Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Wikipedia discussion page for redirects From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information V, Mar ...
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 1 8 101 63 173
TfD 0 1 16 28 45
MfD 0 0 0 4 4
FfD 0 5 66 41 112
RfD 0 0 11 91 102
AfD 0 0 0 0 0
Close

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:

The guiding principles of RfD

Shortcut
  • 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

Shortcuts

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

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

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Banana". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. 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:.)
  7. 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.
  8. 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.) The message template {{subst:not mentioned}} may be useful.
  9. 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 suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
  11. 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

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut

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:

  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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

Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If it is an inline template, use |showontransclusion=tiny instead.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

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.

Current list

Shortcuts

June 21

June 20

Gratis versus libre

Cross namespace redirect from the mainspace to the wikipedia namespace recently "temporarily" created "to allow bot to resolve broken links". It has been c. 10 days now. Presumably whatever work needed doing is done? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed! FaviFake (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Green non-sulfur bacteria

It's unclear why these have different targets. Is Chloroflexota a British term for Chloroflexales? If not, I'm not seeing why the target should change based on the variant of English used. In addition, the description of Chloroflexota is quite confusing: while the article says it is largely described as green sulfur bacteria, the article on Halorespiration contradicts that description. Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

AOC

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

GXO Magzine

This used to be an article (apparently gxo.com was the old domain name for this magazine, as shown in this 2006 Internet Archive snapshot which looks nearly identical to the current domain's web design, hence why "GXO" appears in the title). In late May 2006 User:Mysid redirected the page using the edit summary Merged to Graphic Exchange Magazine; however, I don't see any evidence of a contemporaneous merge in the edit history of the Graphic Exchange Magazine, so I don't think WP:Merge and delete applies. The only edit in the history that uses the word "merge" in the edit summary is this one, which is arguably on the borderline of a minor edit, and it also looks nothing like the pre-BLAR version of the GXO Magzine article. The title is also misspelled, so I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Ambiguous, since Link (knot theory) is also a geometric topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

From skimming the pages, it looks a lot like the current target is considered very geometry related and the other one is not very (is knot theory even considered geometry?), so I think the current situation is fine as-is. Dingolover6969 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
It is a subfield of topology. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Link § Mathematics, where it's already disambiguated, as {{r from incomplete disambiguation}}. I don't think there's a primary topic between these two. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 05:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate. Not sure if this is valid, but if it's ambiguous, disambiguate. This could make more sense as a disambiguation. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keeping the current target, a retarget to a section in an existing dab, the creation of a new stand-alone dab, or (possibly) the deletion of the redirect have been suggested. What should be done?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

TrueFoundry

Not mentioned in article unclear what this redirect relates to the article Isla🏳️‍⚧ 20:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Restore and AfD this version of the article since I think the subject (an AI company) might be on the borderline of WP:NCORP based on me skimming the reflist Duckmather (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hitlerian

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Seems ambigious, may describe someone who has similarities with Hitler like Putler (even Donald Trump) A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment seems difficult to imagine why someone who wanted info on the man, would inadvertently type this longer term, (which suggests 'Hitler-like', or an old fashioned way of saying a 'supporter of Hitler'). It is just about possible that someone would come across this term in one of those two meanings, but not recognise its meaning. Dictatorial, authoritation, Fascism or Nazism would all seem to be more useful targets, or delete the redirct.Pincrete (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep, straightforwardly refers to the man, even if it is just comparing someone to him in some particular way such as strongmanism. Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
How about an interwiki redirect to wikt:Hitlerian? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
I doubt it passes the WP:SSRT bar. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep, that a word is used doesn't mean it is ambiguous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

GREG

Similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 8#Drill into it and drain every last drop also created by the same editor this is obscure and unlikely to be what people are looking for. Although it's actually mentioned on the page it's the name of a YouTube video which isn't itself notable, and no good reason to think people searching for a common man's nickname would be looking for this video on Wikipedia. Oblivy (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  • It's also the wrong case from what I can see. There is no "GREG" on the page. Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Greg, as {{R from uppercase}}. – GnocchiFan (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    Seems like a good choice. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    I've added * [[Danny Gonzalez]]'s collective fanbase to that list. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    I agree retarget to Greg is a fine outcome. Oblivy (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    +1 since Danny Gonzalez's fanbase is added as an entry in Greg. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    Everybody wins! Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, none of the entries at the dab page are acronyms that would be in all caps. It is, however, an acronym for "Green Rupee of Eternal Glory", a tongue-in-cheek name given to the single green rupee in the item pool of Ocarina of Time, generally referred to as such in the randomizer community. But I'd still call this too obscure (and I assume unmentioned; I haven't actually checked) to really matter. A web search finds a bunch of random organizations that have this as an abbreviation too, but I didn't see any of which that had articles. Someone searching for this will already land at dab page anyway, since searches match mere casing differences, and it's better to leave this as a red link to indicate we don't have any entries that match it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    This would also be a good choice. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition (old)

No incoming links. But also: confusing and vestigial. mikeblas (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:M5

The only WP:M# redirect remaining after WP:M1, WP:M2, WP:M3 and WP:M4 were deleted today at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12#Wikipedia:M2, M3, M4. M1, like M5, was also targeting a Merging reason. The rationale was these are quite recent redirects, hence no historical value to keep, and M followed by a number is unclear enough to indicate Merging.

Options could be Delete this as well, or recreate M2, M3 and M4 as standardized merging reasons, for consistency, which would mean the M1 deletion would have to be reverted. Jay 17:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

America's birthday cake

Not mentioned in target and ice cream flavours not discussed apart from briefly in the history section. I couldn't find a suitable article for a retarget. Suonii180 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep, I just mentioned America's birthday cake on the baskin robbins article. Thats less hassle than having to get an admin to delete the page. Zenryzap (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The mention of "america's birthday cake" is trivial and unreferenced, also recently added. Has the appearance of being promotional and opportunistic, which shouldn't be encouraged. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
    • It's sourced now. My main concern is that Betty Crocker has just put out a cake mix with the same name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Pokelogan

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. On the English Wikipedia, this redirect is mentioned in two articles: Logan and American English regional vocabulary; however, those articles both make a claim that this could refer to Lake or Pond or elsewhere, making this redirect potentially ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete or Retarget to American English regional vocabulary with an anchor at logan or pokelogan, per nom's assessment. This qualifies as an obscure, unmentioned synonym (WP:R#DELETE#8) of pond with the additional problem that it is not an exact synonym but can apparently be equivalent to one of several English words. Note that wikt:pokelogan gives marsh as the meaning. Thus, this redirect is misleading in that it erroneously suggests a clear and unambiguous meaning, contrary to the available evidence. Not suitable for a Wiktionary redirect. With just two incoming lines, it is not "commonly wikified". Editors may use one-off Wiktionary links in articles if desired. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    You make a very convincing case. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 10:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Wacky tobacky

Not needed, anyone who is aware of the term "Wacky Tobacky" likely knows it refers to weed/marijuana/cannabis.

I'd suggest either retargeting to List of slang names for cannabis or The Bus Songs, the former because "Wacky Tobacky" is a slang term for cannabis, and someone searching "Wacky Tobacky" would likely read List of slang names for cannabis rather than Cannabis. And the latter because The Bus Songs is where "Wacky Tobaccy" redirects, as its the title of one of the songs on that album.

It comes down to whether someone searching "Wacky Tobacky" would be more likely to read about weed as a whole, about the song of the same name, or about the term itself. Zenryzap (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Jaintia Hills

I believe it should be retargeted to Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council because that article provides more information about the Jaintia Hills. Ideally, it should get its own standalone article, like Khasi Hills or Garo Hills. CatholicChristian (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

“Excellent…” (disambiguation)

Per WP:UNNATURAL, while the quotation mark may be fine, but the three dots seems over and unlikely to be used A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Untitled Indiana Jones film

Proposed deletion the movie has already been out for 3 years now TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep, for a while we knew there would be a fifth but it wasn't titled. It was just "Untitled Indiana Jones film" for a bit. That, and it's variations, are attested terms for the film. Plus I could see someone forgetting the title and just searching "Untitled Indiana Jones film" Zenryzap (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep redirects with "fifth" as they are unambiguous/can only refer to this film, keep drafts per WP:RDRAFT, delete Untitled Indiana Jones film per WP:UFILM (only 21 pageviews in the past year). Sign2 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Agreed Zenryzap (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Melanie (fruit)

Tagged with {{R from meme}}, but not mentioned in the article at all, seemingly non-notable. ScalarFactor (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Ruby (software)

Potentially ambiguous with Ruby (programming language), or similar pages such as Ruby MRI, List of Ruby compilers, etc. ScalarFactor (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Could also retarget to Ruby (disambiguation) § Programming and rename to/add a "software" heading. ScalarFactor (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to the disambiguation page. A vocaloid and a programming language might not quite be software, but it's not too unreasonable as a search term, and I don't think it has a strong enough affinity to one or the other subject for there to be a primary topic here. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Internet Explorer errors

This seems like an outdated redirect from 2006. This redirect suggests that there is an article that specifically talks about IE errors, rather than general HTTP error codes. The target article barely talks about any IE-specific error. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 00:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  • I don't think this is an unreasonable search term if a user's browser displays an error. They might not know the exact terminology "HTTP status codes". There are potential ambiguity issues with Internet Explorer#Security, however. J947 ‡ edits 00:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

June 19

George Kellman

Not mentioned at target. Notable from what I can see (also known as Joseph Kellman; Barnet Kellman's father), so WP:RETURNTORED PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Germanz

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I cannot see why this would be a plausible misspelling for the country. Possibly for Germans. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete, neither targets are plausible. Not a common misspelling. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
    I made the redirect because typing 'Germany' on a QWERTZ keyboard layout, if you’re used to QWERTY, will be rendered as 'Germanz'. There is precedent: 'Frqnce' will redirect to 'France' (the same issue, but with the AZERTY layout). I hope this makes sense. prayerie (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
    …I don’t see how that is common. How often are people changing keyboards and using that to search something on Wikipedia? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
    So then shall the Frqnce redirect be removed as well? prayerie (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    keyly for the context of this rfd, that tpyo isn't vague with anything else that a reader could also be looking for. unless the words "fronce" and "frunce" that i hate to say are actually real words that exist are in your plausibility bingo card, in which case... i dunno, guess i'll die consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 19:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Information Note: Bundled in Frqnce since it was mentioned is essentially the same case. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anyone from Germany using QWERTZ is going to already know what layout they're on (likewise France and AZERTY). But there's nothing particularly special about the country names here, as anyone getting tripped up by a differing layout is very unlikely going to be searching for their own country (not to mention that France and Germany aren't the only places that use these keyboard layouts). If you're going to make these, you might as well make redirects for every article title containing Ys and Zs and As, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete. regardless of plausibility on any keyboard layout, it's going to be vague with an equally plausible misspelling of "germans" for the exact same reason consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 14:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate? I don't understand why that is. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    s and z are also close in qwerty and azerty consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 19:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    right, i should've mentioned that this only applies to germanz. frqnce would be a keep, as plausible and unambiguous consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 17:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep – both receive high amounts of views for redirects, rebutting the presumption that they are implausible. This is because, as explained in the previous RfD, "Frqnce" is the natural result of a Frenchman searching for his country on a QWERTY keyboard or an Englishman searching for France while on vacation there. How often do you look down at your keyboard to check the keys are in the right place before using it? The same rationale for "Germanz" is significantly more likely than the reader intending "Germans" missing a key. J947 ‡ edits 03:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep both. When using a smartphone, it is quite common to have more than one keyboard layout installed. When switching between them, I have made many typos of this kind when not noticing that I am using the incorrect layout.
    As noted in the previous RfC by Mathglot;

    Keep, it is not a typo in the sense of hitting the wrong key, or not knowing how to spell it; it's what happens if you hit the right key but are using the wrong keyboard. I switch back and forth from the QWERTY and the AZERTY keyboards all the time, and this is a very common happenstance with me. "Frqnce" is exactly what you get if you forget to switch; I do it all the time. A very natural misspelling, and very helpful if we don't force the user to type a second time, just to get to the article they obviously wish to see.

    Katzrockso (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    The views these get are quite low compared to the very high number of overall views of their respective targets. Something in the neighborhood of 0.3 per day, which is mere WP:BACKGROUNDNOISE. ""Frqnce" is the natural result of a Frenchman searching for his country on a QWERTY keyboard or an Englishman searching for France while on vacation there." Do you really expect someone from France to be so omphaloskeptic to assume that "France" is the main thing they're going to be searching for? Why shouldn't we create redirects for every possible article title and redirect thereto with A/Q and W/Z swapped to accommodate those poor souls so hornswaggled by a different keyboard layout? Do you really expect someone from England on vacation in France is going to be running to Wikipedia to search for "France"? On a local computer with an AZERTY keyboard, who can't otherwise figure out what's going on? This is some of the most tortured, asinine reasoning to try to keep a redirect I've seen here, and I've seen a lot. These belong in a sqc-poubelle. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    Why shouldn't we create redirects for every possible article title and redirect thereto with A/Q and W/Z swapped to accommodate those poor souls so hornswaggled by a different keyboard layout This is a slippery slope fallacy. Opposing deletion of an existing redirect is not license to create new ones. Katzrockso (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    "Opposing deletion of an existing redirect is not license to create new ones." It kind of is, because no one's explained what's so special about these cases as opposed to the general case. What's so different about "France" or "Germany"? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    They're extremely popular articles and therefore lend themselves to wide variety of possible search terms. Their mistake is also related to the article topic, which will naturally drive views was well. Therefore the creation of "Frqnce" is significantly more helpful than e.g. the creation of Qnthotyros. J947 ‡ edits 06:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    it's probably good to mention again that unambiguous typis aren't exactly a good measuring unit here, no matter how plausible they are consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 17:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    The ambiguity of typos with other typos is a very minor factor. Whether "Germanz" is ambiguous with Germans or not, as long as it redirects to Germany it still helps the same number of people. The people looking for Germans won't be helped no matter the result – in fact, they'd probably prefer to look at Germany, with an infobox link to Germans, rather than the useless search results. Therefore their likely less common typo is irrelevant. J947 ‡ edits 20:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    It is not particularly surprising that the amount of views Frqnce gets pales in comparison to France. It is also not particularly relevant. When extraordinarily unlikely search terms get sent to RfD they almost always have a view count around 10 a year, not 110 a year, suggesting that is the relevant figure for background noise from sneaky unaccounted robots. Is there any particular reason you favour inconveniencing 100 poor souls each year? J947 ‡ edits 06:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Chakat

Chakats seem to no longer be mentioned in the article, after a long and heavy series of moves. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 13:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The substantive content we had on chakats (which was quite substantial) was deleted 20 years ago (AfD), and this has been a redirect without a target ever since. Time to put it out of its misery. Tevildo (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

25/21

Unmentioned at the target, there are other ratios listed for various tunings, but not this, delete. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 11:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

.Africa

The dot made the redirect WP:UNNATURAL A1Cafel (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to .africa; its target was changed without reason given. J947 ‡ edits 10:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per J947. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget, the change was recent and unexplained. If this was deleted that would achieve the same outcome but not create a situation where the target could be changed, so that would work as well. CMD (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. While a retarget/revert is the most likely outcome here and is probably fine, this is a good example of why redirects that only differ in capitalization (with other redirects, or with the target article itself) are often not good to make. They get out of sync, and you get time wasting like this. If the redirect simply didn't exist, a search for capitalized ".Africa" would have already taken a person to the right page. So chalk me up as a moral delete, even if that's not likely this time. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    Re getting out of sync, this is one of the reasons for R cats, e.g. {{R avoided double redirect}} for cases where there are multiple redirects. {{R from other capitalisation}} could be modified to output an error if the target does not differ only in capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, but a pretty hefty portion (probably the majority) of redirects aren't categorized like this (this one wasn't), and in a case like this, there's nothing stopping someone from simply removing the rcat when they change the redirect anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    Why would we inconvenience readers who search for Wikipedia content using one of the multiple case-sensitive methods on the off-chance that someone might remove an Rcat template when changing a redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Isis (Stargate)

There's nothing about "Isis" at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Note I've bundled Isis (Stargate-SG-1) with this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have no content about this topic, although it is marked as a {{R from merge}} any content that was merged is long gone as the article this was merged to has itself been merged at least once subsequently. It's worth highlighting this edit where the two-sentence article was described as "not really a stub, since this is all we know of her". There were circa 2 seasons of the show released after that edit was made, so it's not impossible there is more known now but if there is it isn't covered anywhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Greenpark meadows

The name of a resident association that is not discussed at the target, or anywhere else on enwiki. The creator recreated these as redirects in 2009 probably because his promo articles at this, and similar titles, were repeatedly getting speedy deleted, and the link insertions into articles were getting reverted. Delete these as well. Jay 💬 09:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Mullingar would be the appropriate target if there was any content, but there isn't and the only thing external searches are finding are estate agent listings and routine planning applications so there isn't anything that could be added. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Acanthocephaloides species

I think these should be deleted for the same reasons as one of my nominations below. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as per below. Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Taheen

Redirect without mention ZFT (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  • The redirect apparently refers to a race of fictional beings or creatures in this book series: The redirect is mentioned in other articles related to the target subject, including The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger, but not in a way which appropriately identifies the subject. None of the other article articles related to the target subject seem to appropriately. Identify the target subject either. That being said, the only other two mentions of "Taheen" I could find on Wikipedia include Taheen Modak and Jalen Taheen FosterJalen Taheen Foster, a redirect towards Real Boston Richey. With that being said, since we have a {{R from given name}} template, but no {{R from middle name}} template, retarget to Taheen Modak as a {{R from given name}} until the time exists where this redirect's title can be converted to a disambiguation page (which I currently do not see given my findings; at best, a hatnote can be added to Taheen Modak to refer readers to some article related to the current target subject if need be). Steel1943 (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a plausible phonetic spelling of Spanish TajínTajín, which is a redirect to El Tajín. The only other Spanish title on the Tajin dab page is Tajín seasoning. So, if this is kept or retargeted, a hatnote (perhaps {{Distinguish}}) should be added to the target pointing to El Tajín and Tajín seasoning. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete if the subject is not notable enough to be explained in the target article. ZFT (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

"Paris"

This used to be an article before being blanked and redirected to The Chainsmokers. A day later, Paris (The Chainsmokers song) independently became an article. However, this redirect was never updated since. That said, this redirect should not target The Chainsmokers song, as the song does not look to by stylized in quotation marks (see "Heroes" (album) for something that does). Usage with quotation marks varies between several meanings found at Paris (disambiguation). I lean towards deletion because of the lack of affinity of the quotation marks. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete or weak retarget to Paris (disambiguation)#Songs. I'm leaning towards deletion because this is not something standard that we do, nor is it an expectation of that readers who do not use Wikipedia regularly know that we put song titles quotation marks, and this there is no reasonable expectation that this redirect would be used as a valid search term since it's meta to Wikipedia itself. On the other hand, I could be totally off base here, and the redirect could just be considered ambiguous per what we do on Wikipedia, which will lead the best option to target this redirect to a list of articles which this title could refer, which is at Paris (disambiguation)#Songs; however, we also put television episode titles and quotation marks as well, meaning, even then, the use of quotation mark is ambiguous. Either way, the current target is not appropriate per all my aforementioned thoughts. Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    Scrap the idea to retarget the redirect to the disambiguation page; sure enough, the disambiguation page also includes "Paris" (The Apprentice), which is listed at Paris (disambiguation)#Film and television. Steel1943 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Paris (disambiguation). This could include any of the topics there that are titles of works, but not Paris the base title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mathguy2718's reasoning. ZFT (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Paris (disambiguation) as a possible title of works, per User:LaundryPizza03. BD2412 T 02:37, 13 June 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! 06:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Chrysoarctus species

I think these should be deleted for the same reasons as one of my nominations below. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Quisarctus

I think this should be deleted for the same reasons as my nomination below. Quisarctus yasumurai passes WP:NSPECIES and should be covered at this title. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Endemicity

Not sure which target is the more correct one, but most backlinks apparently refer to endemism. 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Well, they are both correct. Unless your linguistic tastes want to go back to 1900-times. This is technically a WP:PTOPIC debate. Checking the first page of https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=endemicity, I find they're about equal. As another comment, sampling the links I find that many of the backlinks that apparently refer to endemism are [[endemicity|endemic]], which is weird because they could just be [[endemic]] and go to the right place (endemism). Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Endemism. There's sort of an odd history here; I checked one of those random backlinks, and it's actually written as "endemic", but piped to "endemicity", which is wrong. I don't know why it picked this over "endemism". Currently, endemicendemic is a redirect to endemism, but it looks like it was originally a dab page, hence the need for a pipe. Regardless, I think we have the right PTOPIC here, and a hatnote can get people to the epidemiology article if needed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try at arriving at a primary topic, if any.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Lepoarctus

This is a redirect from a genus to its family. This genus is monotypic, meaning it only contains one species. Per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, monotypic genera and their sole species share an article at the genus (usually). Per WP:NSPECIES, accepted species are presumed to be notable.

I think this should be deleted to return it to red. Lepoarctus coniferus passes NSPECIES, and would redirect to the genus title. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Angursa species

I think these should be deleted for the same reasons as my nomination below. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Parastygarctus species

These are redirects from a species to its genus. Accepted species are presumed to be notable per WP:NSPECIES, so I think these should be deleted to return them to red. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Oppose. A presumption is a presumption, an editor looking into the topic may come to a different conclusion. That aside, noting that these appear to be tagged as R with possibilities. Absent that possibility being realised, this redirect in the meantime helps readers by directing them to somewhere that has relevant information to the species (ideally more than the two sentences present, but you can at least piece together a chronology of description). CMD (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    The article doesn't contain any information on the individual species aside from their names and the authority. Red links encourage article creation, and articles about these species will always be kept at AFD. Chess enjoyer (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    A standalone redlink creation point is an argument to delete everything within Category:Redirects with possibilities. Given that category exists and is widely populated, that suggests the community finds value in helping readers now. The genus article being bad is true, but as you say the bad articles do get kept. CMD (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
    A standalone redlink creation point is an argument to delete everything within Category:Redirects with possibilities – not necessarily. It's possible that a given redirect could be expanded to a full article, but currently points to a well-developed section that discusses the subject. In that situation, deletion might not be as helpful. My rationale cites WP:RETURNTORED, which allows deletion for notable subjects that don't have much coverage at the target. I consider the coverage at Parastygarctus to be virtually no information for our purposes, and so have other editors in similar RFDs. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
    Parastygarctus tells the reader the species is a tardigrade. That alone is hugely helpful to the reader. CMD (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Many of these have one or even a fraction of one paper on them and that's the entirety of human written knowledge. No point in having a redlink, might as well redirect to genus. If there is one with more than one paper on them by all means create an individual species page. Until then, redirect is the smartest move. Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

List of World Cups

I suggest retargetting to List of world cups, I would do this boldly as a simple capitalisation difference but it is the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World Cups which closed as merge to List of world championships (the present target). Thryduulf (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  • I object and the original discussion is disappointing. Someone needs to reopen this discussion as a World Cup and World Championship are not the same thing. In a majority of Sports the World Cup is the overall winner of the annual series/tour and in most sports a World Championship title is linked to an event. Sadly football confuses the situation by calling it World Championship the term gold cup is also sometime used in a few sports. This was correctly pointed out by User:Miller17CU94. Yachty4000 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • It's a pity nobody tried the alternative capitalisation during the original AfD. The result would probably have been different. Is there a formal or informal time limit on DRVs? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    • There is no formal time limit, but after a while DRV will just say "start a new discussion". This AfD was 13 years ago, so that would absolutely be the outcome here. We don't need to overturn the AfD to retarget, we just need a consensus here to do so. If you think there is content that was in the pre-AfD article that should be merged somewhere other than the present redirect target (and isn't there already) you can just go ahead and do that (remembering to attribute properly per WP:CWW). Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
      So let's retarget then. It's silly having one capitalisation as an article and another as a redirect pointing elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Antra

Ambiguous with Associação Nacional de Travestis e Transexuais; not mentioned. Dudzcar (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Notkilleveryoneism

Unmentioned neologism; WP:NOTNEO and WP:RDELETE p. 8. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

List of George Washington art

Not the only art we have content on; there is List of memorials to George Washington, for instance. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

June 18

Every painting of George Washington

Implausible and inaccurate; see also WP:COMPLETELIST. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You are right when I wrote that, I meant "Every notable painting" ReelCosmix (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Maieutic prompting

Not explained at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom (not covered in the article). Alenoach (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Chris Spargo

No significant information about the music video director at the target article. Visitors to this redirect are far more likely to be expecting an article on the subject of Draft:Chris Spargo. LukeSurl t c 23:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

These may be the sand person of course! But the point stands that the current target article gives no significant information about Spargo. LukeSurl t c 23:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
So what are you thinking we should do with it, WP:RTR? If the Draft:Chris Spargo article ever gets accepted then obviously that's a better target, but in the meantime(?) this seems better than nothing... Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, WP:RTR is the grounds for deletion. Since 2025, when his YouTube series Sparo has been moving along the Wikipedia:AKON path, and would reach notability if trends continue (ambiguous if he's there now, but the Draft is clearly not evidencing it sufficiently yet). Redirecting Chris Spargo to a small section on a fairly trivial music video he produced in 2020, which feels like a misrepresentation of the subject.
This could all be moot if the Draft were publishable, but that's not there yet. LukeSurl t c 10:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Well, no opposition from me, then. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Repeal Day

No mention of such a day except in an external link. Sign2 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the page could be altered a bit to note the Day. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22repeal+day%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 seems to mostly be about that. Dingolover6969 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Trim ( US rapper)

Was briefly the target's title, formatting makes it an implausible search term. मल्ल (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Android on Desktop

Recently created, implausible redirect, as it is a non-existent name for Aluminium OS. Nobody calls it Android for Desktop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-13161-28 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet) Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

My rationale for not speedy deleting was that it seemed a reasonable search term to me. No opinion on the redirects really. GedUK  11:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
@Ged UK: I understand that, but again, WP:R3 does not say "Recently created, implausible typos that are not reasonable search terms" — it just says Recently created, implausible typos. For example, if a sockpuppet wrote a really good article, it would still be deleted under G5 because it was created by a sockpuppet, regardless of article quality. This redirect clearly meets the criterion of R3 as an implausible typo that existed for approximately 60 seconds. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
If something is a reasonable search term it is not, by definition, an implausible typo or misnomer because all reasonable search terms are plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what a typo is... (An example of a typo can be found in your comment below, where you accidentally wrote party instead of partly.) Again, you can't selectively read part of a policy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
R3 doesn't apply. R3 is for typos, not reasonable search terms. It's for RfD to decide whether it's reasonable or not. GedUK  08:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article describes the target as a desktop OS based (party) on Android, so this seems like a plausible search term to me. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
...huh, the nom's been blocked as a block evader. should this just be procedurally closed? consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 12:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To answer consarn's question, I didn't procedurally close this because another editor has !voted to delete this redirect in good faith. See SK4. That leaves us with two !votes in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
emulating or mirroring count? Web-julio (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
not really, i'd say. emulators and mirrors aren't really discussed in too much detail around here, and that would then make this redirect vague consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

UNITED STATES UFO FILES

Unnecessary ALLCAPS redirects. Note that these are several of 265 pages that redirect to United States UFO files. It may be useful for some of our redirect "experts" to take a look through the list and determine what's necessary and valid, especially as some of them are capitalization variants. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. There's an affinity for all caps given that the files are titled that way. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • A lot of text on https://www.war.gov/ufo/ is displayed in all-caps using CSS "text-transform: uppercase". It's not clear to me whether this creates enough affinity to justify creating all-caps redirects from variants of plausible article titles. But I'm also not seeing a strong reason to delete (these are unlikely to interfere with searches). Jruderman (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no need to create redirects for alternate casings since the search feature will already match titles that differ only in casing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Deacon Vorbis. The only exception to this would be if any of the redirects were linked to by a large number of pages in mainspace, which they aren't (and shouldn't per our capitalization guidelines). ASUKITE 16:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Angeline Barrette

No longer mentioned in article or any other article that I could find. Looking at the history, she died at age 110 but the only people listed in the article died at 111 or older. Suonii180 (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page content?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Gay french gorilla

Doesn't seem like a reasonable thing that would be searched. Also unmentioned in this form at target article. Chloe (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  • The adaptation of Mallah in My Adventures with Superman is indeed gay (for a German cyborg), French, and a gorilla. I attempted to search him up on google under this term (because I forgot his name), and found him on Wikipedia, and thought this would be a good R from search term.
    This is unmentioned in this form at target article? Well maybe somebody needs to add this notable adaptation to the character page. Or perhaps retarget it to a subsection on the MAWS article. BarntToust 21:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, only 1 (gorilla) of the 3 characteristics are actually mentioned in the article, one (French) is a stretch, and the other (gay) I can't even verify (even fan wikis don't mention this). We generally shouldn't be making redirects that are general descriptors of something anyway, because there's really no end to the possible ways someone could combine them and/or use others. What if they use "ape" instead of "gorilla"? Or swap the adjectives? Or use different ones, like "evil", or what have you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Not French; seems to have learnt French or started affecting a French accent, beret, etc after being abducted from Gorilla City (cf Stockholm syndrome). Also per Deacon Vorbis, there's no end to the possible What3words descriptions of comicbook characters. NebY (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Clint de Gano

Nothing links to this page that would necessitate a redirect. ZimZalaBimtalk 17:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete The redirect is left over from a typo made by the original creator of the target. The target was moved shortly after creation to the correct spelling. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Wacky tobacci

This is just a shoe-horned joke redirect, a quick google search shows that Wacky Tobaccy is the predominant spelling, and since that page redirects to The Bus Songs, this is pointless. Zenryzap (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Arlie J. Hoover

No longer listed in article and I couldn't find the name in another article either as Arlie J. Hoover or as Arlie Hoover. Suonii180 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Authoritarian tactics

Delete. Creator states "I've created redirects stating that the “authoritarian playbook” is synonymous with authoritarian tactics, authoritarian practices, authoritarian subterfuge, authoritarian programs, authoritarian schemes, authoritarian machinations, authoritarian game plans, authoritarian techniques, authoritarian stratagem, and authoritarian maneuvers. I've also created redirects that end the same way, but with 'autocratic' replacing 'authoritarian." It is not for Wikipedia to say these are all synonymous with the "authoritarian playbook", an analytic structure that is also used as a rhetorical phrase ("straight out of the authoritarian playbook"). WP:NPOV and WP:OR apply, at least. NebY (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete I've been engaged with the editor who created these links at WP:OR/N and am concerned many of their actions stem out of a failure to understand WP:SYNTH. As a result, they are attempting to synthesize:
  1. that it is common to use the specific term coined by Protect Democracy to describe shared authoritarian tactics (basically an invocation of MOS:COMMONNAME without evidence of such.
  2. that this term is thus broadly applicable to a variety of other rhetorical formations describing the tactics of authoritarian regimes
  3. that related topics can be classified under this assumed common name via a partial match against a set of criteria derived from a list-like reading of the protect democracy report Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    It's also worth noting that Wikipedia does not treat Autocracy and Authoritarianism as synonyms. Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

*Delete both links per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC) Apologies, this is not the discussion that I meant to leave this comment on. Suonii180 (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete all except "Authoritarian game plan". That one I could see as being a misfactoring of Authoritarian Playbook. The others more likely refer to other concepts, and so the redirects are not appropriate. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all except "Authoritarian game plan", and "Authoritarian Tactics"</nowiki>, I agree with EducatedRedneck that Authoritarian game plan seems ok, and since there is a tactics section of the Authoritarian Playbook article, Authoritarian Tactics seems ok. Zenryzap (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: the page as currently written begins with the paragraph:

In political science, the authoritarian playbook is a set of tactics commonly used by aspiring authoritarian leaders to establish control over the politics of a state.

Which suggests the article isn't just about "the specific term coined by Protect Democracy to describe shared authoritarian tactics". Just thought I'd mention this, although the apparent inconsistency could be solved either way. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I believe it was updated since you last looked. It currently reads, In political science, the authoritarian playbook is a term used used by Protect Democracy to describe a set of tactics commonly used by aspiring authoritarian leaders to establish control over the politics of a state. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Assasination of Oliver Tree

Delete since the death of Oliver Tree is not an assassination, nor is being reported as such by reliable sources. jolielover♥talk 14:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete Ditto. KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 15:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete Most people would assume that this was a assassination due to conspiracy theories. I made both redirects due to this, and I am alright if deleted. Cityboiiiiii (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • some
Cityboiiiiii (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

HD44780 Character LCD

This redirect should be deleted because it not only violates naming conventions (concision) but also is a misnomer: HD44780 is the name of an integrated circuit ("chip"), functioning as a controller/driver for an LCD, but not an LCD itself. The redirect only exists because the corresponding article was renamed to a more appropriate title years ago. All relevant wikilinks were changed to point to the current title meanwhile. Anton Maienfeldt (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

That's fine. Just add {{r from incorrect name}} to the redirect page. Keep as plausible search term. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Winter Bug

  • Winter Bug → Norovirus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Winterbug → Norovirus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Delete as vague/ambiguous. Names like "winter vomiting bug" are used specifically for norovirus, with vomiting being a key descriptor here. "Winter bug" often refers to upper respiratory infections such as influenza, RSV, COVID-19, and the common cold, as well as norovirus. This generic phrase is typically used when the pathogen/diagnosis is unknown or unconfirmed, or to refer to "winter bugs" collectively. A dab page is inappropriate because "winter bug" is not a name that is shared by multiple topics but is a description or category that applies to/includes dozens if not hundreds of organisms. I'm rather surprised we don't have an article on Seasonal infection or Seasonal illness. If another editor finds one, it may be suitable target. Many article sections describe seasonal patterns of specific diseases/infections but none of these are appropriate targets. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambig or set indexify (which it technically is doesn't matter) although Winter bug might be a better location for it. This is a very plausible search term and search results are not helpful in finding most of the articles we have that people are looking for, such as those listed by the nominator. Flu season is the closest article I've found, that should be on the dab/set index but as the article is specific to influenza it's not a good target (although it's less bad than the present one). Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    If that's the direction chosen, a simple standalone list at Seasonal infection or Seasonal illnesss, or perhaps with a plural title or 'List of…' title, would be preferable. The simpler (non–'List of') titles would permit expansion to a proper article discussing the phenomenon. Seasonal illness would permit inclusion of non-infectious diseases such as seasonal affective disorder and seasonal allergies. I've already stated my objection to a dab page. Worth noting that approach would also raise MOS:DABMENTION problems. We would have to insert "winter bug" into every article included. The results would be awkward and inappropriate. Sentence case Winter bug would be a reasonable redirect to a standalone list or article, Winter Bug somewhat less so, and the odd unspaced variant Winterbug should probably be deleted as unnatural. Winterbug does have marginally more pageviews than Winter Bug but views for both are minimal and the numbers likely reflect random noise more than genuine search interest or usage. Ngram shows zero usage of "Winter Bug" or "winterbug" in books. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Myceteae - "Winter Bug" is bit vague / informal phrase for winter illnesses in general - so redirect to norovirus may be misleading. It is a plausible search term - so retarget to "Seasonal illness" if that article is created. Asteramellus (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Ade, Ade, Ade

The section target is broken and phrase is not mentioned in article. I think it references lyrics in Sieg Heil Viktoria which is also not mentioned in the target although it is mentioned at Herms Niel who composed it. I don't think it's notable to add as ade is just another way of saying goodbye in German I don't think it would be helpful as a search term. Suonii180 (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LazyLune (talk • edits) 04:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

1st Infantry Brigade (Syrian rebel group)

These seem to refer to the same unit, so should probably target the same place, though neither article has much information about the unit, so deletion could be considered. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Both redirects have article content in their histories, and I'm not sure they are the same unit. (The infantry brigade redirect claims to have been merged, but the content added was not the same as the content redirected, so it was really just a blank and redirect.) Mdewman6 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Freedom of beer

Completely different phrase to "free as in beer". Could refer to freedom to drink beer (opposition to alcohol laws) but this is still awkward phrasing. Sign2 (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment I was thinking maybe this could somehow refer to the beer purity law and how brewing outside of Germany has the "freedom" to use other ingredients, but that's quite a stretch. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Do to this whatever we did to the other ones, or, failing that, redirect to Legal drinking age Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Other ones? Sign2 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I vaguely remember a bunch of other redirects with the same target a la Free as in beer coming up here recently, but no further details. I might be mistaken. In the interest of convenience, I retract my suggestion that we should do to this whatever we did to those others, and stick to my suggestion of the legal drinking age. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
You might be thinking of this nomination (where's theres been zero !votes). Sign2 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
That looks like a good target. FaviFake (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Mississippian period (North America)

Redirect created from undiscussed move. Unlikely to ever be used — hike395 (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete Ambiguous with Mississippian (geology) in North America. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Mississippian (geology) is not exclusive to North America, whereas the current target is. And I don't see how this is unlikely to ever be used. If anything, the North America disambiguator differentiates the target from the geological usage. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
    This is a geological unit that is analyzed differently in North America than in the rest of the world. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Partial list

partial or incomplete lists aren't discussed in the target. couldn't find sources to describe them either :( consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 18:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Leaning keep as harmless and having an obvious meaning. I suppose List could be slightly expanded to note the concept of lists being partial or incomplete. BD2412 T 21:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep as a harmless {{r from subtopic}}, albeit a weird one. Idk, maybe we should WP:RTR it? Although you did just say you were unable to find sources, so maybe it's implausible to think an article on it will ever be made... Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I was able to find exactly one RS source with exactly one piece of information in the minute I spent looking: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/structuring-content/lists#punctuate_lists_according_to_style

Lead-ins for incomplete lists can use ‘for example’, ‘including’ or ‘includes’.

Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Untitled Five Nights at Freddy's film

Delete, as the movie has been out for 3 years now, and this redirect is no longer needed TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete, no longer needed. Suonii180 (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Untitled Mario film

Delete, as the movie has been out for 3 years now, and this redirect is no longer needed TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Opposition to Prohibition

US-centric redirect; there was opposition in other countries, such as Prohibition in Canada#Repeal Sign2 (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

GB5

While Bortoleto uses this hashtag, it is unmentioned at the target and also refers to a number of other topics for which we have articles on Wikipedia, such as Honda Freed § Second generation (GB5/GB6/GB7/GB8; 2016). Casablanca 🪨(T) 00:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

June 17

Sheikh family

While this is a Sheikh family, this almost seems like redirecting Royal family to a family with the last name of royal. I am not sure where to target this, but the current target seems like it would be surprising to a reader. Casablanca 🪨(T) 23:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Fahad Al-Otaibi

I understand his name is mentioned here once and participating at the Olympics is probably his biggest achievement BUT he also participated at the World Championship and Asian Games (both major events) and there are other people mentioned in wikipedia with the same name. his name in Arabic is فهد العتيبي which is a little bit common in Arabic countries. All in all I think it's better to delete the redirect until an actual article is made. Sports2021 (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

What's your reasoning why that would be better given those facts?
Anyway, maybe you should just make a stub for this guy out of his redirect page, since apparently there are a couple pieces of RS information on him according to you. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I still think deletion is better but this also sounds like a good idea. Sports2021 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Black/White

target Black and white. Dudzcar (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep it's the formal name of a song on an album. There may be some room for disambiguation entries or hat notes, but it's not correct to redirect one song's full and proper name to a more popular song that that kinda resembles the name. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    The proposed retarget seems to be to the type of photography etc. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • retarget, but to black and white (with a capital w). the current one, as is, would be surprising for someone willing to search for the term, variations of it, or relations between the two colors. the capital w implies a title, so it'd be best to take them to a dab so they can more easily find the articles on the best pokémon games (and other stuff i guess). the song is also mentioned there, so it's no biggie consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 18:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    ...Your dedication to typing in minuscules sure is steadfast, I tell ya what! Dingolover6969 (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    even if i wasn't, the distinction would probably be necessary for anyone who isn't checking links and doesn't have the option to make dab links orange on, to avoid the possible confusion consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SMALLDETAILS, but consider adding a hatnote to the disambiguation page on the target article. - Eureka Lott 01:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    Agreed on both counts. Dingolover6969 (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    Hatnoted. Dingolover6969 (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

James Johnson (football player)

Retarget to Iyabo Abade regardless if Talk:Iyabo Abade § Requested move 17 June 2026 decides to move or not? Reminder that football player, Canadian footballer, and American footballer all have different targets. Dudzcar (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

There are several entries (including the several variants of football, including another James Johnson) at James Johnson#Sportspeople, so there is no clear primary topic and redirect should probably still point there, if adjusted to the specific section instead of the whole page. ~2026-35546-03 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

United States intervention in the Iran–Israel war

Aren't the US still intervening in the Iran–Israel war (Iran–Israel–United States war)? Dudzcar (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

At the time of creation of these redirects, Twelve-Day War was titled Iran–Israel war. Aren't the US still intervening? I wouldn't say the US's participation in the 2026 Iran war is an "intervention", as they initiated it in coordination with Israel. 9ninety (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Korokke! Ban-Ō no Kiki o Sukue

I propose renaming this redirect to Croket! Ban-Ō no Kiki o Sukue or something along those lines, as Croket! is the English name of the manga the game is based on. JHD0919 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep unambiguous and an article was at this title for 20 years (WP:R#K1 and WP:R#K4). The currently red linked redirect can be created separately. Sign2 (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Nowhere at WP:RFD does it say not to nominate articles that have been around for that long. Plus, establishing such a restriction on such long-lasting pages feels arbitrary to me. JHD0919 (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Sure it does! Check out the section WP:RFD?. It's just a suggestion tho. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't understand why a redirect having a non-trivial edit history is a reason not to move it. Don't pagemoves preserve the history? JHD0919 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Never mind, we'd basically be redirecting to another redirect in that case, which would be impractical. JHD0919 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Refine to #Games. I'm no Croketologist but the page seems to claim this is the name of the game so I don't see why we would remove this redirect. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
It only made that claim because that was what the article was called. I've renamed it. JHD0919 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I had forgotten that renaming a page involved redirecting the old name to the new one. Therefore, unless there's consensus in favor of refining/retargeting the existing redirect to Croket!#Games, I'm considering withdrawing this nom. JHD0919 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Mergrefrom

Unlikely misspelling Trialpears (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. JHD0919 (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Cat (Minecraft)

There is no mention of "cat" or "cats" at the target. Whpq (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I'm slightly surprised we don't have any list of Minecraft mobs to redirect this to, but in the absence of any content deletion is the only option. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Minecraft: Volume Alpha where a song from the game titled "Cat" is mentioned. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as too generic and unlikely since there is no mob list (and likely shouldn't be). Every mob from every game doesn't need a redirect, especially for disambiguated generic names. Technically, there is also a "cat" track in Music of Minecraft and Minecraft: Volume Alpha, but ehhh. That would imply we can make a redirects for every title in there. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Hellknowz: It's one of the songs that the Volume Alpha article talks about the most, and it's one of the more famous ones, so I'd say it warrants the redirect personally. (there's also no reason we can't make a redirect for every title on the album, other albums do it) In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Minecraft: Volume Alpha. There is not even a passing coverage of the mob in question in the target article, but there is a similarly-named music track, so retargeting is more appropriate than outright deletion. ZeroJaguar (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Unrelated Belgian techno anthem

Meme not mentioned in target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget or delete. The phrase originates as a running joke in the Cunk mockumentary series, not as a standalone description of the song. Since the meme is not mentioned at the current target, the redirect misleads rather than helps. Pascuet (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I'm pretty sure this term was used by Philomena Cunk, but seeing as the quote is not mentioned in the article, this redirect should not be kept as Wikipedia works by the principle of least astonishment meaning that it should be obvious why redirects and articles are named as they are. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment (creator of redirect) Cunk is mentioned in the article, and the deliberately off-topic usage of it, but the exact phrase has no other mention in article space. Xeroctic (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia doesn't need in-joke redirects mucking up plausible searches such as "Belgian techno". If someone watching Cunk wants information on the song, they will find it by typing the name of the song, not by typing the words Cunk says before the name of the song. Jruderman (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thias

This isn't an obvious typo for "Dias". Google hits are mainly for a variety of people with that name. We have articles on Charles Thias and Henry C. Thias House, but I don't think either are commonly referred to just as "Thias". Rusalkii (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Charles Thias as {{R from surname}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The current target (Dias) is clearly wrong. "Thias" is not a typo for "Dias". LaundryPizza03's retarget proposal to Charles Thias is better in principle, but a surname redirect is only useful when one person clearly stands out as the primary topic, which doesn't appear to be the case here. Pascuet (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per Laundrypizza, if we only have one article on a person with that surname we redirect to them, there is no competition so they can't not be the primary topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete to allow for searching. Both entries containing "Thias" show up in search results, but it does not look like either would be mononymously called "Thias". Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Mathguy2718 We're referring to both of them mononymously as Thias in our articles, as do the sources? That's how last names works, and why we have {{r from surname}}. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    A redirect to Charles Thias would be appropriate if it said "Charles Henry Robert Thias (November 15, 1879 – November 19, 1922), known mononymously as Thias, was an American tug of war athlete..." However, this is not the case. A non-notable musician (from the top of search results) is known as just "Thias" though. In addition, Charles Thias does not appear in the first 10 pages of search results, so it's rather unlikely that someone inputting "Thias" would be looking for an obscure athlete who died over a hundred years ago. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    No, that doesn't match common practice. Editors habitually create redirects from surnames when there's only a single surname holder with an article. Which doesn't mean we have to do it here, just that the mononymity argument is not based on best current practice. --Joy (talk) 07:10, 16 June 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! 15:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Charles Thias per LaundryPizza. Thiais is another plausible typo, but the athlete is the only article with this exact name. Tevildo (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment if dabbified, add Thais and Tias in a See also section or hatnote. Dudzcar (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Artrelia

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Apple soda

Not mentioned in the target article. The section at Soft drink#History mentions "apple", but not "apple soda", nor does the section identify the subject of this reader in a way where retargeting the nominated redirect to that section would be considered helpful for our readers. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Soda and the body

Big WP:RSURPRISE here, don't foresee there being an alternative target for this. Also, I don't think that Soft drink#Health concerns or any of the subsections are appropriate targets because Soda is an ambiguous word (it is a disambiguation page) and Body could potentially be ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Soft drink#Health concerns seems like a great refine to me. Soda and body are technically ambiguous, yes, but is anyone discussing the other sodas' effects on the body as much as the health risks of soft drinks have been discussed? Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites

The Set-index page target United States strikes on Iran has only one entry that talks about nuclear strikes - 2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. All incoming links also refer to the 2025 strikes. There is no article or list entry on US strikes on Iran's nuclear strikes, either for 2026, or before 2025. 2026 Iran war does mention one attack on the Natanz Nuclear Facility. Suggest to retarget to the 2025 article as primary topic (It was also the previous target until 2 hours back), and add a hatnote to Natanz Nuclear Facility § 2026 American-Israeli strikes (or more hatnotes if there were more strikes). Jay 💬 09:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(Nom comment): The original RfD had only two entries, and the nomination statement is about the 1st entry - United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, which redirects to a target different from the rest. Jay 💬 03:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
If these continue to target the 2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites article, I will take the WP:RMUM approach of removing "2025" from its title. However, I am fine with disambiguating the nominated titles between that article and "2026 United States strikes on the Natanz Nuclear Facility" as well as with pointing them to the United States strikes on Iran set index.
(pinging editors who have previously expressed a position on this issue: @Teterev53, @An anonymous username, not my real name, and @Dudzcar) –Gluonz talk contribs 14:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
RMUM would not be applicable as the non-2025 title already exists, and the previous RfD which was a request to move back to the (non-2025) original title, closed as "No consensus". Jay 💬 16:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
@Jay: By that logic, WP:RMUM does not apply to any move that leaves a redirect. "No consensus" means that the stable title should be restored. –Gluonz talk contribs 22:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
You are correct. I misunderstood No article exists at the new target title as No page exists at the new target title. However, the second point of RMUM is still valid: There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title. There has been discussion (the previous RfD), and there was objection at that RfD. Jay 💬 03:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
All page moves that added or removed 2025 (or June 2025) were undiscussed by @ElijahPepe, Iscoak, Jerium, Babysharkboss2, and 9ninety: Was there a RM at that talk page about it? In the last year, Iran–United States war (targets 2026 Iran war) redirected to Iran–Israel war, currently a set index article formerly targeting Twelve-Day War.
My opinion, if people refuse to remove 2025 from the title, there is a reason there is at least a secondary topic, which currently has no hatnote yet. Dudzcar (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
It should retain the 2025 in its title per WP:NCWWW, as the year is still a useful identifier for recent events even if it isn't necessary for disambiguation. 9ninety (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

­

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

SZC

A retarget to Sizewell C nuclear power station or a disambiguation would suffice for this redirect which is currently to a not very notable organization. — Penn65 talk (in solidarity) 13:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Sizewell C nuclear power station, which is the clear primary topic based on google results and pageviews. I've created SZC (disambiguation) which should be linked in a hatnote at this redirect's target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Turn into a disambiguation. While the current target is unlikely to be the main topic, I see no evidence that the power station is so clearly the main topic either (the page views of the power station says nothing about what people who look for SZC are interested in of course). It looks to me as if Sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (not even included in the new disambig) may well be the most likely searched for target, as that is commonly referred to as SZC. Fram (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    I've added Sodium zirconium cyclosilicate to the dab page (which you could have done), the only reason it wasn't there was that it didn't appear in my search results for some reason. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    I think the actual SZC page should be a disambig, your new creation was rather premature when this RfD was running. Fram (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    Not at all. If the consensus is that disambiguation should be at the base name (something I disagree with, as all my research points to the power station being primary) then my disambig can be moved over the redirect and/or the pages merged. Drafting disambiguation pages while RfDs are open is extremely common. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    Care to share that research? No idea how you determined that people searching for SZC on enwiki are most likely to want to get to the power station article to such a degree that it should be the primary topic. Fram (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    I did, in my first comment. But to expand on that, I googled "SZC" -Wikipedia and on the first four pages of literally every single result was related to the power station. I also looked at the page views for all the topics I found and the power station had the most of any of them by a significant margin, looking now at the medication that still holds true - last year the medication article was viewed 12,600 times while the power station article was viewed 90,900 times. There is no Wikinav data available for "SZC" and it wouldn't help anyway as there are no links to either of those articles from the present target. If previous destinations from the same search are taken into account for the order of future search results then it is also relevant that the medication didn't appear in my results whereas the power station was on the first page (I don't remember where precisely). I have no idea if this is something the search engine does, if it is then it's another point towards the power station being primary, if it isn't then it's not relevant to the determination either way. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    You know that Google results aren't neutral or the same for everyone, right? And that your location, previous searches, ... may influence the results? If I search for SZC -Wikipedia on Google, the first result is "Effects of SZC on Hyperkalemia, Metabolic Acidosis in CKD" (medication), the second result is "SZC Group – Global Investment Banking Specialists", the third is "The GALVANIZE Outcome Study" (again about the medication), the fourth is "SZComponents - Top Quality Electronic Components Distributor", the fifth is "An Open-label Study to Assess Safety and Efficacy of SZC..." (the medication), the sixth is "NCT04676646 | Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of ..." (medication), and only the 7th is "Young SZC | Discover Sizewell C's Programmes for Young ..."
    On Google News, I see more sources about the medication than about the power plant. Fram (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Turn into a disambiguation, as above. Mauls (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Dabify; Sizewell C looks from here to be the most likely meaning, but not to the extent that it could meet WP:PT1. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which is the primary topic, if any?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Sodium zirconium cyclosilicate mentions the acronym too, so disambiguate. --Joy (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Joy: Thryduulf had already created SZC (disambiguation) during this discussion, with the nuclear station as the primary, and this relist was only to decide if that remains the primary, or whether another topic or no topic is the primary. As such, your draft is redundant. If so, you may revert it. Jay 💬 03:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    Sure, but when I say disambiguate, I don't see how you could interpret that as me saying there is a primary topic :) --Joy (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    Where did you see me making such an interpretation? Jay 💬 15:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    I'm just saying, my edit helps decide what you're saying, there's no ambiguity, just a wee bit of duplicate work on my part. I'll survive the fact it'll have to be replaced by a better version. Somehow :D --Joy (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

SonntagsZeitung

WP:RETURNTORED, the publication is notable (see dewiki for one, though there are more sources shown in a search) and this article says nothing about it besides the fact that they own it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Weak keep For a publication specifically, I find such redirects helpful as a way of verifying them when they're used as a source. Sure, a full article would be better, but even as is, we can see that it's part of an established media group, that it's weekly, and that it's Swiss. That's something. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    There is virtually no information about it present at the target, and the existence of the redirect disincentivizes someone from writing one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

National Express

When National Express was rebranded the Mobico Group in 2022, National Express correctly became a redirect to its new name when the article was moved. But now four years later, the name is now more commonly associated with the UK coach operator that continues to use the brand, so arguably this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But then there are other operations that also trade with the National Express name, e.g. National Express Germany. Propose that National Express (disambiguation) be moved to National Express to try and reduce the number of incorrect links being made. Keriligehh (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Germxn

Meme not mentioned. Dudzcar (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Bisexual Black people

Not every black LGBTQ person is American. Retarget respectively to gay men (mentioned), lesbian (mentioned only inside sidebox and related templates, unless we consider the passing mention of African American lesbians), and bisexuality (black bisexual men mentioned) Dudzcar (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Another possibility is Black women § LGBT Black women for lesbian. Dudzcar (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • The proposed solution seems no better than the current state; it's worse, if anything. If someone specifically included "black" in their search, they clearly are looking for something more specific than an article about all lesbians/gays/bisexuals that happens to mention Black people in passing. I do agree that African American ≠ Black, so my first choice would be to delete these unless a more appropriate page or section of a page can be found. My second choice would be to keep the redirects as they are instead of retargeting. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hate follow

No mention of hate follows at the target page, which pertains to a phenomenon only loosely related to hate follows. A hate follower is a follower who follows and optionally engages with an account out of malice, while a ghost follower is a follower whose account is inauthentic and unmanned but are primarily not malicious towards the account they follow. Ghost followers are typically used to attempt to enrich an account, while hate followers try to do the opposite. If anyone knows of a better target (I was thinking trolling may be a better fit?) I am open to retargeting, but in the absence of a solid target I think a WP:RETURNTORED is preferable. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. This redirect target makes no sense whatsoever. If anyone can find an appropriate target, ping me. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Hate-watching is close, but probably not close enough. Maybe Anti-fan could support a sourced mention? --BDD (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete we don't cover the topic. RETURNTORED might apply but I'm not sure this is notable enough to be covered/defined anywhere. It's a phrase people use and might search for. Redirecting to a sorta-related topic is misleading and unhelpful. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom, although I would happily support a redirect to something like hate watching or anti-fan if content was added or discovered somewhere to support such a redirect. Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Lurker as a subtopic ? @Servite et contribuere@Ethmostigmus Web-julio (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
I think lurker is also a poor target, given that the term hate follow does not necessarily imply a lack of interaction. A lurker can be a hate follower, but not all lurkers are hate followers and not all hate followers are lurkers, if that makes sense! It's a better target than ghost followers, but still falls short in my opinion. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree. These various terms/concepts are related and overlap to varying degrees but are not one and the same. Lurking and trolling speak to behavior while hate following speaks to the follower's underlying motivation and sentiment. Some hate followers may be lurkers but some will interact. Those who interact may engage in trolling or other more positive or neutral forms of interaction. Some of these "positive" interactions may constitute a form of trolling if the they are insincere and meant to egg on or encourage the content that the follower "hates", but that is an assessment of the follower's motivations and sentiments. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Also bundle Hate follower. I just notified of this discussion at the target talk. Jay 💬 13:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have bundled hate follower with this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LazyLune (talk • edits) 01:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

June 16

Railway excursion

WP:DICDEF currently targeting dab page, no idiomatic use of the term we could link to instead Paradoctor (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

basically the same thing Beg pardon? Maybe you have rich parents, but the rest of us, we don't charter a train for our excursions, we buy a ticket. That bit gets lost if you redirect to excursion train. Paradoctor (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I wouldn't refer to a routine rail trip on a regularly scheduled train as an "excursion". This may vary by country but I'm used to the term meaning a trip on a chartered train, occasionally in expensive spacious luxury but more usually with large numbers of passengers each paying an affordable fare. Certes (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Sources in support? The dictionaries I consulted say "brief pleasure trip", sometimes also that kind of trip "at reduced rates". Nothing about chartering. Paradoctor (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I've been unable to find any reliable sources either to support or to refute my suggestion. However, searching Wikipedia for ~"railway excursion" brings up mainly articles about trips which are explicitly or presumably on trains provided specially for the purpose, and these are the pages from which Railway excursion might reasonably be wikilinked. Edited to add: I see Thryduulf has done a better job of finding sources in support below. Certes (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Just noticed the "routine" bit. We're not talking about commuting, are we? We're talking about the native equivalent of day tripping. Which links to excursion in See also. Paradoctor (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Is a "Railway excursion" any time you take an excursion via railway (I'm not sure if there's a definition of this phrase written anywhere) and an "Excursion train" specifically when you charter a train to make a special trip (per its page)? Is that what you're getting at? If that's the case then I agree the latter is a bad target. I guess I can't prove the definition of the former term one way or another. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    Yes. Unless and until someone can point out a sourced idiomatic definition of the term, there is only the literal meaning, an excursion by train. Paradoctor (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Excursion train, which is the sense in which reliable sources use this term, e.g. , , , . Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Ambosexual

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Pēnis

Delete. Random diacritic, no incoming links. ~2026-35339-74 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not random. The English word penis is borrowed from the Latin word pēnis. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep per jlwoodwa. The etymology section could use a little copyediting, maybe to mention and wikt link that term, among other improvements... Edit: now that I've been editing that page, I suggest retargetting to Latin_obscenity#pēnis, since I wanted to link to that section and that would be the natural word to use... Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Politics and Gender

Retarget to Politics & Gender as an alternative title. The difference in capitalization is sufficient to distinguish this title from Politics and genderPolitics and gender, currently a redirect to Gender and politics. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC) edited 02:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget per nom. A hatnote already exists on Politics & Gender to sort out any disambiguation. मल्ल (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Bubsy 4

now vague with bubsy 4d, which i'm horrified to say is somewhere between demon turf and demon tides in quality, what has this world gone to? we can't just have a good bubsy game like that. and i really love demon turf, so that means- oops, this isn't the time for a crisis of faith consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 17:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • I don't know about the nomination statement, but there is no Bubsy 4 (nor a Bubsy 3), and Bubsy 4D is NOT the 4th version, so delete. Jay 💬 20:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly a typo of Bubsy 4D, but does not look helpful. Paradoctor (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
    can it really be "clearly a typo" if it predates the game by just under 11 years? consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see why this isn't obvious to the other editors, but I happen to know that Bubsy 3D is the 4th Bubsy game. There is no need to change this redirect. It's not like Bubsy 4D is likely to be thought of as the 4th Bubsy game (even if one mistakenly believed that 3D was the 3rd), given all the other ones that have happened in the meantime... Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    Hatnotes could be made. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    I've done this, now. Dingolover6969 (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    In effect I'm arguing directly against @Jay: there is a Bubsy 4 (and a Bubsy 3). Same way there's a Finding Nemo 2 and a Friday the 13th 4. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    I've struck my vote. Jay 💬 15:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dingolover6969. Readers searching for this term are most likely searching for the 4th Bubsy game (not making a typo of Bubsy 4D, per consarn), and this is it. This is a plausible search term, as this is an extremely common way to title sequels. Consider tagging as an {{R from incorrect name}}. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    I've tagged them thus, now. Dingolover6969 (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Kendall, Tay­lor and Com­pany

Refiling Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_15#Zero-width_characters as a series of smaller nominations. These each contain multiple soft hyphens. Redirects with soft hyphens might be useful for long titles, but not this one that has plenty of word break points. * Pppery * (alt) in solidarity 03:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm leaning keep just to keep everything clean, but I'm not really wedded to either redirect if you want to delete them. Bearian (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Game bird

Note: I believe Gamebird and Gamebirds should be kept, but I am also nominating them in case there is a desire to do something with those redirects. My nomination is mostly focused on Game bird and Game birds, but there may be discussion on the other redirects.
These are quite confusing redirects. I am not sure on whether WP:DIFFPLURAL or WP:DIFFPUNCT applies. Category:Game birds is about Game (hunting). Most of the links of Game birds do refer to hunting. There is the Turkish film Game Birds though. While many links to Game bird refer to the order of birds, there are some links where Game (hunting) was intended, such as in Game preservation and in Canada goose in New Zealand, among others. Template:Birds uses the redirect Gamebirds to refer to the order, but this redirect also sees uses intended for hunting like in Eurasian Sparrowhawk. Usages of Gamebird overwhelmingly refer to the order, but there are a few exceptions, such as in Hunting Act 2004. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but at the minimum hatnotes should be added and any incorrect links are fixed. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note that I just added Game Bird and Game-bird to this discussion. There are no links to Game Bird, but one of the two links to Game-bird appears to refer to hunting, which would mean that one link for that redirect is currently incorrect. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget: All of these should point to the same place; I'd suggest that Game (hunting) is the better target, in that not all game birds are galliformes (water fowl are not, and there are a few non-fowl game birds too), and not all galliformes are game (some are farmed as poultry). Of course, a specific article on game birds would be even better, if someone feels like writing one! Rosbif73 (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Neither is a good target with a suitable section. An article likethe one at simple:Game bird would be a better target.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambig. It seems clear that whatever the target these will continue to collect wrongly targetted links, which is one indication that there ins't a primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Create article or retarget to game (hunting). Searching the internet, I am not really finding anything that restricts "game bird" to Galliformes. Ducks (Anseriformes) and doves (Columbiformes) are almost always mentioned when different kinds of game birds are discussed and rails (Gruiformes) are often mentioned. Incoming links that intend Galliformes should be fixed, but I don't think a dab is warranted since equating game bird with Galliformes appears to be flat out incorrect. Plantdrew (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to game (hunting). The point that there are technically game birds that aren’t Galliformes is correct. The target article can mention the nuance that the most common or traditional definition refers to that genus. Steven Walling • talk 18:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • My first instinct is to disambiguate, partly because the first thing that comes to my mind is Angry Birds, and there is a somewhat obscure film titled Game Birds. That said, a retarget to Game (hunting) would be a close second choice. BD2412 T 23:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Illuminati card came

Huh? * Pppery * (alt) in solidarity 19:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Clearly a typo for Illuminati card game. (N.b., Illuminati (card game) doesn't exist.) Illuminati: New World Order was based on Illuminati (game), though, which is itself a card game, so that's the best target if any. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Plausible typo. Paradoctor (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Retarget per BDD, obvious primary topic. Paradoctor (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete implausible typo near the end of the phrase. No objection to creating Illuminati card game as a redirect to Illuminati (game) as {{R from other disambiguation}}. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
    Look for C and G on your keyboard. Paradoctor (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    They're not adjacent on mine. Certes (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    Close enough: QWERTY. Especially seeing as both are on the left side (same hand), the preceding word primes for "c", and the sounds are similar. Paradoctor (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    I don't see them as especially easily to confuse but this is subjective. As I understand it, our usual approach is to lean more towards keeping very common or plausible typos especially from individual words or shorter phrases but not to keep them when they are part of a longer phrase. We don't have Card came, for example. Even for common typos, we don't always keep them when they are part of a much longer phrase. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, implausible typo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

North Canal

This should likely be a disambig. There is also the North Canal Township Park. In China there is zh:北运河 which has no en wiki article yet but that translates as North(ern) Canal. There are likely other such entities around the world. We may also want to create Northern Canal; I am not sure if it should be combined with North Canal redirect, but consider Northern Dvina Canal, Northern Catherine Canal. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does somebody want to draft a dab?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Game Show Congress

Previous AFD of this article seemed to point to a consensus to delete, but was redirected to Ralph Edwards instead. However, I feel this decision to redirect did not properly check to see if the claim of him being awarded by this organization was 1. due weight and 2. a cited claim. I was unable to find secondary sources verifying it, so I removed it from Ralph's article, meaning it is no longer mentioned there and not a valid redirect target.

When I asked @Vanamonde93:, who executed the redirect, they pointed out I did not sufficiently argue against it in AFD, which I cannot do due to my partial topic ban. I feel like awkward decisions like this are one of the pitfalls of the "one XFD per day, cannot otherwise participate" clause. Vanamonde93 suggested I take it to RFD instead of DRV, so here we are.

I also feel the decision to redirect does not take into consideration the page's contentious history: it was A7'd, overturned, AFD'd, deleted, and then upheld at DRV, only for me to re-create it anyway to mitigate off-site harassment about 17 years ago. (This alone is something I feel should have been enough to justify deletion over any other ATD.) However, it still had abysmal sourcing, and the contentious page history is still intact. The subject is not mentioned on Ralph Edwards, nor could I find a good enough source to justify doing so, and the redirect as it stands averages one page view per day, so I feel it's time to finally put this out of its misery. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 11:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The target doesn't contain the mention because the nominator removed it from the article on 22 May 2026. Katzrockso (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
On its own, that wouldn't be a reason to keep, but I'll note for the record that you restored the mention and said you'll add sources later. Chess enjoyer (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
And now it's been removed again. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Aaand now it's been added back, this time with sources. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Kami Neko

from kami (deity or whatever) and neko (kity). maneki-neko are generally not any more associated with kami than any other cat-shaped japanese folklore thingy (kasha, nekomata, bakeneko, reimu hakurei...), or at all for that matter. really, even the cruftiest results i could find didn't even try to imply a connection, so this wouldn't be a likely result for any of the aforementioned anything even if it wasn't vague

also ptm with a bunch of unnotable stuff like assorted manga consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:55, 8 June 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) 16:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Sexs

Now that Sex has been moved to Biological sex, a few redirects become ambiguous. SexesSexes redirects to Biological sex, which I think is correct. However, do we consider Sexs to be more a misspelling of Sexes (in which case we should retarget as an {{avoided double redirect}}) or of Sex (in which case we should keep)? I lean weakly toward retargeting. Note that there's already a hatnote pointing back to Sex from Biological sex, due to the Sexes redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep, given the ambiguity / lack of clarity, I think it's preferable to give the reader the choice of topics to select the one that is the most relevant. Shazback (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Biological sex. Yes, I think the plural of sex is what's most likely intended. I can especially imagine a non-native speaker making this mistake. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    Agreed Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. SexesSexes might be the most likely intended meaning, though I'm not even certain of that, and I doubt it's much more likely than every other possible typo/meaning. This could be a typo for sexa-, a prefix that is equivalent to sex-, which is listed on the dab page. Or sexxsexx, another redirect to the dab page. Or sex itself, as has been noted. s, a, and x are all next to each other on QWERTY keyboards. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Poorest country

Somewhat related to the nomination on "Poor country", these two redirects should have the same target. These redirects always had different targets since the creation of the plural redirect over 10 years ago. I will note that the list redirects (List of Poorest Countries, Poorest Countries List, List of poorest nations, Poorest countries list) target List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Mathguy2718 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Would probably retarget all of these without "list" to Least developed countries. "Poorest" is a vague enough term I'd consider redirecting the list ones to the effective disambiguation of Lists of sovereign states and dependent territories#Gross domestic product. CMD (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thunder scorpion

English translation of Brontoscorpio, which was recently merged Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brontoscorpio. Not mentioned at target, and wasn't mentioned at the last revision of Brontoscorpio prior to merge (I also looked at several earlier revisions over different years, and didn't see it mentioned in any of them). We don't typically have redirects for translations of scientific names unless the translations are used as vernacular (common) names, and this doesn't appear to be used in that way. Plantdrew (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete yeah translations of scientific names don't need to be redirects. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep as vaguely plausible search term if you happened to remember the meaning of the scientific name. Would tag as {{r from unattested calque}} if that were a thing. Dingolover6969 (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

AI brainrot

Retarget to AI slop. Italian brainrot is far from the only AI-generated thing considered "brainrot", so it's probably best for this to point to a more general target. ~2026-23381-84 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Looking through the page history, it originally redirected to AI slop, before an editor retargeted it, seemingly without consensus, to Italian brainrot. It should probably be restored to the original target. ~2026-23381-84 (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm seeing three distinct uses of this phrase in search results, with no primary topic between them: AI slop, Italian brainrot (both generators of such content and the output of such generators), and the (perceived) effects of too much AI use/consumption on people (whether oneself or others) - which is partly covered at brainrot and presumably partly covered elsewhere (but I can't find an obvious article linked from the {{Artificial intelligence navbox}}). A disambig might be feasible here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

CiberCuba

TLDR: Possibly self-promotional. This redirect is to an article section about the news outlet CiberCuba that has two CN tags and no independent sources. The redirect serves to give a blue link for a news outlet that doesn't seem notable enough for its own article (first few pages of Google for "CiberCuba" didn't show me anything to establish notability)—so this comes across as self-promotional. It seems to me that the redirect and Independent_digital media in Cuba#CiberCuba should both be deleted. A standalone CiberCuba article was previously nominated for deletion in 2024 and this redirect is a "compromise" outcome of that—but the section it redirects to is still entirely missing independent coverage. In the AfD User:Hydronium Hydroxide said It's probably reasonable for Independent digital media in Cuba#Cibercuba to continue to exist -- though it needs to be properly referenced, etc etc -- and if it is then redirection there as an WP:ATD is preferable to deletion; the status 1.5 years later is that it is not properly referenced Placeholderer (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

You know what, "Self-promotion" is really terrible word choice, but I don't know what better category at WP:RFD#DELETE to describe this as. (I'm new to RfD!) It's a notability thing and an apparent revisiting of an earlier discussion Placeholderer (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
keep for now, without prejudice. The article content should be discussed on the talk page first. While the section exists this is an appropriate redirect to it, but if it is removed then the redirect will be misleading and should be nominated for deletion on that basis. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Given that the talk page has averaged 10 views per year for the past 11 years, should I try to notify people who participated in the AfD? I'd be wary of deleting the section BOLDly given that it's tied up in a medium-sized discussion close Placeholderer (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Notifying those people would be good, you could also alert any relevant WikiProjects (e.g. the Cuba and Media projects tag the talk page). Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
To be continued at the article's talk page here Placeholderer (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Case Black

This was apparently a mistranslation that isn't actually found in the sources, cf. Talk:Operation Weiss, which also links to previous RfD's for the same issue with "Case White". I mostly cleaned up the article space already. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment Operation Schwarz was at Case Black from June 2012 until yesterday. It was moved to Case Black by Peacemaker67 citing the talk page, which in turn points to Talk:Kozara Offensive#Third enemy offensive, an extensive discussion between Peacemaker67 and user:Director (who hasn't edited since December) that found consensus for that title. I'll notify the military history project about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    Nono, I moved it after I noticed it. I didn't base it on what any editors said a long time ago, rather on the inability to find reliable sources for it.
    Now that I reviewed what editors said then, it seems we didn't have sources in 2012, either. --Joy (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Prince of Wales's 2nd Brigade, Eastern Division, Royal Artillery

These redirects seem to refer to the same unit. If so, they should probably target the same place. I assume "Norfolk Artillery Militia" would be the more specific target (assuming it is part of the Norfolk Militia?) but the nomenclature of British artillery units baffles me, so checking with others. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The second version (Prince of Wales's Own 2nd Brigade, Eastern Division, Royal Artillery) is the correct one: it was the official title of the unit 1882-1887 (see Norman Litchfield, The Militia Artillery 1852–1909). The first version omitting 'Own' is incorrect and could be removed. The first version redirects to the specific section in the article, which seems to be the normal procedure with military units that had several different titles during their history.Rickfive (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Bangladesh Government

This situation is not ideal. While not all redirects need the same target, some that clearly need the same target currently don't. Unsure what the best targets for these redirects would be, but almost certainly not what it is currently. In addition, most of these redirects have several mainspace links, and some articles may need adjustments. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Strong delete Bangladesh/Government as I see now possibility of it being a probable redirect. Retarget all else to Government of Bangladesh as they all refer to that. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Bangladesh/Government is a {{R with old history}} and was the original title of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Got it. Reformatted to that. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 14:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Partido Democrat

article says Partido Democraat, which is not this title. ambiguous with Democrat (Brazil) and even Democrat (U.S.), since this title is meant to be words of mixed languages. Dudzcar (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Weak keep This is a fairly plausible misspelling of the Papiamento name for the target article and it does get uses , (although most commonly in Dutch, which obviously has affinity to Curacao). Most google results though are actually for various parties called Partido Democrático (rendered with or without the diacritic). Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget. There are no parties known by this exact mixed-language title. In addition to Papiamento creole, Partido means party in at least two other languages (Spanish and Portuguese) and there are numerous options on the Democratic Party dab page that could correspond to either Partido Demócrata or Partido Democrático (both of which are equally plausible typos compared to Partido Democraat). That dab would be my preferred target as it favours the English "Democrat" part of the redirect (this is enwiki after all) rather than the Partido Democrático dab which would favour Portuguese over Spanish, and would make it harder to reach the existing Papiamento target. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

CWC alumni

Ambiguous, see CWC#Colleges and universities. * Pppery * in solidarity 21:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete Ambiguous, and retargeting it to the disambiguation page wouldn't give information about alumni. ~2026-23381-84 (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete both per above Duckmather (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Gilbert de Clare, Dara hIarla Penfro

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete as vandalism.

2026 Defection and desertion of Iranian security forces

The only mention of defection in the article, in 2026_Iran_war#Third_week_(14–20_March), states "As of the third week, analysts found little evidence of significant defections in the Iranian military". Misleading redirect. मल्ल (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Dhruva Natchathiram

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Consider this a relist of a 2025 RfD whose close was contested today, with the closer reverting the close and undeleting the redirect page.

History: This was decided as the title of a film article in an RM in 2024, but boldly turned to a redirect to the current target 7 months later. The RfD contested this change and said the film (which was then at Dhruva Natchathiram (unreleased film)) is the primary topic. The additional argument was that the redirect term was not mentioned at the target. However, the redirecter said ..துருவ நட்சத்திரம் mostly refers to the polestar and not the film. My reading of the film article at the time was that "unreleased film" in parenthesis was the more appropriate title because of uncertainties in the film getting released.

I would have elaborated on these at that RfD, had the discussion continued. I did not consider Dhruva, an article about the character from legend, as synonymous to the star, although the article mentions a star by the name with the Sanskrit word nakshatra. Dhruva (disambiguation) § Art and entertainment has a 1993 film with a similar title as the redirect under discussion, and another 1989 film with a regional variation of the name. These have to be removed as PTMs from the dab, and can be probably moved as a new dab at a relevant generic title.

Dhruva Natchathiram, with the title case though, would be the primary title of the film that is expected for release "on or before June 15". Move back the film to this title either now, or after the release. Jay 💬 09:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment Dhuruva Natchathiram exists as a disambiguation page. Sign2 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know of this page. I would say the dab is not at the best title as only 1 entry has the spelling of "Dhuruva", and the page move of the 1993 film would have to be reverted too. Anyway, that could be a separate discussion. Jay 💬 13:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's generally better to target the general topic over a derivative work and I see no reason the upcoming film is an exception. It's been established that Dhruva Natchathiram means pole star and the current target covers this topic in a Sanskrit-speaking culture. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep Agree with @Tavix, but there should be some indication on the Dhruva page then, that this is the translation of the Sanskrit term in Tamil Swirlymarigold (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Or maybe the film is titled because it's lead character's name is Dhruv? So maybe Dhruva Natchathiram can be the upcoming film's title since pure Tamil romanises the Sanskrit term Nakshatra as Natchathiram. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't know what to say here, I mean, is it mentioned at the target? ( peanut gallery comment) | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

June 15

Posetal category

The term "posetal category" is not commonly used, and it's unclear whether it means "thin category" or "poset seen as category". Also, when I searched on Google Scholar, the search results returned were: "Your search - "posetal category", "thin category" - did not match any articles published up to 2020.". Since the article was created in 2011, the fact that "posetal category" is another name for "thin category" might be influenced by the Wikipedia article. Therefore, I suggest delete this redirect. @慈居 and TakuyaMurata:I will ping the editor who discussed moving the posetal category to the thin category. For previous discussions, see Talk:Posetal category#Move to thin category. SilverMatsu (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Poset category also links to a subsection of Partially ordered set. There are around 10 pages with links that may need correction or clarification if this is deleted. ASUKITE 16:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, by the way "poset category" will be typically understood as "category of posets (with whatever suitable choice of objects and morphisms)". So I believe that poset category should redirect to, say, a new section of partially ordered set named "the category of partially ordered sets". 慈居 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree unless someone can find sources (independent of Wikipedia) for this usage. Taku (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: I found one other source from 2008 (predating the thin category creation in 2011) that defines what a "posetal category" is and states that in a posetal category there is at most one morphism from any object to any other. Duckmather (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
    The paper you cited states: A pregroup is an example of a posetal category, that is, a category which is also a poset. On the other hand, as has already been pointed out on the Talk:Thin category, "thin category", which means "preordered set, regarded as a category." The references I am looking for are as follows: posetal category is another name for thin category.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider Duckmather's source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe that redirects are often another name for the article title. The current lead sentence for the thin category is as follows: a thin category, or posetal category, is a category whose homsets each contain at most one morphism. However, this is similar to the following sentence: parallelogram or square is a chiral, simple (non-self-intersecting) quadrilateral with two pairs of parallel sides. Wouldn't readers assume that all thin categories have a skeleton in a sentence like this?--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Information:It seems there aren't enough comments to close the discussion, so I'll post a notification on WT:WPM.--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • This is a content concern first, and a redirect concern next. I understand that the "citation needed" for posetal category was added only in May, and hasn't been discussed enough, but as long as we have that bolded in the lead, the current target is appropriate . We then have the incoming links from several articles that Asukite mentioned. I'm not sure if the correction suggested is to replace all occurrences of "Posetal category" with "Poset category". In any case, any deletion action should not happen without handling the "citation needed" at the target. Until then keep. Jay 💬 10:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Quicken Loans

I am an employee of Quicken Loans and have a disclosed conflict of interest. I am nominating this existing redirect for discussion because the corporate and legal structure has changed significantly since the 2021 rebrand, when the redirect was initially introduced. Currently, "Quicken Loans" operates as a home loan marketplace licensed to LMB Mortgage Services (#167283), while "Rocket Mortgage" (the redirect target) is a direct lender (NMLS #3030) This can be verified on the NMLS website - https://www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org/EntityDetails.aspx/COMPANY/167283 These are now distinct entities with separate business models and regulatory licenses. Maintaining the redirect misleads readers by implying they are the same company. I request that the redirect be removed so that the Quicken Loans page may be brought up to speed with it's current status. Argruber (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Chinese

There is a move discussion taking place to rename {{lang-zh}} to {{Chinese}}, but this redirect currently points to {{infobox Chinese}} and has nearly 4k transclusions. Procedurally I believe an RFD is required to nuke the redirect before a discussion about renaming the template can be considered, though I have no opinions on the request itself.

I suppose the question to be asked: is this redirect a reasonable alternate name for the infobox? Primefac (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  • If I'm not mistaken, I think WP:RM is sufficient to move over a redirect. Personally, due to the many existing uses of this template redirect, I'm inclined to keep. I've also created a template disambiguation page at Template:China (disambiguation), which can be hatnoted. Duckmather (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to move {{lang-zh}} overtop. It would be reasonable were it not for (as that discussion mentions) templates like {{korean}} and {{nihongo}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COArSe D1RTxxx (talk • contribs) 17:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this is the best venue for this discussion, per above. I am in favor of lang-zh being renamed to "Chinese" though. The existing uses aren't a major worry for me; just need a bot to change them. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Duckmather, this should be disambiguated. It would not make sense to be Template:China, since this is for the language. -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Grapesurgeon's thoughts mirror my own. I oppose disambiguation and support replacing all uses of this redirect with Infobox Chinese so that the proposed move can take place. I don't see why "Template:China (disambiguation)" should list templates for the Chinese language. They aren't even partial title matches, they're...four-letter matches? Toadspike [Talk] 15:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per COArSe D1RTxxx; should be replaced with {{Infobox Chinese}} so {{lang-zh}} can be moved to {{Chinese}} to match the naming of other templates.Yeeno (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Snowman304|talk 01:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Arguing for consistency with templates that no longer exist is rather novel...as is pointing out that Infobox Chinese follows a standardized format, while opposing the removal of a redirect inexplicably outside of that standardized format. Toadspike [Talk] 17:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Toadspike, it's not the templates that no longer exist, it's the templates that weren't deleted. Primefac (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
That makes more sense, thanks. I still don't find it a compelling argument, though. Those templates are very different from this one – Chinese is the only one to have a bespoke module, and none of the others come close to covering a dozen or two dialects and romanization systems, plus a bunch of other languages. Toadspike [Talk] 18:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
It would certainly make a bunch of page histories/versions look rather weird even after replacing the transclusions, though I suppose that is also relatively normal with various template changes... 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • As a minor note/update, the RM in question closed as "no consensus to move". I don't know if that will affect anyone's opinions of the matter. Primefac (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Think Drink

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between these redirects and the target article unclear to readers. Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. googling this phrase on the first two pages I found multiple different topics that are potentially notable - effects of hydration on dementia patients, effects of hydration on fasting times before surgery, a road safety campaign related to drink driving, and the impact on behaviour the belief about how much alcohol one has consumed has compared to the amount actually consumed. There were also a couple of products (one coconut based, one vitamin based) that didn't look to be notable. None of these results had any relation to coffee other than the second non-notable product also containing caffeine. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Thryduulf. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Real crabs

this term is surprisingly vague, referring to any contexts in which crabs can be imitated (fake crab meat, animals that look like crabs, animals currently trying to become crabs, etc.), and to crab traits which are not fictional (did y'all know that crab body parts can't actually be made into gunlances?)

...that's not very important to true crabs, though, so i'm just taking it here to say that there's consensus to retarget to brachyura as a variation of that term, and create real crab to match if this isn't deleted consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 14:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete: while 'True crabs' is a widespread popular name for the Brachyura, "real crabs" seems to be a rarity. It's hard to see any good reason to keep it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Heather Purple

unmentioned shade, vague with a few people consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 12:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague. Ambiguous with, at least, the color of Calluna and purple heathered clothes or fabrics. None of these are mentioned on any of the associated pages, besides a brief mention that Different [Calluna] cultivars have flower colours ranging from white, through pink and a wide range of purples, and including reds. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Apple-control-reset

Section target is broken and I couldn't find a mention of this phrase on this article or any other article. Searched for the term but I don't think it's notable enough to add to the article. Suonii180 (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Matt Larkin

WP:RETURNTORED Matt Larkin is 1; too generic a name to have it redirect to an election, heres an example of another notable person with that name without an article "Matt Larkin, the general secretary of the National Association of Tenants Organisations (Ireland)"

2; the guy should have a redlink to his name, not a redirect to his election Finnfrog99 (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

James Hudnall​

Refiling Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_15#Zero-width_characters as a series of smaller nominations. This one contains an arbitrary zero-width space at the end. * Pppery * (alt) in solidarity 04:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Move to James Hudnall. That's weird. Must have followed a wonky wikilink when starting it. Emperor (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The correct version has been a redirect for over 20 years. - Eureka Lott 13:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and since the correct version already exists. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Classically Abby

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Mentioned in existing Abigail Shapiro dab. Respublik (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I don't see it at Abigail Shapiro either. It's also a very niche and ambiguous term that isn't useful to readers. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • The Abigail Roth listed at the dab is Classically Abby. She was mentioned as Ben Shapiro's sister at the target and her youtube account Classically Abby was also mentioned, but a major purge by Artaxerxes on 29-Nov 2025, removed content including about the sister. Jay 💬 11:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Current diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States

Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 20 § Current international crisis with Iran. Dudzcar (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment this isn't identical to the situation in the linked RfD as there is no ambiguity here about which international relations are being referred to so I'm leaning towards either keeping it as is or retargetting to Iran–United States relations to pre-emptively avoid issues with "Current" becoming out of date (both Iran and the United States will almost certainly outlast Trump's second administration) but I'm interested to hear other opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Any title containing the word "current" will sooner or later become obsolete. On second thought, retargeting to Iran–United States relations is also fine. Lova Falk (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lova. The age of this redirect (~20 years) shows why a title with "Current" is problematic. Unlike future-facing titles with "Upcoming" or "Untitled", which are expected to be deleted when future becomes present, present-facing redirects have the need to be debated and maintained for ever, making this costly. Jay 💬 20:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I oppose deletion. It messes up the move history and the AfD at this title (link). However, on reflection retargeting to Iran–United States relations requires less maintenance and better reflects the content at this title (i.e. K4). Given the low views this redirect gets, those are the most important considerations. J947 ‡ edits 21:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Ptolmy Stone

No longer mentioned at article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete unless content is added. The relevant content was removed in this 2021 edit by Pseudoname1 and I can fully understand why. Googling, there might be enough information available to add encyclopaedic content about the device (although probably not as a standalone article) that's not just about the examples at St. John's College campuses. Unless and until we have such content though the redirect is not helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Also bundle Ptolmy Stone or delete as a WP:G8 as a dependent. Jay 💬 07:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with Ptolmy Stone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Jaimee Grubbs

Not mention at the current target and unlikely to be mentioned there again, reasonably. Mentioned in passing at Tool Academy season 1, but I am unsure if redirection there or deletion is better. Casablanca 🪨(T) 16:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Note the page is currently untagged due to being fully protected, but I did leave an edit request on the talk page. Casablanca 🪨(T) 16:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
I requested unprotection at WP:RFPP...either way. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Note I've tagged the redirect, but I've not looked whether the protection should remain. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The protection was downgraded to extended confirmed protection. Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

FextraLife

unmentioned. might be slightly notable, but i don't think most of the sources i've found (which i can list if needed) would help for gng or for warranting a mention, since it's about stuff individuals or groups have done in fextralife, or stuff fextralife has done. or i could be wrong, and they could help it meet gng consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 18:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Do the sources connect it to Valnet? That would seem to qualify FextraLife for a mention in the list of "several internet media publications" acquired, if so. Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
@Consarn: The question is for you. Jay 💬 19:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
oops, i slept through the weekend
the answer to the above was somewhere between "almost" and "lol no"
in the former category was this announcement from polygon, which is owned by valnet, addressing them as "our pals"
in the latter category was... just about everything else, really. also, the sources were a little on the insubstantial side when it comes to fextralife itself, so meh consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Appropriation Act (Northern Ireland) 1921

Delete The closest to this on Appropriation Act#Northern Ireland is a footnote to the 1923 Act. Why these approbation acts in particular? It's not as if individual budgets passed in the Northern Ireland are likely to get many incoming links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iveagh Gardens (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep They are all specific names of appropriation acts, and the article is about appropriation acts in general. Mauls (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
There were also appropriation acts in all years of the Northern Ireland parliament, from the 1920s to the 1970s. What's special about these that there should be a redirect? For that matter, the are been 106 Appropriation Acts on the Irish Statute Book. Why need is there for redirect targets for a routine piece of legislation. They add clutter to categories, where there's no realism to a possible expansion. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Why would they need expansion? The entire article explains what an appropriation act is, and is therefore a valid place to direct someone who looks up one of these specific pieces of legislation. They are, effectively, synonyms or members of the class that the article deals with as a whole.
This is absolutely standard practice: redirecting lots of similar items to a joint article.
That there might be other possible examples which haven’t got redirects currently, doesn’t mean these aren’t valid.
Which of the reasons for deletion of a redirect do you believe is engaged here? Mauls (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

First Meetings in the Enderverse

Not a plausible alternative name, not mentioned in target. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep, mentioned at target; "Tor Books republished the book in 2003 under the title First Meetings in the Enderverse" Finnfrog99 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep plausible alternative name, mentioned at target. J947 ‡ edits 23:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Tiping

This is also a plausible misspelling of tipping or typing. Search results were split between these two intended spellings, but both of these intended words were more common than for Taiping. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ambiguous misspelling for multiple words. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Agreed in principle. It should be noted that the 2018 creation edit summary said it was about the Taiping rebellion based on sources. Also, what happens if we delete it - I don't see the "Taiping" meaning in search engine output except for the redirect. Maybe disambiguation would make sense. --Joy (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. I haven't immediately been able to find any non-scanno results in reliable sources using "Tiping" to mean Taiping, although it is the third most common meaning in non-reliable misspellings ("typing" and "tipping" are the joint most common), however that doesn't mean they don't exist, especially as there are mutliple reliable sources using "Ti-ping" or "Ti-Ping". There is also an academic named "Tiping Su" (whose notability I have not investigated) who complicate searches. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

0-0

The original disambiguation page at this location was converted into a redirect to 00 (disambiguation page) by Shhhnotsoloud, then was retargeted to Castling by an IP user. This leaves a few outcomes for this redirect: choosing a suitable target (either to an article or another disambig page), or returning it to the original disambiguation page. Furthermore, O-OO-O could be another redirect up for discussion. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 02:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep nothing at OO or 00 seems to use a dash in the middle of it, so this is unambiguous. It is probably worth checking what links there though given its page history and possibly correcting that. Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Restore to original dab page, perhaps with some expansion. One obvious meaning of "0-0" is the report of a sporting competition that ends in a Tie with neither side scoring any points - very common in association football. However, we don't have articles on score draw or no score draw, the second of which would be an obvious alternative to the chess term. Tevildo (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Restore disambiguation page, this version. Note that 0-0 means specifically king's side castling, as opposed to 0-0-0 (queen's side castling). Also, both 0-0 and O-O are commonly used in chess writing. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Castling does seem like the most likely target but given it appears other topics like draws in general use this the DAB might be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Restore disambiguation page, agree castling is most likely but has the issue of 0-0 being kingside. Also note it's weird we have Double zero redirecting to 00 but 000 redirects to Triple zero. Dayshade (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Web browser history

These redirects should be retargeted in order to match each other.

or

Justjourney (talk | contribs) 00:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Web browsing history per 8BitBros. Certainly the most common term. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

June 14

Surfing at the 2026 Asian Games – Women's shortboard

Too early for this. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Surfing at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's shortboard

Too early for this. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Apartheid in North Korea

North Korea isn't mentioned in the target article. I don't think there's a suitable redirect as Racism in North Korea doesn't mention apartheid and Africa–North Korea relations only discusses apartheid in South Africa. Suonii180 (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment North Korea was mentioned. In June 2024 though there was an edit war over the inclusion of that section (and the on relating to Iran) between Luxorcin (blocked as a sockpuppet in July 2024) and Kashmiri (blocked by arbcom in August 2024) which ended without the content present. The content in the last revision with the section is borderline. If the two sources were obviously high quality I'd say it was definitely due for inclusion, if they were obviously low quality I'd say it definitely wasn't however they aren't either. My gut feeling is the first source is of middling to low quality while the second is middling to high - which doesn't bring me down on either side of the fence. Ideally someone with more subject matter knowledge than me would opine. One thing I am certain of is that there is no relevant content elsewhere on Wikipedia, so the only options I'd support are restore (and refine to the section) or delete. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Thryduulf's analysis. The redirect can be recreated if a consensus emerges to include the previous content, but given the borderline sourcing I doubt it will happen any time soon. मल्ल (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Magnesium aluminum silicate

It seems rather confusing that inserting an "i" in aluminum results in a different target. Note that the redirect without the "i" between "n" and "u" had its target changed in 2018, though I'm sure if that change should have happened. Mathguy2718 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mdewman6. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Regarding the nom's confusion on the inconsistencies, the 3 redirects were created by 3 different editors in 2005, 2012 and 2013! Two of them are inactive, but I have just notified the third. Jay 💬 03:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete to free name for an article. Current situation is actually harmful for search. A decent disambiguation will require the same skills and similar time as a much more useful WP:broad concept. --Викидим (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per Mdewman6 --Lenticel (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Casper's Shrove Tuesday (play)

Delete. This currently redirects to a specific theater company's season. It mentions that a performance of the play occured. No other information about the play is provided is provided. It is worthless for anyone actually looking for information about this play. LincolnMagnus (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: Tagged redirect and fixed malformed nomination. CycloneYoris talk! 05:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't see where the mention in the target is. Target mentions "Casper's Fat Tuesday" multiple times though. Jay 💬 05:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
    Fat Tuesday redirects to Mardis Gras, which bolds a link to Shrove Tuesday in the first sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks. So if it's same as Fat Tuesday, there is information and is not actually worthless. But if Fat Tuesday and Shrove Tuesday cannot be used interchangeably, then Delete. Jay 💬 13:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
    I’ve never heard of “Fat Tuesday” and “Shrove Tuesday” being interchangeable, but it’s possible that they are. However, given that the link is supposed to provide information about the actual play (e.g. a plot summary, publication date, etc.), the current sentences on the company’s page provide nothing of the sort. Hence why I think it should go LincolnMagnus (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Queen of Austria

This one I noticed on the talk page, a clear example of WP:SURPRISE. It was created way back in 2015 when she was much more in the public eye. Makes most sense to redirect to list of Austrian consorts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreaderick (talk • contribs) 16:54, 7 June 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 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New Pages Grrf

Delete. As a redirect to a special page this functions as a soft redirect, most of which should be converted to explicit soft redirects or retargetted somewhere (usually to a project space pages that link to the target). I've retargetted a bunch of other redirects to this special page to Wikipedia:New pages patrol where it and curated feeds are prominently linked, but this one strikes me as rather pointless - it's been visited exactly once this year, which is definitely background noise territory as someone correcty typing "WP:New Pages" and then moving their left hand exactly one key to the right for the final word is extremely unlikely, even more so doing it more than once. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * in solidarity 14:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget to WP:NPP. I don't recall the circumstances under which I created this, but I am certain that I made this typo at least once before creating it, so I have to disagree with the argument that this is "extremely unlikely" to be used. (If it helps, it's very likely I made this typo while editing from a tablet without a keyboard.) I admit that as a soft redirect it is slightly less convenient than other typo redirects, but the real benefit is that if you mistype a title beginning with Special:, you don't get search results, which is a much bigger pain than making the same mistake with WP: space pages, for instance. Toadspike [Talk] 18:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Correction: This redirect does not begin with the "Special:" prefix. What I meant to say was that Special pages do not appear in search results. Toadspike [Talk] 12:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LLMCIR

This section is no longer present, and the page itself doesn't say anything about competence at all. I could put {{R without mention}} on this, but that can only be put on redirects to mainspace pages. If another suitable target can't be found, it should either be created or this shortcut should be deleted. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Large language models, it's more useful for the existing links to send editors to a policy overview than nowhere at all, and if such a redirect can't be categorized cleanly then so be it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean d Delete. As I understand it, Wikipedia:Large language models and in particular Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models have been strengthened fairly recently resulting in a broader restrictions on LLM use. Thus the former guidance about allowable, "competent" use of LLMs does not apply anymore. This redirect/shortcut is used only 53 times, more than half of which are on user talk pages. These are often in piped links referring to "competent" usage and often specifically about using LLMs to generate block appeals, where they are accompanied by links to WP:NICETRY. I don't think that linking these past discussions to a guideline that does not cover the specific usage is particularly helpful. Anyone who clicks these will be left wondering what exactly is meant by competent AI usage. I do see the argument that this will at least send folks to the current, overall guidance on LLMs. Given that this shortcut hasn't been around for super long, has seen minimal usage, and refers to guidance that is obsolete under the current guideline, I think deletion is less disruptive than keeping it around. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    "upgrading" to full 'delete' after further consideration. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Competence is no longer a relevant factor for most of our PAGs regarding LLM use (an exception would be WP:LLMTRANSLATE). I worry that keeping this around as a redirect to WP:NOLLM will confuse users NicheSports (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Article merge

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I propose deletion. This took some digging and I suspect there may be more context that I've not been able to locate. The page is fully protected; I will leave an edit request for this redirect to be tagged.

This was originally a cross-name redirect ("XNR" or "CNR") to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Per the first linked discussion, the history, and the deletion log, this was deleted (twice?) 20 years ago (June 2006) and then recreated a few months later (September 2006) as a redirect to Merge. The second RfD involved multiple redirects. It closed as 'keep' although there was limited discussion of this redirect specifically and the other two that were nominated have since been deleted so it is not clear that the reasoning holds. There was a suggestion to tag this as {{R with old history}} but this was not done. There appears to be some disagreement as to the time period that counts as 'old history' but I've seen it suggested that the cut-off is circa March 2002, more than four years before this redirect was recreated. There is no substantive edit history but this does get some pageviews. Nothing on the Merge dab page matches this description although there is a hatnote to Wikipedia:Merging, which is the likeliest thing someone would be searching for.

Even if this is not deleted, it is valuable to confirm and more clearly document consensus as to what should be done with this, and why. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. Article merging is one of the few internal processes that it is important that we keep accessible to very new editors, including those who don't yet know about things like namespaces. This redirect captures a very likely search term while not dumping those not looking for that into projectspace. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Targeting the dab page is silly, because none of the entries there have anything to do with "article". Rather, this seems to match a hatnote, which is just...not good. I'm generally opposed to that hatnote being there, but that's a side issue here. If you want an XNR, then make the XNR (I don't think we should, hence my delete vote), but don't target a dab page with a self-ref hatnote just to avoid one. Merging is hardly a common process that needs to be reader-facing, and even a newbie editor has more straightforward paths to get help with stuff, like the help desk, other prominent help links, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete or retarget given the DAB page doesn't contain anything on article merge apart from the hatnote to Wikipedia:Merging so I suggest either delete or retarget to Wikipedia:Merging. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Neither Wikipedia:Article merge nor Help:Article merge exist, but Merging articles is a redirect to Wikipedia:Merging. Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Good find. I request that Merging articlesMerging articles not be bundled with this nomination. I am aware that bundling was not suggested. Whatever the outcome here, I am hoping it is a "clean" decision so that the next editor who looks at this in 5, 10, or 20 years won't have to spend as much time as I did trying to make sense of it. These two redirects have many similar issues but the history of the particular redirect tat is nominated may or may not be decisive. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    I've created the first one as it seems potentially useful for searches. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete – Per Deacon Vorbis FaviFake (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Information Note: Page merge was deleted in 2021 per: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 5#Page merge. I'm not sure how old it was at the time but per the RFD it had a similar history, having first been a redirect to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and then to Merge at the time of deletion. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Badminton at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's singles

No need for this redirect for now. The article can be created closer to the event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

EOFYS

Delete redirect. The redirect EOFYS (an anagram for End of Financial Year Sale) is an old marketing slogan for Foxtel which is no longer mentioned on the Foxtel page in any form. Redirect no longer appropriate. EOFYS has a Wiktionary entry which keeps its definition in existence. Aspirex (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Toronto Pearson Vicount Station

Not a very likely nor frequent misspelling; unlikely to be really helpful. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Information Note: The target was merged and redirected to Terminal Link by the nominator before this had a chance to be updated. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, G6, unambiguously created in error, moved 5 minutes after creation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, unlikely search term given the "Toronto Pearson" prefix. Vicount station on its own would be a more useful redirect. BLAIXX 14:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Հորչատա

Armenian transliteration of Spanish-language term; subject has zero connection to Armenia or Armenians. Delete per WP:R#DELETE, criterion 8. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Jimon (building)

Please delete as I created it by mistake. Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Greek TV

May refer to Television in Greece. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete lower case tv as incorrect casing, not needed for searching. Retarget upper case TV to Television in Greece as a fairly plain reading and plausible search term. Oppose disambiguation as nothing else suggested could reasonably be titled "Greek TV". The closest you get would be the list of channels, but that would only sit in a see-also section, which is where I'd expect to find it linked from the main topic as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't seem useful given it is ambiguous and retargeting doesn't seem useful as I don't see why you would search putting "TV" after "Greek" if you want the generic meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    I don't see why you would search putting "TV" after "Greek" if you want the generic meaning. I don't understand this? British TV, American TV, German TV, Canadian TV, French TV, Japanese TV (and probably others) are established redirects and all seem very plausible to me. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    OK fair point then at least I'd retarget the capitalized one to Television in Greece. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • The current target is incredibly confusing. So change target per nom. While at it, the second one can be deleted (or not) depending on the mood of the closer (it is not useful, not harmful, thus no need to burn any additional brain cycles on it). --Викидим (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

List of SAT solvers

Neither the target nor SAT solver has such a list at this point. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Pusher Love Girl redirects

No need for the old redirects with misspellings and disambiguators. RedShellMomentum 03:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep all. Pascuet (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep the second and third as standard {{r from unnecessary disambiguation}}. I don't have strong opinions about the other two. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Triacontakaidecimal

Not mentioned at target; comes up in search results but seems to be some sort of citogenesis (see Special:Diff/1181924281)? I don't see how this word makes any sense. 32 would be "duo kai triakonta" in Greek ("triakonta" being 30), but "decimal" is a word derived from Latin (32 in Latin would be "triginta duo", 32nd would be "duo et trigesimus"), and names for numeral bases are usually based on Latin numerals – it seems that base32 has sometimes been called "duotrigesimal", and changing the alphabet used for the 32 digits would not affect that. Even ignoring the blending of Greek and Latin numerals, this name suggests the base is... 30+10? Wherever the 30 comes from, since base32hex adds 22 letters of the alphabet to the 10 decimal digits... 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to DEC RADIX 50 which is in fact a base-40 encoding. The blend is due to conventions for naming radices (see also for example hexadecimal) In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Still no evidence that the name has been used for that (if anything, it has been used for the current target, probably based on its previous inclusion in Wikipedia). Writing 40 has "30+10" is not related to any conventions I'm aware of, and base 40 would just be called quadragesimal. (Also hexadecimal might be more of an exception than a convention (even the article says Schwartzman (1994) argues that use of sexadecimal may have been avoided because of its suggestive abbreviation to sex), and it does not contain "kai".) 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Shadow Attorney General

Currently the "more disambiguated" title redirects to the "more ambiguous" page (a disambig page, which also does not list the target of the first title). Does this position exist in other parts of the UK? 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

well the first one is definitely wrong - when I typed Shadow Attorney General into google the first search suggestion was "Shadow Attorney General Australia" with Shadow cabinet (Australia) as the second result, each Australian state also seems to have a Shadow Attorney General as does Uganda (I have not looked to see if we have articles) suggesting that other former British colonies might also. In Scotland and Northern Ireland there isn't a position with this name, with Shadow Advocate General being the equivalent. My initial thought therefore is disambig the base title (not everywhere that has an AG also has a shadow one though (e.g. Ireland) so a straight redirect to that dab might be misleading), add information about the Shadow position to the AG of the UK dab page and keep the redirect targetting there (i.e. make it a combned dab). Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Jani Patokallio

Connection between redirect "Jani Patokallio" and target "Pasi Patokallio" is not immediately clear as Jani is not mentioned in current version of target article (although Google turns up several non-reliable sources suggesting they may be related.) Redirect should probably be deleted per WP:PLA. Muzilon (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment This person was mentioned in the article (and I added the mention!) until this June 11. This discussion essentially boils down to a WP:BLPPRIVACY or WP:NPF issue; either the rest of the Patokallio family should be mentioned (in which case that edit should be reverted and this redirect should be kept) or they should not be mentioned (in which case that edit should NOT be reverted and this redirect should be deleted). There's currently a discussion about this on the BLP noticeboard as well. Personally, I weakly lean towards keeping (this information is, after all, verifiable!), but if this discussion ends up with a delete, we may need to review every biographical article on enwiki that mentions the subject's non-notable children to comply with precedent. Duckmather (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

June 13

Aphrilophobia

Not mentioned in target or any other article that I could find. I searched online for the term but it mostly brought up results for philophobia, the fear of falling in love, and when I did find sites mentioning aphrilophobia they weren't reliable enough to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  • delete this contrived not-really-a-phobia. Mangoe (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Merged

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Stella Hudgens

Redirects to Vanessa Hudgens, but "Stella" does not appear on that page at all. There may be a Stella who is Vanessa's sister (citation needed), but that doesn't justify a redirect if Vanessa's page doesn't mention her. Just adds needless confusion. I therefore have no idea if the Stella Hudgens I was looking for is that one or not. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Double Occupanty

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily deleted

San Jerónimo (1527 ship)

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Marie-Thérèse de France (disambiguation)

Delete The target is clearly not a disamb. Gotitbro (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment This redirect did target a DAB page up until March of this year, when Clarityfiend converted that page into a primary redirect here. It seems to me that the underlying question is whether or not the current target is in fact a primary topic, or if the DAB should be restored. FWIW, the two other entries from the former DAB are now included in a hatnote. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy per WP:CSD#G14 (third bullet point). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate restore the disambiguation page into this location, and adjust the hatnote to indicate the disambiguation page, instead of having all options listed as a hatnote -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restore the disambiguation from the history of Marie-Thérèse de France or turn Marie-Thérèse de France (disambiguation) to a new disambig page with the new entries suggested by Tevildo?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hitlerian

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 20#Hitlerian

Stacer, Indiana

Not mentioned in target. Before the article was redirected, there was no reliable source that described Stacer as a community. –dlthewave ☎ 04:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  • delete as a textbook example of why the "merge to enclosing" AtD for places is a bad idea. The deletion discussion makes it clear that it could not be shown that this was ever a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete agree with nom and Mangoe - don't see in any reliable sources. Just want to note - seems in the Template:Vanderburgh County, Indiana, it is shown under "Other communities". Asteramellus (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I do not wish to post-mortem the AfD, but why is there no preference to merge the pre-redirect content to the target? There were 3 sources - postalhistory.com, History of Vanderburgh County, Indiana: From the Earliest Times to the Present, and Exploring Indiana Highways: Trip Trivia. Jay 05:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
None of the sources was specifically discussed in the AfD, and the only one which could possibly be relevant is the 1889 county history; and since we can't see what that said, it's not really useful either. Those besides GNIS (which we have been over dozens of times) are the sort of works that don't address the issue well in the first place, or in the case of the shipping guide/gazetteer simply verify that the place was on the railroad. In any case none of the people pushing for the redirect/merge were simply appealing to it as an AtD and not addressing the merits of the sources. I've said over and over that this AtD recommendation has proven to be a bad idea because it's usually the accuracy of the article's characterization of the place that is at issue, not so much notability per se, but this is almost always disregarded by AfD closers, and so here we are. Mangoe (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
The original article's "unincorporated community" description is likely an error and in any case isn't supported by reliable sources. All we can be sure of is that there was a Staser/Stacer family and their namsake post office and rail depot, none of which are usually included in Township articles without some amount of in-depth coverage. Here's my pre-RfD source review:
  • 1 - GNIS - Not reliable for "Populated place" designation.
  • 2 - Evansville - Included in "Neighborhoods" list but doesn't mention a community, only a railroad stop and several alternate names for the depor: Nash's Depot, Stacey's Station, Staers, Stacers. I'm skeptical about the appropriateness of this source since it seems to include the author's research notes: "In the 1870s, the railroad stop was called Nash's Depot and Stacers scott - stacer station e&th rr stop post office run by nash? 1858 frederick staser german"
  • 3 - GNIS - Duplicate of #1.
  • 4 - Indiana State Gazetteer (1866-7) - Entry for "Nash Depot" on the Evansville and Crawfordsville Railroad, 13 miles North of Evansville. No mention of a community.
  • 5 - Jim Forte's Postal History - Confirms existence of post offices called Nash Depot (1854-1875) and Staser (1892-1920).
  • 6 - History of Vanderburgh County, Indiana: From the Earliest Times to the Present (1889) - Single paragraph about the Staser family, early settlers of Vanderburgh County. Mentions a Staser Homestead but no community.
  • 7 - Exploring Indiana Highways Trip Trivia - The full passage reads "This town was named to honor the family of local luminary Frederick Stacer." I don't think a trivia book is appropriate to include as a source at all, much less the sole reference to describe a place as a community.
I hope this is a good reminder that a thorough source review is necessary. We can't simply point to a number of reliable-sounding sources to make these determinations. –dlthewave ☎ 19:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

GREG

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 20#GREG

Ascp

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Disney Channel around the world

These redirects were created via page moves but with no significant history attached, so I want them deleted. Intrisit (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget first two as per Presidentman are plausible search terms. Delete "Disney Channel (around the world)" - this parenthetical form is not something that someone would likely search for. Asteramellus (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget first two as per Presidentman. John123521t c 02:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

June 12

FIFIA 2006

implausible typo — Chevvin 22:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Deltete per nom, random typo that doesn't merit a redirect. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Deacon Vorbis. Pascuet (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Very Weak keep. Search results on Wikipedia for "FIFIA" hint that "FIFIA" is a plausible misspelling for "FIFA" per a reference in Ben Aukwai ... but then again, per the search results, the non-CAPS version "Fifia" is also a potential surname and part of a species name, so ... big meh, especially considering that both Fifia and FIFIA do not exist, but felt it was necessary to state the search results due to the lack of WP:BEFORE performed thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Actually, upgrade to "weak keep" since it seems third party search engines hint that "FIFIA" is a very common misspelling for "FIFA". Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Tim Stern

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Competitive Martial Arts

Appears to refer to a combined event of multiple fighting games (video games), but this title seems likely to WP:ASTONISH - I would expect this to refer to a combat sport or Martial arts § Testing and competition. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Kurva

I created this as a soft redirect to Wiktionary last month after I searched up the term (intending to find the Polish swear word) and surprisingly found it as a red link. Kurwa is the proper spelling in Polish and is already its own DAB page; perhaps it makes more sense, or is more useful, for it to be retargeted to Kurwa as a phonetic misspelling of the Polish word and as an alternate spelling of the Polish word in many European languages (e.g. Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Serbian, etc.)
N.B. Kurva also means curve in a handful of other languages (e.g. Indonesian, Swedish, Maltese, etc.) 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

1-12cav

Apparent shorthand for the battalions that comprise the regiment, but this does not appear to be in common use (at least not on Wikipedia), and as redirects these are vague and potentially confusing and ambiguous. No incoming links. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to battalion sections. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC).
  • Redirect to the parent regiment. This is more or less standard US military stuff, but battalion/squadron lineage falls under the parent regiment. Intothatdarkness 12:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Malika Elkaraksy

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Tiquan Forbes

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

non-notable retired minor league player; please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 10#Ti'Quan Forbes Joeykai (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I just listed the 2022 RfD where I had voted keep. He was removed from the Amarillo Sod Poodles roster in 2023. There are mentions in multiple articles, but I don't see any single target. Delete. Jay 💬 04:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Aramean nationalism

WP:RETURNTORED Weird to redirect to the flag Finnfrog99 (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Assyrian naming dispute#Aramean identity. @Finnfrog99, as an editor in the topic area, what I've observed is that there is presently little academic information about Aramean nationalism as a movement. However, from what I've seen, most reliable sources tend to describe it as a counter-reactionary movement to Assyrian identity by the Syriac Orthodox Church emerging after 1950. I think it would be better that the redirect be placed into a section that describes its origin, at least until a separate article can be made one day. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Barbers Family

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: resolved

Alexandriaocasiocortez

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

All of these redirects contain 3 or more words which are combined into one single one thanks to the missing spaces. Since Josephstalin was deleted just the other day, these likewise should all be deleted per WP:UNNATURAL and WP:UNHELPFUL. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment (equally applicable to the other related mass nominations), if any of these people use(d) social media handles or branding in this format (or which could be interpreted to be in this format) they should be excluded from the mass nomination and considered separately as those are reasons why somone might search in this manner. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Every single one of these seems totally useless. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all most, UNNATURAL as noted by nominator except if the user has a broken keyboard. Concatenated strings as titles make it harder to find other articles by "polluting" search results (e.g., a user typing "Bayo" in the searchbar currently sees "Bay of Bengal" via the redirect as the 2nd suggested article despite the user overwhelmingly likely searching for another term). Shazback (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Edited my !vote above, as some terms do seem relevant to retain, or at least discuss separately, as they are website or social media handles. Procedural Keep: Billdeblasio, Hochiminhcity. Shazback (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. These are unlikely to be of use to anyone, and per Shazback above, actually make it harder to search other topics. If one's keyboard is broken to the point that one can't use the space bar, there may be a bigger problem with one's device, anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete We have a vast number of articles with titles of three or more words; creating unspaced redirects to all of them will make searching much harder, not easier. We should not except any or reconsider them separately; Wikipedia is not a directory of domain names or social media handles, and again, creating unspaced redirects to all articles on people or organisations who have eponymous domain names or social handles will merely overwhelm searches. These redirects are also entirely unnecessary for facilitating searches; typing unspaced terms already works (e.g. "petertork" already gives Peter Tork). NebY (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless. The RfD tag temporarily makes these not function as redirects, which is why they are 'polluting' search results. -- Tavix (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I only saw this replying to another request, but from what I see, these redirects are WP:UNHELPFUL and I'm not sure why they even exist to begin with. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

AlexanderLukashenko

All CamelCase-style redirects created relatively recently, long after this type of redirect was made obsolete. Delete all 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete Delete most as per nominator's rationale. Shazback (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Procedural keep for a few where the concatenated string is used as their official website or social media handle, which I feel should be discussed outside of such a broad list: BobRae, RecepTayyipErdogan. Shazback (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. These are unlikely to be of use to anyone, and per Shazback here, actually make it harder to search other topics. If one's keyboard is broken to the point that one can't use the space bar, there may be a bigger problem with one's device, anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
My laptop has several broken keys (P, Y and right shift are completely broken, the D only works intermittently). It's extremely annoying to use but it is usable (even to edit Wikipedia on occasion, making heavy use of copy and paste) and is otherwise in good shape for being ~12 years old, so the may in your last sentence is crucial. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete all. We have a vast number of articles with titles of two or more words; creating unspaced redirects to all of them will make searching much harder, not easier. We should not except any or reconsider them separately; Wikipedia is not a directory of domain names or social media handles, and again, creating unspaced redirects to all articles on people or organisations who have eponymous domain names or social handles will merely overwhelm searches. These redirects are also entirely unnecessary for facilitating searches; typing unspaced terms already works (e.g. "petertork" already gives Peter Tork). NebY (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless. Anyone using these are looking for the subject so they have utility. -- Tavix (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Recently created, sharing the same, WP:UNNATURAL error. We could just as easily make millions more of these. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all. As NebY notes, Wikipedia's search already handles unspaced queries natively, so these redirects provide no navigational benefit. Pascuet (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Duplicates" & friends

Though the target page has been deprecated, even if that was not the case, I might have nominated these redirects even before then if I had noticed them previously. Long story short, merging two pages together is not 100% sign that the pages were duplicates. In other words, these redirects could have been considered misleading, even prior to transitioning. All proposed article merge discussions to WP:AFD. For these reasons, I'm proposing that these redirects be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget all to Wikipedia:Merging#Duplicate as was done with the longstanding Wikipedia:Duplicate redirect. FaviFake (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Added Wikipedia:Duplicate to the discussion. Same concern applies to it. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Why delete them? WP:Duplicate (disambiguation) has a list of different possible targets. If anything, they could be retargeted, but I don't see a reason to do that, especially with so many incoming links. FaviFake (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thea Alexis Samper

Delete as unverified WP:BLPNAME. The only sources found in a quick Google search were tabloids and various content farms. Note: added Alexis Samper under the same criteria. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC) edited 00:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles needing to be merged

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wikipedia:Merge Notice Board

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion

Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to deletion
 – Moved to RfD per the nominator's comment below following procedural objections. FaviFake (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

There's an ongoing merger discussion, equivalent to a page deletion: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Split_how-to. fgnievinski (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep the redirect per the discussion linked by the nominator. The merge has already been performed, so all that remains is to redirect the page to WP:AFD § Process to avoid the unnecessary duplication. Note that the page cannot be deleted outright in order to preserve its history, per WP:CWW. FaviFake (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Deletion discussion venues are not meant to be how-to pages. We already have separate pages for the deletion policy and the deletion guideline. Keeping the how-to separate will properly recognize the nature of each administrative page. fgnievinski (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
This should be procedurally closed for a number of reasons:
  1. The nominator isn't actually nominating the page for deletion (or any ATD for that matter), they're nominating it as a means of reversing the merge that was performed or performing the split that's under discussion at WT:AFD. There was a slightly similar issue at AfD recently where an editor nominated an article for "keeping" in order to nullify a merge consensus, it was proceduraly closed/speedy kept, see this discussion and the linked noms.
  2. Merges are not deletion, they are not equivalent. The normal split process should be allowed to play out since that's whats under discussion at WT:AFD at the moment.
That said, if this isn't procedurally closed then I would support a redirect to AFD as suggested by Favi above and as discussed in the split discussion that was started after the initial merge. I won't rehash the reasons for the merge or my opposition to the split here, those are in the other discussion. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Fully agree with your rationale for a procedural close. The nominator had restored the duplicate page after being told to wait for a standard WP:SPLIT closure and was then notified that Miscellany for Deletion is inappropriate for proposing a split. A page split is possibly the exact opposite of deletion, as a page is created rather than removed...
The split discussion is still open. FaviFake (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
I object to framing this dispute as a split discussion. The merge did not achieve consensus, even by silence (WP:Silence and consensus, essay): fgnievinski opposed it within two days, and I concurred around 2.5 weeks later. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
I object to framing this dispute as a split discussion.
But ... the split discussion was opened by fgnievinski (also the nom here) over a month and a half ago. It's not framing to point that out. I also think the reason for calling it a split discussion is clear. After the merge Favi (and I, and many others who have worked on the AfD instructions in the interim) de-duplicated things and streamlined the instructions. The proposal was specifically to move the current (post merge) instructions to the GtD page. The split nom quoted in full:

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion was recently merged here. While I appreciate the de-duplication, I understand deletion discussion venues are not how-to pages. We already have separate pages for the deletion policy and the deletion guideline. Splitting the how-to will properly recognize the nature of each administrative page. fgnievinski (talk)

The way I read it, either this nom is related to the split proposal or its a nomination to keep the old (pre-merge) version of GtD and in both of those cases it should be procedurally closed to allow for consensus formation in the appropriate venues. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
The nominator specifically called it a section split nomination, added the standard {{Split}} notice to the page, and called the discussion "Split how-to". I struggle to see how this could be interpreted as anything but a formal WP:SPLIT proposal, which should therefore follow the rules for split discussions and not those of MfD. FaviFake (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
It started as a split proposal, from AfD to GtD. But then someone boldly did the opposite, merging GtD into AfD, with only a marginal consensus and only a few participants (2:1). Recently it was decided mergers are to be discussed as deletions, hence we are here. The discussion could be moved to RfD if you insist. Regardless, the goal is to reach a broader consensus. fgnievinski (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
 Done FaviFake (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding relisting comment since this discussion initiated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - A retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion process seems the obvious choice for this title. Merge aside, having it point to a page just concerning article deletion seems problematic. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    Why would that be problematic? Despite its vague title, the page is merely an explanation of the AfD process. It doesn't cover any other XfD processes, which is why it was merged in the first place. FaviFake (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I am considering restoring the full page below the redirect to assist newer users arriving from {{AFD help}}, who are more likely to be confused by its current state. The glossary link to WP:Guide to deletion#Shorthands is simply broken, as the section was removed. I believe this is allowed, per WT:Redirects for discussion#changing page during an ongoing rfd (June 2026). I acknowledge that the edit would be in the direction of my preferred outcome. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    At this point, if you did that, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to deletion should be reopened or relisted since that discussion did not reach an official close which affected the status of the page, considering the discussion was moved here from MFD and the MFD discussion was specifically for the content of the page. At present, if you restore the page with no XfD discussion resulting in a close to any specific non-procedural result (delete, retarget, etc.) it's like nothing got resolved. Steel1943 (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    No need, I've fixed the issue flagged by Flatscan by merging the Shorthands section into WP:AFD § Shorthands (Special:Diff/1359316199). Once this discussion is closed, the redirect will keep working as it did before. I wouldn't move the discussion back, we've had enough procedural complains already and the nominator said it could moved here to RfD. FaviFake (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Moving the discussion from AfD to RfD should not be taken as a shortcut for sanctioning the bold merging. If this discussion ends with no consensus, the status quo before the challenged bold merger would prevail. In other words: the merger should be undone if there's no broad consensus supporting it. fgnievinski (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Oh well, I just learned the the person who did the original bold merger has again blanked the page under discussion. While assuming good faith, I notice it's the third time they've blanked and redirected the page. Regardless of the discussion venue, the goal is to reach a broader consensus about the proposed section split, the reverse bold merger, and the resulting redirect -- all of it. fgnievinski (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    As a compromise solution, why not {{excerpt}} GtD at AfD? fgnievinski (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    FaviFake, your edit did not fix the problem during this RfD, which could be relisted and extended. Somewhere between 8 and 50 readers may be impacted per day, inferring from pageviews for the last 90 days. fgnievinski implemented my suggestion. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:M2, M3, M4

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Propose merge

An WP:XNR to a deprecated page in the "Wikipedia:" namespace is not a good idea at all. Steel1943 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  • I oppose retargeting to Merge since the Merge is a disambiguation page, which would cause a problematic partial title match situation if the nominated redirect is retargeted there since the redirect is not the exact title of anything on Merge. Steel1943 (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    You have that wrong. WP:PTM concerns the entries on a dab page, not the redirects to it. J947 ‡ edits 23:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    Nope, I have that right. Incoming redirects are also applicable since they would not be included on the disambiguation page. The title of this redirect is longer and includes words that are not part of the target page, which is literally a partial title match. More than the target = partial title match, less than the target = partial title match. In addition, the fact that this redirect is not a spelling, capitalization, and/or punctuation variation ... but rather has an entire extra word added to it ... means it is not an appropriate redirect to target a disambiguation page named "Merge". Now, if there is someway to convert this reader, to some kind of concept, that would be a different story, but targeting it to a partial title match that is a disambiguation page is just problematic and quite frankly in my opinion unacceptable. Steel1943 (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Try reading what WP:PTM actually says and you'll find (a) it does not mention redirects even once, and (b) is not as rigid as you claim above. e.g. it uses "essentially the same" and "where there is no ris of confusion" not "exact title". Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for completely missing my point and trying to move the discussion into a nitpicking about someone linking a specific page that you don't interpret the same way. My responses in this thread are done because this is turning into badgering. Steel1943 (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    I don't understand how stating that the page you cite as justification for your !vote does not support your !vote is "nitpicking" or "badgering" when you choose to double down on the refuted claim? Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Disambiguation pages exist to take readers to articles that they could be plausibly looking for that could be located at that title and/or which are covered in those articles, not solely those which do have that exact title. The merge disambiguation page lists articles that cover the topic of proposed mergers, PTM is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    • As a compromise on the below votes, I'm going to point out the only article in the disambiguation page Merge which this redirect makes sense to correlate with and vote to retarget there ... retarget to Mergers and acquisitions as the only page listed in Merge which the phrasing of this redirect makes any sense and is any way applicable, including the fact that it has several instances of the phrase "propose[d] merge" in it. Steel1943 (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I wondered if we had any article about the concept of proposed mergers generally (e.g. of merging businesses) but if we do haven't found it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Retarget to Merge per J947. It's telling that I didn't find that article when searching using this term, despite it being clearly relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Merge, which disambiguates between all sorts of mergers and by extension merge proposals. This includes a hatnote to Wikipedia:Merging, in my opinion the most likely intended target. Merge is hidden in search results, so deletion would be unhelpful. J947 ‡ edits 03:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Merge per J947. Delete and oppose retargeting per Steel1943. I didn't know about partial title matches when I first changed my !vote. FaviFake (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Melania Trump speech

There has been more than one Melania Trump speech of note in the years since her 2016 convention speech (for instance her 2020 convention speech, her speech to Naval Academy cadets, and her press conference on Epstein rumors). This redirect is no longer appropriate, as there is not a singular famous Melania Trump speech anymore SecretName101 (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  • That speech is probably still her most notable, to the point where it's in the lede of her article. We do already have Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversyMelania Trump speech plagiarism controversy, which is more precise. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    @BDD yes, the precise redirect is another reason why I would feel comfortable scratching this one. Someone typing this prompt would have that recommended. If they were looking for info on the plagiarized speech controversy, they would find it. I also created #Melania Trump speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention SecretName101 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Melania Trump or delete. With the creation of the more precise Melania Trump speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention redirect and the existing Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy, this ambiguous title no longer serves a clear purpose. Someone searching this phrase may be looking for any of several speeches, so a DAB or the main article is a better landing point than a section of the 2016 RNC article. Pascuet (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Acrobat (comics)

I think this is referencing a minor Marvel character called Acrobat, also known as Carl Zante. Not mentioned at the target article and I couldn't find another comic-related article which mentions him although my search was hindered by the many comic characters who are acrobatic so I may have missed a suitable retarget. Suonii180 (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Slave driver

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I think the most relevant target would be Plantation complexes in the Southern United States#Overseer, which should probably have its own article. Many plantation overseers were not themselves the owner of the slaves, but were basically hired help with defined parameters of work. Some overseers were themselves slaves. While it is true that not all activity characterized by this term happened on southern U.S. plantations, that will still account for the vast majority of incidences. BD2412 T 02:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    My search results don't suggest that the Southern US usage is the primary topic, even if songs and metaphorical uses (by far the most common) are excluded. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Carolina del Norte

Per WP:FORRED, Spanish is not a common language in South/North Carolina A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Weak delete per nom although I will note for the record that North Carolina#Demographics mentions that Spanish is the most common language in the state of North Carolina (besides English, obviously) Duckmather (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Duckmather's explanation. There is an affinity between the Spanish language and the Carolinas. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. Clear case of WP:RLOTE. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete If the Spanish had colonised/administered the Carolinas I could see a justification for this but there is no close association between the states and the Spanish language. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Noting for the record that each of these is linked once, in both cases as part of a citation. This strikes me as a weird choice but if there's a reason for it we may be missing some usage of this which would justify the redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, and this is a SPANISH redirect. If these is a Spanish speaker using this Wikipedia, they should instead go to the Spanish Wikipedia page. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 11:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
@OneReaction5890: These redirects are not for the benefit of Spanish speakers, rather they are for English speakers who may come across a topic in a language in which they are not familiar and may want to know what it is. Spanish is a common language in the Carolinas so this is a plausible occurrence. Please see WP:RFOREIGN for more information. -- Tavix (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Military History

WP:RETURNTORED, making it easier to navigate and evaluate redlinks in Oxford Companions Whonting (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  • The Oxford Companion to the Mind was BLARed in 2022 by Onel5969 with the rationale that it didn't pass GNG, so if the only reason for deletion is RETURNTORED that should instead be restored. I have not myself evaluated the pre-BLAR article and have no opinion on whether it's notable/worth restoring in and of itself. Rusalkii (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Andros the invincible

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Genera of Eobaataridae

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Skmrrr

Not mention in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Per third-party sources, it seems this redirect refers to a song that was not released in the target's subject (an album), but without context in the target article, readers will find no information about the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Taheen

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 19#Taheen

Can-toi

Redirect without any mention ZFT (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete if the subject is not notable enough to be explained in the target article. ZFT (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Multiple articles say that the term refers to the Low Men in Yellow Coats, however that section also doesn't have mention. It is in fact fully unsourced, and I have tagged the section as such. Delete. Jay 05:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Chypixel

Apparently a fan nickname for the Chinese version of Hypixel (a Minecraft server) for which I could find no reliable sources for online. A mention for this name existed at the target article which I removed seeing as it was unsourced and could possibly be interpreted as offensive or problematic. ~Liancetalk 02:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

"Paris"

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 19#"Paris"

June 11

North Tyneside Community Independents

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Germanz

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 19#Germanz

Wikipedia:SCISSORS

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

DougDougDoug

Improbable repetitions do not make useful redirects 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep they are both alternative channels of DougDoug's linked from his YouTube channel. It would be preferable if they were mentioned at the target, but it is probably more helpful to keep regardless of mention than to delete in this specific instance. Casablanca 🪨(T) 20:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep DougDougDoug and Delete DougDougDougDoug as the latter is not an alt, AFAIK. | Two Responses crossed the area. Anything to discuss? 21:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
    DougDougDougDoug is his vods channel. MetalBreaksAndBends (One for all) 21:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
    It is? (Comment by same user as @TwoResponses0985, just different account. Please exclude this comment from consensus). | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 11:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmentioned. Presumably anyone searching for these either already knows what they are and wants more information, of which there is none, or they don't, and will be left wondering why they were sent there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without a mention, these are redirect traps. Readers might think these terms would be discussed in the target article of over a thousand words, but it doesn't. If a reader encounters "DougDougDougDoug" and gets redirected to "DougDoug" without any explanation, they might think it's a nickname he goes by or a meme like Tung Tung Tung Sahur where "Doug" gets repeated many times, or anything else, when they are actually alt channels. There is no discussion of alternative channels in the target article (only a main channel), so readers may be frustrated figuring out what "DougDougDoug" or "DougDougDougDoug" even is, let alone a good description. Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Reylo

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Free of charge

These cross-namespace redirects to an essay are WP:RSURPRISEing. The essay has little info about the concept of things being free of charge. Note that Free of charge has a significant amount of wikilinks and could be turned into a soft redirect to wikt:free of charge. Sign2 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment Target was moved to project space due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gratis versus libre. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm surprised we don't have an article on the concept of free (gratis)/free of charge. Is it the case that not much more can be said about this than an extended dictionary definition? I'm not sure. The large number of incoming links to free of charge would justify a soft redirect to Wiktionary per WP:SOFTSP/WP:SSRT however I think this is substantially a result of there having been an article at this title until very recently. Thus it would seem like allowing a Wikt redirect on a technicality perhaps that is reasonable. The question is whether an article could be written, in which case WP:RETURNTORED applies. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    This source assessment by @Dentsinhere43 identifies some source that discuss free of charge but I'm not sure there's enough there for a dedicated article. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Unwinnable

same-ish as below, but it's a blar from unsourced fancruft. not sure it would've been a g4, though, seeing as its afd was closed as redirect consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 16:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I also think we can just delete this unless we find a good target for it. Dingolover6969 (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary redirect. Ugh. I'm not a fan of Wiktionary redirects but this is an {{R from merge}} so there is a very high bar for deletion and this is linked in 33 articles which is probably enough to be considered commonly wikified per the guidance at WP:SOFTSP/WP:SSRT. Content from the pre-BLAR article was merged into No-win situation in the middle of the 2010 AFD which sort of forced the closer's hand although it should have been explicitly closed as 'merged' (I'm not sure what the standards were back in 2010, to be fair). The current target is terrible since unwinnable could refer to any election, contest, game, sporting event, contest, war, etc. and is not specific to no-win situations. The link is used in an awful lot of video game articles and apparently there are some domain-specific details that could be described but I think the meaning is understandable to anyone who reads English without needing to know these and regardless of the domain. I spot-checked about a dozen links in articles. A few were piped links to the phrase dead end(s) and one was a piped link to the phrase walking dead. The Wiktionary entry wikt:unwinnable does list wikt:walking dead as a synonym with specific usage in video games. The entries for wikt:dead end and wikt:dead-end don't mention video games. All the links from articles should be reviewed if this passes and piped links should be removed or changed (a one-off piped link to wikt:walking dead would be reasonable in a video game article—in fact, I have made that change at AGD Interactive). —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    I guess the editor considered the content "copied" and not "merged" but this is a distinction without a difference when you do it at the tail-end of an AFD that ends up getting closed as 'redirect' to the page you copied the content to… —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    Good points. I support this, then. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Information Note: I notified Talk:No-win situation of this discussion. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

winnability/losability

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Citipost

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Shawn D. Miller

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2% Min Coupon based on Gold

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Fleur Leussink

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Post-close note: The article is now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleur Leussink. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Europe's

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hong Kong Festival

Delete: Hong Kong Festival was held 3 times in 1969, 1971 and 1973 respectively. The event included sports and arts events. Records also show that theater performaces were held in the UK at the time in the name of "Hong Kong Festival '67-73" It is possible that it was broken down into seperate events, including Hong Kong Arts Festival.

鄭寶鴻 (2015). 順流逆流— 香港近代社會影像1960-1985. The Commercial Press (Hong Kong) Limited. pp. 138–142. ISBN 9789620756498. Labratscientist (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Just notified the creator of this RfD. Jay 💬 17:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

UNITED STATES UFO FILES

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#UNITED STATES UFO FILES

Babbo

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Le Quai Malaquais et l'Institut

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Styled name

Not mentioned in Courtesy name, its current target. That page is about the Asian/Chinese extra name thing. I would vaguely expect this redirect to point to Style (form of address), because, as that page says, A style, by tradition or law, precedes a reference to a person, which means it either is used like a name or like part of a name, so that's my nom. I'm not super knowledgeable on the topic, so, if someone wants to just fix the current target page because that's the right thing to do, be my guest. Additional info: Style name points to Art name (also a Sinosphere thing), but that is mentioned on that page. Style, a dab, claims that Style (form of address), titles or honorifics, including Chinese courtesy names, so there may be a complicated history here... Style (form of address), doesn't even mention courtesy name, but probably should! Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

White House security incident

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

SAY YES

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Republic Italy

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

First Tower

Very ambiguous name and search term. While "First Place" is indeed the name of an aforementioned tower in Edmonton, the name/phrase itself is very generic and could be used in a variety of different contexts. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Iran war timeline

Retarget to List of wars involving Iran? Dudzcar (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Watch Timeline of the Iran–Israel war and similars. Dudzcar (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep all. This redirect sounds like it should be targeting a timeline article, yet the article mentioned for retargeting is not a timeline of any specific war, rather a list of many wars in general. I don't see a compelling reason to change the target of these links. Pageviews show that the current target is a much more popular article, per point five of WP:R#KEEP, pageviews mean that the articles currently targeted are the most useful as the timeline is currently developing more than the list. Considering that the Iran war is a current event, we should treat this decision with additional caution, I personally do not think this is currently an appropriate decision and the nomination gives too little detail to consider any option other than keep. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:R#KEEP#5 doesn't say anything of the sort. It says that the redirects' pageviews can provide evidence that the redirects are in use. Editors disagree about the amount of traffic that demonstrates 'usefulness' but that's beside the point when redirects are ambiguous and there are multiple plausible targets. Redirect pageviews do not tell us if there is a primary topic or which target is most appropriate. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
I second this. You can type similar titles and end in a very related article, then you click in the article you want. Dudzcar (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep all, as very likely what the searcher wanted. Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean retarget all → List of wars involving Iran. This is the target for Iran warIran war, a term which is ambiguous although there has been a fair amount of back-and-forth about the redirect target in the short time it has existed. My main hesitation is that List of wars involving Iran doesn't directly link any timeline aritcles (I don't know if there are timelines for any of the other wars/conflicts included on the list). That is a relatively minor concern because many of the articles contain something like a timeline, and timelines could be linked along with the lead article for each war if that would aid readers. My other hesitation is that the page is a bit of a mess but that does not override the ambiguity problem. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Camp Scott (Oklahoma)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Operación Estrella Polar

Google search results and judging by what links to it mean that this is not the right target and should probably be deleted. See also es:Operación Estrella Polar. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Do as you want, most important is that this should not be a red link. Taivorist (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Can you explain or give more information on why this should not be a red link? Shazback (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
@Taivorist: the question was for you. Jay 💬 05:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete to return to red. Seems very likely to me that a page could be written about this topic (the original, not-third one) in the future. I don't think the current conflation helps anyone. Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Portage Mall (Portage la Prairie, Manitoba)

This redirect points to a list that has a one-word description of the mall, which isn't at all helpful for readers. (It also points to the wrong section, but that could be fixed.) Recommend deletion per WP:RETURNTORED. - Eureka Lott 17:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete, pointless redirect that targets an (unsourced) mention in a list with no further information. Especially pointless with an unnecessary disambiguator -- Portage Mall is already a red link. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    • The disambiguator is fine, and plausibly needed as the primary topic when I googled "Portage Mall" was a very-recently closed mall in Portage, Michigan and there are (or maybe were) also malls by this name in at least Portage, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan (I have not looked to see if any of them are notable). Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasonable redirect as the target has conent related. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • This redirect points to the first #Former malls section, which lists the ones in Alberta, not Manitoba. If kept this should be refined to List of shopping malls in Canada#Manitoba (I believe there is no way to link a child section with a repeating name directly). Rusalkii (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    • The correct section would be #Former malls 6—but it's still an unhelpful redirect, because there's no meaningful information in the list. - Eureka Lott 16:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Refine as discussed above. This is a harmless and correct redirect, and returning to red would not help it nucleate an any faster article, is my bet. Who knows, maybe someone will even add more info to this location some day. Maybe even a source. Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Sumitomo

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Forest (Maya)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

El jardinero

Not mentioned, possibly a working title. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 23:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on creating a dab at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

2637

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Poogie

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Pukekohe massacre

The term is a Wikipedia neologism, there are no search results that predate the Wikipedia article

Furthermore the killings took place in Paerata not Pukekohe, making this an error.

Also nominating Pukekohe shooting for the same reason Traumnovelle (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

    • Note, I've just added Pukekohe shooting to the header. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, these are both temp {{R from move}} redirects. The article was at the massacre title from 2022 until 2 minutes before this nomination, it was created at the shooting title but was there for less than a day but given that it was a shooting it's a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
    Its not a plausible search term because it didn't take place in Pukekohe. Its unfortunate that no one seemed to have noticed the glaring error until now but there is no reliable source referring to as such a term. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    Pretty much every title where an article resided for a significant amount of time is a useful redirect because people expect the article to be at the article it was at previously, bookmarks, links (internal and external) etc, also take time to be updated. See {{R from move}} for a fuller explanation. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The New Zealand Herald article () cited in the original version of the article says it took place in Pukekohe, so this is not something made up by Wikipedia. Tevildo (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
    No it doesn't, it states it took place above Pukekohe and then refers to the location as Paerata. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Uh, at least from above, keep per move/article history? I don’t think that the fact that the title is wrong means much for the “keep per history” reason. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Birkenhead West

Would make more sense to target Birkenhead West (UK Parliament constituency) as the only use of Birkenhead West on the target page is just for a statistical area. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Disambig or retarget. Googling "Birkenhead West" -Wikipedia in a private window using a VPN to a US IP address the first page is about evenly split between UK and New Zealand results, but subsequent pages are more UK-heavy. Disambiguation is my first choice but retargetting as proposed is second. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
    Whilst there are some search results I don't really think people are actually going to be looking for this compared to the constituency, its a much more niche interest (a statistical area that is split from a larger area) compared to a constituency. All the Birkenhead West results are relating to the statistical area and not the suburb itself, which isn't divided into such a distinction. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Move Birkenhead West (constituency) to the base name or disambiguate given the statistical area seems to be less notable than the constituency. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Overwrite per Crouch, Swale, leaving a hatnote to Birkenhead, New Zealand behind. Per WP:NCUKPARL, the longstanding consensus that "(UK Parliament constituency)" should follow names of all British constituencies, regardless of ambiguity, is no longer in effect. J947 ‡ edits 03:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Baby voice

It seems that the target is known for his baby-like voice, but this is a generic term and shouldn't target here. I'd lean toward a retarget to Babbling, where Baby vocalizationBaby vocalization also redirects (although note that this too is a fairly recent creation by a not-here blocked user), but I wanted to see if there were other thoughts before pulling the trigger on it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the vocalisations of babies (Babbling) is a plausible target for baby voice. My first thought was Baby talk. the voice/register a person adopts when talking to a baby. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
See, for example, this BBC article which has a subheading asking: Ever find yourself speaking in a 'baby voice' whenever you talk to your little one? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, that probably makes more sense, and I'd be okay with that as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment how about a dab between Babbling and Baby talk? I'm also fine with a hatnote to Baby talk from Babbling (potential new target) --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to baby talk, or DAB as proposed by Lenticel. (Both options are acceptable to me; if expressing a preference makes it easier to determine consensus, I suppose I marginally prefer the first.) Playboi Carti's delivery has definitely been compared to babies in the past, but not to an extent that makes the current redirect target helpful. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Baby talk. This is the closest thing we have. Update hatnote to include a link to Sexy baby voice. If a dab page is created, Sexy baby voice should be included. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Baby talk, and… nothing else, sure. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Alcohol lLaws of Maine

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6, unambiguously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

June 10

Mississippian period (archaeological)

Redirect created because of move request that violated WP:NCDAB. Unlikely to ever be used. — hike395 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • This redirect was not created for whatever reasons you stated because I created it. There was an article that was moved and when this happened, quite a few broken redirects were created (see this page]). We generally delete broken redirects but when there are quite a few, there is another response which is to create a temporary redirect from the previous page title to the new one. It takes a couple of days but Wikipedia bots will change the redirects to avoid having a double redirect and update them.
You can also correct all of these redirects yourself but we generally let the bots handle this work. I was going to delete this redirect once it was clear the bot's work was done but if you would like to step up and fix them all yourself, that would be a quicker solution. But there is my explanation for why this redirect was created. It was meant to be temporary but if you would like to discuss it that's fine with me. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
@Liz: Sorry I wasn't clear --- The original page move to Mississippian period (archaeological) violated WP:NCDAB. I was in the middle of fixing the redirects, but got called away. All the redirects are now fixed. Given that the redirect was meant to be temporary, can we delete it now? — hike395 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
The normal method would be to leave the redirect at the old title, when moving articles like this. That avoids leaving broken redirects in place. Why did you decide to suppress the redirect in this case? It doesn't seem to be causing any harm — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
The move was proposed by a new editor with little experience, so they inadvertently violated WP:NCDAB by using an adjective instead of a noun for the disambiguator. I could have left the redirect and asked to have it deleted here (because it's unlikely to ever be useful), but I thought I could save everyone the trouble and quickly manually fix the other redirects that point to Mississippian period (archaeological). Unfortunately, I had to attend to something urgent IRL, and so was unable to finish the cleanup before AnomieBOT flagged the other redirects. Liz correctly recreated the redirect. So here we are at RfD: I ended up wasting other editors' time after all. I think in the future I will leave the base redirect and come to RfD instead of relying on rushing to fix the broken double redirects before AnomieBOT finds them.
Above, Liz was saying that Mississippian period (archaeological) was meant to be temporary. I manually fixed all redirects to Mississippian period (archaeological). Given that, can we delete Mississippian period (archaeological)? — hike395 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any reason why this can't be kept as a redirect, policy- or procedure-wise. It's a perfectly fine disambiguator. Even if the creator intended for it to be temporary, this seems like a plausible search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per others above. Harmless and plausible. CycloneYoris talk! 01:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Mississippian period (North America)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Mississippian period (North America)

It's Radical.

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Partial list

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Partial list

SonntagsZeitung

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 17#SonntagsZeitung

Ich Bin Ein Heidelberger

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Fridgy (Kirby)

Not mentioned in target. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Winter Bug

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Winter Bug

Aye aye ayee

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete Aye aye ayee

Cat (Minecraft)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 17#Cat (Minecraft)

You ever been to Bosnia

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Russian invasion of Crimea

Retarget one or the other. The invasion is a distinct topic from both the annexation (which followed the invasion) and the occupation (which began with the invasion and continues to the present day). The current redirects are inconsistent. Should they be made consistent, or is there a reason to treat them differently? CosdonH (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Neo-Libertarian Falangism

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7.

Anoredhel

It's not mentioned in the article and I couldn't find a suitable retarget. Name of a race in the novels and I don't think it's notable to be added to the article. Suonii180 (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Credit cards and cash

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Tramsheds

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Unrelated Belgian techno anthem

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 17#Unrelated Belgian techno anthem

Allexis Ferrell

Low-profile individual not mentioned in target except in the citations. I don't think this is useful for navigation but there are also some WP:BLPCRIME concerns, even though she was sentenced. Rusalkii (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete - Very much tangential to the subject and no longer mentioned. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. मल्ल (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The subject is not mentioned in the article text itself, only in citations, which means the redirect provides no navigational value. More importantly, WP:BLPCRIME strongly weighs against a named redirect for a private individual to a crime-related article, even post-sentencing. No encyclopedic purpose is served here. Pascuet (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm the creator of the redirect, and I made it because she's the individual caught eating a cat in Canton, Ohio. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not a good idea to have a person's name redirect to a controversy article they aren't mentioned in. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
I think someone removed her name from the article, so it's unfair to delete the redirect. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
I can't find any point in the past in which she was mentioned in the article, nor do I think she should be mentioned in it. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
A mention was added to the article body in 2024. (That doesn't mean its removal was improper or that we should retain this redirect, of course.) jlwoodwa (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the diff. My !vote still stands though. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
It was removed by Rhododendrites, a participant in this discussion. The removal was fine in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME. It is only fair to delete the redirect. Jay 💬 03:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Dr. Wrecker

Nickname for this character; not mentioned in the target. Rusalkii (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete Search results are mostly about this character, but it is clear that this name is used only briefly in his debut episode. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There is mention in Season 4 and Season 5, but current target would have been the best if it had mention. Jay 💬 03:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thias

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 17#Thias

List of weekly newspapers in the United States

The page in question excludes weekly newspapers entirely and only discusses dailies. This used to be a page, but was redirected without merging. Very misleading redirect target as 0 information about weekly newspapers is here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Then revert the unexplained BLAR. What else is there to do? J947 ‡ edits 01:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    I assumed it would be contested. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    You are contesting the decision to redirect by saying it's a bad redirect. It's pretty uncontroversial that that is true, so RfD is unnecessary. Revert the BLAR, with the option to take it to AfD where contested BLARs should be discussed. J947 ‡ edits 08:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    Well, I also wouldn't oppose us deleting the redirect, as the target is misleading. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Revert per J947. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • don't restore that unholy mess if it's just to take to afd. as usual, that's just going to be a waste of time
outside of the same five songs on the radio station, here's a short list of the issues it had
  • indiscriminate listing: some newspapers don't have articles. of those, some have been deleted (usually as a7) and some have never existed. of the ones that have articles, roughly 40% of them are a7s or rfds waiting to happen. it would need a lot of fat-trimming to be even remotely presentable
  • boring sourcing issues: yay, primary sources all around...
  • "how did this even happen?" sourcing issues: some of the already-not-very-useful sources have... strange issues. as an example, every source in the illinois section is either broken or from a tangentially related newspaper, and the link to "the citizen" in the maine section instead lints to current publishing, which has no mention of that name. some are also treated as external links
  • inconsistency: the nom's initial rationale is really funny, in that it's wrong by a technicality. the article is definitely at the wrong title, as it seems to focus on dailies, but it does include weekly newspapers... so long as they have "daily" in the name, or whoever was adding them didn't notice it, or erroneously thought that a list of weekly newspapers would focus on weeklies. except even that inconsistent inconsistency is inconsistent in its inconsistency, as the decision that some of them are not daily seems to be original research, and is followed by including them anyway, so what's going on here!?
  • formatting issues: each section has its own formatting styles (i.e. michigan lists locations for the newspapers, but mississipi doesn't), and some double-dip in them (i.e. louisiana). would be easy to fix on a list that doesn't have verification and notability issues up the ass
  • delaware stinks bleeh >:p (and has nothing i guess)
  • montana stinks bleeh >:p (and has nothing i guess)
  • no distinction in activity: while it seems to be trying to focus on active newspapers, some just aren't, and seem to have been added after going inactive. ideally, this distinction shouldn't exist in the first place
  • some of those aren't even newspapers!!: the gering citizen in the nebraska section is a blog, for instance, and it's one of the tamer cases
all of those problems (and some more that aren't worth bringing up right now) should make it weird that this isn't a vote to delete or to not restore at all, just to not restore if it's just to delete elsewhere, as a decision that a redirect can be deleted and that its pre-blar content was le bad can be made here. i do think that if this list were to exist, it would be a good idea to start from scratch or go from what can be found from the list of newspapers in the united states, but as far as things go, the closest i can give to a non-nuke vote is
  • weak retarget to the list of newspapers in the united states to avoid a third copy of this mess (oh yeah, the list of daily newspapers in the united states is a blar from similarly bad content) consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    It's not indiscriminate to list all classes of a thing even if every individual entry is not notable, if the class is notable, per WP:NLIST. Also most historical newspapers are quite notable; even if they weren't it has value to list them.
    That the list is badly formatted would be a reason to delete the target as well, because it's also extremely bad. As you said for this redirect, largely uncited outside of circulation (and who is to say there are not papers with higher circulations missing), and why are we combining a list of the highest circulation newspapers and the oldest ones, formatted totally differently, and nothing else? Do no other newspapers register in importance? Should we delete this article too, being an infernal mess as well?
    They all seem to be newspapers. The Gering Citizen is a newspaper , for just one I checked. I think all of these issues are resolvable; I also wouldn't oppose the title being deleted as it is misleading as the page does not discuss weekly papers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    maybe the first one would've been worded better as "indiscriminate to the point of listcruft"? consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 16:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Revert per above. Consarn makes a case why this doesn't need to be a separate article, but those discussions are still more appropriate for AfD rather than RfD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    i actually think it being a separate list would be le good, and i wouldn't mind the list of dailies being its own list either... just not in the states they were in, dios mio
    whether this would mean draftifying would also be in the table is probably a topic for when (and if) this discussion goes on for a little longer, but as far as this goes, the argument for restoring for afd here is procedure-shaped vibes, so nah consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 16:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Revert. Merging the list of weekly papers might be appropriate, but a WP:BLAR with no merger attempt is destructive. A merger discussion can be held separately. - Eureka Lott 16:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

June 9

Mob justice

Hi, I wanna flag an issue with the "Mob justice" redirect. When searching "mob justice" here on Wikipedia it redirects here — to "Mob rule" — which is strange cause these concepts are very different. Mob rule refers to the breakdown of governance through mass political pressure, whereas mob justice refers to extrajudicial violence carried out by a crowd against individuals accused of crimes etc, The correct redirect target should be to "Jungle justice," article which is the existing Wikipedia article that covers this phenomenon. But when you do search mob justice you don't go there you come here. Most people who search mob justice obviously want that version. Omniking2100 (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  • I already changed the redirect. I wanted to make sure if that's okay. An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    • @An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR: I've reverted that change (retargetting to Jungle justice) as redirects should not be retargetted while being discussed at RfD otherwise it often leads to confusion (e.g. it becomes unclear which target someone means when they say "keep") and hinders the forming of a consensus. @Omniking2100: When nominating a redirect here you must remember to place the tag on the redirect itself. Usually you should also notify all editors who have made significant edits to the redirect, but in this case the only contributors are a bot and someone who hasn't edited since 2007 so this is one of the uncommon exceptions to the notification rule (but not to the tagging rule). Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Note the redirect was not tagged until just now. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Jungle justice per nom. A Google search immediately turned up at least one source that defines these as synonymous on the first page of results. A more targeted search easily turned up additional sources that support this. As an aside, editors may consider moving the target article Jungle justice to Mob justice. Per Ngram "mob justice" is the more common term. I have not attempted to do a more thorough analysis of usage or other article title considerations but looked at Ngram because the term "jungle justice" is less familiar to me. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I would think lynching is a better target. And Lynching says Jungle Justice is a Nigeria-specific term. Jay 💬 18:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Fraternal and service organisations

Similar redirects with the 'z' spelling were deleted at their RfD last month. The rationale was WP:XY: Service organization is a redirect that targets Service club. While I had identified similar 'z' titles with variations of singular and capitalization, I had missed this 's' spelled variation. Delete, similarly.

I'm bringing this to RfD instead of a WP:G8 because of the page history. It was unsourced and seems to be a duplicate of what we have at List of general fraternities. The page was BLARd and needn't be retained. Jay 💬 21:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and outcome of the related RfD. This spelling variant could have been bundled with the others and there is no reason to suspect the outcome would have been different. I agree with the characterization of the WP:XY problems for this and the near-identical redirects that were recently deleted. I agree with the nom that the pre-BLAR content can safely be deleted. It is unsourced and duplicative of content already published elsewhere. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as a redirect I missed nominating in the previous discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Nd Street

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

GOD'S COUNTRY

Originally targeted one specific entry on the dab page -- I don't know why, perhaps the all caps was a stylization, but it's not alluded to at the original target. It was then changed to the dab page, which this differs from by capitalization only. Delete as an otherwise odd all-caps version, which are generally harmful unless there's some specific linking need. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to God's Country (Travis Scott song) (the original target). Both my web searches and sources cited in the article show that the title of this song is usually written in all-caps. I've added the all-caps version to the lede with citations. I can't find any evidence that any of the other entries at the DAB page are usually stylized in all-caps, but please ping me if sources are found to suggest otherwise. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to God's Country (Travis Scott song) per Presidentman and per the original destination. All caps stylization is common in media and has been especially trendy in music since the 2010's or so. Fans may be especially likely to search using all caps. Consider adding a hatnote back to the God's Country dab page on the off chance readers use this to search for one of the other titles. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget appears to be the only usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to God's Country (Travis Scott song) with hatnote on that page to God's Country as per Myceteae's suggestion, relying on WP:DIFFCAPS to identify the song as the primary topic. Weak because I'm not sure how consistent the allcaps stylization is (both for the Travis Scott song and for other media). Shazback (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep since I do not agree with deleting and I don't necessarily agree with retargeting to God's Country (Travis Scott song) since a WP:RSURPRISE could occur for those who do not realize their CAPS LOCK is on. Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to God's Country (Travis Scott song) with a mandatory hatnote to the disambiguation page. This appears to be the primary topic per WP:DIFFCAPS as it is listed this way on Spotify and presumably the official track listing. However, when considering imagery it becomes murkier, e.g. the Shelton song is presented that way in pictures etc. Hence, hatnote is needed for this somewhat edge case. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
If this is retargeted as above, moving the [Travis Scott song] song to this title over the redirect would likely be appropriate since the caps version seems to be the common name. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Utopia (Travis Scott album)#Track listing notes that All songs are stylized in uppercase. Upon further thought, I am convinced this is the way. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

29 Av

Zero sourcing that the station 29th Avenue station has ever been referred to by this label Joeyconnick (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Av as per 30 Av UltrasonicMadness (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
just confirming - you mean Av (month)? Asteramellus (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, apologies for mistyping. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Av (month) as per 30 Av. Asteramellus (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:PD-automated

Delete because all it seems to do is to confuse users with the template of the same name on Commons which refers to public domain CCTV images and not works created by artificial intelligence. All 10 transclusions of this template are incorrect. – Mullafacation『talk』 16:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment. This should be replaced with a proper CCTV/automated camera copyright tag specific to the English Wikipedia. --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 16:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
@Mullafacation: What should the 10 transclusions be replaced with? Jay 08:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I have no idea. I am not familiar with any procedure about when it is appropriate to import public domain licensing templates from Commons nor with whether any of these images even are public domain. There seems to be some sort of legal complications to at least one of the images so I am not assuming that they are all public domain.
However if we were to assume everyone who added the tag knew what they were doing and just forgot what wiki they were on, the existing solution on this wiki seems to be just to copy and paste everything after "because" on the Commons template to {{PD-because}} if the closing administrator doesn't want to leave a red link for whatever reason.
Nevertheless, I don't support any other action other than removing all of the transclusions, preferably by deleting this redirect because it is very misleading. Discussion around creating a new template may be had at Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags. In the event that the links to this redirect are removed and somebody with knowledge about file copyright tags wants them for reference, here are the the individual files: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] but I don't think proposing technical replacements is all that relevant to this particular nomination. Then again, I don't know much about what's relevant for RfD either 😂 – Mullafacation『talk』 16:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Simply deleting will leave a redlink at the file pages, not remove the transclusions, or I would have closed this discussion as Delete. Jay 16:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah sorry that's what I meant by removing the transclusions: I mistakenly thought a "transclusion" was just when it actually displays something; that it will at least stop incorrectly saying they're AI generated images (which none of them are) Leaving a red link is better than having it display the wrong message at least. My point is that I think that it would stand on its own feet to close this as Delete and have @Somebody Else who knows about copyright deal with it. I wouldn't feel bad about closing this as is. – Mullafacation『talk』 17:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of salted pages

I boldly retargetted this to Wikipedia:Protected titles/Historical list of titles following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#Redirects to special pages but was reverted by Tavix. Redirects to special pages function as soft redirects, so there is almost always a better target for them. In this case that better target is in my opinion the the historical list which includes a prominent link to the special page (and thus making it as easily accessible as it is post-revert), while also making it easy to access the historical logs, so I suggest retarget back to that page. The alternative would be to convert it into an explicit soft redirect (using {{soft redirect}}) or making it an information page with links to the special page and the historical logs - but I really don't see how that offers any sort of advantage over just retargetting to the historical log directly given that the special page is linked from there? Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep as is which provides those looking for a list of salted pages to the page that provides an up to date list of salted pages. -- Tavix (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    The retarget provides a link to the up to date list in the large, prominent box at the top of the page with added context and a link to the historical lists. It's one click either way. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Maybe disambiguate between the two? But don't leave as-is; it's not a soft redirect as claimed in the reversion summary, it's a broken one. —Cryptic 15:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
I didn't claim it was a soft redirect, I said it functions as one. If it needs to formally be a soft redirect then it'd be easy enough to convert it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
But what is the benefit to making it an explicit soft redirect over retargetting to a page that provides a prominent link to the same page and more? Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
You're badgering again so I'm disengaging. I've already given my rationale. Thanks. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
this is a bit confusing, huh... it's best to make this a list
  • don't retarget per nom. the attempted target is very, very surprising and outdated, even with the hatnote around, and the discussion not linked (the s in "special" should've been capital~) doesn't seem to imply any consensus to do so. if another target is presented that could be more plausible without also being a literal archive of something that hasn't been used since 2007 and also requires detective work to specifically find salted titles, it may be worth considering, but this one ain't it
  • if the redirect does indeed function as a soft redirect (which it seems like it shouldn't), convert into a proper soft redirect per nom, with mild opposition to hatnoting
  • if not, just keep it lmao. maybe add a space in the funny redirect markup thingy, that should fix things, right?
it shouldn't be this confusing, honestly consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 18:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand most of what you've written to be honest, but I definitely don't understand the opposition to targetting a page that links to old and new logs with explanation and context over a link without either that points only to the new log?
As for if the redirect does indeed function as a soft redirect (which it seems like it shouldn't), redirects to special pages do not work, they effectively function as soft redirects but without any useful explanation, context, etc. See e.g. User:Thryduulf/R to special. I can't tell you why they function like this, but it's a software-level thing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
think of it as if wikipedia was a soft redirect to nost:wikipedia with a hatnote to the article. there's no real point in leaving someone with a surprising target whose supersession is old enough to consent and ignoring the then-inevitable "what am i doing here!?" reaction (you know, the exact reason wp:rastonish exists) in favor of "there's a link somewhere in there that tells them that they're in the wrong place, they can just find it", instead of just redirecting (or soft redirecting) to a target that reflects current data
as for the second part, that just means converting it into a soft redirect would make things less janky consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Why would someone be astonished to end up at a page that explains in a big, prominent box at the very top of the page why they are where they are and provides an annotated link to the current list, followed by a list of everything else they might be looking for? Why is an explained link to only one of those targets better? Surely it's more surprising to end up at a page that is not a list of salted pages and contains nothing but an unexplained link to a page that also does not have "list" in the title? These are not rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely not understanding why you think the current situation has any benefits over the alternative? For redirects in mainspace and projectspace we very nearly always prefer a target with context, content and explanations over one that has none of those, yet that's exactly what you are arguing for here? Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
this all only works under the assumption that a reader (editor or otherwise in this case) will look for the hatnote first... and also under the assumption that they won't be too busy being surprised to end up on a list that's been superseded ages ago to notice the hatnote. regardless of how suboptimal you think the current target is, the proposed one is worse on multiple levels, as its context is for, as of writing this, just under 20 years ago
i guess i could also mention people having been familiarized with wp:salt, where the category is explicitly described as a list, but that sounds like too much effort to skirt around the obvious consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you think someone looking for a list of salted pages would be surprised to arrive at a list of lists of salted pages, were the most prominent thing on the page is link to the current special page? Nor why you believe a bare link to something that is not called a list and doesn't contain any form of the word "salt" would not be more surprising? Nothing in your comments addresses these at all, you just assume that an old list is inherently surprising with no thought about the actual content of either page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
for the same reason that someone would be surprised to land on a page that leads to the article on wikipedia, but whose main purpose is to lead them to a version of that article that's been outdated for ages by now, with the target they want not being the center point. it can be assumed from the title that a reader looking for it will at the very least have some idea of what salting is (potentially to the point of not knowing the formal term, but that's besides the point), so i'm not sure where the surprise would come in
to make your suggestion work, we'd need a list (or list of lists) that's still being updated, and that doesn't outright tell the reader that they're in the wrong place for current info
...as for the question of whether or not leading people to a special page would be more surprising, wp:salt and your proposed target both support the idea that it wouldn't consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 15:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
A link without any context to a page that contains none of the words in the search term other than "pages" is very different to page that has, as its most prominent element a link, with explanation and context to the new title as well as, with lesser prominence, a list of pages that match the searched term. I'm not simply disagreeing with your view, I'm completely failing to understand how your view correlates with either reality or the words you are using to explain your view. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
and i'm failing to understand why you think a superceded page explicitly only kept around for historical purposes would be the ideal target for a term related to current info, and why you think that a link to it somewhere around the top would help matters more than just (soft) redirecting them to that page. it's a weird kind of middle-man insertion, like asking that matters related to current-day italy first go through severus alexander. that said, this seems to be where the back-and-forth will stagnate, so it's probably not worth going at it for long enough to warrant outdenting consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 01:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Because redirects to special pages do not work there has to be an intermediate page. The choices are between an intermediate page that provides no context for a single link to a page that bears almost no relation to the search term, or a page that provides links to everything the searcher could be looking for, with context for all of them, including most prominently the current list. To use an analogy that is actually relevant, it's the difference between someone searching for "List of leaders of Rome" being taken to a page containing only a bare link to "Special:ItalianPresidents" vs a link to a page with a big prominent box the the top saying "There used to be multiple manual lists of Roman leaders, listed below. For the current, dynamic list see special:ItalianPresidents". It's one click either way, but one is superior to the other in every objective way. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
the problem is more accurate than the proposed solution, then, because taking readers to a superseded list of lists of roman leaders when they're looking for a list of italian presidents would be especially surprising, seeing as the roman empire hasn't been a thing for a good couple weeks now. it's a little like taking readers to a historic archive of a list of lists that's so grossly outdated that a good portion of the titles listed there aren't even salted anymore, under the rationale that there's a link they can find to where they actually want to go (which, again, would work as an admission that the target is surprising, and that it knows this janky workaround isn't what they want)
a way easier solution, as i mentioned at the very start here, would be to just make this a formal soft redirect consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Which brings me back to another unanswered question - what is the advantage in a formal soft redirect to one page (that still bears little resemblance to the search term) over a page that has more links, all with context, with the current list being the most prominent in both? Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
having more links isn't exactly an advantage here, especially when all but one of those are deliberately only kept around for archiving purposes, don't account for any titles having been unsalted since 2007, are tucked in a list of lists of all titles that have been created and deleted multiple times (with further salted titles tucked in some of the other lists as well, hagger my beloved), and where the only links that don't have a note explicitly describing them as deprecated are the right one and the ones where people seem to have forgotten to add it. so... why not just take readers to that one link? there's no need for this flowchart spaghetti when the alternative is just having the one link they'd actually want consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Most of that doesn't actually make any sense at all, but the bits that do assume that nobody ever wants something other than the current list (we'd delete the archive if that were true) and that there is some sort of harm in having multiple links to uncommonly wanted pages (obviously incorrect since dab pages list all topics, even obscure ones). If the present list were a regular page then yes we'd redirect to it with a hatnote to the list of all logs including old and current (primary topic+hatnote to dab) however that is not possible here so the only logical answer is primary disambig. We could have a separate page with the current link most prominent and the others below that, but that's exactly what the historical log page is so it would duplicate it for no actual benefit that anybody has articulated. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
the term "most prominent" is doing a lot of legwork here, but i don't think it can exactly hold up to its supersession only barely not being old enough to legally have a kid, and i'm really not seeing what would make the current target inherently worse than a regular page to the point where this hack would be preferable consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 16:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
What other link on the page is more prominent than the one in the big box at the very top of the page that is clearly described as leading to the current list?
What makes the current target any worse than the suggested one? Nothing, other than all the reasons I've given (multiple times) explicitly explaining why it's worse (if you've not read or not understood then there is no point repeating myself). The proposed target is not a "hack" any more than a disambiguation page is a hack. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
oops, thought this was sent yesterday
this is where it comes around to the "reader will be busy being surprised" part, and none of this even implies that the proposed target doesn't trample the idea of wp:hispages (why take a reader to a deliberately outdated, obsolete target just to tell them that the one they actually want is right there?) consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 17:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I've responded to everything here previously, some of it multiple times. It's clear you are simply not listening so further comment is pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
if you think it's like that, i can say the same thing. none of this discussion exactly supports the idea that you know what historical pages are for, or why bringing someone who wants current info to a target with the caveat that the correct one is right there if they look at the box that says they're in the wrong place would just be taking 8 lefts to make a forward consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
@Steel1943: We should bring back (one of my personal favorites) the non-mainspace double soft redirect-template to use here [[File:|20px]]. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

HD44780 Character LCD

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#HD44780 Character LCD

Bulldogs team songs

This redirect was created from the move of Bulldogs team songs to Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs team songs with the rationale "'Bulldogs' alone is ambiguous and not the official team name". WThere is a bit of potential ambiguity, especially with Glory, Glory (fight song), but I am unsure the best course of action, hence its appearance at RfD. Casablanca 🪨(T) 13:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

My initial reaction when this came up on the rugby league watchlist was "I didn’t think Batley Bulldogs had any notable songs". The only links appeared to be from the C-B Bulldogs navbox, which has now been corrected to link directly to the target page. EdwardUK (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are many teams called "the Bulldogs" catalogued at List of bulldog mascots. I have to assume many of them have team/fight songs. I have not reviewed any of the many, many articles on the list to see if other songs are covered but it seems highly unlikely that the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs team songs is the primary topic or that there is one. Per WikiNav, Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs is not among the top 20 pages readers navigate to from List of bulldog mascots, despite being the very first team listed on the page. Massviews shows that Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs ranks #78 in pageviews among all the articles linked from the list. I'm also unsure as to the best course of action. I don't know that it is feasible to go through every article and create a list of all the ones that at least mention a fight song. Perhaps deletion is the best course of action since there are hundreds of potential articles that might discuss one or more Bulldogs team songs. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate with Glory, Glory (fight song) (Georgia Bulldogs), Western Bulldogs#Song, Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs team songs, and possibly others if they're deemed notable enough. (note: I am the user who moved the "Bulldogs team song" page - I also think the current target is not ideal for the same reasons) 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Beefaloe. BD2412 T 21:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I spot-checked 20 articles listed at List of bulldog mascots and only one (Louisiana Tech University) mentions a song, and even then not in any substantive detail. I don't know if this was a representative sample of the hundreds of pages listed, but perhaps most Bulldogs articles don't mention a team/fight song and thus do not need to be included on a dab page. If a dab page is created, List of bulldog mascots should be linked under 'See also'. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Shekel sack

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Red Hot Hornets

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

keep

Ade, Ade, Ade

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Ade, Ade, Ade

Androgynos

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Human habitation

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Prophet of Scientology

Delete. This redirect was created at the same time as False prophet of Scientology and has the same issues: it is not a phrase used in reliable sources, is non-neutral, and is not a plausible search term. It is unused in any of the namespaces. See also the related RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 8#False prophet of Scientology.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete inaccurate and not used. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep as plausible search term Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
This is not plausible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Zefs

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Mass hallucination

The term is likely notable for a stand alone article, and it is not mentioned in the target article (list). Further, it's not a list, so Mass panic would be better, but again, the term is not mentioned there (even hallucination, without qualifier mass, isn't). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Mass psychogenic illness which talks about illusions. Oblivy (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. As far as I can tell this is not a confirmed "organic" phenomenon although the phrase is used, for example as a purported explanation for religious experiences and as a fictional plot device. Mass "hysteria" or psychogenic illness typically does not involve hallucinations. Other usage found online appears to be hyperbolic, deliberately or otherwise, or is simply conflating hallucination with "delusion" or "false belief". Anyone searching this is presumably looking for a coherent discussion of the topic, which we don't have. Redirecting a disputed phenomenon to something similar with which it is easily conflated, without explanation, is misleading. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I searched Wiki for any possible article that would be a good fit for a redirect but there just isn't any at present. Two fiction-related articles use the phrase "group hallucination": Better Than Life, You and the Night but not so either is worthy of a redirect or disambiguation. Hallucination is not included in the List of psychic abilities. I say delete until such time that there is an acceptably sourced "doesn't exist" mention in the main hallucination article and then anyone can recreate the redirect to there if they want. 5Q5|✉ 12:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Should Mass vision and Mass delusion, redirects to the same target, also be discussed / deleted? Jay 💬 04:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    Discussed, probably. Bundled, no. Without having looked in any detail to see whether it actually is the case, "mass vision" could not implausibly be used for things like television broadcasts or actually observed optical phenomena while "mass delusion" could relate to non-visual things, possibly including mass panics. Thryduulf (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Fayroll

This is an improbable misspelling for Payroll. P and F are far apart on they keyboard and it seems there seems to be no reason people would search this term if they meant Payroll.

I think this would qualify under CSD R3, but I mistakenly tagged this with CSD G4 and was told that prior deletion was an article, so I'm bringing this as an XfD Oblivy (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete also per WP:IAR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete or weak retarget to Pharaoh (as a phonetic misspelling). Steel1943 (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    Never mind on that. Turns out that per third-party search engines, there is a (un)notable book series named "Fayroll", leaving this redirect ambiguous anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as implausible per nom. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fayroll can inform on notability of the Fayroll book series (2025 AFD).Shazback (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep as redirect creator. "F" and "P" are very close to each other on the Dvorak Keyboard (perhaps the second most common keyboard after Qwerty), and since the book series is unnotable this is not an ambiguous redirect. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Ambiguity has already been established (current target, book series, Pharaoh [my struck comment]), meaning there is not an expectation that readers are looking for this target when typing the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
I still think that Payroll is the best target- it's much more likely that someone typing with either the Dvorak or Colemak keyboard would accidentally type "fayroll" when looking for "payroll", than it is that someone's text to speech software would read someone saying "pharaoh" as them saying "fayroll". Also, if the book series is notable enough to have a page, it should be brought to Wikipedia:DELREV, until then it is not a plausible target. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment - on Dvorak P and F are not neighbouring keys. They are close, but not to such an extent that "Fayroll" would be more plausible as a typo on Dvorak than "Oayroll" or "Layroll" on a QWERTY keyboard. Also, typically practice on a Dvorak keyboard is to use different hands to type the letters "F" and "P" (). Shazback (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Comitia

There's currently another article called COMITIA, which is for a Japanese indie publishing event. However, the all caps naming is discouraged by MOS:JAPAN and it's not even an acronym for anything. At the same time, I realize COMITIA is an acronym for Citizens' assemblies of the Roman Republic, which is also a redirect. I think the best course of action is to rename COMITIA as Comitia (convention) and turn COMITIA into a disambiguation page. lullabying (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

"Comitia" is not an acronym for "citizens' assemblies of the Roman Republic". The Romans did not use acronyms for their voting assemblies, and classical scholars, being the Styx in the mud we are, tend not to make them up. Also "citizens' assemblies of the Roman Republic" would make "CARR", or possibly "CAOTRR", which is a respiratory ailment that nobody under the age of 90 has heard of.
However, comitia is the actual name of a Roman assembly, of which there were three main ones: the comitia curiata, the most ancient, which originally elected all of the Roman magistrates, and in later times confirmed the elections of the other comitia and officially conferred imperium, the authority to act on behalf of the Roman state, on the magistrates so elected; the comitia centuriata, in which the whole body of Roman citizens were organized in units known as centuries according to wealth, and which originally served a military function; and the comitia tributa, the Roman citizenry voting by tribe, which made it the most democratic and eventually the most important of the assemblies. The comitia had to be called together every year to vote on the magistrates for the following year, and occasionally to perform other business. That makes them come up fairly often in Roman history; they were quite important to the existence of the Roman state for nearly five centuries.
By any analysis, Roman assemblies, with or without its three main subtopics, is primary by long-term significance. In terms of page views, the main topic gets an average of 62 daily views over the last ninety days, and the three comitia that make it up about 90 more. The Japanese publishing event, which is distinguishable as it seems to be stylized in all caps and is so referred to throughout that article, gets about 26, and most of its traffic during that period came over the last week, in the build-up to Sunday's event in Tokyo. So I don't think that's enough to make an argument that Roman assemblies aren't primary for the word comitia by page views either, even if the event weren't already distinguishable by small differences—which it is. P Aculeius (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
My bad, I was probably thinking of something else rather than an acronym. Do you suggest we should rename COMITIA so it's not in all caps? lullabying (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
I imagine you meant to say "redirect" rather than "acronym", but the phrase does have the sound of something that might be... "acronymed". As for an alternative name for the convention—if it has to be changed—your suggestion of "Comitia (convention)" seems logical, or perhaps it could be a little more specific, "Japanese convention" or something similar. Reading and rereading the article, I'm having a little trouble formulating a one- or two-word description of the subject of the convention. I'd also consider why it's stylized in all caps. Since it's done consistently throughout the article, as well as in the logo, perhaps the name is fine as it is; but I can't tell what the name means from the article text. Is it a portmanteau based on the word "comic", or perhaps "convention"? That should probably be mentioned in the article. It might also help determine the best parenthetical description for disambiguation purposes. P Aculeius (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Per MOS:ROMANCAPS, Roman script should not be capitalized regardless of how a name is spelled officially. Also, reliable sources from WP:A&M/RS consistently spell it in lowercase, e.g. 1, 2, 3. As such, I'd support renaming COMITIA -> Comitia (convention). I think a hatnote on Roman assemblies is probably sufficient for disambiguation. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 02:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
This conclusion seems right to me. Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

June 8

Invasion of Venezuela

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The January RfD had closed as Keep as unambiguous. "Intervention" was seen as different from "invasion", and a hatnote was seen as sufficient. Since then, one of the nominated redirects, United States invasion of Venezuela was boldly converted into a disambig page of invasion and intervention, and some of the other nominated redirects were retargeted.

There are multiple points of discussion. An editor who did not participate in the January RfD, or was not aware of it, making a change to treat an intervention on same terms of an invasion. Different editors changing the targets of different redirects, but not all, and making it generally inconsistent.

And something that didn't come up in the previous RfD, and which I'm now seeing - should the non-US / non-American redirects still have the US invasion/intervention as the primary? The Admirable Campaign of 1813 for example, is seen as an invasion of Venezuela per the History of Venezuela article. And Operation Gideon (2020) has been seen as an "invasion attempt". Jay 💬 22:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Gay french gorilla

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Gay french gorilla

Bowie knife 99

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

False prophet of Scientology

Delete. Made 3 weeks ago. Isn't used within Wikipedia mainspace or any other namespace I checked. It is unlikely to be useful as a search term. Maybe delete as R3 or G3 or G10.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. I guess this redirect was created alongside Prophet of Scientology with the hope that the non-neutrality of the two redirects would cancel out. I don't think that's how it works. "False prophet of Scientology" is not a fixed phrase used outside of Wikipedia, comes across as more non-neutral, and doesn't improve searches. Jruderman (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Oh no, not another one! I nominated that one for deletion, too: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 9#Prophet of Scientology.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - Prophet of scientology appears to barely ever be used, at least in reliable sources, so feels very WP:R#DELETE 8. (and 3. as 'False prophet' would require more than marginal mentions to justify a redirect in my opinion). Similar rationale posted to the discussion for Prophet of Scientology. Shazback (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep both as creator; none of the arguments given in the nominations are relevant or backed by evidence. It may also be more efficient to bundle these redirects into one nomination, so if/until that is done, I will give and address arguments for and against both of them here.
1. Isn't used within Wikipedia mainspace or any other namespace Redirects do not need to be mentioned anywhere on WP to justify their existence (e.g. numerous redirects containing misspellings/spelling variants/archaic terms, or for an example of another non-neutral redirect, Cackling Kamala). That being said, in Scientology and religious groups, there is a quotation that states, "Martin denounced Hubbard as being a false prophet. [emphasis mine]" Surely this counts as a usage, even if not a verbatim one?
2. unlikely to be useful as a search term Why? Off the top of my head, I can imagine someone forgetting the name of LRH but remembering his most important role: being the creator, or metaphorically, the (real or false) "prophet" of Scientology (cf. how Muhammed is often called "the Islamic prophet" by secular scholars despite not being the only one according to Islam). Granted, these redirects have had a total of 9 page views (6 for "fake prophet", 3 for "prophet") since their creation, but it has also just been 3 weeks so give them a chance. I'd say these are pretty "high" numbers for relatively brand new redirects.
3. Made 3 weeks ago I'm not sure if this was meant to be an argument for deletion, or just a justification for speedy deletion, but just in case it was the former: the redirects being 3-weeks-old do not justify their deletion. Good, decent, and half-decent redirects get created "later" than you would think all the time.
(Now I will address the arguments given in the other nomination):
4. is non-neutral There is an entire category of redirects that are non-neutral, this is a non-argument; non-neutral redirects are allowed to exist since they are not articles having to follow WP:NPOV, assuming other factors don't disallow them from existing.
5. not a phrase used in reliable sources This is incorrect: here are some RS, including from JSTOR and PBS, which mention either of the redirects (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, see here for more results).
6. not a plausible search term Besides the aforesaid sources I gave, let's think about how these terms could be used more abstractly. Most people on Earth are not Scientologists; most people who are aware of Scientology are against it, in particular non- and anti-Scientologist religious people, who would be familiar with religious terms such as "prophet" and "false prophet". Is it really implausible that some readers would use these religious terms for another religion/cult/belief system, even if they are not officially used in Scientology?
With all that being said, @Grorp, I am not opposed to the false-prophet redirect being retargeted to a more specific article, such as the aforesaid Scientology and religious groups where that POV is mentioned. I am also not opposed to retargeting both of these to David Miscavige or whatever the redirect for his leadership position is, since I did find a few sources using "prophet" to refer to him, such as a blog by Mike Rinder. But I sincerely believe that no matter what, deleting either or both of these redirects will be unhelpful for readers who have typed and will type them in the future. Sorry for all the write-up, I just want to have all my bases covered. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: If anyone ever did forget Hubbard's name, typing "prophet of scientology" still wouldn't justify a redirect. If a reader can remember 'Scientology', they can go to the Scientology article—or almost any article title starting with "Scientology"—and will encounter a link to L. Ron Hubbard in the lead, usually in the first sentence. That is already a reliable navigation path.
    As for Bis-Serjetà's sample sources offered: they do not verify the phrase. Result #1 is about Mormonism and does not mention Hubbard at all. Results #2, #3, #5, and #6 (a duplicate of #3) are film and book reviews of critical works, where "prophet" is used as a rhetorical jab, not as a descriptive or scholarly term relating to Scientology. Result #4 is an aside remark, and is also not evidence of an established phrase.
    If these are the strongest examples available, they do not demonstrate that "prophet of Scientology" or "false prophet of Scientology" is a commonly used or even marginally attested phrase. Per WP:R#DELETE criteria 3 and 8, redirects should reflect actual usage or plausible search behavior. These do neither.
    The mention of the newness of the redirects was simply to note that WP:R#HARMFUL point #2 ("reasonably old") doesn't apply, whereas speedy deletion under WP:R3 (for "recently created implausible misnomer") might well apply.
    I can think of hundreds of adjectives that have been casually applied to Hubbard that could be turned into redirects, but there's no real purpose doing that; hence my nomination to delete these two.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    Regarding your first point, the main purpose of redirects is to aid navigation; they are intended to make sure they don't have to make readers play a brief match of the Wikipedia Game to find the article they wish to find. A redirect that can be used similarly in this way to these redirects include 2nd pope, which redirects to Saint Linus; someone may truly not remember the name of the first pope after Saint Peter, but they may very well remember that he was a pope, and the second one, so the redirect exists in part to help readers who forget the name, but not the position. Again, it's not an exactly analagous redirect because "prophet" isn't an official title in Scientology but I'll refer back to points 2 and 6 in my above reply.
    Mea culpa on the Mormonism source; regarding the "strongest examples available", they'd most likely be found in books, not on the internet and alas, I have no books of my own to potentially quote from. Searching for "prophet" "ron hubbard" on Google Search got me this, calling Hubbard a "millionaire prophet" and on Bare-faced Messiah, I found an offline source about Hubbard by The Mail on Sunday titled, "The True Story of a False Prophet". Again, neither of these are verbatim "Prophet of Scientology" or "False prophet of Scientology", but the redirects have to be naturally disambiguated.
    I don't understand why the terms being sometimes used in a rhetorical way justifies deletion; RDELETE does not mention rhetorical usage at all, and doesn't state that redirects have to be scholarly terms. Last time I checked, Fictional Armenian genocide, Serbian War against Bosnian Muslims and Epstein Ballroom aren't used in any scholarly manner (just see the search results for the latter, for example), and aren't mentioned at their targets, yet they're still kept because people do actually search these terms and it would inconvenience them if they were deleted, their rhetoricalness notwithstanding.
    Regarding WP:R#DELETE 3, this would not justify deletion of False prophet of Scientology, rather a retarget to Scientology and religious groups since false prophet is indeed at least mentioned there, and would satisfactorily give the reader information about how Scientology is viewed by other religions who are implicitly said to believe in that article that LRH indeed was a false prophet, as a reader searching the term could be searching for that information per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Ditto for RDELETE 8 since it justifies deletion based on not [being] mentioned in the target. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 12:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete not used anywhere and an unlikely search term. Requires some rather tortured steps to get from there to here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I may or may not weigh in on the other redirect, but this one is a clear delete for me. From a Christian perspective, such an epithet is redundant; Scientology is considered a false teaching, so there wouldn't be a "true" prophet of it anyway. This did make me wonder whether there are "non-Hubbardian" Scientologists, who consider themselves Scientologists while indeed considering Hubbard a false prophet. Quick googling didn't yield anything. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep, per the many words above Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Although maybe it would make sense to retarget that false prophet one to the mention of that guy calling him a false prophet. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per those above. Does not pass muster on many fronts. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

One pound

Confusing since the target is a disambiguation page that is not an exact title match for the redirect per WP:PTM. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep, makes sense to me change as discussed immediately below. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of £1 banknotes and coins and add a link to the dab page in the see also. Someone using this search term is most likely looking for a thing called a "one pound" and that is almost certainly a coin or note with that value. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    Ah, great pick for a retarget. I change my above !vote to support this instead. Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Pokelogan

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 20#Pokelogan

Poorest country

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 16#Poorest country

Traction Company

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: one possible target would be Rail transport company, in that there are quite a few former railway and tram operators named "XYZ Traction Company", but I remain to be convinced that this would be better than deletion. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Has been added to the target entry. Why would we delete a link that help readers understand terminology instead of clarifying it? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, looks like that edit was reverted by Fram: Steel1943 (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I readded it. Fram objected to where the indormation was added but couldn't be bothered to include it where he thought it should go. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
It has been removed again; I tend to agree that it adds nothing useful to the Tram article. We need a better solution for this redirect. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, the Tram article is the wrong place because (per my comment below) it is not exclusive to trams. Transportation company or Transport company would be a logical place, except they are redirects to Transport industry and Transport respectively which are much too high a level (they shouldn't have separate targets, I'll be nominating them separately when I've finished writing this comment). Transportation authority is the right level, but that is about public sector providers whereas all the examples of "Traction Company" I'm aware of are/were private sector organisations. Bus company redirects to Bus, Tram company and tram operator are redlinks, Bus operator redirects to Bus driver, Public Transport Operator redirects to Public transport and none of those targets are correct either. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 09:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete. there's not much to do with such a vague term. a redirect would be misleading, a dab (or would it be a set index here?) would just be ptms scattered to the wind, and i haven't been able to find much info on traction companies in general because, as mentioned too many words ago, the term is really vague, to the point where companies that offer to enshittify mrbeastify youtube channels were worrisomely common (i got more than zero results referring to those) consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 12:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
    A possibility would a be page, probably a set index, that said something like:
    "Traction Company" is an element used in the names of companies that operate public transport, particularly buses and trams, and companies that offer services to startups looking to grow.
    With lists of companies we have articles about, organised by industry (although the first two pages of intitle results are all public transport operators) with a link to wikt:traction somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Spanish onion

An ancient redirect which points to a section which no longer exists. The word "Spanish" appears only once in the current revision of the article and doesn't describe anything about onions actually cultivated in/from Spain. Delete. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete for lack of content. A Spanish onion is a variety of yellow/brown onion that is larger (sometimes significantly larger), sweeter and (slightly) less pungent than the main varieties. It is possible that this is a UK-specific term although I'm not certain of that. Ideally we'd have some content about this, but all we have that I've found are a couple of passing mentions of the vegetable, and a mention that the UK press once characterised Graham Taylor as a Spanish onion - nothing suitable for anchoring a redirect though. There was apparently a 1935 film called An Old Spanish Onion but the only content we have about that are list entries at Ruth Etting#Filmography and Forman Brown#Filmography. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per above. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Spainish onion was created by creator at the same time as this. Both were redirects to Red onion, until one was boldly retargeted. Bundle? Jay 💬 14:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
    Only bundle if you want to relist this discussion imo, it's 8 days old already, otherwise just nominate it separately after this is closed. Spainish onion is a plausible error for Spanish onion (more common than I expected tbh) but if we're deleting the correct spelling it doesn't make sense to keep the misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
    I was also looking for someone to comment on Red onion. The usual discussion that happens when redirect variants target different articles. Jay 💬 15:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
    I felt my comment above also addressed that - there is no mention of "Spanish" (or "Spainish") at red onion and my results indicate that a Spanish onion is a yellow/brown onion not a red onion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
    I had read your comment and didn't think it addressed red onion. In any case, you have now addressed it in your latest comment. I'm good with a WP:G6 for Spainish if there is a Delete outcome. Jay 💬 17:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    G6 maybe iffy, but G8 would definitely be OK. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - 'Plant Breeding Reviews, Volume 20' gives some great insight into "Spanish" onions (c. page 91; took me a while to track that down). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to bundle Spainish onion as suggested
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Macklemore haircut

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Spaunchje barp

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Sexs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 16#Sexs

If man

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The word sex

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Aphrodisiasm

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pseques

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kami Neko

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 16#Kami Neko

Game Show Congress

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 16#Game Show Congress

Andold Temerary

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

IUD moth

No use of this name in reliable sources (and thus no mention in the target article), just a few social media posts making a comparison between the animal's shape and that of IUDs. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom Katzrockso (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Just notified of this discussion at the target. I've also asked the creator to make his comment here, instead of at the user talk page. Jay 💬 14:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I think the prevalence and variety of social media posts calling it an IUD moth is certainly a use of an improvised common name, and in fact a direct visual comparison here makes it much more likely its something someone would actually search while trying to identify the insect. There are even comparisons on insect guide sites like BugGuide https://www.bugguide.net/node/view/1677709. If others agree this should be deleted I can understand, but to me it seems relevant. (hopefully this comment is now in the right spot, sorry I'm a newbie) Bkerdman20 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

CART World Series Season temp redirects

Old /Temp redirects, created per this discussion, which I've gotten undeleted. I've made sure all the significant history has been moved over to the redirect targets. Graham87 (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Flop-hit

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Drill into it and drain every last drop of fluid

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Taking a crap

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Taking a poop

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Kenya Agricultural & Livestock Research Organisation

These should have the same target. For whatever reason, these redirects were created independently of each other and never had the same target in the 5+ years that all redirects existed. The official website at kalro.org mentions Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization as one of the names that is used, so creating that as a redirect would be useful, but it looks that the common name is KALRO, so using {{R avoided double redirect}} to that redirect would be helpful, though I'm unsure what the best target is. Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where should these target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Agriculture in Kenya, where it is discussed the most currently. If that changes it can be retargeted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

José Antonio Galilea Vedaurre

The second surname of this man is "Vidaurre", not "Vedaurre". This is an obvious and confusing error and shouldn't redirect to the article. The same applies to Jose Antonio Galilea Vedaurre. The redirect with the correct name "José Antonio Galilea Vidaurre" doesn't even exist. These two current redirects only spread misinformation. Regioncalifornia (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • This article was created independently by Carigval.97 in 2021, although the original article existed since 2011. This was then merged into the original one, and the page history needs to be kept for attribution. Move without redirect to José Antonio Galilea Vidaurre. The non-diacritic Jose Antonio Galilea Vedaurre may be deleted as a WP:G8 as a dependent. Jay 💬 04:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see what others think of the late !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Move without redirect as per Jay's suggestion, clean way to preserve history and place on a relevant article name that serves as a valid redirect. Shazback (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

North Canal

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 16#North Canal

Artistic gymnastics at the 2026 Summer Youth Olympics

Too early for this. Can be recreated closer to games time. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What's the point of deleting it if it's just going to be recreated later? Dingolover6969 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
The redirect implies that we have relevant content about the topic the title refers to. When we don't have that content, in this case because there is nothing to say about the event until it happens (or possibly shortly before), that is misleading. See also WP:TOOSOON. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
I see. I guess I'm not really concerned that it's misleading. They're getting all the info that there is on the topic! (Namely: there will be Artistic gymnastics at the 2026 Summer Youth Olympics.) And later, when there is more info, more info will be on the page, too. Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
But wouldn't a user searching this already know that? --BDD (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I usually support TOOSOON deletions, but I think this is different. Summer Youth Olympics is something new, and we don't have an Artistic gymnastics article for any Summer Youth Olympics, and I don't know if we'll have one for 2026. The 2022 edition was cancelled because of COVID. The target has basic info as Dingo mentioned - venue, no. of competitors. The self-redirect link in the target definitely needs to be removed though. Jay 💬 04:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No bolded !votes, but there are objections to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Source+Control+Management

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Smk+jalan+arang

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

June 7

2027–2029 World Test Championship

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Judy Weleminsky

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Orbis I

"Orbis" is not mentioned in target. We mention Orbis I at UGM-27 Polaris#STARS ("STARS I consisted of refurbished Polaris first and second stages and a commercially procured Orbis I third stage....") though the connection with Orbital Sciences Corporation is not clear. Either retarget to the mention or delete, I'm not sure which is more appropriate. Rusalkii (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Michael Schlep

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

M6 rocket

there are two main issues here

  • the rocket is only mentioned in passing, in a context that suggests that it's mentioned elsewhere as an unreliable piece of shit handed off to soldiers more likely to spawncamp themselves than to know what a weapon is
  • if it's to be defined somewhere, it wouldn't be here, so this isn't a particularly good target
  • it's a vague as fr*ck name, being used to refer to seemingly multiple types of rockets that go boom (which don't seem to be exclusive to use in bazookas), rockets that take people to the one place not corrupted by capitalism... SPACE! and i guess a lego piece
  • despite having found a good few results for the specific m6 rocket that was jammed into bazookas, i could only find passing mentions. the only ones that had anything more than raw info were usually in the context of "what the fuck were they doing", which is pretty funny

yes, that's two, don't question it~ consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The section covers M6 rockets. I'm not an expert but from this section and a brief Google these "m6 rockets" seem to be bazooka rockets. If there are other M6 rockets that need to be covered maybe it could get a dab... Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
this part isn't important to note due to the aforementioned context of the passing mention issues, but #world war ii mentions them in (relatively) more detail in the same article, so it would already be a better target
more importantly, mentions of m6 rockets (specifically m6, not the improved versions) in wikipedia seem to be primarily about the lvm3-m6 (which was not itself the rocket), with some more passing ones about m6 rocket bags (which are not themselves rockets), such as in isro and m18 recoilless rifle respectively
mentions outside of wikipedia were similarly torn between different sources related to lvm3-m6 and assorted rocket-related stuff used in wars that had the code "m6" for whatever reason, veering more towards the former, suggesting that the rocket used there might be the primary topic for the term? at this point, though, i'm actually still a little unwilling to suggest retargeting there, as the rocket itself isn't mentioned in too much detail aside from "it's an lvm3"
on an even less important note, there were also a few results related to golf clubs, like whatever this is, but a lego piece was funnier to note consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
there's also m6, which is already a dab that could potentially cover this redirect, but without a detailed enough mention somewhere, it's better off left off consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Consarn: please can you tone down the attempted humour in your RfD noms, I have no idea what soldiers more likely to spawncamp themselves than to know what a weapon is is intended to mean and I can't work out whether it is actually relevant to this redirect or not. Your third bullet would be just as informative and much easier to understand with about half the words. Your goal should be to convey your point as clearly as possible not to be entertaining. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    wikt:spawn camp is relevant here. the gist of it is that the soldiers burdened with those rockets generally didn't have the training to properly handle said rockets. it's probably good to make it a little clearer that those mentions of the rockets themselves were also in passing, usually more focused in the aforementioned context of the soldiers' poor training and the conflicts in which they were thrown, that there were no more than two of said passing mentions per accessible source, and that this also applies to the sources that only mentioned them as raw info (that is, just listing them among the supplies they had) consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Queen of Austria

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 14#Queen of Austria

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tanks/Tab header/Toolbox

This one is bizzarre - the redirect is the only page with that prefix so it functions as a soft redirect to a list consisting only of itself, and it's never had any other content. It's not impossible that there used to other pages listed that have now been deleted (it was created in 2016), but I don't know how to look for that, but even if it was useful in the past it doesn't seem to be so now? Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Undelete prefix search doesn't find any other deleted pages. * Pppery * in solidarity 14:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    Actually that link does find Wikipedia:WikiProject Tanks/Tab header/Toolbox/Banner which was created 1 minute before this redirect by the same editor and deleted in 2017 (with the reason "project merged") but the sole revision of that page was a transclusion of {{Intentionally blank}} which doesn't help me understand the purpose of either page either then or now. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New Pages Grrf

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 14#Wikipedia:New Pages Grrf

Wikipedia:Journal des uploads

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Orthohantaviruses

I think these should be deleted per WP:RETURNTORED, though I'm not quite sure. All the other unclassified orthohantaviruses at Orthohantavirus#Classification are either redlinked or have articles. Per WP:NSPECIES#Viruses and similar forms, viruses are presumed notable only if they are accepted by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which does list them both here as related, unclassified viruses. I believe this counts, even though they are not "species", but viruses are funny that way. These links appear only at Orthohantavirus#Classification, where they are MOS:CIRCULAR, and in a handful of 'See also' sections where redlinks would generally be removed. Note that an {{R with possibilities}} is an exception to MOS:CIRCULAR so if the decision is to 'keep' then the links don't necessarily have to be removed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

These were previously species but abolished as species (due to incomplete sequence information: page 6) so I redirected them to the genus article, which maybe I shouldn't have done, since Oxbow virus was also a species and abolished but I didn't redirect it. These "former species" are of unclear notability and there aren't clear guidelines on what should be done with them. Ping @WhatamIdoing: as the main author of WP:NSPECIES. Velayinosu (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't think the community has a single recommendation for this situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
That was my impression (and I think it's reasonable the guideline doesn't address this particular situation). Isla Vista virus has 207 Google Scholar hits, which is more than all but two of the blue-linked unclassified viruses at Orthohantavirus#Classification, and Muleshoe virus has 89 GScholar hits, putting it about in the middle of the pack. To the extent that's a proxy for notability, it's not clear why these two are handled differently than all the others. I'll place a notice at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species) since this question may be of interest to others who are active there. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 07:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom since it doesn't seem like anything has changed yet regarding where this information is located in Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
    Went through this so fast, didn't realize content exists or is hiding somewhere in an edit history. Striking my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Restore both. Also note that Orthohantavirus is also a redirect now. Jay 💬 05:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Deleting to encourage article creation makes no sense when there are perfectly good articles in the page history (Isla Vista, Muleshoe) which would become inaccessible after deletion. Neither does deleting for any other reason: the uncertainty here over the viruses' notability evinces the necessity for an AfD instead of backdoor deletion.
    If there's a good target, these redirects should be kept; otherwise, since deleting the underlying article without PROD or AfD is highly undesirable the articles should be restored. Normally I might suggest the current target is reasonable, identifying these redirects as an unclassified hantavirus. But due to the preference for a red link over a redirect in biology spaces, restore Isla Vista virus. Retarget Muleshoe virus to Playa de Oro virus where discussed in some detail. J947 ‡ edits 00:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep; I am usually for RETURNTORED but there are page histories with article content for both. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator update – Restore both. I agree it makes more sense to restore the existing content rather than return to red. In hindsight, this seems obvious. Given the recent global attention to Hantaviruses, blue links to (near-)stubs might actually do more to drive article expansion than the sea of red links at Hantavirus#Classification, where the target page has now been moved. WP:NSPECIES is unclear as to whether these viruses are notable but the pre-BLAR content is more well developed than many of the obscure species stubs that are permitted under the current guidance. WP:AFD would be a better venue to hash this out, but note that I am not suggesting an AfD nomination. I disagree with J947's suggestion to retarget Muleshoe virus (MUL) to Playa de Oro virus (OROV). MUL is mentioned twice as one of several viruses most closely related to OROV, without much substantive discussion of MUL. The content and sources cited at Playa de Oro virus may provide fodder for expanding a standalone Muleshoe virus article. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    Playa de Oro virus features the following data about Muleshoe virus:
    • its abbreviation is MUL
    • it is sourced from the hispid cotton rat
    • it is in a clade with Bayou virus, Catacamas virus, and Black Creek Canal virus
    • it is closely related to Playa de Oro virus
    • in 2009, its merger with the Bayou and Black Creek Canal viruses was proposed
    It also gives two sources for further reading. That is sufficient information for a good redirect in my opinion. I am of course not opposed to restoring on the basis that there should be an article on this topic. J947 ‡ edits 06:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: Orthohantavirus, the current target, has been renamed to Hantavirus. J947 ‡ edits 06:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Sea mushroom

This is a common name that is not used to refer to the target species in reliable sources. It was included in the target article (having been added by a a temp account without an apparent source) until I removed it earlier today. A google search for "sea mushroom" pulls results for several unrelated taxa that might be colloquially referred to by that term including aquatic/marine fungi (which typically do not form mushroom-like fruiting bodies) and marine animals such as corals and jellies with mushroom-like appearances. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: I only realised after nominating this redirect that the user who created it (and is now blocked) also created several other similarly made-up common name redirects for marine life. Most of these fake common names are present within the target article... but were recently added by rather suspicious single-edit temp accounts without any sources and probably ought to be removed. I would appreciate any help verifying these and cleaning them up where necessary. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possible vandalism per the nom's assessment. Does not appear to be a common name for this or any other organism although the name may occasionally used for any of several organisms. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Probably retarget to the target of Sea Anemone Mushroom which was created in 2011. Jay 💬 03:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sea squirt shrimp

This is a common name which is not used in RSes to refer to the target species - it was included in the target article until I removed it earlier today (alongside another incorrectly applied common name). It is listed on WoRMS as a common name for a synonym of related species, Ascidonia californiensis, but not for A. flavomaculata. Worth noting that the name "sea squirt shrimp" is problematically vague, as there are a number of shrimp species associated with sea squirts that might be colloquially called "sea squirt shrimp" (a google search for this term will fetch results about several species with similar habits), and there is no single species known as the sea squirt shrimp. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I was the redirect creator (I reviewed the destination at AfC, and created redirects from the common names), but am indifferent as to keeping/deleting. If anything, turning this into a dab would be the best solution, but only if someone is willing to go to the effort of finding all the species this could refer to. In solidarity, nil nz 22:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Jay 💬 18:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh my God, that's my daughter

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Ptolemy stone

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 15#Ptolemy stone

No cost too great

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

beat stuff

not unique to, primarily associated, or seemingly associated at all with hearts doing heart stuff wrong (they're the organs that hold piss, right?), outside of the rare context of sampling them in music. except i'm not entirely sure what would be a better target, since double and extra beats aren't discussed at beat (music), and other articles on rhythm don't properly discuss doubling or adding beats
or the concepts themselves are vague, whichever makes more sense here consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 20:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Current heart-related redirects were rather non-specific, so I've now corrected them by redirecting extra beat to Premature heart beat, and double beat to bigeminy. Still, I'm fine with turning them into disambiguation pages that also link to their musical counterparts if the "double" and "extra" features are appropriately described there as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström for technical reasons, it's best to wait before the rfd is over before retargeting a redirect (in this case, only double beat). that said, it might be a good idea to clump extra beat in here when (and if) this gets relisted consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 14:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled extra beat.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 04:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I reverted the mid-discussion change in extra-beats as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Double beat could just as easily redirect to Double-time. In solidarity, nil nz 22:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Extra beat. When I Google this all but one hit on the first page of results refers to heart beats. Delete Extra-beats as implausible/unnatural. Unsure about Double beat. When I Google this, every single result on the first two pages is music-related but I didn't look closely at the sources and don't know enough about music to say whether these all refer to a single topic such as double-time. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

September 17 floods

I don't think September 17 is particularly associated with this, considering the first result from a search is the 2019 Midwestern U.S. floods, in which a significant one was September 17. KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

How about making the disambiguation page? It fits the common name in Taiwan as well. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 05:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target and the US floods article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Rexdale station

Subject has no railway station with the name "Rexdale". Very confusing and unhelpful. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  • After some googling, the connection here is that Woodbine Mall will be the location of a future Rexdale station on Line 6 Finch West of the Toronto LRT as part of the extension to Pearson airport. The article gives the status of the extension as being in the preliminary design phase, but I'm having a hard time verifying that it is anything other than an aspiration at this point. The article about the line is the only place on Wikipedia we have information about a future station at Rexdale so it's the obvious retargetting destination, but more specifically than that is tricky and there are three options: Targetting the top of the article, but this may be confusing for some as people are expecting a station not a line. The Stations and stops section, this is where Rexdale mentioned but only towards the bottom of the large table. The Humber College station to Pearson International Airport is about the potential extension that will serve a Rexdale station, but doesn't include the word "Rexdale" so would be confusing to someone who doesn't know the area. Adding content to that last section would be ideal I think, but it'll need some time to find reliable sourcing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. It may be recreated when we have relevant information. Jay 💬 07:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    We do have relevant information, the issue is how it's organised. My comment is not a recommendation for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Galyn Susman

The subject of this is only mentioned once in the current target in a short sentence, whilst she is mentioned by name 3 times in Lightyear (film), 5 times if we include references. I propose retargeting there as readers searching her name will find more information about her there than at the current target. I'm not opposed to refining the proposed target with an anchor, but I'm not sure where the anchor should be added, if it should be added at all.
P.S. This is the same lady who saved Toy Story 2 from being deleted, which is perhaps her biggest claim to fame in the pop trivia world and is how I learned about her existence; she is also mentioned in that article exactly once. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 08:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bis-Serjetà? is she perhaps notable? Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't think she is separately notable from Lightyear or any of the above targets yet. Top results on Google are fan wikis, IMDb, and her personal social media (e.g. Linkedin). Searching for solely news articles from reliable sources only yield the aforementioned two big trivia about her; that she saved the files of Toy Story 2 from being deleted, and that she was fired by Pixar for the lackluster performance of Lightyear (as she was that film's producer). But thanks to the numerous YouTube videos, pop trivia posts, and most importantly, the aforesaid reliable sources, I believe she is notable enough to at least have a redirect. That being said, I'm not overall opposed to the creation of a proper article on her, assuming more notable things about her can be found (I wouldn't be surprised if her 20-year career at Pixar could have some more notable things therein.) 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 11:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Galyn Susman → Toy Story 2#Troubled production. The other four mentions are
  1. In June 2023, Disney laid off 75 employees including the director of Lightyear Angus MacLane, and the film's producer Galyn Susman. This is entirely "in passing" and we learn nothing about Susman other than she used to be a Disney employee and then she wasn't
  2. Produced by Galyn Susman We don't create redirects for every single person named in our articles
  3. Producer Galyn Susman said that the creative team did not discuss bringing back the original voice actor for Buzz Lightyear, Tim Allen ... Again not anything about her. It could have been any producer making this statement.
  4. Due to the box-office underperformance of Lightyear, the film's director Angus MacLane and producer Galyn Susman were two of 75 Pixar employees who were laid off in June 2023. Again, a non-notable change in someone's employment status.
In contrast, The film was saved when technical director Galyn Susman, who had been working remotely to care for her newborn child ... is about an action taken by Susman specifically, involving circumstances unique to her. This anecdote is likely why anyone would search her name.
CapnZapp (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Untitled Superman sequel

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Poor country

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Auckland-University

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Baltic sea country

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

June 6

CWC alumni

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 16#CWC alumni

Greek TV

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 14#Greek TV

Հորչատա

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 14#Հորչատա

Apartheid in North Korea

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 14#Apartheid in North Korea

Hitler's

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:L

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

Q-word

Ambiguous with queer, quadword, and quiet (according to wikt:q-word). Hatnote or dab-ify? Web-julio (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Create disambiguation page per nom & above. Ambiguous. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation draft requested. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete since there is no ideal target, and there is no disambiguation page to redirect to. I would have drafted one but this redirect title with the hyphen is not suitable for the dab. This title with the hyphen may be re-created (only if really needed) if a disambig page exists in future. Jay 15:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Streen

Not mentioned in target article. Apparently, this title has an article hiding in its history that was live for about 3 months in 2005 prior to a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. No substantial content to redirect to. The only passing mentions are a partial matches for a traditional Scots song titled Wat Ye Wha I Met the Streen, which was performed on the folk album Smiddyburn, the name of Streen Rosager, listed as participating in the Swimming at the 1984 Summer Paralympics, and the Dutch surname "van der Streen" shared by an author referenced at Anton Pannekoek. The article regarding a likely non-notable character was entirely unreferenced so wouldn't survive AfD; no point dredging it up. – Scyrme (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 02:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Sya Chaman

Not mentioned at target (or anywhere on enwiki), and not attested on google except for some random stuff in Kurdish (?) and Filipino. Delete unless someone has an explanation. Duckmather (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I can't find any evidence that this is a term used in English for anything, let alone the target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Probably tag as avoided double redirect of Siyaw Chemane which is mentioned (and which used to be an article before being BLARd). There is also Siya Cheman which may be tagged similarly. Jay 💬 18:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 10:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restoring Siyaw Chemane is far from this RfD's remit and may be done unilaterally.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 02:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Route de Quiers

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Nicolasa (1527 ship)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 13#Nicolasa (1527 ship)

June 5

Failboat

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

I Am the Table

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Tequila Manhattan

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Universal Studios Delhi

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

The Chamber Plays

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Yellow Brick Road (album)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Luis Baez

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Angeline Barrette

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Angeline Barrette

THERE IS NO CABAL

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Puck fada

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 20#Link (geometry)

Savala (onion)

This was created as a name for red onion in South India. Delete per WP:RLOTE - no affinity of red onions to south India, and no mention at the target. Kaanda was deleted today its RfD for the same reason. If there was an article on names of onion in all languages or cultures, then it could have been a target. Jay 💬 17:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  • delete, but mostly over the disambiguator. i get that it's to avoid ambiguity with savala and the surname savala, but without affinity or a mention, it's just here to be confusing consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 18:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence that the name is used in English for an onion variety. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment this is actually used in English contexts to mean "onion" (e.g. however it doesn't (afaict) refer to a specific type of onion. The disambiguator is entirely unproblematic - the entire point of them is to avoid ambiguity with other articles and this is a type of onion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Thryduulf's links show, 'savala' is attested as a loanword into Indian English. The all time traffic is more than would be expected from just typical background traffic. Most likely the traffic can be explained by people searching for Savala, ending up at the village, and clicking through to the onion. This suggests "savala" is a plausible search term for the onion. These readers are well served by this redirect. A reader clicking on a link to Savala (onion) (or directly searching it) is unlikely to be surprised to end up at an article about red onions. My understanding is that red onions are the most common variety of bulb onion in Indian cooking, hence the target of red onion rather than onion.
    It's reasonable to assume that the search is Indian English rather than, eg. Malayalam, since the languages from which the word was loaned are written with a different script. WP:RLOTE does not apply to dialectal English words. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 12:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - It seems that if this were to be retained, plain onion would be the better target. However, this lacks a mention anywhere, including English Wiktionary. Synonyms of a topic are not always appropriate if they lack a mention in an article anyhow, even when much less obscure than this. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Growth retardation

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Goal doll

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

EOFYS

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 14#EOFYS

The Accolade (Leighton)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Chef (baking)

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Ascp

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 13#Ascp

Geographical centre of Earth

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedurally closed - no longer a redirect. This is without prejudice to an AfD nomination if anyone desires.

Disney Channel around the world

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 13#Disney Channel around the world

Nickelodeon around the world

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete the disambiguator, keep the other

June 4

Cheetah Woods

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Barney Bunch

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jaimee Grubbs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 15#Jaimee Grubbs

Kamisato (Genshin Impact)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Reylo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 11#Reylo

Alert of death

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Partido Democrat

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 16#Partido Democrat

Hexamastix

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Athletics at the 2026 Asian Games

Too early for this, can be created closer to the games when more information is available. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: Bundled four identical nominations made by the same editor. CycloneYoris talk! 04:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 08:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep the Kabbadi redirects as they point to an existing article about the sport at the upcoming games. Delete the other two as the current target contains little information on specific sports. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    It appears that the nom has draftified the Kabbadi article, so I am okay with deleting all now as a result. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Jay 💬 12:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Solidarity

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

CNN Underscored

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Fossil giant salamanders (Cryptobranchidae)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

1-12cav

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12#1-12cav

Republic Italy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 11#Republic Italy

Live on Air

Not mentioned in target article, not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. The phrasing of these redirects make them rather ambiguous; not sure (and I weak oppose, but mentioning for WP:BEFORE completeness) if retargeting these to Live broadcast makes sense here since apparently these redirects represent multiple topics, such as apparently a subject related to Bon Jovi. Steel1943 (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This is evidently the title of multiple unofficial releases (1994 CD, 2007 DVD) compiling material by the band. The same is true for Bon Jovi (2010 CD), among many other artists. I doubt any of these is notable.
@Steel1943: Why do you oppose retargeting to live broadcast? (And would you object to creating live on air as a redirect to live broadcast? I was surprised to see it didn't already exist.) – Scyrme (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
@Scyrme: I guess my best way of explaining my stance on this is ... I just changed my stance on that option to "weak oppose" since I really don't have a strong opinion about it, but it definitely seems like this title is ambiguous for a lot of unnotable topics, plus there's the off chance that someone might literally think the phrase "live on air" is about something that literally lives (is alive) on air [particles] or something like that. Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
I doubt someone would search "live on air" in search of living organisms that inhabit the air, but if it's plausible then a hatnote could deal with that:
"Live on air" redirects here. For organisms that live on air currents, see Aeroplankton.
I suppose "aeroplankton" isn't a widely known word, so maybe someone might search "live on air" for them, but that's really more of a description than a title. Regardless, the overwhelmingly most common use of the expression "live on air" (both on and off Wikipedia) is in reference to live broadcasts, and these various unofficial releases are in-fact all using it in that way too (they're unofficial compilations of live performances). – Scyrme (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Aeroplankton seems like a stretch. And are these the only organisms that fit the, rather vague, description of "lives on air"? Inedia ("breatharianism") seems more likely. But I don't suggest that is a good target for these. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Breatharianism had also occurred to me, but that's more "people" that "live on air" than "organisms" that "live on air", and the latter better fits the description Steel1943 gave. Regardless, I agree with you that both are a stretch. If others disagree though, and think it's better to be thorough and cover all possible interpretations, I'd prefer a hatnote to a disambiguation page because "live on air" where "live" is the verb, not the adjective, isn't a topic title but is rather a description. Neither Aeroplankton nor Inedia could actually be titled "live on air", even if their topics could be described as "living on air". Regardless, the primary topic for "live on air" is certainly live broadcasting based on overwhelming use. – Scyrme (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Lean retarget to live broadcast to match live on air which I've decided to create, as the basic phrase has a very clear primary topic regardless of whether "live" can plausibly be interpreted as a verb or not. I'm not convinced the phrase is especially ambiguous beyond its use in the titles of unofficial compilations of media that was previously only available "live on air". While the capitalisation of these redirects suggests a search for a title, there are no articles or mentions for any of them that I could find. If others think it's plausible at least one of them is notable, Live on Air can be tagged as {{r with possibilities}} and revisited if substantial content is contributed either as a new article or coverage within another article. Only lean towards retargeting as a case could be made for WP:RETURNTORED if one of these titles is notable, but that seems unlikely as the only external search results I saw in relation to these titles were things like Discogs pages and people selling copies on eBay.. – Scyrme (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • DABify the few articles that may be relevant, including potential misspellings / erroneous titles as deemed relevant by editors such as (possibly) On Air – Live at the BBC Volume 2, On Air (John Fahey album) (a live recording), Live on the Air, etc. My only concern is that this could become an excessive listing, in particular if editors link to records that don't have their own article and just link to the band's page (as is currently the case with this redirect). Shazback (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 01:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I have drafted a dab at the redirect. I have deliberately used the uppercase Air title so that there is no primary topic. Jay 13:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

June 3

Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Money cat

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Tiquan Forbes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12#Tiquan Forbes

Usual time signature

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Malika Elkaraksy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12#Malika Elkaraksy

Rose Penelope Yee

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Btys

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Drake's Dad and Josh's Mom

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

SZC

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 17#SZC

Brown mushroom

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Fetish cannibalism

The scope of the target article is restricted to sexual cannibalism in non-human animals, but cannibalism as a sexual fetish is an exclusively human behaviour - there is no "fetish cannibalism" in non-human animals, so this target provides no relevant information. I can think of two potential retargets, but neither is ideal:

  • Vorarephilia is a broader categorisation that includes cannibalism as a fetish, however, the article provides no real information on the topic
  • Human cannibalism similarly makes only a very brief mention of cannibalism in a sexual context

It would be reasonable for either (or both) articles be expanded to house a section on fetish cannibalism, but there is sufficient literature on the topic of fetish cannibalism to warrant an independent article, so perhaps a WP:RETURNTORED would be best? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Vorarephilia. Yes, it's broader, but it seems a reasonable {{R from subtopic}}. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RTR. Vorarephilia is, strictly speaking, a cannibalism fetish, not fetishistic cannibalism. It's definitely a related concept, and someone entering this search term might well have vorarephilia in mind, but in that case the search results will serve them just as well. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    What's the practical difference there? I can kind of suss it out based on your wording, but the results still feel more or less the same. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Jlwoodwa: BDD's question was to you. Jay 💬 05:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    My understanding is the vorarephilia ("vore") exists more or less exclusively in the realm of fantasy, as described in the article: Vore is most often enjoyed through pictures, stories, videos, and video games, and it can appear in mainstream media. It often involves other fantasy elements, like giant women swallowing someone whole, or dragons and other mythical beasts. It may involve frankly unnatural forms of consumption, as described at Vorarephilia § Variations. Fetish cannibalism more often describes more ground, visceral, and real-world actions or fantasies related to consuming flesh such as the case of Armin Meiwes. Some of these acts, which are of course exceedingly rare, are considered to have features of ritual cannibalism. There are a few mentions of IRL, sexually-motivated cannibalism at Human cannibalism but no concise description in a particular section and no mention of fetish. That said, I don't know that these are strictly and consistently defined in reliable sources and there is certainly a spectrum. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The topic is not covered on Wikipedia so there is no suitable target. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Deleting to encourage article creation is a common reason for speedy delete in ptwiki, but is it a valid argument for RfD? Web-julio (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
@Web-julio yes, that's what the WP:RTR ("return to [a] red [link]") means in jlwoodwa's rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Birthday World

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Wintendo

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hate follow

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 17#Hate follow

The Italy Republic

Unlike The Italian Republic, this redirect barely has any pageviews (14 since its creation in March 2025); I attribute this low number due to the combination of using "Italy" as an adjective + the unnecessary "The" before it. Delete as provably improbable as a search term. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 12:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. Low page views or a low likelyhood of someone using a redirect are no valid reasons for deletion. "The Italy Republic" is a somewhat reasonable search term that is not too niche (which also wouldn't be a reason for deletion), far-fetched, or unintuitive. Also see WP:CHEAP. Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    If page views are that low, it's easily attributable to "background noise" (ETA: I wrote an essay on this concept, WP:BACKGROUNDNOISE), i.e. the redirect attaining page views just by virtue of it existing (e.g. editors clicking on "What links here" and finding it there). It's not completely unreasonable, as you correctly said, but I find it very improbable (not unreasonable per se) as a search term, per its wording and page views. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 12:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    Sure, it's an improbable search term, as evidenced by the page views, yes. But that's neither a valid reason for deletion nor do I think deleting a (theoretically) somewhat reasonable redirect would be an improvement over keeping it. Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nice informative essay on WP:BACKGROUNDNOISE, by the way! It seems most redirect pages worthy of deletion can be chalked up to being nothing more than background noise, needlessly taking up space. I would argue that's the case here and in the vast majority of cases - most redirect pages are completely useless. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
    @HarvardJock as has been explained to you at least twice already, space is a completely irrelevant consideration when it comes to keeping or deleting pages on Wikipedia as both options take the same amount of server space. Indeed the only thing that doesn't take any space is not nominating them for deletion.
    Your first sentence also suggests you've misunderstood the background noise essay - redirects themselves are not background noise. The background noise is the low single-digit per year number of page views recorded as human in the statistics that do not equate to someone using the redirect to find content on Wikipedia (whether they find what they are looking for is irrelevant to whether it is background noise or not). Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not talking about server space, you seem to be misunderstanding me. By "space", I mean the existence of so many useless redirect pages taking up the site, I suppose you could say "visually" - or as potential pages a navigator could click on. Server space was never a consideration of mine, that seems to be an assumption of yours. Regardless, I stand by my Delete opinion. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
    How do these redirects take up space then? Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, utterly useless. It's laughable that anyone might need this (an implausible, ungrammatical form to boot) to find our article on Italy, a world nation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    The same argument (that you don't 'need' it) can be applied to the country's full formal name, as using its short name is far more common. And yet, no one would consider deleting Italian Republic, or slightly modified forms such as Republic of Italy, Italy Republic, or Republic Italy. I therefore consider this a weak argument, if it is a valid argument at all. Also, it is absolutely acceptable and common practice to maintain misspellings and grammatically incorrect terms as redirects. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    But this isn't the country's full, formal name. It's some mangled version of if that no one is plausibly going to search for. Thanks for the heads up; I have nominated the two implausible ones of those now as well. Redirects should be plausibly useful -- either for technical reasons, or to help users find an article. This is neither, and should thus be deleted. Redirects incur a maintenance burden, and we should be conservative in creating them. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    But this isn't the country's full, formal name.
    The same applies to Republic of Italy.
    It's some mangled version of if that no one is plausibly going to search for.
    Dito. Also, while it makes sense to prioritize "plausible" redirect terms, that doesn't mean that implausible terms aren't used or shouldn't exist. As long as redirects aren't misleading, even implausible redirects can provide value to some readers. Also, you think the redirect is implausible. And while you are entitled to have that opinion, I am entitled to have the opposite opinion that the redirect, while being rarely used, is not conceptually implausible.
    Redirects incur a maintenance burden [...]
    How so? When a page gets moved, bots automatically update the associated redirects accordingly. Maxeto0910 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Android on Desktop

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Android on Desktop

Song for Denise

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Bike day

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 1

May 31

(m)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Crossroads (song)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Close as Retarget to Crossroads#Songs

Passenger services

This is very vague; when I searched this on Google, the top two results were for my country's national bus service and the national airport (N.B. my country also doesn't have any trains). Not sure where this could possibly be retargeted, perhaps passenger service system? If a suitable retarget can't be found, then delete as vague. A DAB page is not out of the question.
P.S. Passenger service is a red link as of nominating this. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment my first thought was Passenger transport (which is a redirect to Transport#Passenger) but reading that section Passenger transport Public transport may be better. However, businesses or sections of business that provide services to passengers but which are not (directly) in the public transport business may use this name (e.g. cruise ships, although I think they called "guest services" by at least some cruise lines I don't know how universal that is?). Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thinko fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • The redirect has multiple incoming links where the context of passenger trains is appropriate. Except at Bröl Valley Railway, where it is supposed to be for road transport. Passenger service can be a disambig between Passenger transport and future passenger amenities / passenger hospitality / passenger support articles that Thryduulf mentions, and Passenger services can redirect to that dab. For now, move without redirect to Passenger service (rail) / Rail passenger service or some such. Note it is "Rail" or "railway", not "train", because passenger hospitality inside of trains can also be seen as passenger services. Jay 💬 08:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

2637

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 11#2637

Styled name

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 11#Styled name

Crash of 1929 book

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

September 17 floods

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 7#September 17 floods

Punan Batu 2

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

300m tower

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

In modern days, not so many people remember the name of "300-metre tower", now is ambigious that can refer to any tower that is 300 m tall like Aspire Tower and Gran Torre Costanera A1Cafel (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep - This is a relevant historical name, and the Eiffel Tower the only tower really known for being 300 meters, meaning it makes sense in my opinion to keep this redirect and the hatnote. KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 05:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, not mentioned at the target. If it were such a relevant historical name, it should be at the article. But until then, a searcher wouldn't know why they were redirected there. They might see in the infobox that it's 300m tall, but so what? Did people call it this? Is it merely descriptive? What? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
    For that case, should we make the disambiguation page of it? Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 06:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
    I'm....not sure how you came to that suggestion after reading my !vote, but I think that would likely be even worse. As a plain descriptive term, the redirect shouldn't exist, period. As an old name for the Eiffel Tower, it should only exist if there's some discussion of the former name at the target. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not convinced that this is a primary topic based on my searches. Google Books pulls up some hits for the Eiffel Tower when searching this phrase, but these are generally only as a point of information—not an alternative name for the structure. This issue was brought up in the prior RfD, where consensus was to add sourced mentions for the phrase. But no such mentions were ever added. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. It's a very vague description that isn't particularly useful to searchers or readers. 300-metre tower isn't strikingly referential to the Eiffel Tower. I view this as just another useless redirect page taking up space, helpful to no one. Let's get rid of it. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as a historical name of the tower project (covering both this tower that was built, and the proposed masonry tower that did not get selected), and add it into the article. Also include the American version of the name, the 1000-foot tower that was also used historically. -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not all sources that readers engage with are "modern day". If someone encounters an old reference for the tower that uses this name, they should be redirected to the tower that is being referred to. -- Tavix (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    The issue is that no editor in either RfD has provided any actual sources to confirm the assertion that this is an older name for the tower. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:03, 27 May 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, CycloneYoris talk! 08:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per the delete !votes of this and the previous RfD, unless we have a sourced mention. Second choice - Retarget to List of tallest structures. Jay 💬 05:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    Struck per Rusalkii's detailed finds, and tag the redirects as {{R without mention}}. It is odd that such encyclopedic information is missing from the article of such an important world wonder. Jay 💬 04:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • The official website for the Eiffel tower has "The Eiffel Tower, originally called 'The 300-meter Tower'...". Other sources with this claim: phys.org, I think the poster here is a primary source, another old poster, Google Arts & Culture. This paper claims that "Eiffel referred to the ‘‘300-meter tower’’", this one has "...the 300-meter tower, as it was called during its construction...". It seems like the tower was originally designed in response to a competition for, specifically, a 300-meter tower, and called that, and Eiffel's name was attached to it a bit later. Another source says that Eiffel wrote a book called "La Tour de 300 Mètres" about the construction of the tower. So I think this name should probably be added and then the redirects kept. I don't have the time to do a more careful read of the sources that I'd want to do to actually add it in at the moment, though I might come back to this in a bit if no one else does. Rusalkii (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Marie-Thérèse de France (disambiguation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 13#Marie-Thérèse de France (disambiguation)

Oxjam

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore article

FextraLife

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 15#FextraLife

Polker

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

beat stuff

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 7#beat stuff

Le Quai Malaquais et l'Institut

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 11#Le Quai Malaquais et l'Institut Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 29 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 28

Template:Wikipedia community

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI