Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 28

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ^Complex/_Rational 02:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Template:User profile.profile.view count → Wikipedia:Gadget  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nonsense redirect with no apparent meaning ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Created 10–11 days ago with no clear understanding on why it is helpful to users other than its creator. Steel1943 (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, practically a borderline WP:G1. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F56A:1098:C5B0:E32 (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Strange --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, makes no sense to make a TEMPLATE REDIRECT to a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE about WIKIPEDIA GADGETS!!! Pнp13333332 _tαlk\^edıts 00:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as not useful --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Aloha Stadium#Rugby. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Kanaloa Hawai’iKanaloa Hawai’i → Major League Rugby#Future teams  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kanaloa HawaiiKanaloa Hawaii → Major League Rugby#Expansion candidates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Team that did not join and is not in the article. It is mentioned at Aloha Stadium, however. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Kanaloa Hawaii as well. Aloha Stadium might be a better rd — kwami (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps Aloha Stadium#Rugby? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Kanaloa Hawaii added to listing, page tagged, users notified. This page has even more history. Ping User:Kwamikagami as FYI. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was wrong venue. Discussion moved to Talk:Hewlett Packard Labs#Requested move 29 August 2025. The nominator has been informed via a mention in that discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• HPE LabsHPE Labs → Hewlett Packard Labs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Hewlett Packard Labs" has now officially been renamed to "HPE Labs" (as of August 18, 2025), so article name and redirect should be swapped. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 22:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. Start a WP:RM. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 09:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Aruteous Gunnay → Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Utterly obscure character mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia. Should be an uncontroversial deletion. TNstingray (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Per discussion, fairly strong consensus to delete and salt. Name is not currently found in article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• Robert Westman → Annunciation Catholic Church shooting#Perpetrator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per MOS:MISGENDER, the former name should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists -- therefore this redirect should not exist (and probably should be salted). Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 19:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete and salt per nom; also remove the RfD notice from the talk page once this is closed for the same reason. Including this redirect (and the deadname at all) adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article or to the project in general. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  @SuperPianoMan9167 Shoot forgot Twinkle did that, I’ve removed the name from the template. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 20:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  An redirect cannot have encyclopedic value in the first place because they are not articles... Trade (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  The nomination conveys the idea that if it's not mentioned anywhere in the article (which is supported by consensus on the talk page) it should not be a redirect either. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete and salt This redirect has no place on Wikipedia, as discussed above and per the talk page consensus. Blatant guideline violation. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per nom. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 20:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: MOS:MISGENDER only applies to living people. It says "unless a living transgender or non-binary person [...]". This is because it has to do with the WP:BLPPRIVACY policy, which only applies to biographies of living persons. Cyrobyte (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.

  — WP:BDP

  If MOS:GENDERID originates in WP:BLPPRIVACY, then it reasonable to assume that it should also cover the recently deceased. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  What encyclopedic value does the deadname have? Why should it be included?

  Again quoting WP:BDP regarding extensions of BLP to deceased people:

  Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. (emphasis added)

  It is reasonable to create an extension to cover this person because the shooting was both a suicide and a particularly gruesome crime. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  "What encyclopedic value does the deadname have? Why should it be included?"

  What exactly do you think the purpose of a redirect is? Trade (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Trade It doesn’t matter what a redirect is for, it is quite clearly spelled out in MOS:MISGENDER that this should not exist plainly, regardless if people think it is a likely search term. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 00:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  So why do people insist on keep bringing up encyclopedic value for an redirect if it doesnt matter? Trade (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Because I was recycling arguments I made on the talk page without considering if they also applied to redirects. I apologize if it was confusing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Many people are gonna look ub "Robert Westman" on Wikipedia so this is necessary to help readers. Besides as already mentioned MOS:MISGENDER only covers the living--Trade (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  This redirect, as it is a deadname, is transphobic, and Wikipedia has zero-tolerance for transphobia. Hate, even in the form of a redirect, is disruptive. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear: I am not talking about any editor or making any accusations of transphobia towards other editors; the redirect itself is transphobic because deadnaming is transphobic. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  So then why does Bradley Manning redirect to Chelsea Manning and why is her deadname kept in the first sentence of a BLP? Cyrobyte (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Cyrobyte: Manning's deadname is included because she is notable under her birth name. There was significant and sustained coverage of her under her birth name since Manning leaked the documents in 2010 and did not obtain a name change until several years later. This is spelled out in MOS:DEADNAME (in fact, it's included as one of the examples of when including a deadname is appropriate). In the case of this redirect, the person being deadnamed (Westman) was not notable under their birth name and so there's no reason to include it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  That's insane. It is much worse to have a deadname in the actual article of a BLP than to have a deadname redirect to a non-BLP. In my opinion, Manning's deadname should not be included but this redirect should be kept because it's not a BLP. Cyrobyte (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  I see the merits of your position; however, there appears to be a well-established consensus to include Manning's deadname in her article that would require significant discussion to change. You make a good point about the difference between including it in the article and including it as a redirect. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete and salt per nominator. 49.151.187.185 ^{talk to IP49! contributions to IP49!} 02:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• I have declined the speedy deletion. It is not a page intended to disparage the subject, as redirects are simply an aid to locate an article. I note that Bradley Manning redirects to Chelsea Manning(and they are alive). However, a community consensus can still be obtained via this discussion to delete. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable (by Wikipedia's standards) under that name. I encourage you to further note that Chelsea Manning is the first example given there in MOS:DEADNAME to illustrate this exception to the general idea of avoiding use of people's deadnames.

  Because of that, I don't find Chelsea's deadname existing as a redirect (which also is an R from move, given the notability timeline) persuasive in keeping this redirect at all. Hamtechperson 15:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  I concede that Manning's situation is different. I was more referencing it in relation to the speedy deletion I declined, regarding intent. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - I do oppose misgendering somebody in body text, but this is likely a common search term and a useful redirect to have. Not to mention that redirects aren't really subject to the same guidelines as articles since their primary function is to take plausible search terms and redirect readers to the appropriate page. This is why we have redirects from inappropriate names, slang terms, etc that aren't appropriate for actual article content. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt, WP:DEADNAME already applies to redirects of deadnames for individuals who only became notable after their transition. As that already has community-wide support, this RFD is redundant as a WP:LOCALCON cannot override a larger community-wide discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Cyrobite has pointed out that this policy only applies to the living; this person is deceased. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  I understand that it provides for a BLP like exception if desired- but it exists now, why not keep it instead of just waiting six months to a year for someone to create it later? 331dot (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. WP:DEADNAME only applies to living people because it has to do with WP:BLPPRIVACY. I don't understand why people are glossing over that fact. And even if the exception is applied for recently deceased people the redirect will be recreated in a year or so anyway. Cyrobyte (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Because of the damage it does to potential familial survivors and to the community in general. Flip that argument around, where's the harm in deleting and salting for six months to a year and then allowing a discussion to be held to determine if the time is right then? WP:BDP certainly seems applicable here in allowing protections to extend temporarily until a better picture of who this person was emerges. WP:NODEADLINE. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep while it is in the article. As with all deadname redirects we should always defer to the consensus of the editors in the article about inclusion or exclusion unless there is some clearly-articulated reason to differ. If there is no consensus we should wait for there to be one before creating or deleting the redirect. In this case it's complicated because it is disputed what the subject's preferred name and pronouns are, but this name is currently bolded. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC) edited Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  There is a rough consensus on the article's talk page to not include the birth name in the article; the current state of the article (as of this comment's writing) only includes "Robin Westman". I say "rough consensus" because there has been significant pushback. In case it becomes clear that this person wanted to be referred to by their birth name (it isn't clear right now, like you said), the redirect can be recreated by an admin. I still recommend salting because the redirect will probably be repeatedly recreated if this RfD is closed as "delete". It's best to err on the side of caution and leave out the redirect unless there is consensus to include it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  We would have this discussion to point to if it is recreated. It's unusual to preemptively salt something absent evidence of an actual problem first. And, frankly, repeated recreations would indicate that the redirect is useful. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  @331dot repeated recreations would indicate that the redirect is useful Or, it's transphobic harassment because the internet is filled with internet trolls with nothing better to do than to wittle away at efforts websites such as Wikipedia take to reduce exposure to deadnames for recently deceased trans individuals. WP:AGF is not a WP:SUICIDEPACT. A minimal 6-month reprieve so the sources can settle down is perfectly in line with WP:NODEADLINE. And this is something we should try to get right. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't increase exposure to have a redirect which would require already knowing the person's deadname. AGF is not a suicide pact but it also doesn't mean there is a troll around every corner that we should plan for. Do you have evidence that there are specific efforts to troll this deceased individual? 331dot (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  The talk page of the article had to be semi-protected due to the number of unhelpful comments, many of which were transphobic; I would consider that evidence of trolling. Although I do see your point that having the redirect would require already knowing the deadname. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  Just echoing what SPM said above, this is precisely what I was observing, and even with the ECP protection on the article itself we still have gotten a couple people inserting the deadname. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf Unless I've missed something, the name is not currently in the article, and rough consensus is against including it at this time. WP:CCC, sure, but let's extend WP:BDP protections until more is known about the subject of this article and the heavy opinions being expressed in the media have had a chance to settle down. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Locke Cole ah, it looks like I misread "Robin" as "Robert", I've partially struck my above comment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete and salt, per nom. quidama _talk 19:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt remove mention of RfD at deleted page since it would draw attention to the WP:MISGENDER violation. Raladic (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ^Complex/_Rational 02:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Faraz Noon → Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect created after reverting a sock move, not sure if we need to keep. ASUKITE 17:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ^Complex/_Rational 02:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Fasiheddine Fetratt → Qari Fasihuddin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect created after reverting a sock move, not sure if we need to keep. ASUKITE 17:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate at Dawlat at-Turk where the draft was made after the relist, and retarget the other two to this new dab page. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Dawlat-at-TurkiyyaDawlat-at-Turkiyya → Turkey#Etymology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dawlat al-AtrākDawlat al-Atrāk → Turkey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dawlat at-TurkDawlat at-Turk → Turkey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure how useful these redirects are. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate one of them, as it might refer to Mamluk Sultanate or Turkey in Arabic? Retarget the other 2 to the new disambig page. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested (done) Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• CommonTime → Personal digital assistant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

mentioned in passing in the target with a primary source. this isn't what it's about, though. i'm about to attempt to dabify common time (or create one at common time (disambiguation)), but since there's no space, should this target time signature#common time as commontime does, or commontime (album) over the chance of someone seeing the t in its name as capital?

i could also mention the multiple other brands and products that have this name, but none of them seem particularly notable, so nah consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 16:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

should probably have mentioned that i ended up not drafting the dab because it'd only have two entries, which isn't enough imo. would've mentioned it a couple hours after this nom but i forgot :( consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 21:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• The redirect would be useful if there is an article having information about the company named as such. But what the current target has is a one-word mention, and as an example. Delete. Jay 💬 06:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Jay. 49.151.187.185 ^{talk to IP49! contributions to IP49!} 02:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Tropical Storm Lingling (2025). (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Tropical Depression Huaning (2025)Tropical Depression Huaning (2025) → 2025 Pacific typhoon season#Tropical Depression 18W (Huaning)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no targeting the tropical depression on its section articles for Huaning. Although JMA officially upgraded the system into tropical storm named Lingling (18W), this is a former name and needs to be deleted permanently. Icarus 🔭 • 📖 • ✎ 02:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Tropical Storm Lingling (2025) where it's established in the lede that it's known in the Philippines as Tropical Depression Huaning. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per Tavix. Additionally, redirects from former names are frequently good redirects - see {{R from former name}}. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• GPT-6 → ChatGPT  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

GPT-5 just barely came out earlier this month. GPT-6 is still quite a whiles away, and as such this is purely WP:CRYSTAL User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 13:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• It is currently being developed: CNBC. Thriley (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• CRYSTAL is not about redirects Czarking0 (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  If we can't have information on a given tatget because of CRYSTAL, then the redirect is hardly useful, is it? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete because we currently have no content about anything with this name, making the redirect misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per all. Jay 💬 16:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Refine to section Partially punched chad. Pointing to the section Partially punched chad is seen as a balance, as the other section with useful information: #2000 United States presidential election controversy, comes into the reader's view after #Partially punched chad. Jay 💬 16:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• Hanging chadHanging chad → Chad (paper)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Hanging chadsHanging chads → 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page has had several changes to what it should target just by people changing the history, I figured a discussion would be the best way to get consensus. I personally think that Chad (paper) § 2000 United States presidential election controversy makes the most sense as a target because it is on a page that defines what it is and explains it context while linking to an article on the larger issue of the recount. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 18:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Chad (paper) § 2000 United States presidential election controversy per Casablanca Rock. Although hanging chads were a major part of the election coverage at the time, they're not covered in as much detail in our article on the election as they are in the "Chad" article. Tevildo (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom and Tevildo. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm equally happy with targetting the Partially punched chad section per Lumamann's suggestion below. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget instead to Chad (paper)#Partially punched chad; this section of the article actually explains what a hanging chad is. This section is also fairly short; as #2000 United States presidential election controversy is the section that comes right afterwards, it should still easily be in view of any reader that's more interested in its impacts on that controversy than what a hanging chad actually is. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget instead to Chad (paper) per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • To the top of the page, not to a section? That seems to be the only point of conention here at the moment, so it might be better to clarify. Tevildo (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Chad (paper) § 2000 United States presidential election controversy. This is the reason the term entered the popular lexicon and became notable, and is to this day. Other sources that define the term typically reference the 2000 election—for example, these pages from the first page of Google search results for hanging chad: Re: Lunamann's suggestion: the 2000 election section is also short and also defines the term in the relevant context (a "hanging chad", where one or more corners were still attached). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget both to Chad (paper)#Partially punched chad per Lunamann. This section provides best explanation of what it is. The next section 2000 United States presidential election controversy is easily seen from this point. older ≠ wiser 17:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which section?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Chad (paper)#Partially punched chad, as that is the actual section talking about "hanging chads". While their notability comes from the election controversy, that section is still in view of the reader, and it makes more sense for a redirect to point to the topic itself rather than to the reason for its notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: IMO, a WP:BARTENDER close here would be to close this discussion to "Retarget [Hanging chadsHanging chads] to Chad (paper)". (Not actually doing it though since this just got relisted two days ago.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Chad (paper)#Partially punched chad per Chaotic Enby's reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icandostuff (talk • contribs) 20:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Oral and maxillofacial pathology. Rusalkii (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Jaw diseasesJaw diseases → Jaw  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Diseases not mentioned in target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment we do have List of ICD-9 codes 520–579: diseases of the digestive system#Diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands, and jaws (520–529). That's not the most friendly place to end up for someone who isn't particularly knowledgeable about medicine but it is obviously relevant. The contents of the list though is almost completely non-overlapping with my search results so I'm genuinely unsure which is best. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. This has article or list potential and a red link may inspire its creation. The article on jaw is far too broad to be the appropriate target. A list of ICD-9 codes may contain some of the info on the topic but is not an adequate substitute for an article or list dedicated to the topic. Note that the two uses of jaw diseases currently in article space occur at List of MeSH codes (C07)#MeSH C07.320 – jaw diseases and List of MeSH codes (C05)#MeSH C05.500 – jaw diseases. These are no better than the ICD-9 list and if we think such a list could be appropriate then at best "jaw diseases" is ambiguous because multiple such lists exist. There are other classification schemes such as SNOMED and ICD-11 that one could argue for. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oral and maxillofacial pathology which is the target of mouth disease as well, refers to the diseases of the mouth, jaws, and related structures. Jay 💬 04:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  Retarget→Oral and maxillofacial pathology as {{R with possibilities}}. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Inna sings Hot → Hot (Inna song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'm on the fence here. On the one had, it doesn't seem like the most likely of search terms but on the other hand if someone does use this then the target is relevant and (in terms of extant encyclopaedia articles at least) unambiguous, so it is harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, this redirect is a sentence with a subject of "Inna", searching for pages by typing in sentences is not plausible and I don't think this is worth keeping. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete as author G7ed. KylieTastic (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• 3937 inches → 100 metres  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

obscure and unnecessary 🌊 oceanloop 05:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete; nobody measures with inches at this distance, so it's implausible. It's also slightly wrong, the distance being equivalent to 99.9998 metres; it's 0.2 millimetres off. Yes that's really pedantic, but anyone measuring such a distance in inches is also going to be really pedantic. Nyttend (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• honestly i just made this as a joke Oreocooke (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  ...so then delete this as either WP:G7, WP:G3 or both User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).