano Nazzi [it] has an article on the Italian Wikipedia, which also suggests that at least he is notable even if the others aren't. It's not implausible in the future someone might translate that article over here, or write a new article about him. Disambiguation (or a set index of people named Nazzi) is not viable as there are no articles on the English Wikipedia that would share that title and misspellings don't warrant disambiguation. Even if I'm wrong about this being an implausible misspelling, if someone were to use the search engine they'd still see a result for Nazism due to the redirect from Nazzism so, hypothetically, they'd still find what they were looking for. Best to vacate it and return to red so it's available if anyone decides to make articles about the various possibly notable people named Nazzi. – Scyrme (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC) - Delete per Scyrme. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Create a page at Nazzi (surname) and retarget this there with a hatnote to Nazism. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Seems premature to me to suggest a surname set index. The best case for a surname index article is that it has only two links, both being redlinks; one being an {{interlanguage link}} to the Italian Wikipedia article for Stefano and the other being for Gianni Nazzi followed by a link to Faggin–Nazzi alphabet in the short description after his name. If you're proposing an article about the name itself rather than a surname index article, that's not a viable suggestion unless someone volunteers to draft one before this RfD closes. – Scyrme (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a recently created redirect for a misspelling that is not documented to be common. A web search for "nazzi" turns up a musical artist with this name, other individuals with Nazzi as a first name or surname, one-off coinages like this, social media accounts, and a bunch of other random uses. I don't see posts on Reddit or Quora which often predominate when an error or intentional fanciful usage is common "in the wild". —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Y2K7
- Y2K7 → Daylight saving time#Complexity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Year 2007 problem → Daylight saving time#Complexity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Y2K7 problem → Daylight saving time#Complexity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Redirects all target a section that does not exist. In addition, there is no information at the target or anywhere else about "Y2K7". The first two redirects do have a lot of history, though. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Restore revision 327444784. The topic itself, though not named as such, is briefly still touched on at the target at Daylight saving time § Computing:
The reference for that paragraph does describe it as "mini-Y2K". However, this doesn't really provide much information, and it wouldn't be due to add more. The original article had references before it was blanked, suggesting this is a notable topic, like Year 2011 problem, etc. A link to be added at the current target, so the restored article wouldn't be an orphan. It was blanked with the rationaleChanges to DST rules cause problems in existing computer installations. For example, the 2007 change to DST rules in North America required that many computer systems be upgraded, with the greatest onus on e-mail and calendar programs. The upgrades required a significant effort by corporate information technologists.
Redirecting this to a section in the main DST article that already covers the complexities of DST changes without a recentist bent
. However, I don't see much of a "recentist bent" in that revision, which discusses the topic in past tense, and it was blanked in 2010, 3 years after the problem would have been relevant, so it's a bit odd to complain of recentism. Maybe the blanking and redirecting was warranted at the time, if the target had more information, but it no longer looks warranted now. – Scyrme (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC) - Weak delete Appears to be a WP:NEOLOGISM to refer to a problem that used to be mentioned on the page. If the section is restored, then I'd lean keep. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's not a neologism. People were calling it the "Y2K7 bug" etc. at the time, both on forums and in the media. (eg. The Register) – Scyrme (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
The Clans Decide
- The Clans Decide → Warriors (novel series)#Short stories (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned at target. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 08:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've re-added a small mention of it due to the fact that basic publication history of Warriors media is something that ought to be kept in the article. Blubewwy (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Mention was re-added. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
After Sunset: We Need to Talk
- After Sunset: We Need to Talk → Warriors (novel series)#Plays (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned at target. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 08:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've re-added a small mention of it due to the fact that basic publication history of Warriors media is something that ought to be kept in the article. Blubewwy (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Mention was re-added. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Anti isomer
- Anti isomer → Syn and anti addition (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
One of Diastereomer#Syn_/_anti or Descriptor_(chemistry)#syn,_anti would seem to be a more accurate target. After this RfD, syn isomer should probably be created with the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 07:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Bidentate
- Bidentate → Denticity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Bidentate ligand → Ligand (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Bidentate Ligand → Ligand (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Polydentate → Denticity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Polydentate ligand → Ligand (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Polydentate Ligand → Ligand (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Polydentate ligands → Ligand (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Monodentate → Denticity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Monodentate ligand → Denticity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Monodenate ligand → Denticity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
I suppose these should have the same targets. 1234qwer1234qwer4 07:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Target Denticity. They're mentioned in both articles, but denticity is the main article for the specific topic of mono-/bi-/polydenticity of ligands. Someone specifying the denticity of a ligand probably wants information specifically about that, not just an article about ligands in general. Denticity links the broader article for ligand in the first sentence, so if that was what someone was looking for they'd still find it. These redirects should also be tagged, where relevant, as {{avoided double redirect}} for Monodentate ligand, bidentate ligand, and polydentate ligand respectively so they continue to share a target if they're retargeted later or if an article is written, like for tridentate ligand. – Scyrme (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Target all → Denticity. I agree these should all point to the same place and I agree with Scyrme's reasoning for selecting Denticity. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
TrioBe
- Triobe → B vitamins (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- TrioBe → B vitamins (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. TrioBe is a proprietary combination of three B vitamins. It does not contain the other 5 main B vitamins nor any of the other compounds listed in the article. TrioBe is not discussed in the article nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. These redirects don't help readers who are looking for information about this specific product and may mislead readers into thinking the term is synonymous with B vitamins generally. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Myceteae. Don't think this needs community input - the redirect should just be deleted as a Finnish product name, conspicuous WP:PROMO. Zefr (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Farsee
An AFCRD request, and while this isn't totally off the wall, it does stretch the plausibility line quite a bit. Simple web searches overwhelmingly come back with dictionary results about "farsee", an actual English word about...well, seeing far. Secondary results are all sorts of other mixed stuff, like names, software, other random stuff, but I couldn't find any actual misspellings of Farsi in the bunch, which by the way, refers to the language specifically. I recommend a delete to let the search engine take care of this one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete for now as there doesn't seem to be a primary topic according to google Duckmather (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Neutral I accepted it, but I am as happy for it to be kept as deleted. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 08:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete, too ambiguous; lots of possibilities (including the current target and English word) but no target that stands out. Prefer to not target Farse. J947 ‡ edits 08:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nom and other contributors. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Persian language, where Farsi (itself a transliteration) points. BD2412 T 21:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Persian language as {{avoided double redirect}} for Farsi. This is a plausible romanisation of "Farsi" and should share the same target. In South Asia, it's common to use phonetic spellings like this rather than a systematic transliteration. (eg. Indian Express: "
The Mughals introduced Farsee or Persian.
") It also appears in historic sources which predate modern transliteration systems which use "i" not "ee". (eg. The History of Persia (1829), p. 487: "...orders the Farsee language to be...
"). The English word isn't an encyclopedic topic (WP:NOTDICT), so is irrelevant; it will never have an article. If the other external results ever become notable topics, this can be brought back to RfD to discuss disambiguation after articles are made about them. (Or someone can boldly do it, if it seems like obviously the right move then.) Deleting it because there are non-notable topics elsewhere on the internet isn't helpful. – Scyrme (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Syrian war (2011–2013)
- Syrian war (2011–2013) → Syrian civil war (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Syrian war (2011-2013) → Syrian civil war (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Clearly incorrect, the war was not ended in 2013 A1Cafel (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Duckmather (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
The 16th
This is an outlier of sorts, as no other construction of "The Xth" points to a specific century, and 16th by itself is obviously ambiguous in ways that are in some cases likely applicable to the phrase "The 16th" (e.g., 16th of the month, constitutional amendments, and the numerous kinds of military units). I would retarget this to the disambiguation page, 16th. BD2412 T 02:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per nominator. I definitely don't think the century is the primary topic for this. Could delete this, but retargeting to the existing disambiguation page seems harmless. It seems to be a leftover from an attempt to make an article at this title about the century which was later blanked and redirected. As a note, of the possible similarly formatted "The [ordinal]" titles from 1st-21st, the ones which exist are The 1st, The 2nd, The 3rd, The 4th (for transparency, I just made this one), The 5th, The 7th, The 8th, The 11th, The 12th. The 13th. The 15th. The 17th. The 19th. The 21st. None go to centuries. Most go to a primary topic or disambiguation pages. Of the ones that go to disambiguation pages, some go to pages which include "the", while others are combined with the ordinal without "the". – Scyrme (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Scyrme: I've been working on the ordinals quite a bit lately. I think that they could all incorporate the "The Xth" topics. BD2412 T 02:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Update: I've gone ahead and made The 4th, The 6th, The 9th, and The 10th as covering at least all the numbers from 1-10 seemed reasonable. – Scyrme (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Central Estonia
- Central Estonia → Geography of Estonia#Geographical (landscape) areas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned in the section it targets, though it has Northern Estonia, Southern Estonia, Western Estonia, and Eastern Estonia. It may be related to et:Kesk-Eesti and et:Kesk-Eesti lavamaa. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Best not to imply we have a specific description of an area we don't. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Fellow of the Amerian Mathematical Society
- Fellow of the Amerian Mathematical Society → American Mathematical Society#Fellows (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Misspelling redirect that was created in error; not plausible for such a long phrase. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Would've been eligible for a speedy deletion (WP:R3) if it had been caught earlier. It only exists due to an oversight. – Scyrme (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Meh. I agree that the misspelling is a bit unlikely, and that it isn't doing very much good. I note that it isn't on our WP:Lists of common misspellings. On the other hand, it's also not completely implausible (it may do a tiny bit of good), and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Hydroretorting
- Hydroretorting → Hydrogenation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Hydroretorting process → Hydrogenation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not explained at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Hytort process. Fairly sure "hytort" is an abbreviation of hydroretorting, and the two are synonymous. Though, "Hytort" could be a proprietary name for the generic process. – Scyrme (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Savage Man Savage Beast 2
- Savage Man Savage Beast 2 → Savana violenta (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
There's no such title as "Savage Man Savage Beast 2", it is unsourced and no original research. Absolutiva 09:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - External search results for
"Savage+Man+Savage+Beast+2"
do yield results that refer to it as an alternative title. Among them I found an eBay listing for a 1976 poster that shows that it was at least marketed as "Savage Man Savage Beast Part II"/"Savage Man Savage Beast Part 2" in some places. Savana violenta also mentions that it's the second instalment of a trilogy, so perhaps it wouldn't be too surprising (WP:SURPRISE) even if it doesn't mention this exact title in the article. – Scyrme (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
March 15
Central Asian Commonwealth
- Central Asian Commonwealth → Eurasian Economic Community (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
"Central Asian Commonwealth" isn't mentioned at the target. There is a mention at Commonwealth of Independent States: if that were to be the target then the circular wikilink would need to be removed. I'm listing for discussion here because these organisations are often translated differently and there may be a reason for the current target that I'm missing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- (creator) 10 years ago...hmm...looking at 2016 history still not clear. The mention at Commonwealth of Independent States#Organisation of Central Asian Cooperation has a cn but looks promising, with the selflink then needing removing (and for what it's worth Gemini says "A Short-Lived Historical Proposal (1991)...superseded by CIS". Central Asian Union seems afterwards per that timeline. This source says "...became Central Asian Economic Community". Widefox; talk 17:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just several minutes before you created this redirect, you made this edit to CAC (§ Politics and religion,
Central Asian Commonwealth, an organization later renamed to Organization of Central Asian CooperationOrganization of Central Asian Cooperation
) – wbm1058 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC) - Central Asian Commonwealth added to the disambiguation by this 21 September 2008 edit by User:Yzb – wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just several minutes before you created this redirect, you made this edit to CAC (§ Politics and religion,
- I removed the mention at CIS as unsourced / unverified. Jay 💬 12:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Before we remove the line item from the disambiguation, we should consider restoring the content it targeted. See my comments below. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- (comment) Draft:Central Asian Cooperation Organization – a new article created 9 January 2026, and moved to draft space a couple days later. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- (comment) Organization of Central Asian CooperationOrganization of Central Asian Cooperation (permalink) was merged on 22 December 2008 with Eurasian Economic Community. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- (comment) A bot helpfully left messages on Talk:Central Asian Cooperation Organization (which I just moved back from draft space) and Talk:Organization of Central Asian Cooperation,
about broken links to the target anchor[[Eurasian Economic Community#Organization of Central Asian Cooperation]]:The anchor (#Organization of Central Asian Cooperation) has been deleted by other users before.
The content was removed on 2 June 2014, with no edit summary, by Cyprianio, an editor who was later blocked for sock puppetry. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Hatnote group redirects
- Template:Hatnote shell → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Hatnote holder → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Hatgrp → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Multihat → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Hatnotegroup → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Hatgroup → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Grouphat → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Htgrp → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Hatgp → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Htgp → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Hngp → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Hgp → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Hng → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Htg → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Hg → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:HG → Template:Hatnote group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
A number of redirects to {{hatnote group}} have recently been created, and it seems unproductive to me, because a whole pile of them have been created quite recently and aren't actually in use:
| Redirect | Use count | Creator | Creation date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Template:Hatnote shell | 9 | EchidnaLives | 2022-11-21 |
| Template:Hatnote holder | 1 | EchidnaLives | 2022-11-21 |
| Template:Hatgrp | 126 | CrafterNova | 2023-05-21 |
| Template:Multihat | 2 | Remsense | 2025-07-27 |
| Template:Hatnotegroup | 0 | ZNático | 2026-02-09 |
| Template:Hatgroup | 0 | ZNático | 2026-02-13 |
| Template:Grouphat | 0 | ZNático | 2026-02-13 |
| Template:Htgrp | 5 | Abesca | 2026-02-16 |
| Template:Hatgp | 0 | Abesca | 2026-03-13 |
| Template:Htgp | 3 | Abesca | 2026-02-16 |
| Template:Hngp | 0 | Abesca | 2026-03-13 |
| Template:Hgp | 0 | Abesca | 2026-03-13 |
| Template:Hng | 0 | Abesca | 2026-03-13 |
| Template:Htg | 0 | Abesca | 2026-03-13 |
| Template:Hg | 1 | Abesca | 2026-03-13 |
| Template:HG | 0 | Abesca | 2026-03-13 |
I'm not entirely opposed to template redirects existing, but I'm not fond of opaque names, and this set of frequently-opaque names is clearly bigger than it needs to be, especially concerning the March 13 additions, which seem quite needless to me (no offense, Abesca). While redirects are cheap, they do incur a small amount of maintenance load, and additionally for template redirects there's both some cognitive load for editors to remember template names and a risk of vandalism on redirects that are both unprotected and widely-used.
I think that at least the redirects with very few links should probably be deleted and any uses retargeted to the main template. I included "Hatgrp" despite its 126 uses for the sake of a complete list for discussion; I imagine that editors will prefer to keep that one, at least. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 23:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: I have tagged and added Template:Htgp, which was the only redirect to Template:Hatnote group that wasn't added at the time of nomination. I see no reason why this redirect should be excluded from the nomination. Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- There needs to be a shorter shortcut than hatgrp. grp is a weird way to abbreviate group, especially considering the prefix hat makes it unambiguous/precise. I'm not opposed of deleting all the others if we can decide one that isn't harder to remember. However many of these are also plausible, but since template redirects have a different balance of costiness, I agree they can go. Abesca (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why is "grp" a weird way to abbreviate "group"? It's just "group" without the vowels. — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep hatgrp, delete others. Hatgrp is still pretty extensively used and isn't that opaque Jalapeño (u t g) 08:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Agree with Jalapeño. 126 is quite a few, and while this template is very common, I only just recently found a page with a redirect to it (funnily enough, not Hatgrp). I also agree that "hatgrp" is quite a bit less opaque than the others, though maybe that's just the C programmer in me talking. — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Same here. Randomly stumbled upon an article which used the hatgrp redirect (Sign o' the Times - if that matters), so removing it and replacing it with the normal link would be quite a task and at this point it would just be better to leave that as a redirect as it's pretty clear what it's for Jalapeño (u t g) 12:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Agree with Jalapeño. 126 is quite a few, and while this template is very common, I only just recently found a page with a redirect to it (funnily enough, not Hatgrp). I also agree that "hatgrp" is quite a bit less opaque than the others, though maybe that's just the C programmer in me talking. — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Template:Hatgrp. Delete all others. 'grp' is a logical shortening of 'group' and has the greatest usage by far. Some of these are about as long as the full name for the template and the shorter ones are increasingly opaque and it's not clear they will actually help editors remember their meaning. If deleted, any that have a handful of uses should of course be reviewed and any articles should be updated to use {{Hatnote group}} or the 'approved' shortcut {{Hatgrp}}. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Renewables
- Renewables → Renewable energy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Renewable → Renewable resource (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete as these could refer to many different things. Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate at Renewables. The plural and singular should point to the same place, but both "...energy" and "...resource" are equally likely targets and Renewable fuels are also referred to as "renewables" in some contexts. A disambiguation page could also include a "See also" section with {{in title}} links to cover the myriad partial title matches. I favour disambiguating at the plural, as "renewable" isn't often used as a noun by itself. I oppose deleting them; they're well-used redirects, based on traffic. – Scyrme (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. No strong preference between the singular and the plural. I agree that the dab page could include in-title searches and perhaps a Wiktionary link. I agree with the nom that the adjective renewable could refer to just about anything. But the noun renewable—and especially the plural—has a more restricted use related to renewal resources, energy, etc. I spot-checked several uses of both redirects in article and a dab page is consistent with the way these are used. It could be written more as a set index article as opposed to a dab page depending on content, framing, format, etc. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. I think it should be at the singular, as renewable can also be an adjective. Interestingly, Renewability redirects to Motion (parliamentary procedure)#Renewal of motions. Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, "renewable" can also be an adjective, but an adjective by itself isn't the title of a topic, it's just a partial title match. A disambiguation page should be located at a standalone title, not a partial match for other titles.Regarding Renewability, "renewal" and "renewability" mean very different things, and the latter isn't even in the article it redirects to. The only link that redirect has from an article is from Nanotechnology which clearly does not intend to link to renewal of motions. I'm going to list it for RfD without bundling it as I don't think it's similar enough to warrant pointing the same disambiguation page. (Edit: it's listed now.) – Scyrme (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate (or set indexify) at Renewable or Renewables?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 11:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where should the disambiguation page be? At present, there isn't one drafted at either one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate, rather obviously. My preference would be for the page to be at Renewable, given that there are things that are renewable, but not necessarily called renewables. BD2412 T 23:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- That would encourage listing partial title matches, which is contrary to what a disambiguation page is for. How many articles could plausibly share the title of just "Renewable" by itself? – Scyrme (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Per WP:DABNAME, which is a guideline, when naming the disambiguation page, "Singulars are preferred to plurals." If anything, naming it by the plural is more likely to encourage partial title matches than the singular, since there are many articles like EDF Renewables, SSE Renewables, and Celtic Renewables with "Renewables" and only one other word, but most titles containing "renewable" have at least two additional words, which makes it less likely for someone to add a partial title match. In addition, most titles containing "renewable" have a word like "Energy" or "Power" after it, and it's not "Renewable Energy" or "Renewable Power" that is being disambiguated, which makes it even less likely for someone to add something like Innergex Renewable Energy to "Renewable" compared to adding one of the three examples that contain "Renewables" into a disambiguation page at "Renewables". Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'd argue that "renewables" is like Mathematics (disambiguation), in that the plural suffix is actually used for nominalisation to make a collective noun rather than a plural of another noun; "renewable" and "mathematic" are adjectives, "renewables" and "mathematics" are nouns. There are no articles which could just have the title "renewable" by itself because it would inherently be an incomplete title. – Scyrme (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Per WP:DABNAME, which is a guideline, when naming the disambiguation page, "Singulars are preferred to plurals." If anything, naming it by the plural is more likely to encourage partial title matches than the singular, since there are many articles like EDF Renewables, SSE Renewables, and Celtic Renewables with "Renewables" and only one other word, but most titles containing "renewable" have at least two additional words, which makes it less likely for someone to add a partial title match. In addition, most titles containing "renewable" have a word like "Energy" or "Power" after it, and it's not "Renewable Energy" or "Renewable Power" that is being disambiguated, which makes it even less likely for someone to add something like Innergex Renewable Energy to "Renewable" compared to adding one of the three examples that contain "Renewables" into a disambiguation page at "Renewables". Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- That would encourage listing partial title matches, which is contrary to what a disambiguation page is for. How many articles could plausibly share the title of just "Renewable" by itself? – Scyrme (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: I have drafted both a disambiguation page and a set index article, as either may work. Since every entry refers to anything that can be renewed, it may be more suitable for a set index article. That being said, links to "Renewable" mostly refer to the description of being renewable (similarly to Zero emission), while links to "Renewables" mostly refer to renewable resources. Also, renewable energy seems to be a subset of renewable resources, so "renewable resource" would be reasonable target if disambiguation doesn't work. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Both drafts work, but I prefer the disambiguation page. Making it a disambiguation page would encourage editors to replace links to the specific article intended when making internal links to renewable or renewables. It's also easier to navigate to the intended article if someone searches for these terms and ends up at the disambiguation page. A set index would work better if we focused in one one of these, like making a set index for renewable fuels. – Scyrme (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate at Renewable I prefer the singular form over the plural form for the purposes of clearer disambiguation and to avoid partial title matches, and I prefer the structuring of a disambiguation page over that of a set index article. "Renewable" is always going to be an incomplete title, but is a lot simpler to articulate which articles it could be referring to, such as for energy, resources, etc., rather than "renewables", which can refer to energy or fuels, but is also used in various company names, which I don't think we're intending to disambiguate here. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Al-Qaida military training camp
- Al-Qaida military training camp → Afghan jihadist camp (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete as not the only Al-Qaeda training camp. Strange what links to it as well. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Lots of similar redirects to the same target. Most by the same creator and Swpb.
- Al Qaida camp
- Al Qaida camps
- Al Qaida training camp
- Al Qaida training camps
- Al-Qaeda training camp
- Al-Qaida training camp
- Al-Qaida training camps
- Al Qaeda training camp
- Al-Qaida sponsored camp
- Al-Qaeda training camps
- Al Qaida military training camp
- Al-Qaida affiliated training camp
- Al Qaeda training camps
- Al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan
- Qaeda training camp
- Jay 💬 08:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that none of the other redirects identified by Jay have been tagged, nor is it clear if they intended to add them to this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep The target isn't, as the nominating statement made me think, about one specific camp. It's about the general concept of these camps. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppression and depression
- Oppression and depression → Depression (mood) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Target doesn't talk about oppression. Nor does the disambig Depression. We have an article on Oppression which doesn't talk about depression. Delete as an WP:XY. Jay 💬 11:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- weak delete, redirect originally created for dispossession, oppression, and depresssionDispossession, oppression, and depression, which later merged with the article for the depresssion mood. standard r from merge there, and links to dispossession, oppression, and depression from article namespace still exist. however, no links to oppression and depression exist from article namespace caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 11:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Refine to Depression (mood) § Historical legacy, which doesn't use the word "oppression" but does indeed talk about oppression. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Refine to Depression (mood)#Historical legacy, where the content of the article at Dispossession, oppression, and depression was merged into Depression (mood). Alternatively, we could retarget to Historical trauma, where this information is also covered and then some, but I think simply adding a hatnote directing there would suffice. I'll also go ahead and refine the target at the old title to match if this path is accepted. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
MNC News
- MNC News → MNC Vision#Sindonews TV (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
See, if there's any newer advert out there for the top 3 WP guidelines for article quality, it's this title! Having just arrived here via a routine scrutiny of G6 taggings, I looked through the page history and saw that it was subjected to AFD, which concluded as a merge to this target you see, but the current revision of the target shows next to nothing of this! Post-AFD, one IP attempted and failed 5 times to restore the content without going through AFC. Sdrqaz, an admin, declined an empty G6 tag by an IPv6, suggesting instead to go for RMTR the previous month. Today, I undid another empty G6 tag from a TA this time and rather brought it over here for discussion. Apologies if this rationale was too long for comfort, but what do you think? Worth still keeping this?! Intrisit (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Some more history: The merge was not to the target, but to Media Nusantara Citra per the AfD. However Pratama26 moved the merged content from Media Nusantara Citra to the current target without providing attribution. Then MNC News was called Sindonews TV. Three years later, Jdcooper removed it as unsourced. Sindonews is mentioned at MNCTV and there is an iNews founded by MNC, but not sure about its relation. Jay 💬 10:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been no !votes since the last two relists, so let's give this one more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC) - MNCTV does mention it, but in context it's just to say that a particular anchor also works/ed on another channel, namely, Sindonews TV. According to Google's summary, it seems MNC News was rebranded as Sindonews TV in 2023. This is a distinct channel from Sindo TV, which rebranded to iNews in 2015. So iNews doesn't work as a target either. The rationale for deleting the merged content as unsourced is sound, however, a few (not necessarily good) references were added to the attempted restorations of the article. In principle, the merged content could be restored and these references included. However, looking at MNCTV, I'm not sure devoting so much of the article to Sindonews TV/MNC News is due (WP:UNDUE). I'd suggest restoring an old revision of the article with the few references it had and moving it to draft space for AfC, but the editor (RuddyKurniawan11 (talk · contribs) who was interested in that has been blocked so it'd probably be stuck in draft space limbo forever. Searching on Wikipedia I wasn't able to find any substantial content anywhere, so I think despite the AfD's decision to merge the article has de facto been deleted anyway. Since the merged content was deleted from both Media Nusantara Citra and MNC Vision, I'm not sure the history needs to be preserved. If it does, due to the past revisions which contain that content, perhaps we need an admin to do something like a history merge (WP:HM). If it wasn't for the history, I'd say delete as WP:RETURNTORED and WP:TNT. – Scyrme (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
U(1)
- U(1) → Unitary group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- SO(2) → Circle group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Either both should target circle group or both should target the relevant families of Lie groups. There seems to have been quite a bit of disagreement in that regard in the past looking at the page histories. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- The current one seems fine, and the proposed change would be worse given the current state of these articles. These are two different things that happen to be isomorphic, but someone navigating to the former name is probably better served by landing on Unitary group and reading a few sentences then clicking over to the appropriate spot.
- As an alternative you could add a new section to the article Circle group explaining the isomorphism in more detail, and then pointing the redirect at that section. –jacobolus (t) 10:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: if special orthogonal group was an article rather than a redirect, there would be a case for that as a target. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Why can't it point to Orthogonal group? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Circle group, which explains why both groups are isomorphic to a circle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been no !votes since the last two relists, so let's give this one more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC) - Keep U(1) and tag as {{r from subtopic}}. Retarget SO(2) to Orthogonal group as {{avoided double redirect}} for Special orthogonal group. Special orthogonal group is tagged as {{r with possibilities}}, so the avoided double redirect ensures it will be updated if that becomes an article. "Isomorphic" doesn't mean "identical" or "synonymous". The redirects should point to the main topic, not a different topic with which they share some properties. – Scyrme (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Acii
Unclear primary target. Could arguably stay here to Assassin's Creed II, but could also refer to Oliver Acii(which this rd previously pointed to), or a reasonable misspelling of Acai (or a lesser possibility of Acid). Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Oliver Acii as a {{r from surname}}. It appears to be the only usage of this capitalization in the encyclopedia. ACIIACII (currently a redirect to Assassin's Creed II) appears to have several meanings, so it may make sense to convert that to a disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 18:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC) - Retarget per Eureka Lott and WP:DIFFCAPS. I also agree that ASCII seems like it could do with disambiguation, though after two relists it's probably best to list it separately rather than bundle. – Scyrme (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment. Also a possible misspelling of ASCII. — W.andrea (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Operation Epic Fury
- Epic Fury → List of attacks during the 2026 Iran war#Operations Roaring Lion and Epic Fury (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Operation Epic Fury → 2026 Iran war (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Should both have the same target; I suggest 2026 Iran war#Hostilities where the boldface mention lies. I2Overcome talk 22:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per nominator. 2026 Iran war was the original target of both. One of them was changed to the list by an unregistered editor, but the list provides comparatively less information. It hasn't been that long since the war began, so the sources that refer to it by this name aren't that old and any incoming links would still expect 2026 Iran war as the target. Narrowing the target to the main section makes sense in the long term as the scope of the war exceeds the initial operations that started it. – Scyrme (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget – per nom. The proposed destination is the most appropriate place. Bravelake (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Agree, redirect them both to the same target as suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep "Operation Epic Fury" as a redirect to 2026 Iran war and retarget "Epic Fury" to 2026 Iran war. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Edgar, Yancowinna County
- Edgar, Yancowinna County → Wallarunga, New South Wales (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned at the target. Not useful for readers and an unlikely search term given counties are effectively obsolete in New South Wales. AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Yancowinna County § Parishes. Jay 💬 16:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Picton Parish (Yancowinna County)
- Picton Parish (Yancowinna County) → Broken Hill (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned at the target. Extremely unlikely search term due to the disambiguation and as both parishes and counties are largely obsolete in New South Wales AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Yancowinna County. Jay 💬 16:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough substance at Yancowinna County to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Sarah (Suikoden)
- Sarah (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. Not mentioned in target article or any other article. Was an unreferenced stub in 2007 when it got redirected to now deleted character list. Mika1h (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Suikoden III § Chapters 4 and 5 the target of Sarah (Suikoden III). Jay 💬 03:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think there's enough substance at that target to support either redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Côco
It can also refer to Coconut production in Brazil. Abesca (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- good catch, that's a small pile of articles to take to afd and infoboxes to take to... that'd be tfd, right? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Creator comment this redirect was created because the word with diacritical appears in The New Grove. I've no objection to a disambig being placed here. Chubbles (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Lean delete. I don't have access to the full text of The New Grove but search reveals an excerpt that does not use the circumflex. As far as I can tell, côco with circumflex is not standard Portuguese, but coco does mean coconut. pt:Côco is a redirect to pt:Coqueiro#Fruto but the rendering with the circumflex does not appear in the article. If this is an uncommon variant spelling in Portuguese then *maybe* this should redirect to Coco, which is a dab page. I'm surprised that Coconut is not listed there given that this is the primary definition listed in dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster. This redirect gets a surprising amount of traffic but it's not at all clear to me that readers find what they are looking for. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Art
- Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/ArtWikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Art → Wikipedia:Vital articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/GeographyWikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Geography → Wikipedia:Vital articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/HistoryWikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/History → Wikipedia:Vital articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/LanguageWikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Language → Wikipedia:Vital articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/LifeWikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Life → Wikipedia:Vital articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/MathematicsWikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Mathematics → Wikipedia:Vital articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/PhilosophyWikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Philosophy → Wikipedia:Vital articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/ScienceWikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Science → Wikipedia:Vital articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/SocietyWikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Society → Wikipedia:Vital articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/TechnologyWikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Technology → Wikipedia:Vital articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
We have a bunch of redirects here that I'm not sure what to do with. I would suggest either retargeting or deleting. Interstellarity (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Given the above nomination, it's odd that Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist since all of these redirects were just tagged today, as well as their creator and target being informed via their respective talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment The pages Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 through Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 should be moved to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level 1 through Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level 5. Right now, they're arguably eligible for speedy deletion under WP:SD#G8:
Subpages with no parent page
. Paradoctor (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)- I was thinking that Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level could be created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Vital articles#Targets and quotas, but if I was looking at thag, I don't think that target would adequately explain what each level represents. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3. These were used for a time, so their history should be preserved, and that should clearly be the target. Melozone crissalis (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: As of today, once again, none of these are tagged for RfD. They all also have new targets and are tagged as {{R from move}} following the conclusion of the RM at: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Requested_move_11_March_2026. The new titles are tagged but the links don't work because the name of the redirect doesn't match the section heading (see Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level 3/Art for example). I haven't looked into these enough to form an opinion as to what else should be done with these redirects. This whole thing is a bit of a mess. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Close as moot. Do not re-list. These have all been retargeted as a result of the RM that was initiated by the nom during the course of this discussion. Someone needs to untag all of the new redirects that were created as a result of the move. If there's really a problem with these redirects or the new set of redirects that were created by the move, they can be re-nominated. If re-nominating, please take care to tag everything correctly and perhaps wait until the dust settles and we really understand the impact of the page moves. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
America United
- America United → Canadian National Soccer League (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
I presumed this was the name of a team, but it isn't mentioned at the target and wasn't when the redirect was created either. Search results are all over the shop, with a couple of results related to Joe Biden's inauguration as president being the most prominent but an extremely long way from being primary, most hits were collocations of things like "America-United Kingdom relations". The only football-related result on the first three pages was an academy for young players in New Jersey. Searching for "America United" soccer did find a website about a football team with this name that play (or played, the website hasn't been updated since circa 2013) in Providence, Rhode Island, a facebook page that claimed to be an "amateur sports team" but which mainly posted memes about the World Cup in Qatar and a youth team in Quincy, Massachusetts called "America FC United" but then degenerated into even less relevant results. Either delete or retarget to the dab at American Union if that is expanded to cover similar terms (c.f. #United Americas). Thryduulf (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget: per my rationale for United Americas. Plausible typo. TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 04:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't support this (retargetting to the United States) for the same reasons I disagree with it for #Americas United. This is not a common way of referring to the country in any language it has affinity to, and pretty much none of the results in my searches used this term to mean the USA. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Note the other discussion referenced is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 18#United Americas. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom - this is a misleading target and do not see any other suitable target. Search results do not show any notable uses. Asteramellus (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The only semi-plausible target I can think of is Americans United, but, similar to the other potential targets mentioned above, it differs too much from the redirect to be an unambiguous misspelling. Tevildo (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Toronto-based team, which appears to have had a 3-year run, from 1988–1990: 1991 National Soccer League season –
America United and Oshawa Italia were the other two clubs that were disbanded.
- Keep per Wbm1058. GiantSnowman 19:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- The above checks out (they played at Lamport Stadium and apparently had to forfeit a match in 1989 because the stadium was already in use). They should be added to the list but no article is merited. Keep. Great work by Wbm1058. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nom and other 'delete' arguments. The obscure, short-lived Canadian soccer team is not the primary topic. It's also not mentioned at the target. Sending readers there would certainly cause WP:RSURPRISE. It has brief mentions on three different pages, none of which are suitable targets. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- or Retarget to Inauguration of Joe Biden. See my replies to Nfitz below. In the real world, I think there is no primary topic since "America United" is the name or part of the name of many unrelated topics. But on en-wiki, where we have only identified two topics with this name that we cover, Inauguration of Joe Biden is the primary topic and likely the only notable one. "America United" was one of the inauguration's themes. This is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead and several other places in the article, including two section headings, Inauguration of Joe Biden#America United inaugural welcome and Inauguration of Joe Biden#Post-inaugural events: "America United". Consider adding a hatnote pointing to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is the target for Americans UnitedAmericans United. Do not add a hatnote to Canadian National Soccer League since the defunct, non-notable team isn't mentioned there and likely doesn't warrant a mention. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep I have no idea what's wrong with this redirect. Such redirects for non-notable teams in this league are as common as anything. I have no idea why there's discussion of foreign politics here - what does that have to do with a team name. I see no other target - but the solution is disambiguation if there were other teams with name. Nfitz (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Inauguration of Joe Biden#America United inaugural welcome is another plausible target. This seems far more notable although I agree with the nom's assessment that there is no primary topic here. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Barely plausible maybe. I'd think people looking for an airline's name they don't quite remember would be more likely. Also that seems to be fake news ... American Disunited perhaps (insert smiley here) Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Biden's inauguration is the top hit when I Google "America United" and more than half the links on the first page of DuckDuckGo refer to this. Inauguration of Joe Biden gets nearly 12x as much traffic as Canadian National Soccer League. I don't know how many readers remember the inauguration's theme but it's likely far more than remember the Canadian soccer team whose three-year run ended nearly 40 years ago. In fact, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Inauguration of Joe Biden is the primary topic, if we take the approach of ignoring all the America Uniteds that aren't covered on en-wiki. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Barely plausible maybe. I'd think people looking for an airline's name they don't quite remember would be more likely. Also that seems to be fake news ... American Disunited perhaps (insert smiley here) Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Inauguration of Joe Biden#America United inaugural welcome is another plausible target. This seems far more notable although I agree with the nom's assessment that there is no primary topic here. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
US invasions
- US invasions → Lists of wars involving the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- United States invasion → Lists of wars involving the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- American invasion → List of invasions (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- American invasions → List of invasions (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- List of invasions of the United States → Attacks on the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Invasion of the United States sounds ambiguous (eg: Invasion of the United States to Afghanistan), but at least this could be kept.
The others should have the same target. Which? Abesca (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - Most of these are ambiguous between invasions of the US and by the US. I'm not sure what to do here. Ideally, we would have lists or set index articles at Invasions of the United States and Invasions by the United States, and then a disambiguation page at US invasions could link to both lists. Then again, how often has the United States itself been invaded (as opposed to attacked in some other way)? – Scyrme (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American invasion decided for deletion and redirect. But at least one editor was in favor of WP:TNT, so it could exist, if well formated. Abesca (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- No it couldn't because the outcome was delete and redirect not TNT. Spartaz Humbug! 02:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Then TNT means draftifying? And I never said that was the result. Abesca (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- go back and read what you wrote and my response. No, TNT is not draftifying. TNT says the subject is notable and can be recreated from scratch. In this case the consensus was not to have an article at all. That one votir thought TNT might apply does not a consensus make. Spartaz Humbug! 06:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Then TNT means draftifying? And I never said that was the result. Abesca (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- No it couldn't because the outcome was delete and redirect not TNT. Spartaz Humbug! 02:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American invasion decided for deletion and redirect. But at least one editor was in favor of WP:TNT, so it could exist, if well formated. Abesca (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not sure if "Country invasion" and "Nationality invasion" are supposed to mean the same thing or need to point the same place. For some examples, Iraq invasion redirects to 2003 invasion of Iraq, while Iraqi invasion is a disambiguation page; Israel invasion and Israeli invasion both redirect to List of wars involving Israel; Turkey invasion redirects to Turkish invasion; Ukraine invasion redirects to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, while Ukrainian invasion redirects to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine; and both Venezuela invasion and Venezuelan invasion redirect to Proposed United States invasion of Venezuela. Two out of five pairs have different targets. Out of these two pairs, the ones for "Ukraine" both refer to Ukraine being invaded; for Iraq, one is on Iraq while the other is from Iraq. Based on this, "Country invasion" may be distinct in that it involves an invasion in that country, as opposed to "Nationality invasion", which would describe the invasion as from that nationality. This pattern may vary though. That being said, title search for "United States invasion" shows exclusively invasions made by the United States. I'm not sure what the best target(s) is, but I'm just saying this isn't consistent for every country. Mathguy2718 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- United States invasion of Venezuela is a dab. Abesca (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Deep throat fetish
- Deep throat fetish → Fellatio#Deep-throating (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. No mention of fetish anywhere in the article. The target section contains a brief, straightforward description of the practice. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. The word fetish is mentioned in templates. And since the target page is heavily associated with sex practices, it's totally plausible they have fetish versions of them. Readers might use the term fetish to refer to the general practice, instead of just thinking of it specifically as a fetishistic-only thing. Abesca (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to understand the reasoning here. I used ⌘+F to search the page and could not find the word fetish anywhere in the article until I expanded the {{Sex}} template the bottom of the article. This is the only mention of fetish, in the titles of other articles about different fetishes that are part of the broad suite of human sexuality articles. There may be an occasional reader who thinks fetish just refers to a sexual act but it is far more likely readers taking the time to search deep-throat fetish are looking for information on the specific fetish, not a generic description of the acts and readers certainly are not expecting to have to hunt around to find titles of articles about other fetishes when they search for this very specific fetish. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep redirects are cheap, and this seems reasonable enough to me. What do we gain by losing this, User:Myceteae? I don't see that people will be using this to find the Mark Felt article or the famous X-Files episode. Nfitz (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Redirects should take people to a page that actually describes the topic they have searched for or clicked on. WP:RSURPRISE calls for prominently mentioning inbound redirects. If a topic is not mentioned or discussed at all the redirect is inappropriate. What is gained is that we don’t waste readers’ time with dead end redirects. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Suck and blow
Leaning delete. Definitely do not keep. The primary meaning is a "kissing game" popularized in (and possibly invented by?) the movie Clueless. The game is mentioned at Clueless and in several other articles where the game appeared in later films and TV episodes. There's also Suck and Blow: And Other Stories I'm Not Supposed to Tell, the autobiography of John Popper. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Christina Aguilera doll
- Christina Aguilera doll → Christina Aguilera (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Christina Aguilera Doll → Christina Aguilera (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. No mention of a doll in the article. Google search confirms that a series of Barbie-esque Christina Aguilera dolls did exist but these appear non-notable. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Her doll is mentioned at Celebrity doll. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Redirect to Celebrity doll. The doll is apparently notable in its own right for its sales revenue, as mentioned in that article, but probably not worth a separate article. Tevildo (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added sources in the history of Christina Aguilera doll to Celebrity doll. That should be enough WP:WEIGHT for at least a mention there, and redirecting to that article instead looks good to me. Siawase (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: I'm fine with retargeting to Celebrity doll. I considered adding an anchor to the list entry but the Christina Aguilera doll is also mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead and the sales information is not repeated later in the list. So, targeting readers to the top of Celebrity doll provides the full scope of coverage though it's not ideal, especially for readers who don't know how to use Ctrl/Cmd+F. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The Hollow (Christina Aguilera album)
- The Hollow (Christina Aguilera album) → Christina Aguilera (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. Not mentioned at the current target nor at Christina Aguilera discography or List of songs recorded by Christina Aguilera. A Google search turns up mostly false positives—articles about Christina Aguilera that happen to use the word hollow. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Occupation of Venezuela
- Occupation of Venezuela → Venezuela (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Procedural nom. @Theodore Christopher: blanked redirect with the edit summary "Venezuela is not currently under military occupation". ~ A412 talk! 20:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Squatting in Venezuela (pt:Ocupações na Venezuela), Colonial Venezuela, or History_of Venezuela#Spanish_rule. Abesca (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- These all seem like a stretch to me. If it were Occupation in Venezuela, then I could see Squatting in Venezuela being possibly plausible, but with "of", not "in", it takes a very different primary meaning in English. Colonisation isn't really synonymous with military occupation, since colonisation is a process of conquest whereas occupation doesn't imply annexation. Even if you think that colonisation is effectively a form of occupation, in this scenario the Spanish colony of Venezuela would be the occupying power with the indigenous first nations of the region being under occuptation, not Venezuela. I'm not sure that Venezuela itself has even been under direct military occupation. Some commentators speculated that the recent American intervention would escalate to occupation, but that hasn't happened yet. I'm leaning delete unless someone knows of a period in history where Venezuela has unambiguously been under foreign occupation.– Scyrme (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- @NerdyEpiscopalian or Venezuelan coups d'état? Abesca (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Still seems like a stretch to me, I still think deletion is the better move in this case. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- @NerdyEpiscopalian or Venezuelan coups d'état? Abesca (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- These all seem like a stretch to me. If it were Occupation in Venezuela, then I could see Squatting in Venezuela being possibly plausible, but with "of", not "in", it takes a very different primary meaning in English. Colonisation isn't really synonymous with military occupation, since colonisation is a process of conquest whereas occupation doesn't imply annexation. Even if you think that colonisation is effectively a form of occupation, in this scenario the Spanish colony of Venezuela would be the occupying power with the indigenous first nations of the region being under occuptation, not Venezuela. I'm not sure that Venezuela itself has even been under direct military occupation. Some commentators speculated that the recent American intervention would escalate to occupation, but that hasn't happened yet. I'm leaning delete unless someone knows of a period in history where Venezuela has unambiguously been under foreign occupation.– Scyrme (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi A412 and Scyrme, I blanked this not entirely understanding that it wouldn't just delete the page. I think it should be deleted, Venezuela has never been occupied since gaining independence. But obviously it's not up to me to decide. Theodore Christopher (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. No mention of occupationat the target. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
HO41
- HO41 → Gonorrhea (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Gonorrhea HO41 → Gonorrhea (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Gonorrhea strain HO41 → Gonorrhea (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Strain HO41 → Gonorrhea (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. H041 (with zero instead of the letter 'O') is a real strain that is mentioned at Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Antibiotic resistance in gonorrhea, but not at the current target. Note that H041 does not exist. Swapping 'O' and '0' is a plausible and common mixup, but on-wiki search reveals that HO41 is part of the provisional name of several minor planets. External search for HO41 almost exclusively returns results for "HO 41 Tail" ski gloves. Alternatively, delete HO41 and retarget the others Neisseria gonorrhoeae#Antibiotic resistance or Antibiotic resistance in gonorrhea#Cephalosporins and tag as {{R from misspelling}} or {{R from modification}} or some other appropriate Rcat. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Renewability
- Renewability → Motion (parliamentary procedure)#Renewal of motions (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
"Renewal" and "renewability" mean very different things, and the latter isn't used once the article it redirects to. The only link that redirect has from an article is from Nanotechnology which clearly does not intend to link to renewal of motions. I suggest retarget to Natural resource § Renewability/exhaustibility, though I'm open to arguments for other targets, such as Renewable resource. – Scyrme (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate, given the breadth of things to which this could refer. BD2412 T 21:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- What articles would be included? How many articles could plausibly share the title "Renewability"? The only one I can think of is Sustainability, but I'm not entirely convinced they're synonymous. Renewability seems more like one aspect of sustainability. – Scyrme (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Natural resource#Renewability/exhaustibility - agree with nom. Current target is unrelated. Asteramellus (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- My first preference is to retarget to Renewable(s) (whichever the title may be at) if it is repurposed as a disambiguation page (awaiting the outcome of this discussion). If not, then my second preference would be to retarget to renewable resource. I don't think a retarget to natural resource is in good order, especially if the primary rationale is the "Renewability/exhaustibility" section header, as most users redirected there will likely click on either the renewable resources link to find more detailed information on the topic. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Renewable(s)" and "Renewability" are both different concepts and different titles; WP:DABCOMBINE isn't appropriate here. Renewable resource has a single passing mention, "
A life cycle assessment provides a systematic means of evaluating renewability
", with no further elaboration. It doesn't attempt to explain renewability itself is by describing what makes a resource renewable, unlike Natural resource § Renewability/exhaustibility. If they do click through, there is no "more detailed information on the topic
" specifically about renewability to find there. If you're right and readers would just ignore the page they've arrived at and click through immediately, that's no worse than your first preference of targeting a disambiguation page where they would have no alternative but to do that. – Scyrme (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)"Renewable(s)" and "Renewability" are both different concepts and different titles
. Renewability is simply the property of being renewable. Your suggested target, Natural resource#Renewability/exhaustibility, prominently discusses and links Renewable resource, which was the alternative target you suggested. I'm having trouble reconciling your preferred targets with the assertion that the concepts are so different. Although this specific example isn't listed at WP:DABCOMBINE, it is reasonable to combine closely related words and word forms on a single dab page. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Renewable(s)" and "Renewability" are both different concepts and different titles; WP:DABCOMBINE isn't appropriate here. Renewable resource has a single passing mention, "
- Retarget to Renewable(s) if that is converted to a dab page. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
List of municipalities in Hanoi
- List of municipalities in Hanoi → List of administrative divisions of Hanoi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete. Misleading term used by the previous editor. Wards and communes are neighborhoods, rather than municipalities (which refers to cities and towns), see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Category:Municipalities in Hanoi. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Muntaber
Indonesian-language term for topic. Gastroenteritis has no relation to Indonesia or Indonesian. Delete per WP:R#DELETE, criterion 8. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 and WP:RLOTE. K3 doesn't apply here. Criterion 8 is part of RHARMFUL, so I'm not sure why it was cited as an argument to not delete. – Scyrme (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Distinguishing itself from RLOTE, which wasn't pointed out by the nom so I didn't touch on it, D8 avoids stating that this sort of foreign-language redirect is harmful, merely that they're unlikely to be useful and should generally not be created. And how does K3 not apply here? J947 ‡ edits 23:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Foreign-language redirects for terms with no affinity to the topic do not aid searches. They are not mentioned at the target (resulting in WP:RSURPRISE rather than being helpful), and, per WP:RLOTE they produce
the false impression that you can navigate the English Wikipedia in another language
, resulting in fruitless searches. Additionally, a reader searching in another language may reasonably expect results in that language; having these terms redirect to English pages can hinder finding results in the intended language when using third party search engines as they may deliver the English article instead of the intended article (this is also mentioned at WP:RLOTE). Even ignoring third party search engines, if the intent is to find content in the language used, these redirects don't help (and cannot help as that content will never exist here). In order to aid searches for such cases, we'd need something like a soft redirect, though instead of it being to another project like Wiktionary, it'd be to another language's version of Wikipedia. K3 is intended for cases where Wikipedia has content, but that content isn't easy to find via the search engine (for example, due to a large number of partial title matches). It's not intended to justify arbitrary non-English redirects. – Scyrme (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC) - If anything, K3 means this shouldn't be on Enligsh Wikipedia, since someone searching for an Indonesian-language term which rarely comes up in English would likely want the Indonesian Wikipedia article. — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Foreign-language redirects for terms with no affinity to the topic do not aid searches. They are not mentioned at the target (resulting in WP:RSURPRISE rather than being helpful), and, per WP:RLOTE they produce
- Distinguishing itself from RLOTE, which wasn't pointed out by the nom so I didn't touch on it, D8 avoids stating that this sort of foreign-language redirect is harmful, merely that they're unlikely to be useful and should generally not be created. And how does K3 not apply here? J947 ‡ edits 23:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 and WP:RLOTE. I agree with the reasoning described at WP:RLOTE and with Scyrme's application of RLOTE described above. This redirect has no demonstrated utility and is unlikely to be helpful. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Accra International Airport (AIA)
- Accra International Airport (AIA) → Accra International Airport (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Incorrectly created before another editor moved it to the correct title. Odds of anyone typing this title are extremely low, and only 4 maitenance pages link to it. Electricmemory (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Ghana Airports Company Limited, the airport's operator, uses "AIA" as an acronym for the airport in social media posts. So I don't think this is the most implausible search term, especially if someone mistook "AIA" for the IATA code. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
2026 A-League Men finals series
- 2026 A-League Men finals series → A-League Men finals series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned in the target page. Qby (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
2026 A-League Women grand final
- 2026 A-League Women grand final → List of A-League Women grand finals (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned in the target page. Qby (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Operation Epstein Fury
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Operation Epstein Fury
Wanggiya (surname)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Wanggiya (surname)
New York, New York
Syrian Civil War, November 2012 – March 2013
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Syrian Civil War, November 2012 – March 2013
Israel (Bible)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Israel (Bible)
Jianghe Railway Rtation
Israeli Sald
Vegetable salad
Keyicin
March 14
Smithland railway station
- Smithland railway station → Swithland railway station (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Incorrect spelling which is why page was then moved. I can understand this mix up but don't think it meets criteria for inclusion as a misspelling. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 22:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as there is no reason to keep this redirect. M and W are quite far apart on a standard QWERTY keyboard, making this an implausible typo. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Leaning keep, even if this not close on the keyboard, it can clearly easily be misread this way. BD2412 T 16:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete it was at this title for a few hours in 2017 and I can't find any evidence it is or was called this, Google suggests there are other stations but not railway stations called "Smithland". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Diamond crossing
Walden (play)
Closed point
P.B. Slices
- P.B. Slices → Peanut butter (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Unmentioned. History dive indicates this was an undiscussed(?) BLAR by an IP user whose contributions consist of a spree of similar BLARs; notably the edit says it was "merged" with the Peanut butter article, but no corresponding edit to the peanut butter article adding info from the P.B. Slices article was ever performed.
Honestly the more I look into this the more it seems like uncaught vandalism rather than good-faith editing... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of peanut dishes#Dishes and foods, where there is a mention. This "merge" was made at List of peanut dishes with the edit summary
copy from P.B. Slices and ce here
. This was done by the same user as the one who added the {{mergeto}} template. Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)- good idea. I was thinking delete at first but knowing that it's been merged it would make more sense to retarget to where the merge is. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 02:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the retargeting suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Play Time
The target article does mention this is one of the spelling/styllistic variants of the title of the movie Playtime. It is, however, a primary title of the likely notable German magazine (de:Play_Time). Should it be a red link, a disambig, or is there a hatnote that can link to German wiki? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep and hatnote to Brady Seals. Lacking any non-incidental enwiki coverage of the magazine, except a very brief mention at Computec, it's difficult to cater for the readers wanting information on it. Besides, I think the majority of readers want the current target: the film gets 14,000 monthly pageviews and this is a common way to refer to it; indeed, it used to be the article's title. J947 ‡ edits 22:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be deleted given it was at this title for at least a few months and was moved to it twice but a DAB might make sense given there are other uses such as books and films, see Wikidata. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Playtime (disambiguation). The magazine in my view is not the primary topic - there are plenty of other topics using that title that are more notable, so disambiguating is the way to go. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)- Retarget per BugGhost NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Partners 'n' Crime (Will & Grace)
User:Shelving
I'm not sure why this was redirected to Google in the first place, but this is certainly not helpful, as it will cause confusion for anyone looking for the user's user page. At the very least, it could be redirected to the user's talk page. (I'm also not sure if this warrants a speedy deletion, as I didn't see one that covers user redirects like these.) 8BitBros (talk • edits) 01:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't WP:MFD a better place?
As this is a redirect, I felt like it would be alright to place here; however, I don't have any objections to moving the discussion there. - Just blanking the userpage would have done too, tbh.
From my understanding, editing it should be avoided. Per WP:BOLD: "It is generally recommended that you do not edit another Wikipedian's user page"
8BitBros (talk • edits) 02:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC) - Convert to a soft redirect, which is almost always the best option when a base userpage redirects somewhere inappropriate, as this maintains the link the user presumably wants but without the problems of a hard redirect. We have guidelines on this somewhere but I can't remember where. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- To be brutal, the chance of anyone looking at the user page of this user, except from a cross-namespace redirect list, is vanishingly small. It does contain a malformed reference, as well as the redirect. I would be perfectly happy with any sane user making any sane and kind edit to the user page if they really think it's worth it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC).
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Nobody searching for Google will put in a random user's name. It's almost WP:DAFT-worthy. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Nobody searching for Google will put in a random user's name.
true but completely irrelevant as the purpose here isn't to help random readers find the Google article. Editors are allowed to have links on their user page to whatever page they want, for whatever reason, whether anybody else can understand the reason or not. What they can't do is have their main user page be a hard redirect to anything other than a different user page or their user talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Blank. As a user page, there's no need to delete. There's very little chance anyone would find their way here, but if they do, having an active redirect to a random page is just an annoyance. Redirecting your user page to your talk page is one thing, but this really has no purpose. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- blank I think this would solve the current issue. --Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- note that a soft redirect would also solve the issue without deletion but without removing the link the edditor wants ~2026-16355-90 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Multiple identity
- Multiple identity → Social identity complexity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Didn't Plural identity become ambiguous with this now? If so, a hatnote, a retarget, or a disambiguation page? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple personality. Abesca (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - "Multiple identity" is broad and ambiguous and redirecting it to "Social identity complexity" is narrowing the scope and misleading. Asteramellus (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- From Asteramellus's comment, I'm inclined to say dabify.
- Second option for me would be to retarget to Plural identity, with no hatnote unless a stronger argument says otherwise. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- I, too, am inclined to dabify. A quick Google suggests other entries in addition to those already mentioned, including holding multiple social identities (as discussed, e.g., here and here) and dissociative identity disorder. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate and check with the math department to see if there is any possible mathematical meaning. BD2412 T 21:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- It has been used in mathematics but I think not frequently enough nor with a consistent enough meaning to require disambiguation. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Multiple identities exist in math (e.g., 0 and 1 in rings, and semigroups can have multiple one-sided identities), but I agree with David--there is no common single topic to disambiguate. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}21:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - Although one could say it in mathematics (just as one could put many other words after "multiple"), it is not a standard expression. Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Amiga Games
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Amiga Games
Walt Disney Japan
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Walt Disney Japan
Sour Balls (Will & Grace)
Ugandan anti-gay law
25th anniversary
- 25th anniversary → Wikipedia:25th anniversary (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
It's great that Wikipedia has made it to 25 years, but this cross-namespace redirect presupposes that the primary topic of the phrase "25th anniversary" will be Wikipedia's event. We have an article at Silver jubilee on this subject, and while this might also not be the ideal target, something other than the Wikipedia event probably is. BD2412 T 18:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Silver jubilee, which is what I would expect this redirect to point to. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to
Silver jubilee. BugGhost 🦗👻 19:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)- Updating vote - RightCowLeftCoast is right that 25th Anniversary is a better place to retarget to.BugGhost 🦗👻 00:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak retarget this may be plausable but Google doesn't return anything for Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per abovemove 25th Anniversary per caesar; I'd add that we should err on the side of avoiding the appearance of self-promotion. --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)- Retarget to 25th Anniversary; there are plenty of things which have been referred to as a 25th Anniversary, to include but not limited to Silver jubilees.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to 25th Anniversary per RightCowLeftCoast. I think retargeting to Silver jubilee would be WP:RSURPRISEing, and if my primary vote of retargeting doesn't work I would prefer deletion. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- move 25th Anniversary to 25th anniversary, leaving redirect, per capitalisation standards caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 14:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Move 25th Anniversary to 25th anniversary or retarget to 25th Anniversary. I agree that the lower case anniversary appears to be the appropriate title since the common meaning is a generic phrase, although the majority of entries on the dab page are proper names where Anniversary is appropriately capitalized. Otherwise, I agree that there is no primary topic here and with other arguments above to retarget to 25th Anniversary. We may need to take a wider look at other anniversaries. I spot checked a few and there's no consistency: 50th anniversary redirects to Golden jubilee; 1st anniversary doesn't exist but in the search bar the first suggestion is 1st Anniversary; 10th anniversary redirects to Wedding anniversary although we have a dab page at 10th Anniversary. If retargeted, no prejudice against a separate RM discussion. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
T20 World Cup
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#T20 World Cup
Thunder Radio
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Thunder Radio
Wikipedia:NOPE
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Wikipedia:NOPE
VVIP
Reads like a WP:MADEUP term with only 22 outbound links, and none of those articles source the term or note any kind of origination outside 'more important than a very important person' (sources in that article describing a VVIP just say 'they're richer', not that they're more well known). Mostly used in Indian articles, but other words can easily be substituted over a repeated 'very-very'. Nathannah • 📮 21:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate between Very important person, VVIP (hip-hop group), and V.V.I.P. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, but it is for things made up on 22 separate occasions. Since there's two things with articles whose names are inspired by the abbreviation for "very very important person", it's highly unlikely to be genuinely obscure. J947 ‡ edits 22:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding those; I didn't find them in a WLH search, but I would agree the musical groups take preference and that's how I'd expect the title to come up and disambiguation is preferred. I more had an issue with the uses I cited, which didn't elaborate on the concept in article text. Nathannah • 📮 23:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- As listed in references in the VIP article, VVIP has been used in both the NY Times and Wall Street Journal. It's not clear if you're recommending deletion, but I don't think it meets WP:R#DELETE. I would note that VVIP (hip-hop group) is linked on the VIP disambig page (V.V.I.P is not). I would also note that a Wikipedia search for VVIP picks up the redirect page and the hip-hop page, but not the V.V.I.P page, which is not ideal. As long as a new VVIP disambig page can have a link to the main VIP article, I support changing to a Disambiguation page. Simon12 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- As noted in the comment to J947 I was unaware of the musical groups so I do support a dab page with that information. Nathannah • 📮 00:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Changed my mind. I think the VVIP->VIP redirect should stay in place. I'm ambivalent on the new VVIP disambig page. All items are now on the VIP disambig page. If we keep, we can put a pointer to it on the VIP disambig page. Simon12 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- dab per above. Abesca (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate – I've drafted a page – but actually the current situation might be correct as the primary topic, putting the new disambiguation page at VVIP (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since previous relist. And this will be the final relist BTW.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate as proposed above. I do not believe there is a primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Discussion
- Discussion → Conversation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Discussions → Debate (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
These should point to the same target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget both to Conversation as {{R from plural}}, unless there is a stronger argument. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 02:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Restore article drafted by Toorneman, which was BLARed without reason and no doubt discouraged that editor from making any further edits. There's much overlap with Discourse, Debate, and Conversation, but if we can have an article on Meta-discussion, we can have one on Discussion. Though if it's an article, it should probably be more like a BCA – an umbrella for those three terms. Note Conversation#Discussion. J947 ‡ edits 09:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete both. This is a dictionary word with many synonyms with no evidence that this is or maps cleanly to an encyclopedic topic. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- So you dispute meta-discussion's presupposal that a "discussion" is a coherent encyclopaedic topic? J947 ‡ edits 10:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three editors are arguing for three different things.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Refine/Retarget both to Conversation#Discussion I'm not seeing anything that justifies having a separate article for "discussion." Is the element of having a potentially controversial topic really enough to distinguish the two terms, especially in everyday usage? It seems to me that they are rather synonymous, and there is already a subsection for "discussion" at the current target for the singular form. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Restore article and merge Meta-discussion there as a subtopic. BD2412 T 17:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Disney XD/Jr. international broadcasting
- Disney XD international broadcasting → Disney XD (international) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Disney Jr. international broadcasting → Disney Jr. (international) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Plucked out from my mass-nominated "TheMaxChannel528-24-created titles" RFD nomination and re-nominated them again because of trainwreck issues. These were created by blocked sockpuppet TheMaxChannel528-24 and as to why these aren't deleted as G5 is shocking as it serves no purpose. Their current target titles already explain the pages' contents in detail. Intrisit (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Symmetric monoidal ∞-category
Discovery Networks International
- Discovery Networks International → Discovery, Inc.# Discovery Networks International (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The section that this redirect relied upon got removed within the first year of operation of Warner Bros. Discovery. I'm bringing it over here since it hasn't fallen into one before. Intrisit (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Painted Smiles (redirect)
- Painted Smiles (redirect) → Painted Smiles Records (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
It seems superfluous to have a redirect with "redirect" in the title. Векочел (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- comment. This appears to have been created as part of swapping Painted Smiles and Painted Smiles Records (the article has apparently been at both titles multiple times). If it's necessary to keep this for attribution it should be moved without redirect to a useful title, perhaps Painted Smiles (record label). Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Bookends (album) (redirect)
Never Too Much (album) (redirect)
ISO 4 (redirect)
Dance with My Father (album) (redirect)
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
World War Bee
Post-industrial (music genre)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Post-industrial (music genre)
People's Republic of Santa Monica
- People's Republic of Santa Monica → Progressivism in the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned in the article. It refers to Santa Monica, California, and the probably wouldn't be due weight for any article except that about the place itself.[1] –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: The term refers to a popular conservative epithet about progressivism in Santa Monica based on Republican opposition to the Santa Monica tenant movement, which is why I redirected it to the parent topic. This is explained in a footnote to the Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act and in various books about the history of progressivism in Southern California. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
References
- "Letters to the Editor: An old nickname might hold the clue for remedying Santa Monica's issues". Los Angeles Times. 3 November 2025.
Kharal (tribe)
Nintendo Gameube
Implausible. No one will think "GameCube" is spelled this way, as the "C" is pronounced and even capitalized. Also, there is no such thing as a Gameube. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- This is a missed-letter typo (i.e. this is meant to catch an instance where the reader missed a letter while typing). Single-character typos are typically considered plausible enough to keep. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep 15 views per annum is low but not useless, its a plausible typo one could make although the same could be said about Nintendo Gamecub, Nintendo Gamcube, Nntendo Gamecube and so on. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention this in the nomination, but another reason I think this should be deleted is that it inhibits search, see Special:Search/Gameube. For example, if I search for "Gameube controller" and this redirect exists, GameCube controller wouldn't show up as part of search results. (However, right now, because the redirect was removed from tagging, this does not apply.) Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also, as a note for future viewers after this discussion, if the result of this redirect is to keep, take a look at various possible searches like "Gameube controller", "Gameube accessory", "Gameube games", "Animal crossing gameube", and other similar searches. Look to see if the results are ideal. See also a related discussion at "GameCibe". Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per Mathguy2718. Gameube is implausible - it's leaving out a capital C. A redirect "Australian ootballers" was speedied under R3 - could this redirect be R3ed? KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Since this redirect existed for many years, it cannot be R3ed. However, age alone does not make a redirect useful, especially with the implausible typo. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- This is implying the C is always capitalized-- I've seen it spelled "Gamecube" with a lowercase C many a time-- and the C is here in the middle of the word, not at the very start of a word-- and also close to the end-- there's only three characters between the missing letter and the Enter key to "ootballers"'s ten. Besides, this argument has shades of WP:WHATABOUT-- we're here to discuss the merits of Nintendo Gameube, not Australian ootballers. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- You misunderstood my point. I was trying to compare Nintendo Gameube to a now-deleted redirect that was R3ed. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also, C and u are at opposite sides of the keyboard. While I give up my point on speedy, the low number of users is kinda concerning. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- That'd be an issue if this were a letter-substitution typo (i.e. Nintendo CameZube). This isn't that-- this is a missing letter typo. This can be caused by the finger failing to properly press the button, such as with a faulty key switch on the keyboard. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per {{R from typo}}, it's harmless. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- it can be kept User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 18:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as a random typo, not deserving of a redirect. Omission of the 'c' seems no more likely than that of any other letter, and it's especially implausible on top of including "nintendo" in the search term. And as mathguy notes, similar searches are effective at finding the target without needing the redirect. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Given that the C is capitalized in the middle of the word, I would argue that it's more likely to omit that letter over any others because it requires extra input to capitalize it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'd argue otherwise. Whatever finger you're using to press the C is still going to press the C, irrespective of whether or not you're trying to hold down shift. In either case, most people aren't going to bother including "nintendo"...most people also aren't going to capitalize the 'C' anyway...and those that do should immediately realize their mistake and be able to correct it, which they don't even need to do, because it's the top search result anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Deacon Vorbis. Also, I see more people spelling Nintendo Gamecube than Nintendo Gameube. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Scrap the second part, actually. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Deacon Vorbis. Also, I see more people spelling Nintendo Gamecube than Nintendo Gameube. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'd argue otherwise. Whatever finger you're using to press the C is still going to press the C, irrespective of whether or not you're trying to hold down shift. In either case, most people aren't going to bother including "nintendo"...most people also aren't going to capitalize the 'C' anyway...and those that do should immediately realize their mistake and be able to correct it, which they don't even need to do, because it's the top search result anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Given that the C is capitalized in the middle of the word, I would argue that it's more likely to omit that letter over any others because it requires extra input to capitalize it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC) - Delete as implausible redirect. Not a popular misspelling either. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Johal (disambiguation)
March 13
Phal
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 20#Phal
Church lands
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 20#Church lands
Jesus Nazarene
Authorship attribution
- Authorship attribution → Stylometry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Also could refer to Attribution (copyright)? Not sure which is the primary topic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Attribution (a dab page), as the copyright and journalism meanings and the see also to credits are all relevant and the current target could be added to the page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think stylometry (the current target) is the traditional meaning for this term, for example, "Authorship attribution is the task of identifying the author of a given document by assigning a text of unknown authorship to one of a set of candidate authors for whom samples of written text are available" and "authorship attribution of online messages". However I see that Google also finds an alternate meaning, namely where, for example, a PhD student declares that they are the sole author of their dissertation. Authorship analysisAuthorship analysis also redirects to stylometry. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- For wikihistorians, I created this redirect in June 2013 in the middle of a battle regarding Shakespeare authorship question (Arbcom case WP:ARBSAQ). "Authorship attribution" was well known at the time as referring to the idea that it was possible to determine how likely it was that person X wrote work Y. That sense may not be prominent now? Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Stylometry is the correct redirect. So keep. Authorship attribution refers of determining authorship of a document, not general attribution like say to a newspaper or magazine. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- It can be used for both. While stylometry is the technical meaning (although note the top hit on google is Author profiling) in non-specialist contexts it can also be used to refer to more general topics. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
ScanScope Virtual Slide
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 20#ScanScope Virtual Slide
List of horror films of 2026.
Vitamin B100
GameCibe
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#GameCibe
Photolab
Photo lab would seem to be the primary topic. In addition, though generally less significant, other software or software components named "PhotoLab" seem to exist, cf. WebPlus, Digital Scrapbook Artist, DrawPlus. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget both Photolab and Photo lab to Photographic processing. 162 etc. (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Minilab Given the aforementioned Photo lab already redirects to minilab, redirecting Photolab differently would create a discontinuity between two near-identical search terms. That article focuses on the actual photographic system as a technological device used in places and for services, whereas photographic processing is about the broader chemical process of photographic development. It's also worth noting that the minilab article explicitly defines its subject in contrast to larger centralized photo labs, and even equates the chemical processes used between the two for their specific purposes. Thus, readers arriving from a "photolab" search would find more relevant coverage of the photo lab concept generally, especially in its applications, instead of arriving at an article largely detailing the broader chemical processes. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Neither is a great target, but Minilab seems too specific given the ambiguous term "Photolab"/"Photo lab". 162 etc. (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- In that case, it might be a better approach to turn this over to a disambiguation page or set index article, especially if there's no easy way to disambiguate from the "PhotoLab" software, as mentioned by nom, unless we're willing to create a dedicated article about photolabs as the primary topic. Minilab is a type of photolab that we already have well-documented coverage of here, while information on the processes used by photolabs is present at photographic processing (although there's no mention of either "photolab" or "photo lab" at that target), and DxO Labs partially covers the PhotoLab software. You're right that none of the targets are great, but we need to pick the best one with the most relevant information to what a photolab is, and I just don't think that photographic processing actually covers that, per the distinction in my previous comment. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Neither is a great target, but Minilab seems too specific given the ambiguous term "Photolab"/"Photo lab". 162 etc. (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Maldives corruption scandal
Manduk pami
A Christmas Carol (video game)
- A Christmas Carol (video game) → A Christmas Carol (2009 film)#Home media (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The game in question was ultimately not released and is no longer mentioned in the article. Maybe the game Ebenezer and the Invisible World could be a suitable redirect but it's not explicitly called A Christmas Carol. The game does exist, I just missed it while searching. However, it's still not mentioned in the movie's article. I think a mention could be added, but I'll let others say what they think. Mr slav999 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- The game does appear to have been released - see Sumo Digital and List of Nintendo DS games (D–I). However, the film's article is a very tangential redirect, so I would Delete per Criterion 10. Tevildo (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
DZTG
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 20#DZTG
Centumduodetrigintanion
- Centumduodetrigintanion → Trigintaduonion#Further algebras (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Centumduodetrigintanions → Trigintaduonion#Further algebras (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Ducentiquinquagintasexion → Trigintaduonion#Further algebras (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Ducentiquinquagintasexions → Trigintaduonion#Further algebras (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Essentially unattested (and morphologically questionable) terms; no longer mentioned at target after this edit of mine 11 months ago. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_28#Pathion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
🤨
Can emojis be turned into disambig page? If not, then how about redirect to Doubt? This emoji doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive to suspicion, questionable/doubtful expressions are often followed by this emoji too. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 05:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Emojis can be disambiguation pages. No comment at the moment if this one should be. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs, where it's listed. I'm pretty opposed to redirecting emoji to their underlying meaning (which is often ambiguous), no matter what, especially for cases like this where it's definitely ambiguous. Someone searching for an emoji should get information about the emoji, not what it represents. A dab page for this would be ludicrous. Alternatively, delete would be okay too; this would let someone pick from a few places where it's listed that might be appropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as implausible search term. I wouldn't imagine this would be helpful. The symbols list doesn't even have any information on the emoji, just the emoji itself. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs, where all emojis are listed. Deletion would be pointless since the redirect would eventually be recreated anyway (and emoji redirects are usually always kept). CycloneYoris talk! 19:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- There's a deletion criterion for something being recreated after a deletion discussion (G4). For you saying "emoji redirects are usually always kept" that... doesn't mean that every emoji redirect should be kept. Feels like a WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST argument. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 02:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- G4 doesn't always apply to redirects, and the recreated redirect would need to have the same target for an admin to delete it under that criterion. The fact that other emoji redirects are kept is certainly relevant; see: WP:REMOJI, which explains why emoji redirects exist and why they're helpful. CycloneYoris talk! 04:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- WP:REMOJI explains the de facto result of an RfD with no consensus, and it doesn’t actually say anything about why they’re helpful. I2Overcome talk 16:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- But see WP:😃↪️📊2️⃣, which is linked within WP:REMOJI. This practice was upheld via RFC, unlike many of the other common outcomes described at WP:RFDO. That's not to say the subject can't be revisited, but this precedent arguably has more backing than others listed in the essay. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- It was closed as no consensus, with about half of the participants advocating for something else, so I wouldn’t call that "upheld." I2Overcome talk 02:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- To clarify, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have emoji redirects at all; see my comment below about developing a special system for them. I2Overcome talk 02:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- It was closed as no consensus, with about half of the participants advocating for something else, so I wouldn’t call that "upheld." I2Overcome talk 02:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- But see WP:😃↪️📊2️⃣, which is linked within WP:REMOJI. This practice was upheld via RFC, unlike many of the other common outcomes described at WP:RFDO. That's not to say the subject can't be revisited, but this precedent arguably has more backing than others listed in the essay. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- WP:REMOJI explains the de facto result of an RfD with no consensus, and it doesn’t actually say anything about why they’re helpful. I2Overcome talk 16:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- G4 doesn't always apply to redirects, and the recreated redirect would need to have the same target for an admin to delete it under that criterion. The fact that other emoji redirects are kept is certainly relevant; see: WP:REMOJI, which explains why emoji redirects exist and why they're helpful. CycloneYoris talk! 04:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- There's a deletion criterion for something being recreated after a deletion discussion (G4). For you saying "emoji redirects are usually always kept" that... doesn't mean that every emoji redirect should be kept. Feels like a WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST argument. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 02:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per arguments expressed above. Ur frnd (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per CycloneYoris. The symbols list is more useful than unpredictable search results. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Never delete. Emojis are valid search terms and are a part of every day life. Don't care about the target. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Gonnym "Never delete" is not a valid bold text in xfd responses. Either keep or retarget. If you "don't care about the target" please clarify: Do you simply want to keep the redirect without deleting it, or do you specifically want the current target to stay? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 14:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- They are probably referring to every emoji (and probably every one-character unicode as well), not solely this one. WP:REMOJI. Abesca (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- XfDs are not votes, and bold text is a common way to summarize one's argument for ease of navigation, not something that must be fit into a rigid schema. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- A redirect is only useful if the target contains appropriate information on the subject. I2Overcome talk 16:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Gonnym "Never delete" is not a valid bold text in xfd responses. Either keep or retarget. If you "don't care about the target" please clarify: Do you simply want to keep the redirect without deleting it, or do you specifically want the current target to stay? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 14:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment We really should have a follow-up RfC to the one in December 2023 that resulted in no consensus. The closer's recommendation was to pursue a new RfC on option 7, which was creating a new class of content pages especially for emojis that are not indepenently notable. One user even created a draft template. I think something like this would be a good alternative to the "status quo" option 4 that was adopted in lieu of consensus: having some redirect to articles, some to dab pages or SIA, and some to lists or tables. Redirecting to articles that represent the emoji's meaning is problematic even when it is unambiguous (which is almost never), because the target contains no information on the emoji itself. Creating dab pages for different emoji meanings is just ridiculous. Definitely do not redirect to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs, where the only information whatsoever is "this is unicode character U+1F928," which is basically nothing. If no target exists that contains useful information on the subject, there shouldn't be a redirect. Therefore, delete for now. I2Overcome talk 16:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- No consensus for 🔞 resulted in soft redirecting. would that be default then? Abesca (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Another RFC may be in order. In my experience, recent emoji RFDs are at least somewhat controversial. For emojis like 🤨 that appear on multiple lists with no substantive explanation or description anywhere, arbitrarily picking one of the pages as a target in order to comply with WP:REMOJI makes no sense and is at odds with how we treat other non-notable redirects that have brief mentions on multiple pages. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per above. A similar result happened with 🥰 recently, based on WP:XY. Abesca (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Except that now redirects to Hearts in Unicode, which has more information, like the name of the character and a history of heart emojis. It’s worth mentioning there are currently only three emojis that target Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs, and I don’t think it’s a suitable target for any emoji. I2Overcome talk 22:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Nintendo Switch (Arcade Archives)
- Nintendo Switch (Arcade Archives) → Arcade Archives (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Implausible redirect. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. UnilandofmaTalk 17:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Could not understand the nomination. Why is it an implausible redirect? Jay 💬 13:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
List of religious studies scholars
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#List of religious studies scholars
Megawatt (band)
March 12
Historic Israel
Yorkshire county cricket teams
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Yorkshire county cricket teams
Nottinghamshire county cricket teams
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Nottinghamshire county cricket teams
Lancashire county cricket teams
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Lancashire county cricket teams
Men's T20 World Cup Qualifier
- Men's T20 World Cup Qualifier → Men's T20 World Cup Global Qualifier (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Men's T20 World Cup Global Qualifier has been defunct for 4 years now. This title should either be re-targeted to or be disambiguated with the currently active Men's T20 World Cup regional qualification. Vestrian24Bio 07:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to the active competition and add a hatnote to the present target there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Beanie hat
Military industrial oligarchy
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 19#Military industrial oligarchy
Rape in Iraq
Pop stars
Capitols of ancient Rome
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 19#Capitols of ancient Rome
Binigura/Pinikura language
Mad Dummy
- Mad Mew Mew → List of Undertale and Deltarune characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Mad Dummy → List of Undertale and Deltarune characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
No mention at target, unfortunately... not for either of her names. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Create an anchor at Mad Mew Mew at List_of_video_games_with_LGBTQ_characters:_2010s and retarget there.Jay 💬 15:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per Organhaver. I have removed the content that Jay mentioned, as it was unsourced and included possible original research. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Haroonur Rashid (disambigation)
Draft:Jake Lang
- Draft:Jake Lang → Pardon of January 6 United States Capitol attack defendants#Jake Lang (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Remove redirect from draftspace; there is now a "Jake Lang" article, so this redirect to a different article is misleading and unnecessary. NapoliRoma (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- FWIW, I noticed that there have been a few previous RfDs for similar redirects by the same editor, who hasn't edited since last August (at least, under this name; their user page mentions the existence of other accounts). A quick search shows there are 100+ similar redirects they've added over time.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Gender ambiguity
- Gender ambiguity → Questioning (sexuality and gender) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Couldn't it also refer to Gender nonconformity as well? Note it was originally pointed to androgyny and there's already a hatnote for Ambiguous gender and Ambiguous genitalia. Abesca (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Honestly, I say at this point we have the makings of a disambiguation page, right here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree. I think having a disambiguation page is the way to go. Historyday01 (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm also thinking disambiguation is the answer here. I'm also wondering if any of gender fluidity, non-binary gender, Gender bender (the top internal search result for ambiguous gender presentation) or Third gender should be included too? Note there is also a section Gender of connectors and fasteners#Ambiguous gender that should be linked, maybe as a see also. Mukhannath should definitely be a see also (short description "Ambiguous gender in classic Arab culture"). Thryduulf (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate seems right to me, particularly given that Gender (disambiguation) exists, and there is therefore demonstrably ambiguity as to the meaning of "gender". BD2412 T 02:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Looks more like a WP:SIA. And Ambiguous gender should not redirect to Spanish. Different languages have ambiguous gender grammar. Jay 💬 04:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation draft requested * Pppery * it has begun... 22:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Biochemical analysis
- Biochemical analysis → Biochemistry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
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 to bioanalysis, blood tests and other medical laboratory analyses, various topics listed at Outline of biochemistry#Applications of biochemistry and Outline of biochemistry#Biochemical techniques, and probably others… —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I really want to say retarget to bioanalysis, 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 another WP:RETURNTORED situation, where we really need a broad concept article at this title, pulling together the disparate content, like bioanalysis and Blood_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)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambig, you said it yourself: it is an ambiguous term with no better primary target, because it may refer to any type of analysis of biochemistry. We have at least tree items to start a valid disambig page:
- Any analysis of biochemistry
- Bioanalysis
- Blood_test#Biochemical_analysis
- I oppose the dab page as presented. "Analysis of biochemistry" is somewhat unclear but could include, for example, a written description of biochemical principles or of the biochemistry of a particular organism or pathway, which would not really be considered a "biochemical analysis". The list is also missing a general description of things that would typically be considered part of biochemical analysis but are not necessarily synonymous, like protein purification and characterization. Listing examples or subtypes of biochemical analysis would give a more complete picture but such a list is not fit for the purpose of a dab page. Also, as User:Mdewman6 pointed out, bioanalysis is not really synonymous with biochemical analysis but describes a distinct subfield. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Biochemical analysis (disambiguation), too. Not sure who added the note about that or when. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was bot created because the {{disambiguation}} template was prematurely added to the draft below the redirect (which I have removed). It can be WP:G14'd if the redirect does not become a disambiguation page. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Ramesses the Elder
- Ramesses the Elder → Ramesses I (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Was not able to find any source corroborating this Ramesses I being called "the Elder" PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 15:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's just to follow convention, similar pharaohs have been called "the Elder" like Intef, Ahmose, and Osorkon, plus not to mention that Ramesses I's grandson, Rameses II, is called "the Great". UWMKEgypt (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
National Democratic Party (Philippines)
- National Democratic Party (Philippines) → Democrata Party (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Democrata Party is almost never referred to by this name in English. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- You said this term also refers to National Democratic Front of the Philippines.
- But since we are here, retarget to either Political parties in the Philippines or National Democratic Party. Abesca (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think none of the parties/political organizations (extant and extinct) in the Philippines are referred to in English exactly as the "National Democratic Party". I'd oppose a redirect to Political parties in the Philippines as a reader arriving here would not find a party with exactly this name (the Philippines has similar sounding parties such as Nacionalista Party/Nationalist People's Coalition/National Unity Party, or the various parties named as democratic as seen on the hatnote at Democrata Party. I'd be fine with redirecting to National Democratic Front of the Philippines as a second choice, with outright deletion as the first. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Swedish White Elkhound
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Swedish White Elkhound
Khochna, Yemen
Chone Town
- Chone Town → Liulin, Gansu (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned at target; maybe delete unless someone has an explanation? Duckmather (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Liulin Town is the administrative center of Jonê County, so in Chinese administrative geography it would not be surprising to call it "Jonê Town". Based on the redirect's edit history and the information in the lead of Jonê County, it seems "Chone" is an alternative transcription of "Jonê". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Chone, Ecuador. It is called "Chone" and it is a town. This was also the main result I got when doing a Google search. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Mathguy2718: It turns out that Chone, Ecuador is actually seen as a city, not a town (note that the official website chone
.gob is literally titled.ec /chone / Una historia de nuestra ciudad
). Can you provide any evidence that Chone, Ecuador is seen by some people as a town, or is ever referred to by the exact string "Chone Town"? Duckmather (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)- There are some sources that refer to this place as Chone Town, mostly in Spanish. For example, this source uses words like "localidad" and "pueblo" to mean town. The source you gave also has one mention of "pueblo de Chone", which I believe literally means "Chone Town" here, not only just the former town name of Villa de San Cayetano de Chone. Other such mentions in Spanish (specifically Ecuadorian) can be found here from Google search. English Google searches gave me more mixed results: it could refer to either the place in Ecuador or China. This is because English coverage isn't high in either place, so native language sources would be more reliable here. I couldn't find information about a Chone Town in Jonê County as it doesn't appear on a map. As a result, I think "Chone Town" more likely refers to Chone, Ecuador, but I wouldn't object to deletion if this would be confusing. Mathguy2718 (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Mathguy2718: It turns out that Chone, Ecuador is actually seen as a city, not a town (note that the official website chone
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)- @Mathguy2718: In that case, I think I'm fine with disambiguation. Duckmather (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Mardin 1969 Spor
Honorary Membership Award
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Honorary Membership Award
Accidental gunshot
- Accidental gunshot → Unintentional discharge#Accidental discharge (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Accidental Gunshot → Unintentional discharge#Accidental discharge (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Today I renamed the redirect Accidental Gunshot to Accidental gunshot to change the title to title case. After that I changed the redirect target from Gunshot wound to Unintentional discharge#Accidental discharge to make it match the target of the redirect Accidental discharge. Only after that did it occur to me that "accidental gunshot" probably should refer to the situation where a person was actually hit accidentally by gunshot, e.g. in a shooting accident, not just the event of a gun/firearm discharging accidentally. Shooting accident currently redirects to Unintentional discharge, and I couldn't find a more specific target. Tea2min (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Tea2min: I'm confused about what you think should happen here? Are you asking for validation of your bold retargetting or something else? Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I guess I am asking whether anybody can think of a better link target for Accidental gunshot and Shooting accident than Unintentional discharge or if this might perhaps be a WP:RETURNTORED situation. Tea2min (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note I've added Accidental Gunshot above, it was tagged by the nominator at the same time as the lowercase version but not listed here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Honorary member
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Honorary member
Rape gangs scandal
- Rape gangs scandal → Grooming gangs scandal (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
As per Rape gangs below, newly created link to Grooming gangs scandal which is a UK based politicised issue regarding specific instances of group based child sexual abuse with an underlying racialised narrative. Academic literature often calls it a moral panic. The page is controversial, and geographically localised to the UK. The incoming link is not justified by sources, which overwhelmingly talk of the the grooming gangs, or, in academic literature, as group based CSE.
Unlike the below, this one at least includes the word "scandal" that attempts to localise the term. Yet sources don't speak of the grooming gangs scandal this way. Because that page has been restricted to the politicised ethnic narrative, it is incorrect to use this term for that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- In common parlance, the term ‘rape gangs’ is often used interchangeably with ‘grooming gangs’ to refer to this aspect of group-based child sexual exploitation (GBCSE). Indeed, the former is preferred in the current statutory inquiry being undertaken in the UK and heavily reported on. There isn’t a plausible alternative meaning that may confuse readers that isn’t dealt with by the disambiguation template linking to ‘Gang rape’. The moral correctness of the public’s use of that term, or whether it promotes a ‘racialised narrative’, is neither here nor there. Riposte97 (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Plausible search term. Nomination reads as WP:IDONTLIKEIT Historyexpert2 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- The nomination says
Yet sources don't speak of the grooming gangs scandal this way.
That's policy not preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- The nomination says
Rape gangs
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 19#Rape gangs
Obamna
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Obamna
Geiser involution
BLAA
Unable to find out what this acronym is pointing to the video game. Suggest either redirecting to Blaa or delete. – robertsky (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Blaa. Note that if we delete and someone searches for "BLAA", they'll get taken to Blaa anyways since search is case-insensitive. There is [google.com/search?q="Blaa"+-waterford some evidence] on google that "Blaa" could have other meanings other than the kind of bread, but I don't see any evidence that there's a meaning specifically in all caps. Duckmather (talk)
2024 Games
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 19#2024 Games
2020 Games
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 19#2020 Games
March 11
Birtish
Target has no entries that could be called "Birtish". Its creation may be related to this discussion on Template:Use Birtish English, where the only internal link exists at this time. Searching on Google and searches on Wikipedia outside articles show that "Birtish" is most likely a misspelling for "British". Also, note Steel1943's comment on the discussion for Template:Use Birtish English that was made months before this redirect was created, which said:
Delete [Template:Use Birtish English]. If this typo was so common, the redirect Birtish would have existed sometime during the almost 25+ years of Wikipedia's existence, but it never has.
What do others think? Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Misspellings are more likely to happen in sentences like in the template than as standalone words. Not all common or standart misspellings have a redirect, but this one had, except it wasn't standalone or in the mainspace. Abesca (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to British and tag as {{r from misspelling}}. External search results show this is an error that does occur naturally outside Wikipedia, so it's not implausible that it could be helpful. It's not just one that appears in informal contexts; see eg. Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, New York Times. Something not existing before on Wikipedia doesn't mean it shouldn't; there are a lot of things on Wikipedia that editors just haven't gotten around to yet. If it exists for a while and the traffic report shows negligible usage, then it can be renominated. – Scyrme (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't especially like keeping redirect misspellings, but probably retarget and tag as above. Seems to be used frequent enough. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per Scyrme, this is plausible, reasonably common and pretty unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, R3, and as a WP:POINTy creation after the previous RFD. This is not a spelling error, but a typo, and this typo is no more deserving of a redirect than any other. Searches find matches for all sorts of them, such as "Brtiish". Again, we managed for 25+ years without this without any problems, and like pointed out in an rfd a few days ago, searches for "Birtish empire" and "Birtish columbia" find their targets just fine, rendering this especially useless. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Redirects from plausible, common typos aren't unusual. {{r from typo}} is a redirect to {{r from misspelling}}, and hundreds of redirects from typos use that redirect. The rcat description for {{r from misspelling}} encompasses typos:
This is a redirect from a misspelling or typographical error.
– Scyrme (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Redirects from plausible, common typos aren't unusual. {{r from typo}} is a redirect to {{r from misspelling}}, and hundreds of redirects from typos use that redirect. The rcat description for {{r from misspelling}} encompasses typos:
- Delete. WP:POINTy at this point if there is not sufficient evidence. We don't want to be the ones encouraging an unlikely misspelling by having this spelling flow all over Wikipedia mirrors. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- What makes you think it's unlikely? There's plenty of evidence of people making this exact mistake, as has already been shown. Regarding, WP:POINTy, that is about editors who apply an interpretation of policies/guidelines they disagree with to make a point about how bad it would be to apply the interpretation consistently. I don't see how that applies here. Hypothetically, the equivalent here would be nominating other redirects that have the same typo (if they existed) for deletion to try to make a point of how disruptive it would be to actually do that. This redirect isn't any more disruptive than any other redirect from a plausible typo or misspelling. – Scyrme (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Retarget to British per Scyrme. This is a typo, a recently created one at that, but as demonstrated above it's not an implausible one, so R3 does not apply. I don't think the act of creating this redirect is disruptive, so WP:POINT doesn't apply either (not to mention that the creator didn't participate in the RFD, so I'm not sure what point the others think they're trying to make). That we went over 2 decades without having this redirect means absolutely nothing, since you could use that argument to ban the creation of new articles (which I'm not going to do, as that would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). As for the argument about search results, you need to make an extra click to reach your destination, and this redirect is useful by preventing that. Also, readers might search for this term (on accident, of course) using methods that don't autocorrect this kind of thing, and this redirect would be especially useful to them. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: I, as nominator, have a few comments, which should not be treated as a !vote but are simply observations made to provide more information: 1) The redirect creation is mostly related to the discussion on the template redirect. That discussion had the only link to "Birtish" before nominating the redirect in this discussion. In addition, it's unlikely that this redirect would be created independently of that discussion given the strange target. 2) This word may possibly be a misspelling of birdish. In this case, only one letter is incorrect instead of two, and "Birtish" sounds more similar to "birdish" than "British". 3) Just about every possible misspelling exists on the internet. One source though describes that "Birtish" specifically is a last name, but that source may be unreliable. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Birdish" seems like an enormous stretch to me. Even setting aside that "birdish" is a very uncommon word that few people would have cause to ever use, let alone misspell, the comparison of one letter's difference against two is very misleading. In English, as in many languages, errors of metathesis (swapping letters) are very, very common. In-fact, they're so common in English that the letters don't even need to be next to each other to swapped around (see spoonerism). In contrast, randomly devoicing a consonant would be exceedingly weird in speech, let alone in writing. Especially so, as English, unlike languages like German or Russian, doesn't regularly devoice consonants like "d" to "t", and in-fact often does the opposite, voicing consonants like "s" and "t" to "z" and "d" in various contexts, including intervocalically (relevant to birtish-birdish if your dialect is non-rhotic) and in clusters with voiced consonants like "r" (relevant if your dialect is rhotic). – Scyrme (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Anagrams are more likely to be mistyping than with closer misspelling with distant keyboard letters. And if birdish existed, it could be linked in a see also section of british, but currently it's an obscure dictionary entry. Abesca (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- The thing is that this is part of what I thought made birtish a possible misspelling of "birdish". Also, maybe a reasoning for creating this redirect may help? I'm still trying to understand why you created this redirect to "Birt (disambiguation)". In case any logic for creating the current redirect exists. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- oh I see. I've always pronounced the word standard as standart for some reason. But that's because they are syllabic consonants (silent vowel). while the reasoning was because -ish is a very common prefix for such words, isn't it? but I wondered if someone if could boldly retarget, thats why I inserted Brit dab in the see also. Abesca (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I just assumed your native language was one where standart is the normal pronunciation or spelling. Standart in English is archaic; it's one of the variant spellings from Middle English, from the Old French estandart. If your native language is English, maybe it's survived in your dialect, idk. – Scyrme (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- No, it’s not my first language. My teacher teached me a lot of wrong pronunciations, and it was supposed to be American English (I have a hard time understanding British accent, even from people of my supposed regional accent, cause I notice the difference). And my native language is both syllable-timed and Latin-scripted, which makes difference in the nasalization/palatalization which is why birtish, for me, wouldn’t have the same sounding of birdish. Abesca (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I just assumed your native language was one where standart is the normal pronunciation or spelling. Standart in English is archaic; it's one of the variant spellings from Middle English, from the Old French estandart. If your native language is English, maybe it's survived in your dialect, idk. – Scyrme (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- oh I see. I've always pronounced the word standard as standart for some reason. But that's because they are syllabic consonants (silent vowel). while the reasoning was because -ish is a very common prefix for such words, isn't it? but I wondered if someone if could boldly retarget, thats why I inserted Brit dab in the see also. Abesca (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- The thing is that this is part of what I thought made birtish a possible misspelling of "birdish". Also, maybe a reasoning for creating this redirect may help? I'm still trying to understand why you created this redirect to "Birt (disambiguation)". In case any logic for creating the current redirect exists. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to British per Scyrme. It is beyond plausible that this is a common typo for a very common demonym in the English language. Google Search results number nearly 200,000, which for a typo, is a very high number. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget → British as {{R from tpyo}} 😉. This is an extremely common typo that is frequently found online and even pops up occasionally in publishes sources such as The Independent and others that have already been shared. Google Scholar has over 1,2000 hits for "birtish"! I find the WP:POINTy allegations unconvincing. But even if one doubts the redirect creator's intentions or judgment, we can still assess a redirect on the merits. I also find the birdish suggestion implausible. British is a vastly more common word than birdish and, correspondingly, misspellings or typos of British will be more common. As others have pointed out, there are specific reasons related to keyboards and phonetics why this particular misspelling of birdish is implausible. Per Ngram the misspelling/typo Birtish is, over time, way more common in books than the correct word birdish. Notably, Birtish is always capitalized, which is consistent with this being used as a proper noun. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
TTân Châu District, Tây Ninh
K. B. Hedgewar redirects
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#K. B. Hedgewar redirects
Abdallah Husseini
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Abdallah Husseini
Palæstina
Kelly Wiglesworth
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Kelly Wiglesworth
Ossero
Some redirects
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 20#Some redirects
Stacey Stillman
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 18#Stacey Stillman
Survivor: Borneo-only contestants
X (formerly Twitter) killer
Northern Airlines(1928)
It's not about the money
Puzzle (video game)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 18#Puzzle (video game)
Wikipedia:Homepage
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 18#Wikipedia:Homepage
March 10
Khamenei
Pokemon master
- Pokemon master → Pokémon Masters EX (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Pokémon Master → Ash Ketchum (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Pokemon Master → Ash Ketchum (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Pokémon master → Ash Ketchum (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Potentially confusing. An earlier discussion resulted in similar the last three redirects being retargeted from Gameplay of Pokémon to Ash Ketchum. At the same time, the plural Pokémon Masters mostly refers to the current target Pokémon Masters EX, but there isn't anything that currently deals with the confusion of the similar terms. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC) (updated 00:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC))
- Retarget to Ash Ketchum, who repeatedly proclaims he wants to be a Pokemon master. PokémonPerson 19:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Do not retarget to Ash Ketchum per nom. Not exclusive to Ash Ketchum. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Do not retarget to Ash Ketchum as per Steel; given this is the goal of most Pokemon games, including all Mainline games and the TCG, retargeting to a single character would be patently incorrect, even if said character was originally designed to replace Red (protagonist of Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow) in the Pokemon Anime and subsequently stole the role of every mainline-game male protagonist (and stole the protagonist role from every female protagonist, shunting them to deuteragonist) until Pokemon Horizons. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- That said, I'd note that pretty much every character that could be described as a contender for "Pokemon Master" just so happen to be playable in Pokemon Masters EX. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: As nominator, I do not have a preference on what target this should go to. I nominated this redirect because it doesn't match with Pokémon Master, Pokemon Master, or Pokémon master, so if bundling seems appropriate, please do so; I did not bundle because of the consensus of the earlier discussion with those three redirects. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- ABSOLUTELY bundle those three redirects. IMO if one redirect goes in one direction and one redirect goes in another and the nominator's position is that they need to match, it's best practice to bundle-nominate them rather than only bundle the one the nominator thinks needs to change-- just in case consensus finds that the one nominator didn't list is the one that needs to change to match. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Also, going to do the following: user:Cogsan user:Pokelego999 user:Lenticel user:Skynxnex 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- No preference where this goes tbh. Perhaps point to Masters with a hatnote to Ash for those looking for that? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)- retarget as per Pokelego999 User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 17:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Too vague - it can refer to the title as part of the plot of Pokemon or the specific gameplay challenge of the video games to collect all Pokemon. The search function should be allowed to do its job instead of forcing someone to arrive at a surprise target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Chorlton, Lancashire
War of Independence.
Intestinal paralysis
- Intestinal paralysis → Gastrointestinal tract (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
No paralysis mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- retarget to Ileus#Intestinal_paralysis where it is discussed --Lenticel (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Ileus, which mentions the word "paralysis" several times and can be understood to be about something that non-specialists would regard as "paralysis" more generally (even if it may not be technically correct). Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ileus mentions "paralysis" only once, and as one of the causes of Ileus. It appears to be a synonym of atony which is a generic muscle-related term, and we don't have intestinal atony. The lead of Ileus mentions peristalsis which also doesn't mention paralysis, because Ileus is the lack of peristalsis. Delete if we have no info anywhere else. Jay 💬 08:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
War on independence
- War on independence → Eighty Years' War (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
I have absolutely no idea why this term redirects here. Not mentioned at target and searching produces extremely scattered results (alternate history scenarios, music, an academic paper), none of which have anything to do with the Eighty Years' War. Delete. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: War of independence redirects to Wars of national liberation, while War for Independence redirects to List of wars of independence. "War on independence" seems to be related to these two terms, but with I'm not sure what the usage of "on" is supposed to represent. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- That in and of itself seems like something to send to RFD, honestly-- why would "War for Independence" redirect to "List of wars of independence", while "War of independence" redirect to "Wars of national liberation"? Given the latter is talking about the subject itself, I'd imagine that War for Independence should mirror its target.If War on independence should ALSO mirror target with these two... I say we should bundle them. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- For reference, similar redirects are displayed below (note: it's way more than two redirects):
- Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeeeaaaaahhhhh, I repeat that these need to be bundled to have them pointed at the same target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think the redirects ending (disambiguation) should stay pointed at the list article, as that's performing the disambiguation function. The rest should all have the same target, and that target should be either List of wars of independence or Wars of national liberation. I'm leaning towards the latter as the search terms don't indicate a desire for a list, but this preference is weak. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeeeaaaaahhhhh, I repeat that these need to be bundled to have them pointed at the same target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wars of national liberation. This target gives a better definition of what a war of independence is, so I think the same applies to "War on independence". Also, List of wars of independence is mentioned in a hatnote in case readers want a longer list than what is already given in the proposed retarget. Mathguy2718 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nominator comment. Speaking only for the redirect I nominated in the first place, "war on independence" does not appear to ever be used a generic synonym for "war of independence" (and it would be a pretty implausible typo given the keyboard placements of F and N). The uses I found online seemed deliberate but none appeared to refer to notable topics. — An anonymous username, not my real name 21:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Lunamann, @Mathguy2718, @Thryduulf — An anonymous username, not my real name 21:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- The uses of "war on independence" on Wikipedia usually refer to wars of independence, but though I did not notice any, it could possibly refer to wars against independence. Besides the Ten Year War on Independence, which was a war for Cuban independence, searches on Wikipedia for "war on independence" included a mention in Rise of nationalism in Europe that is piped as [[Swedish–Norwegian War (1814)|War on independence]], which was an unsuccessful battle for Norwegian independence; a mention in Atatürk Museums in Turkey, which has the text
Atatürk's family stayed before the Turkish war on Independence
, referring to the Turkish War of Independence; a mention in Zoubeida Bittari with the textAlgerian War, War on Independence
, referring to the war for the independence of Algeria; and in Foreign policy of Meles Zenawi, there is the sentenceThis was the first time of Eritrea since War on Independence in 1961.
, which probably refers to the Eritrean War of Independence. Based on these mentions, I think it would be logical to target something related to wars of independence, and I don't think the nominated redirect is a typo. Mathguy2718 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC) - I have started a new discussion about all of the variations of "War of independence". I think "War on independence" should not be deleted based on my research above, but given the proposed target isn't obvious, a discussion is necessary there to find the best target, which I think should be Wars of national liberation as I stated earlier. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- The uses of "war on independence" on Wikipedia usually refer to wars of independence, but though I did not notice any, it could possibly refer to wars against independence. Besides the Ten Year War on Independence, which was a war for Cuban independence, searches on Wikipedia for "war on independence" included a mention in Rise of nationalism in Europe that is piped as [[Swedish–Norwegian War (1814)|War on independence]], which was an unsuccessful battle for Norwegian independence; a mention in Atatürk Museums in Turkey, which has the text
- @Lunamann, @Mathguy2718, @Thryduulf — An anonymous username, not my real name 21:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as a grammatically incorrect redirect created more than 20 years back. A real or symbolic war is waged against something negative, or what something wants subdued. Forces in power would try to subdue a war of independence, in which case this would be a "War on War of Independence". A war against independence is not heard of. The mentions found by Mathguy should be fixed as well - replace "on" with "of". Jay 💬 15:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to War of independence per Mathguy2718. My initial thought was of a war whose subject matter is independence – a war about independence – in which case the retarget is very helpful. However, a formulation akin to war on terror / war on drugs is also plausible. Nevertheless, a war against independence in the context of a broader national liberation struggle isn't far outside the remit of war of independence, so I'm happy with that target. I think this is most plausible as a search term from someone who speaks English as a second language (or 75% of English speakers). J947 ‡ edits 07:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Marrying for money
- Marrying for money → Transactional sex (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This topic could also refer to a Marriage of convenience or a Gold digger. Redirecting only to Transactional sex would narrow the scope of the topic and likely cause confusion. Uffda608 (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Normally I'd say retarget to Marriage of convenience through the WP:SMALLDETAILS of "they are specifically asking about a marriage and not sex", but that article needs some SERIOUS help-- logically it'd cover the topic, but it doesn't mention marriages for money at all... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Not quite synonymous with any of the suggested targets—the current target is the worst match. Marrying for money is not exactly the same as a marriage of convenience or being a "gold digger". Absent explicit discussion of this, pointing it to Marriage of convenience or one of the other targets erroneously defines them as exactly synonymous and fails to address the specific topic readers are searching for. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm inclined towards disambiguation here, with all the above topics and Dowry being things the searcher could be looking for. Search results are not at all helpful here, without quotes it's mostly just a collection of articles where marriage and money are mentioned, as an exact phrase the results are almost entirely plot summaries where characters do this. There does exist though an album titled "Re-Marrying for Money" (Henry Kaiser (musician)#Discography), Don't Marry for Money (a film) and "Marry for Money" (a song) that would be good see-alsos. There also seems to be a 1914 or 1915 film Marrying Money but the only mentions we have of that I've found are in actor's filmographies none of which are obviously a better target than any of the others. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm cool with a disambiguation as per this, yeah. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate, preferably (in my opinion) at the title Marry for money, with this title pointed there, under a header that says Marry for money or Marrying for money may refer to... BD2412 T 03:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate if we are all in agreement that it could have more than one meaning User:53zodiac
- Delete. Agree with Myceteae that none of the suggested targets are suitable entries for a dab page. Jay 💬 13:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation draft requested * Pppery * it has begun... 22:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)- Oppose disambiguation but support a broad-concept article (at Marrying for money), a format that aligns much more with the opinions above. This isn't an ambiguous title: it's a title with a quite particular and quite well-known meaning; it's just that discussion of that meaning is spread out through multiple articles. Hypergamy should be linked. Second choice delete. J947 ‡ edits 07:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate to marriage of convenience and gold digger; transactional sex is basically just prostitution, both in the normal sense and in "exalted" forms. This is marriage, at least, and it needs to be distinguished from prostitution. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Pippo Speedway
- Pippo Speedway → Lahti#Sports (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
"Pippo" not mentioned in target, even when the redirect was created. As a result, someone who searches "Pippo Speedway" will get no information about the speedway. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Refine to Lahti#Other events. It is mentioned, just as "Pipoo". (I'm not sure whether either or "Pipo" is the correct spelling; see this news article.) J947 ‡ edits 02:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)- Changed it to "Pipo". The page can be moved without redirect to Pipo Speedway. Jay 💬 05:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- All the other enwiki mentions call it "Pippo Speedway". Even if they're all wrong, a longstanding and non-obvious error on enwiki will normally make for a useful redirect anyway, the error becoming relatively common as it propagates to other sources (and to readers). Besides, a redirect is an exact search term. Moving the redirect to a different title makes it reach a completely different cohort of readers. Just create a new one. J947 ‡ edits 06:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Changed it to "Pipo". The page can be moved without redirect to Pipo Speedway. Jay 💬 05:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei
| The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmedis not extended confirmed, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. Participants are limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion. |
- Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei → Assassination of Ali Khamenei (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Purported assassination of Ali Khamenei → Assassination of Ali Khamenei (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Purported death of Ali Khamenei → Assassination of Ali Khamenei (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
No longer a alleged assassination. Mysticair667537 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- As the user who first created this redirect, I have no objection to its deletion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom EvanTech10 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps instead of deleting it, it could redirect to the conflicting reports section? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: these redirects aren't inaccurate (it's an alleged assassination as well as a real assassination and they reflect a historical reality), and inaccuracy isn't a reason to delete a redirect anyway. The important part is that they're plausible search terms. Additionally, the first redirect was the article title so should certainly be kept per K4. J947 ‡ edits 08:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per all. It served its purpose. Jay 💬 16:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: The terms "Alleged" and "Purported" are not used or mentioned at Assassination of Ali Khamenei#Conflicting reports. Also, Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei wasn't the original title according to this edit so K4 doesn't apply here. Mysticair667537 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei received 26,684 pageviews on Feb 28, and 21,124 on March 1, however it rapidly declined to just 406 pageviews on March 2, and 304 on March 3, after his assassination was confirmed. K4 is starting to become moot. Mysticair667537 (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I was about to withdraw my nomination, but after checking the pageviews again and seeing that it declined to just 55 pageviews on March 8, It's safe to say it has outlived it's usefulness. Mysticair667537 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep for now, redirects are cheap, and several dozen hits per day is still a fair amount. I would revise my position if (roughly) median daily traffic drops to zero signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: The last two redirects have now dropped to a median daily zero and the first one has dropped to 16. There are other problems with these redirects aside from the very low pageviews, readers using these may think that they will be directed to a section of Ali Khamenei's article about old debunked assassination rumors, leading to issues with WP:XY. Mysticair667537 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Rape-vinegar
- Rape-vinegar → Vinegar#Wine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Probably meant grape vinegar but not even mentioned Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Read Preserved_lemon#History. I don't usually hang around these parts, but couldn't looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Rape-vinegar have prevented this confusion? 03:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Reading the source, it is indeed "rape-vinegar". I understand it as rapeseed vinegar. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 03:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Not sure where I land on what to do (since the article doesn't actually reference rape-vinegar, which as far as I can tell is just an outdated term for wine vinegar?), but firmly on do not keep since there is no section Wine in the article Vinegar so we should at minimum retarget elsewhere in the article (to either the article as a whole or a different section). NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'll be real with you, I'm pretty annoyed you didn't acknowledge my comment. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 01:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- My comment didn't seem related to yours? Mine was primarily about the fact that we shouldn't have a redirect pointing to a non-existent section of an article. And I did read the context from where it is linked at Preserved lemon#History, but that doesn't change any of what I was adding NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'll be real with you, I'm pretty annoyed you didn't acknowledge my comment. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 01:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Refine to Vinegar#Spirits per NerdyEpiscopalian and Oxford Reference: "Rape vinegar: An antique term for wine vinegar made from the stalks, skins, and pips left over after the grapes have been pressed." I2Overcome talk 01:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on refining to Vinegar#Spirits?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Microslop
Template:PAL
- Template:PAL → Template:PSE (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wrong and misleading object while existing
Mandatory Palestine ( {{fb|Palestine, British Mandate}} ) able to work on presenting correct historical party; "PAL" short form per UNDP was only seen at doc names or filing system. Even their such official excel workbook uses "<recipient-country code="PS">" (i.e. ISO 2-digit code for "PSE") in its default coding structure. It is supposed to be orphaned by Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template cleanup work. Gzyeah (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Gzyeah: Template redirects don't come by RfD very often, so the regular participants here might not be very well versed in best practices for what to do with them. "PAL" as short for Palestine (even if mistakenly) seems reasonable enough to me, and it's unclear if you're proposing that something else is a more appropriate target. Would you care to elaborate your nominator rationale a bit further? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- But "PAL" is technically not in used as exact "country code" by recent notable organisations searchable online, and the current redirection pointed to modern sovereign (Palestinian Authority) is giving wrong info on equating it with "PSE", rather than simple geographical meanings. Gzyeah (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- The "PAL" is fine to be mentioned its functions in disambiguate page, however we should not encourage to continue holding it for a country template without historical and logical senses unless we had any reliable source to prove such misuse. Gzyeah (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- Do you have a better place to retarget, or do you prefer a disambiguation instead? And would you use a bot to replace the current transclusions? Or its own new template? Abesca (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- there is already an existing PAL (disambiguation) as mentioned with content updated, while it may have no better place to retarget since it was created initially as an individual template compared to Template:PSE before the last redirection made. Gzyeah (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC) - Keep primary topic PER WP:PT1 and WP:PT2 Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 22:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm going to the bathroom to read.
- I'm going to the bathroom to read. → Elvis Presley (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Retarget to Elvis Presley#Death, since it's his last words. ~2026-13617-37 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: Unnecessary redirect I made when I was younger. - RTSthestardust (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Tag as G7? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Well @Organhaver, I think a good idea to tag as G7. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 22:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- The nominator wants something else to happen to the redirect, so G7 shouldn't be used here. It's basically like a contested speedy deletion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I never knew that! Interesting. (/positive) 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- The nominator wants something else to happen to the redirect, so G7 shouldn't be used here. It's basically like a contested speedy deletion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Well @Organhaver, I think a good idea to tag as G7. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 22:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Tag as G7? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete, unmentioned, and generally unhelpful. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as unhelpful and unnecessary NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of last words (20th century), where the words are mentioned. Specifically, I think an anchor should be created at the list entry, and the redirect should be refined to it. This would be useful to people who heard these words out of context, and don't know that they're the last words of the famous singer. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- If anyone thinks the period is unnatural, would I'm going to the bathroom to read be okay to create? Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- I made the redirect. Feel free to bundle it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- If anyone thinks the period is unnatural, would I'm going to the bathroom to read be okay to create? Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of last words (20th century) per Chess Enjoyer. --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. I was going to say a weak retarget but period is unnatural. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Is it really that unnatural if the search term is a quote? Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Chess enjoyer the period makes it unnatural. I have no issue on the quote itself but I have the problem with period at the end. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 06:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Is it really that unnatural if the search term is a quote? Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per Chess enjoyer. This is a sentence, it's not unnatural to end a sentence with a full stop. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)- Comment Should I nominate other last word redirects? ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per Chess enjoyer – we only "delete." redirects with periods when the period is not part of the term itself. Nobody would argue that we should delete U.S.U.S. in favor of U.SU.S, or move Apple Inc. without leaving a redirect. The connection between a sentence and its final period might be slightly weaker than that, but it's still a reasonable WP:AFFINITY. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Category:In rem jurisdiction
- Category:In rem jurisdiction → Category:United States in rem cases (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
In rem jurisdiction is not exclusive to the United states. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: While we have an article, a non-US category will be empty at this point. While Canadian and British examples are plentiful, none has an article in Wikipedia. --Викидим (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Is it possible to create a category Category:In rem jurisdiction that exclusively contains Category:United States in rem cases for now and can be expanded if such categories ever exist elsewhere? Casablanca 🪨(T) 00:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. (1) No real point to having a category that holds nothing except the US subcategory; this isn't part of a bigger tree where we expect a worldwide category. (2) Categories aren't articles; we ruthlessly get rid of categories without useful content, and if we refined it to hold non-US cases, it would soon be deleted as empty. (3) Per nom, the redirect itself is confusing. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: per Викидим. Toarin (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Further comment I have found the article Operation Megaphone, which to me seems like it should be categorized in the (currently non-existent) Category:Canada in rem cases. If so, I think then this could largely be considered moot as that could be added to Category:In rem jurisdiction, which would make the category not just redirect to the US's cases. Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
March 9
Zhang Weiyin
- Zhang Weiyin → Zhang Weiying (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
"Zhang Weiyin" is the name of at least two (?) other non-notable people: a professor at the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, and a person in IMDb who worked in a "transportation department". So I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. They seem to be the only notable person with this name. Almost nobody has a truly unique name, so we only disambiguate with those who are notable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- But Zhang Weiying doesn't actually have this name. "Weiyin" and "Weiying" are very different names in Chinese, and only look similar when romanised. Searching externally, it doesn't seem to be a common mistake. The only place I found it this error was in the name of a file (File:Zhang Weiyin Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2011.jpg) on Commons. I've requested the file be renamed to fix that one use. – Scyrme (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - To me, this is quite an implausible misspelling and it could be misleading. Sun8908 Talk 18:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Zhang Weiyin is a real name shared by at least two people with an internet presence. It is also a plausible error for the name of the Chinese economist but it is not at all clear that someone who might search this is more likely to be making this error than they are to be searching for someone who actually has this name. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: If kept, this should be tagged at {{R from move}} per the redirect's history. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
28 February 2026
Sweet sandwich time
Liz (musician)
Sparra
vague, almost hopelessly so. the closest this term seems to have of a primary topic is somewhat suggestive furry art
...except this isn't where it ends, as there's some pre-blar content here, that suggests that this was a somewhat obscure type of irish battle axe. that axe isn't currently mentioned, and of the two sources in that stub (which seems to have been an attempt at an article about obscure ancient irish battle axes in general?), i could only get one to load, and mentions of the sparra seem to be passing in it
i don't really know if the source is useful for this. if it is, i don't know if the target would be the proper place for a mention, and i've found no other stuff about it, so maybe return to red? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- eh, delete as a foreign redirect, there doesn't really to seem to be the affinity there to justify having this. even wiktionary doesn't list sparra as an irish term meaning battle-axe (though sparth/sparthe is listed as a middle english term meaning battle-axe) also uh, what kind of furry art? asking for a friend, or maybe to judge whether or the art meets general notability guidelines and is worthy of an article caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 18:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak delete, second choice disambig. For me the primary topic in searches is clearly "Scottish patients at risk of readmission", which might be notable (certainly enough for a mention on a broader article, maybe for a standalone one) but which we don't have content about, followed by the "Symptoms in Persons at Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis" questionnaire that again we have no content about but where the acronym should be mentioned if we did. On Wikipedia, I found a bunch of uses, none of which I'm certain are sufficient for a dabmention - Ayquelinus Guillelmi de Sparra (mentioned at Archdeacon of Bournemouth#Late medieval, DJ Sparra (mentioned at Popular music of Birmingham#Hip hop and Dance music), multiple characters at Redwall (TV series), and Ivan "Sparra" Romcek (mentioned in the prose and table at Milperra massacre#Battle) being the best contenders. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete humanely. The second ref (visible via Wayback) actually writes it as sparr. This is also said to be the name of a unit of three warriors, one equipped with a sparr. It's mentioned as sparr under Polearm#Sparth_axe. It's also in the dab page Sparr, which links to Gallowglass, which does not use the word but mentions and links to Sparth axe instead. However, there are sources that say sparra, including the first one (which is a book by Patrick Weston Joyce) and this book: The sparða is mentioned many times as an Irish battleaxe which was also used by the Scandinavians. As Irish sparth or sparra is not a native word, it has been conjectured that it is a modified form of ON. barda; if this is right, it must be the same kind of axe, that is, a type of skeggøx, which was less commonly known as a barda. (Sparða there uses the letter thorn, so it's "spartha". Skeggøx = bearded axe.) Card Zero (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Access 1 disorder
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Access 1 disorder
Big DT
Nat Geo &YO
No-kernel
God's Beads
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#God's Beads
Bloodwort (disambiguation)
Sammarinese Ambassador to the United States
Ico (playstation)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Ico (playstation)
Cuban language
- Cuban language → Cuban Spanish (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Is Cuban Spanish the best target? The current target does show this is the main language of Cuba. However, it does not link to Languages of Cuba, which redirects to Demographics of Cuba#Language. The only mentions of "Cuban language" are for Cuban Language Academy and in Music of Cuba. At the same time, no language spoken in Cuba is directly called "Cuban language", but there is Cuban Spanish and Cuban Sign Language. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep and add a hatnote to Languages of Cuba (in case the section is ever expanded to an article) or Retarget to the section as a {{R avoided double redirect}}. Either works. Thryduulf (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language as {{R avoided double redirect}}, since it mentions the other languages spoken in Cuba and already has a hatnote to both Cuban Spanish and Cuba language, which is another possible (but less likely) desired target. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep (1st choice) and add a hatnote to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language and possibly Cuba language. Spanish is the official and predominant language of Cuba. A cursory Google search for "Cuban language" exclusively reveals hits referring to Cuban Spanish on the first page. Google Scholar results are more mixed but largely reference Cuban Spanish; references to non-Spanish languages are often qualified, e.g. Afro-Cuban language. Weak retarget to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language as distant second choice—in other words, don't let me stand in the way if consensus otherwise goes that direction but Cuban Spanish appears to be the primary topic for Cuban language and is my preferred target. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC) - Retarget per Kepler-1229b. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Yguazú
LENS
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#LENS
Super Pro Fighter Q
- Super Pro Fighter Q → Super Nintendo Entertainment System#Peripherals (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
What does this has to do what the target section? Anyways, delete. ~2025-42974-91 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- keep, mentioned at target as a peripheral of the snes, pre-blar content also describes this as a snes thingy, logical redirect to have caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 19:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: There is a mention, but it doesn't go into much detail about what it is. It's also pretty far away down the section, which makes me want to use an anchor to refine it. I wonder if it should be returned to red. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
サンズ
This should be deleted per WP:FORRED. There's no affinity between Undertale and Japanese, so this is not a valid foreign-language redirect. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 23:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. The only language that Undertale is in, other than English, is Japanese. See the Japanese version of the official website, as well. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Organhaver's comments would be relevant if the original language were Japanese or there was some other strong connection between the subject and Japan or the Japanese language. Simply being the only language into which it has (currently) been translated is not enough. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep The Japanese-speaking fanbase of the UT/DR franchise is large, and it's inaccurate to say there is no affinity. Dege31 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why would the Japanese-speaking fanbase be seeking English-language information about the subject by searching the English Wikipedia in Japanese? Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why is there any other foreign-language redirect? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Absolutely not to cater to foreign language readers. We create foreign-language article titles and redirects to cater to English speakers who may have encountered something under its foreign name. Non-English speakers should be consulting the Wikipedia for their own language. If they are going to use the English Wikipedia, they should have enough familiarity with English to look topics up by their English names. --Srleffler (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also, if someone does want to look up information about a given topic in English but doesn't remember the English name, then there are several far more reliable strategies to finding the English Wikipedia article, including:
- Looking at the article in the Wikipedia for the language they do remember its name in and following the interwiki link
- Looking at a related article in the English Wikipedia they do remember the name of and following links from there
- Searching using related words/phrases they do remember
- Consulting a dictionary / translator to find the English name
- Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if this has already been explained before, but this definitely could be for "
English speakers who may have encountered something under its foreign name
". 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also, if someone does want to look up information about a given topic in English but doesn't remember the English name, then there are several far more reliable strategies to finding the English Wikipedia article, including:
- Absolutely not to cater to foreign language readers. We create foreign-language article titles and redirects to cater to English speakers who may have encountered something under its foreign name. Non-English speakers should be consulting the Wikipedia for their own language. If they are going to use the English Wikipedia, they should have enough familiarity with English to look topics up by their English names. --Srleffler (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why is there any other foreign-language redirect? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why would the Japanese-speaking fanbase be seeking English-language information about the subject by searching the English Wikipedia in Japanese? Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Comment: Honestly, I never even thought about including a Japanese name for each of the Undertale/Deltarune characters. At the very least, I believe the redirect for San's Japanese name should be kept if the actual article mentions this specific word/phrase. If it's included, then I will change my Weak Keep to Strong Keep if that is the case. For example, Sans name could be written like Sans (Japanese: サンズ, romanized: sanzu) OR Sans could have a nihongo footnote like Sans[a]
- As video games, Undertale and Deltarune has official Japanese localization/Japanese language in the game by Toby Fox. This is what matters. I understand why this redirect was questioned, but considering what I said earlier though, It isn't misleading to say that Undertale/Deltarune has Japanese in the game since there's official Japanese language in both of the games by Toby's Japanese localization team 8-4 and this is reassured on https://undertale.com and https://deltarune.com with the site having the option to be in the Japanese language. If this redirect is kept I will include Japanese names for each of the Undertale/Deltarune characters that currently has an article and cite this RfD discussion as the reason for doing so.
- KrispyBlueJays (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:FORRED --Srleffler (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:FORRED, considering Undertale was made by an American individual. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. This name is mentioned in the article. PokémonPerson 19:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment it's worth noting that ja:サンズ is a disambiguation page with a lot of different entries. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep or refine to Sans (Undertale)#サンズ or Sans (Undertale)#Sanzu. I have added an anchors at Sans (Undertale)#サンズ and Sans (Undertale)#Sanzu. The visible anchor at Sans (Undertale)#Sanzu may be more helpful to readers. The character's Japanese name is used and described with relevant detail. On-wiki search shows that「サンズ」is used to transliterate a handful of other English words/names but very often appears on en-wiki in reference to the Undertale character. This redirect helps readers find relevant information about the Japanese name. The simplistic 'FORRED' analysis is insufficient as it fails to address the encyclopedic content we have for this Japanese name. We typically keep foreign language redirects when they point to relevant content that describes a non-English word or name in context that is most helpful to en-wiki readers. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Chicago station
- Chicago station → Chicago Union Station (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This should be a disambiguation. Chicago has had multiple intercity train stations in the past. There are also a number of 'L' stations called Chicago. Gamingcanary (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Some stations to consider:
- Chicago Union Station
- Chicago Bus Station
- Chicago station (CTA Red Line)
- Chicago station (CTA Blue Line)
- Chicago station (CTA Brown and Purple Lines)
- Chicago station (CTA Logan Square branch)
- Ogilvie Transportation Center
- Millennium Station
- Lasalle Street Station
- Central Station (Chicago terminal)
- Grand Central Station (Chicago)
- Great Central Station
- Gamingcanary (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, also Dearborn Station Gamingcanary (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, also Wells Street Station and Wells Street Terminal Gamingcanary (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate - there are no less than four CTA stations alone that are named Chicago station, none of which is currently the target of this redirect. I'll draft up.a dab page. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I drafted up a dab page at Chicago station (disambiguation). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I would suggest adding the intercity terminals listed above. On most timetables and station indices they would be written as simply “Chicago”, with maybe a footnote or subtitle indicating which one. Gamingcanary (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Gamingcanary, I would be fine with that. You can feel free to add any (or all) links you find appropriate. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's been a week with no objections. I'd say it looks good. I don't exactly know how to close these discussions. Gamingcanary (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Gamingcanary, I would be fine with that. You can feel free to add any (or all) links you find appropriate. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- I would suggest adding the intercity terminals listed above. On most timetables and station indices they would be written as simply “Chicago”, with maybe a footnote or subtitle indicating which one. Gamingcanary (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I drafted up a dab page at Chicago station (disambiguation). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate - there are no less than four CTA stations alone that are named Chicago station, none of which is currently the target of this redirect. I'll draft up.a dab page. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- This is ambiguous, but I think a set index is going to be better than a dab here, as that can cover stations without "Chicago" in the name as well (e.g. Dearborn Station) and ones like North Chicago Station. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Category:Railway stations in Chicago. Any dab or SIA would amount to just a poor man's duplicate of the category. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- A dab would be more relevant to the search term. Most stations that happen to be in Chicago are not called just "Chicago Station." Gamingcanary (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Nazzi
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Nazzi
Obsolete word
Y2K7
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Y2K7
9:41 AM
March 8
Barnstar of National Merit
Chicken Pyongyang
Nintendo 8-bit
- Nintendo 8-bit → Nintendo Entertainment System (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Sega 8-bit console → Master System (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Sega 16-bit console → Sega Genesis (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Sega 8 bit → Master System (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Sega 8-bit → Master System (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Sega 16 bit console → Sega Genesis (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Nintendo 8-bit and Sega 8-bit are ambiguous, as the Game Boy, Game Boy Color and Game Gear were also 8-bit. Sega 16-bit is less ambiguous, but the Sega CD can be considered a separate system in some respects. UPDATE 7 FEBRUARY: bundling similar redirects. Mr slav999 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nintendo video game consoles and List of Sega video game consoles would be the ideal landing places for these redirects. The Nintendo list does a good job of listing the number of bits, but the Sega list does not. Perhaps that's something that can be added to the Sega list? -- Tavix (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
the Sega CD can be considered a separate system in some respects
Even if this was correct-- it's not, the Sega CD is as unambiguously an add-on to the Genesis as the Sega 32X is (as well as the Nintendo 64DD > Nintendo 64)-- the Sega CD is explicitly discussed on the Sega Genesis page. Similarly, the Game Gear is basically a Master System made portable, and is compatible with all Master System games through a cartridge converter; it is also, as with the Sega CD, discussed on the Master System's page. Keep these two.The Game Boy and Game Boy Color, though... Those aren't as clear-cut, as the tech of the GB and GBC aren't nearly as cleanly mapped to the NES's hardware (you can't just use a converter to plug an NES or Famicom copy of Super Mario Bros into a GBC and play it, like you can with a Master System game on Game Gear). NES still feels primary topic, but I'm not sure enough to come to a decision there; anyone have any other thoughts here? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- I don't think most people would say a console is the same as another just because it can play its games. The Genesis has an add-on that allows it to play Master System games, but no one considers them to be the same. The PS2 can play most PS1 games but no one thinks they're the same thing. Also, I said the Sega CD may be considered its own system because it has an exclusive library of games that can't be played on a base Genesis. Mr slav999 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't think most people would say a console is the same as another just because it can play its games.
That's a valid concern re: referring to the Genesis as a Master System, a PS2 as a PS1, or the Wii as a Gamecube. However, I'd say it's not applicable re: the Master System and Game Gear. Unlike with all of the prior examples, which are backwards compatible but have extensive libraries that the prior console it's compatible with can't play, the Game Gear and Master System are literally the same thing-- not only can most Master System games work on Game Gear with a cartridge converter (save for certain games that require, say, the light gun), but in turn, most Game Gear games can be played on Master System (although a converter didn't exist at the time, there *are* third-party ones that exist); there are exceptions-- Game Gear exclusive titles that you can't play on Master System because they use colors that the Master System couldn't support-- but one of these Game Gear exclusive games can be converted into a Master System compatible game with only minor graphical modification.Which means rather than being a case of a PS2 and a PS1, it's more like the case of a Game Boy Advance, a Game Boy Advance SP, and a Game Boy Player. All three of those I'd consider to be versions of the GBA, and that includes the Game Boy Player.I said the Sega CD may be considered its own system because it has an exclusive library of games that can't be played on a base Genesis.
...Hm. I'm... a little torn on this. Part of me is insistent that the Sega CD should merely be considered a disk drive addon to the Genesis-- like of course the base Genesis can't play Sega CD games, it doesn't have a disk drive on its own!-- but then I look up at my own argument that the Game Boy Player is a GBA (which... it is, it's not an emulator, it's the actual hardware from a GBA hooked up to your Gamecube). And as per Sega_CD#Technical_specifications, it's NOT just a CD drive bolted to the Genesis, it has its own graphics and processor....Hm. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think most people would say a console is the same as another just because it can play its games. The Genesis has an add-on that allows it to play Master System games, but no one considers them to be the same. The PS2 can play most PS1 games but no one thinks they're the same thing. Also, I said the Sega CD may be considered its own system because it has an exclusive library of games that can't be played on a base Genesis. Mr slav999 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- delete all redirects missing the word "console" as vague with consoles, games, rereleases of those games, and rereleases of those games but in collection form, among other less plausible stuff like merch and the reader being one of those "so retro" folk
- delete the others as well as... a misleading mess of varyingly implausible targets at best. judging by the views and incoming links (all one of them not related to this rfd in sega 16 bit console), it's unlikely that a reader would be looking for those without already knowing what the consoles are, which would make the most plausible target some sort of list of consoles separated by bits or something, which technically doesn't exist, and even if it did (which would be at the list of sega video game consoles and list of nintendo products), they'd actually still be vague with arcade systems, which are separated in the nintendo list and in a separate list for sega (for which no 8-bit ones seem to exist, and only one 16-bit one seems to exist), and with the multiple consoles each of them have per bit (despite sega's best attempts to hide its pre-mega drive stuff) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
they'd actually still be vague with arcade systems
You're arguing that the redirects that have the word "console" are an issue because they're vague with... arcade systems, which are famously not consoles? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)- yes and no. regardless of whether or not i think it's plausible (it's a skill issue, really), this is a confusion i've seen a good bit of among people who have lives, and i have snk's arcade shenanigans of all things to blame for about half of it, with the other half being a sentiment of "that's just nomenclature, isn't it?". and Streets™ 2 depending on who you ask
- even then, there are still multiple systems for both (do people even remember the sg-1000 and pico?), and no target that would really fit the oddly specific criterion of a search for consoles per that one number consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 22:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- ...Okay, while the Pico does roundly trounce the idea that the Genesis is the only target for Sega 16 bit console, I'd like to point out that the Master System was the SG-1000 in much the same way that the Game Gear was the Master System; the Master System being the Sega Mark III (as in the 3rd release of the SG1000). The Master System article even mentions it in the second sentence. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- that they even have different articles in the first place makes this whole thing kinda pointless, as they're considered different enough platforms in mainspace consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Eh, my counterexample regarding that is Game Boy Advance SP, DSi, 2DS, et cetera, all examples of major revisions of popular (handheld) consoles (the GBA, Nintendo DS, and 3DS respectively for the examples I gave) that ARE in every respect the base console but have enough notability by themselves to have their own articles. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, most would say that the SG-1000, Master System and Game Gear are separate consoles, even if they have some common origins. Sorry, but the fact you have a different opinion on this is kinda irrelevant, because what matters is what most people think. Mr slav999 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Eh, my counterexample regarding that is Game Boy Advance SP, DSi, 2DS, et cetera, all examples of major revisions of popular (handheld) consoles (the GBA, Nintendo DS, and 3DS respectively for the examples I gave) that ARE in every respect the base console but have enough notability by themselves to have their own articles. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- that they even have different articles in the first place makes this whole thing kinda pointless, as they're considered different enough platforms in mainspace consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- ...Okay, while the Pico does roundly trounce the idea that the Genesis is the only target for Sega 16 bit console, I'd like to point out that the Master System was the SG-1000 in much the same way that the Game Gear was the Master System; the Master System being the Sega Mark III (as in the 3rd release of the SG1000). The Master System article even mentions it in the second sentence. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- This has largely been a three-way discussion. @Tavix: would you like to add or modify, considering 3 more entries were bundled after your !vote? Jay 💬 03:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Leopard skin
- Leopard skin → Onchocerciasis (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Elephant skin → Onchocerciasis (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Lizard skin → Onchocerciasis (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This disease is certainly not the primary target. Redirect to one of the following options (or some other that I haven't thought of): "Leopard skin" should point to Leopard skin (clothing in Ancient Egypt), Animal print, or Leopard#Characteristics. "Elephant skin" should point to Elephant#Skin or Elephantiasis. "Lizard skin" should point to Lizard#Anatomy, or possibly somewhere at Moulting to describe the shedding of skin.TNstingray (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom with following specifications:
- Elephant skin to Elephant#Skin
- Lizard skin to Lizard#Anatomy
- For Leopard skin, I tend to think retarget to Leopard skin (clothing in Ancient Egypt) is the way to go with potentially the addition of a hatnote to Animal print and Leopard#Characteristics but could also be convinced otherwise (or convinced to dabify) NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget elephant skin to elephant#Skin, retarget lizard skin to lizard#Anatomy, and disambiguate leopard skin. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Elephant skin can also refer to matgrounds. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What should we do with Leopard skin?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC) - Retarget Lizard skin and Elephant skin, with a hotnote to Matground, and disambiguate Leopard skin per above. मल्ल (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Based on the consensus, changing my vote from retarget to disambiguate for Leopard skin, as I didn't have a strong opinion between them. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Savage Man Savage Beast 2
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Savage Man Savage Beast 2
Symplectic form
- Symplectic form → Symplectic vector space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Most backlinks to this seem to be referring to the 2-form on a symplectic manifold. Should this be retargeted or disambiguated? (cc Chatul per Talk:Symplectic form#Redirect or disambiguation?.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Redirect seems fine to me. Anyone looking for symplectic form or symplectic vector space will be looking for the same information, to be found on this redirected page. Ebony Jackson (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- The above comment was moved here from below the relisting notice on the 1 March page by Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, I changed my mind. I think I agree with 1234qwer1234qwer4 that symplectic form is more often the 2-form on a symplectic manifold, so disambiguation might be better. Ebony Jackson (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I would recommend having this type of discussion at Symplectic vector space or Symplectic manifold (rather than here or the talk page for the redirect title), but anyway, either target seems fine as long as there's a hatnote pointing at the other one. –jacobolus (t) 02:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. All else being equal, I would probably change the redirect to symplectic manifold. But all else is not equal, and editors (and the automated tools that support them) should flag this particular link as needing disambiguqtion. This will have the added benefit of forcing an audit of all existing links to be sure they point to the correct target. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. There's no primary topic here, it could reasonably refer to a symplectic form on either a vector space or a manifold. Streded (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Super P.E.K.K.A.
Renewability
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Renewability
MNC News
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#MNC News
00FFFF
- 00FFFF → Aqua (color) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- (0, 255, 255) → Cyan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Rgb(0, 255, 255) → Cyan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Unless someone can demonstrate that hex is more affiliated with Aqua (color) and rgb is more affiliated with Cyan, these redirects should have the same target. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Weak retarget all redirects to Cyan since that is the longer article. In fact, it might even be worth merging the aqua and cyan articles at some point. Duckmather (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete all. There are 50,331,648 such possible redirects of these forms, and they're still ambiguous. Triplets of numbers and bare hex values can refer to all sorts of things besides color. Even something like rgb(...) is ambiguous without a reference for what the possible ranges can be. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure where 50,331,648 is from. There are 16,777,216 triplets of 8 bit numbers; 113,379,904 if we include mixed-case hex. pburka (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's 3 * 2^24, for the 3 types of each in the nomination. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure where 50,331,648 is from. There are 16,777,216 triplets of 8 bit numbers; 113,379,904 if we include mixed-case hex. pburka (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete all per Deacon Vorbis. TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 04:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- delete all per WP:COSTLY. I also the last redirect as having a malformed modifier. --Lenticel (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete all per WP:PANDORA per Deacon Vorbis. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget the first one to Cyan (and I would also support a merger of Aqua (color) there. The WP:PANDORA argument is nonsense, we don't have 50,331,648 different color articles so there wouldn't or shouldn't be redirects for all of them. That's like saying the redirect 418 (number) should be deleted (even though we have content on that number) because 50331648 (number) is a possibility. -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Colors don't have unique such representations as triplets. A human cannot distinguish between #00FFFF and #01FEFD. Most will be a close approximation to a color we do have an article on and could realistically be made into redirects. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- The article for Cyan defines it as #00FFFF. That's the redirect that should exist for the color (minus the # for technical reasons). Any other approximates can and should be deleted, but that's not what's being discussed here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- No, it merely lists that as one value in an infobox...a value which very much contradicts the same infobox describing it as a range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. "Cyan" doesn't have a strict definition; it's a word that has a range of similar colors associated with it. We should no more have A52A2A redirect to Brown, even though it's a "standard" value for it in certain schemes. Instead, someone can use WP's search feature to search for the string, and find a number of articles where such standard color values are listed. There isn't a single best target for these. Redirects should have clear targets and not get in the way of searches. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- The article for Cyan defines it as #00FFFF. That's the redirect that should exist for the color (minus the # for technical reasons). Any other approximates can and should be deleted, but that's not what's being discussed here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Colors don't have unique such representations as triplets. A human cannot distinguish between #00FFFF and #01FEFD. Most will be a close approximation to a color we do have an article on and could realistically be made into redirects. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget 00FFFF to Cyan. Keep the others; although they are less likely search terms, they are unambiguous and not harmful. Cyan is by definition the color formed by combining pure green and blue light, i.e. #00FFFF or rgb(0, 255, 255). I'm surprised by the delete !votes. We even have a tag for the hex code redirects, {{R from hexadecimal color}}, with 76 redirects currently tagged as such. The WP:PANDORA argument from the total number of possible combinations is misleading, since most of those colors don't have names and even fewer have Wikipedia articles. Also, while you can say there are many different hex codes that exist for colors like brown, in the three cases of 00FFFF, FF00FF, and FFFF00, these are the defining hex codes for cyan, magenta, and yellow. I2Overcome talk 23:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep as per I2Overcome and tag as R from hexadecimal color. PANDORA has multiple issues, see WP:BACKINBOX. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oop, sorry, retarget 00FFFF to Cyan, then keep the rest. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- retarget all to cyan, similar redirects exist for the other rgb colour extremes, such as ff00ff for magenta, ff0000 for yellow, ffffff for white. this also implies to the rgb(r, g, b) and (r, g, b) variants. since these redirects already exist, the box of the all-gifted one does not apply here, the existence of Rgb(0, 255, 255) to cyan implying the existence of Rgb(255, 0, 255) to magenta is fine here, as the redirects whose existences are pandorally implied already exist. also there's the whole back in box thing caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 10:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Central Estonia
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Central Estonia
Autopedophilia
- Autopedophilia → Paraphilic infantilism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Anatomic autopedophilia → Paraphilic infantilism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Unmentioned; history dive was a little interesting. The longer "Anatomic autopedophilia" and the shorter "Autopedophilia" were created on the same day by the same user, who also edited the target article that same day. Despite this, Anatomic autopedophilia started out as a redirect to Autopedophilia (and required retargeting by bot to paraphilic infantilism). In addition, just like with Mollycoddle fetishism before, this was unmentioned when the redirects were created-- DESPITE there being a same-day edit from the same user. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll note that MassXFD declined to notify user:James Cantor (redirect creator) of this discussion, and upon investigation, it turns out that he got himself blocked for socking. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- The article mentions autonepiophilia multiple times; nepiophilia redirects to pedophilia. Abesca (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- That's still not something explained in the article itself-- in order for someone who searched this to figure out why they got sent here, they would need to:
-Read the entire article, in order to
-Find Paraphilic infantilism#Historical terminology and definitions at the bottom of the article, where it's explained where the at-first-blush-unrelated term "Autonepiophilia" came from, as well as the link between it and the term "Nepiophilia"
-Decide to look up what "Nepiophilia" means, which will FINALLY lead them to Pedophilia#Etymology and definitions, and the revelation that it's a subtype of pedophilia
-THEN AND ONLY THEN will they have the "ohhh" moment of "oh okay now it makes sense"On top of that, I also have two MORE issues-- the first is the "anatomic" thing, which even with the "autonepiophilia" connection still makes little to no sense; the second is the worry that this specific formulation runs into WP:NEO / WP:RFD#D8 issues. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- That's still not something explained in the article itself-- in order for someone who searched this to figure out why they got sent here, they would need to:
- Comment: I'm not sure Paraphilic infantilism is the correct target, but it feels like the best target at present, which makes me lean toward "Add mention", perhaps under "Sexuality". I found a few academic sources that discuss the concept of autopedophilia, including "Autopedophilia: Erotic-Target Identity Inversions in Men Sexually Attracted to Children" (2017), "Erotic Target Identity Inversions Among Men and Women in an Internet Sample" (2020), and "Psychometric Evidence That Paraphilia Is a Natural Kind" (2025). Given these, I feel like NEO doesn't apply. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Erotic target location error, which is the concept that is hypothesised to explain autopedophilia. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Renewables
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Renewables
Fastest man-made object
List of shipwrecks in Lake St. Clair
l + ratio
- L+Ratio → Glossary of 2020s slang#R (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- L + Ratio → L#Other uses (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
unmentioned in both targets, wiktionary, and twitter usage, but i guess mentioned at jidion, not that any of those would necessarily be good targets consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 1 § L+Ratio – snow retarget to List of Generation Z slang
- Link both to Glossary article, most fitting target, with a bit added in either the #R or #L section, under the ratio or L section about its usage. — Knightoftheswords 14:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- i don't think so, honestly. if a proper mention is added, i'm not entirely sure this would be a good place for it, as it's more of a sentence composed of slang than just slang consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Listed the previous RfD that eventually resulted in the retarget to the glossary. The L+Ratio section was removed as duplicate
.. since Ratio is already listed
, which is the first entry at #R. Keep or create anchor at Ratio and refine. Jay 💬 11:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Houston Soccer Team
Côco
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Côco
Sarah (Suikoden)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Sarah (Suikoden)
Picton Parish (Yancowinna County)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Picton Parish (Yancowinna County)
Edgar, Yancowinna County
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Edgar, Yancowinna County
Body mass
Clear case of RETURNTORED; this concept is not specific to humans and most incoming links appear to not be human-focused. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm confused by the idea that an article should be created at this title. What would it look like? Let alone body mass, it's difficult to generalise the concept of a body between all organisms – body (biology) only became an article in 2021; perhaps it could have a few sentences on body mass? The state of the incoming links is interesting, given that there's one article on an organism's body mass, but an entire sidebar on {{Human body weight}}. But I suppose there's a lot more biology articles on animals than humans.Disambiguate, probably. Chuck in links to the current target, Horse body mass, and see also Body mass index. And a link to Mass; after all, its first sentence is "Mass is an intrinsic property of a body." If an article is justified, it should probably be at Body mass (biology) / Body weight (biology) or Animal body mass / Animal body weight anyway. Should the disambiguation page be titled Body mass or Body weight? It doesn't really matter. J947 ‡ edits 01:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- I could get behind DABifying. Whether there is indeed an article to be written is perhaps less clear than I initially assumed. Either way, most of the incoming links should probably just be removed as this should fall under everyday words that don't generally need to be linked. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- I was thinkinh in Muscle mass> Abesca (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. This is too vague. "Body mass" in "Body mass index" doesn't mean body weight. There are a number of other problems surrounding this, not least of which is that the lead of Human body weight "Human body weight is a person's mass or weight" is just wrong scientifically, and similarly "...body weight is the measurement of mass..." is wrong too. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC) - Keep at Human body weight with a hatnote - External search results for
"body+mass"
are overwhelmingly for Body mass index, however these results are misled by the partial title match. When searching"body+mass" -index
results are overwhelmingly related to human body weight, indicating it's the primary topic (WP:PTOPIC) for the base title. While Shhhnotsoloud is right in the abstract, in that scientifically-speaking weight is a measure of force not mass, in practice people discuss their weight in units of mass, and if someone asked you how much you weigh and you answered with a measure in Newtons they'd be baffled. They'd expect you to state your mass as read by a scale. Similarly, "body mass" in Body mass index actually does mean "body weight" in the sense it is used by Human body weight, which is why the article for BMI defines BMI as avalue derived from the mass (weight) and height of a person
, using weight and mass synonymously. It's also why there's a whole article for Mass versus weight which begins withIn common usage, the mass of an object is often referred to as its weight...
. Given this, it'd make sense for body weight and body mass to share a target. Though "body" in isolation is ambiguous between body (biology) and physical body, in the whole expression "body mass" is much less ambiguous as in physics you wouldn't need to use that expression, you'd just use "mass"; if something has mass then it is a body, likewise if something is a body it has mass. This is why I don't think the broader, more fundamental meaning in physics has primacy. The full expression "body mass" suggests biology, not physics, which concurs with the search results. The hatnote I'd suggest would be:"Body mass" redirects here. For the mass of a physical body, see mass. For the measure derived from body mass and height, see body mass index.If someone wanted horse body mass, they'd almost certainly include the word "horse" in their search, so I don't think that partial title match (WP:PTM) warrants mention. – Scyrme (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep - Agree with Scyrme - Human body weight seems to be the primary topic for body mass and suggested hatnote would help navigation to other meanings. Asteramellus (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep and add hatnote per Scyrme. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per Shhhnotsoloud Body mass and body weigth especially human body weight don't have the same meaning Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Guitarjunkie22: What is the difference? If someone asked you for your body weight, how would your answer differ from if they asked for your body mass? – Scyrme (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambiguate or delete/create new article. There are a few reasons that googling "body mass" gives mostly results about human body weight, and it's not that the topic is called just "body mass". If referring to a person's body mass or weight, something like "my body weight" or "your body weight" would be used since using "your human body weight" is uncommon; however, a standalone "body mass" is ambiguous in itself (since "its body mass" could refer to something else). Also, the results involved "lean body mass" and "muscle body mass", but usually not "body mass" by itself. But most crucially, googling has a strong bias towards humans; for example, searching "nose" gives mostly results about human noses, even though other animals have noses; searching for "height", which could literally be used for almost anything, gives mostly results about human height. Also, look at the links to "Body mass" and the links to "Body weight". For body mass, most links refer to body masses of organisms–mostly animals–in general, but a few do refer to human body mass. It would be weird for an article like Woodland jumping mouse to indirectly link to human body weight through body mass, as that was not the intent. The reverse is true for body weight; the links that do not refer to human body weight include but are not limited to in Primate and in List of poisonous plants. Disambiguating will let editors know that they should link something more specific when linking to "Body mass" as to avoid linking to ambiguous terms. It is possible that an article that talks about body mass in organisms–including humans–is needed, which would help with the ambiguity problem in links. Keeping and hatnoting would not help resolve the ambiguity in links, as there are no reminders given when linking to redirects to articles and the proposed hatnote does not mention body masses of organisms. There's also confusion between mass and weight. In addition, there's body force, which may fit in a possible disambiguation page on body mass. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
U(1)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#U(1)
Muntaber
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Muntaber
Acii
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Acii
Big Booty Judy
Accra International Airport (AIA)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Accra International Airport (AIA)
Paaskula
Safechuck v. MJJ Productions
Free access
- Free access → Free content (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Access is not copyright, which is what the target is about. Possibly retarget to Open access? 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete (or retarget to gratis versus libre) - To me, 'free access' means I could access a place without payment. Note that in English, free either means 'free as in freedom' (libre/liberty), or 'free as in no payment' (gratis). JuniperChill (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Retarget to Open access. Free as in beer.--Srleffler (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Disambig. This is a plausible search term for Free content, Open access, Free as in beer, free entry, and Accessibility at least. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- dabify per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation draft requested * Pppery * it has begun... 20:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 7 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 6 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 5 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 4 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 3 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 2 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 1