Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 16

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. Jay 💬 06:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Ta'liq (torture) → Torture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete I believe this refers to Strappado in a non-English language. (t · c) buIdhe 23:23, 16 December 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 case-by-case review or delete. There seemed to be strong consensus that the current situation is unsatisfactory. The guideline that applies here most directly is WP:RPURPOSE, which says that subtopics are appropriate redirects. It does not say anything about notational systems with a large number of possibilities.

The RKM codes that readers encounter in the real world fall into two classes: mentioned in the article, and unmentioned. The mentioned ones will show up in search results whether we delete, rename with "(RKM code)" or do nothing, though not necessarily near the top. Unmentioned ones need a redirect or disambiguation page for readers to make sense of the string, or they have to have enough context to find the article with different search terms.

There is a practical consideration that we cannot put a large number of hatnotes into a target article. Since there is a huge number of possibilities in this notation system, we have to disambiguate and not hatnote, if we have ambiguous redirects. Checking each incoming redirect to see if it needs to be turned into a disambiguation page is an obvious answer which did not get support.

Given overlapping preferences, deletion of unmentioned strings got the most support. Perhaps this is because WP:RPLA says that inbound redirects should generally be mentioned in the target section, other than misspellings. In this case, even without being mentioned, readers should be able to figure out that the 3-character string they searched on is part of the system being described, so a non-mention wouldn't necessarily violate the principle. Nevertheless, I'm going to interpret this support as implying it's OK to expect readers to have enough context to figure out what unmentioned strings mean, especially if they are rare.

We do this for other notational systems that also have a centralization problem. For example, I see "AABBAA" does not redirect to rhyme scheme. Some common rhyme schemes like ABAB and ABBA are pointed there (with hatnotes).

The fact that some codes in this system are common is worth noting in the article, so I think adding mentions of them (perhaps in a table) mostly solves the problem of readers being unable to understand codes they come across if this article doesn't show up in search results.

I'm going to recommend the following, which hopefully addresses at least some of everyone's concerns:

• All of the nominated redirects can be deleted to save the effort of building hundreds of disambiguation pages. The mentioned ones will still be findable.
• If someone wants to build a disambiguation page that is easier to navigate than search results but still comprehensive, it should be left in place. It's OK to recreate deleted redirects as disambiguation pages.
• It's OK to keep, create, or re-create a redirect if a code is common, mentioned in the article, and it's clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
• Common codes should be mentioned as such in the article.
• Disambiguation pages can link to RKM code directly; there's no need for an intermediate redirect.

I've done 3V3 as an example disambiguation page, though it could conceivably be improved. I included a link to do a search on the term in case someone wants to see all the video games that mention this mode or something. Beland (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

An unhelpful mass creation of specific codes that all redirect to a section where they may be possible examples, although they're not listed. A quick web search spot-check of a few of these shows all sorts of other things that use these also, which isn't surprising given the terse numeral-and-digit combination that they're made up of. Strong delete all. of these as ambiguous and nearly limitless. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note. For a little more detail, the target article has over three hundred redirects, the vast majority of which were all created by a single user. This nom just takes care of ones to one section (and there are some more that I didn't bother with)...other sections have some large numbers like this too, but this was the most egregious. I've seen some other large batches from this user at RFD before, and I fear there may be boatloads of similar cleanup. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I created 3V3 before many of those redirects and I consider it sourced adequately. fgnievinski (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, yeah massxfd did show a talk page notification for you, and I figured it was a situation like that. However, the main gist of the rationale still stands. A web search for "3v3" for example overwhelmingly comes back with all sorts of things that are played three versus three, so this is still pretty ambiguous. And while it's true that this specific example is mentioned at the target, it's just one code of many possible, and there doesn't seem to be any prticular reason to single this one out. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  Other notable concepts could be disambiguated if needed, but at the moment I fail to see any. And circuit and battery are manufactured at standard voltage values, they are not limitless. PS: there's also 2P5. fgnievinski (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  Added to the nomination, thanks for the heads up. I'll note, though, that an in-wiki search for "3v3" finds a ton of matches for other stuff, almost entirely for sports played 3 vs 3...but I also found a match for some taxon identifier code for Ploima (whatever all that means exactly). I'm not sure that the voltage code is particularly special here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a large nomination, I'd prefer to see a more affirmative consensus before deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Partial Delete, keep and move. Delete any redirect that the code isn't mentioned in the article. If it isn't notable to mention, then the redirect isn't useful. Anything else can be kept. If there are other topics with the same name, then move the redirect and add disambiguation, so something like 3v3 (RKM code). The RKM code is obviously not the primary of "3v3". Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think a mere mention here is enough, as they're just generic examples and as such, don't warrant redirects as if they were basic concepts someone might be looking for. Even 3V3, is hopelessly vague and would be pointless as a dab page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• Given the widespread nature of the concept in question, I think a lot of these RKM codes are reasonable search terms and the target does the job and explains what they mean. Yay! However, many are ambiguous, particularly with Canadian postal codes. There's no nice, rule-abiding solution that doesn't involve an unending case-by-case analysis. One potentially helpful, but very unorthodox solution is to rename all the redirects (without leaving a redirect) to "XVX (RKM code)" so that when the reader searches up XVX, they see that redirect in the search results alongside other potential meanings. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

  That seems like an elegant solution. I'll !vote to move all to add a disambiguator. I also support deleting all unmentioned redirects. I think both can happen together, though the latter is perhaps more work than a closer may want to take on. Toadspike [Talk] 10:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with deleting all unmentioned redirects. Those that are mentioned are just examples, so "5V0 for 5.0V" conveys the same information as "4V2 for 4.2V". So I don't believe there's any meaningful distinction between the mentioned and unmentioned redirects, except that the mentioned ones show up in search results. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:27, 8 January 2026 (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. Left guide (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• Endless chain → Chain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

the concept of chains that literally or figuratively don't end isn't mentioned in the article. it's also vague regarding the definition of "chain", as it could refer to literal chains, chain conveyors, sequences of events (like a theoretical mafia boss being stuck in an endless chain of death for the rest of time, but what are the chances of that happening?), chains of command with a little too much middle management, chain-flavored optical illusions, etc. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as generic/vague and not useful. It's not clear why the redirect was created. Jay 💬 07:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete; History Dive indicates that there wasn't any information on "endless chains" back in 2020 when this redirect was made, either. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:18, 24 December 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 ←. Left guide (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• Arrow backArrow back → At sign  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

okay, so i really want you to stick with me here, this might be one of the most deranged claims i've made in my life... but i don't think this is an arrow sign that points back

this insane asspull aside, i'm not entirely sure ← or arrow (symbol) (where ↩ redirects) would be good targets either, as they'd first need a definition of "back" that would also warrant (or at least justify) the existence of arrow forward as a redirect to its opposite-facing target. arguments regarding ↑ and ↓ could also be made, but i don't wanna consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to ← per nom, which has arrow (symbol) as the first entry, and up down entries in the See also. Jay 💬 07:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
• they'd first need a definition of "back" that would... The fact that, in English, you read left to right (and thus the arrow is facing counter to the direction you would naturally read) isn't enough? Retarget as per Jay. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 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 Torture#Effects. Didn't see that, works for now. (Consider this a "withdrawn" for any future nomination's sake.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Psychological effects of torturePsychological effects of torture → Torture#Psychological effects of torture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It seems that the subject as referenced in this redirect does not currently exist in the target article, leaving readers unsatisfied if they are attempting to find precise information as referenced in the wording of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

It's covered in the effects section (t · c) buIdhe 19:46, 16 December 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. Jay 💬 07:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Forced information gathering → Torture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not specifically mentioned in the target article, meaning that readers may not find what they're looking for when searching the term. The most related potential target I could find are Use of force continuum and Interrogational torture, but it doesn't seem like either target is the best for this redirect; if only the two affirmation articles were one article, then it might be perfect! Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete vague and non-disambiguable, could also refer to hacking (t · c) buIdhe 19:46, 16 December 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. Jay 💬 07:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Alphasand → At sign  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

presumably a portmanteau of "alpha" and "ampersand". there seems to be no particular affinity with languages that have the word "ampersand" (english and polish) and languages that use a term tangentially related to the word "alpha" to refer to the @ (norwegian and svedish), and results only gave me a south african sand distribution company and a prog rock album with this name. that is to say, no idea what this is about lol consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the etymology here is "alpha" meaning "a" (as in, the 'a' trapped inside of '@'), combined into "ampersand", using the "-sand" as a root to mean "weird symbol". This is almost certainly just something that someone made up one day, the notion that you could refer to an at sign as an alphasand. Which is too bad, because that's actually a really cool word for it! I like it! Well done! Doesn't belong on Wikipedia, though. MEN KISSING (talk) 03:40, 18 December 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. Jay 💬 07:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Torture (Rome) → Torture#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Torture (ancient Rome) → Torture#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Rome" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving readers potentially scratching their heads looking for information about the subjects of the redirects at the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete probably a valid WP:REDLINK (t · c) buIdhe 19:47, 16 December 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. Jay 💬 06:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• Salahuddin Ahmed (Politician) → Salahuddin Ahmed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB, it was at this title for 5 and a bit hours today, the correct title Salahuddin Ahmed (politician) goes to the same target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If closer considers me the creator of this redirect, it is eligible under G7. If closer considers Loyal luz (LL) the creator—I reverted LL's move per RfD nom's request at WP:RM/TR—it could qualify as {{db-error}}, as LL clearly meant to move to (politician) but was blocked by the history at that redirect. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:51, 16 December 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 💬 08:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Woodham Ley OPrimary School → Borough of Castle Point  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, not a plausable error, it was at this title for about 2 minutes in 2006 and the only Google result appears to be a mirror which also includes the correct spelling. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 16 December 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• Fargo (film)Fargo (film) → Fargo#Arts, entertainment, and media  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Fargo (1996 film), one of the best-known movies of the 1990s and genesis of a 5-season (so far) TV series; it is really obviously primary for "Fargo (film)". The only other movie by this name, Fargo (1952 film), is hardly known by anyone still living. The existence here of an article about the latter can be handled with a hatnote, as usual.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:PFILM:

  When more than one film needs to be disambiguated, partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) should be made and redirected back to the main disambiguation page or an appropriate section of it. This aids navigation, and helps editors to avoid creating new articles under the ambiguous title by accident. While the general guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation allows for incomplete disambiguation, the film-naming conventions guideline prefers disambiguating all secondary-topic films from each other.

  While the 1996 film is certainly primary among the two, since films are given full year disambiguators when their title isn't purely primary, it seems like we should follow the guideline here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Deacon Vorbis. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. --Nicholas0 (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep per above. Gonnym (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, ambiguous links do not aid users. Tassedethe (talk) 01:00, 19 December 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 Keep Absurd Italian Internet Memes and delete the rest. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• Absurd Italian Internet MemesAbsurd Italian Internet Memes → Italian brainrot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Trippa troppa tralala lirili rili tung tung sahur boneca tung tung tralalelo trippi troppa crocodina → Italian brainrot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• @burgermerda → Italian brainrot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Aeroplanino Gattino → Italian brainrot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Draft:Strawberry Elephant → Italian brainrot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ta Ta Ta Sahur → Italian brainrot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete all. None are mentioned at target, and some are incredibly long and unlikely. These are just some that the other discussion missed. Draft:Strawberry Elephant is a CNR that isn't the result of a page move and appears to be a mangled redirect AFC submission. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Unnecessary, frankly ridiculous redirects. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Absurd Italian Internet Memes, Ta Ta Ta Sahur, Aeroplanino Gattino, and delete the rest - all three are useful redirects, for the first serving as a redirect to better help TA users or users from the Arabic Wikipedia to lead to the correct article; the second and third is a character from IB so it doesn't make sense on deleting it. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 16:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

  Absurd Italian Internet Memes raises WP:FORRED concerns, since the term is a direct translation of an Arabic phrase that itself is an indirect translation of an English phrase, and the term itself is not used in English. The other two, while legitimate characters, aren't mentioned at the target. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: FORRED doesn't feel like an issue here given it's not actually in Arabic? It's like Pocket Monsters-- next to nobody refers to the series as 'pocket monsters' in the English-speaking world, we refer to it as Pokemon, which is an English-ish spelling of a shortened form of the Japanese phrase that directly translates to "Pocket Monsters". And yet we have Pocket Monsters as a redirect, because someone who speaks both Japanese and English may have only run into the full Japanese name of the franchise (somehow) and, not knowing the English name, could try to guess it by transliterating the name they DO know into English. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  Amending: Keep Absurd Italian Internet Memes as per Freedoxm and Delete the rest. My prior comment is only in support of Absurd Italian Internet Memes. (For Ta Ta Ta Sahur specifically; there IS an argument that this is a close enough spelling to Tung Tung Tung Sahur that it could be an {{R from avoided double redirect}}; I do not believe it's close enough to keep.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment Trippa troppa tralala lirili rili tung tung sahur boneca tung tung tralalelo trippi troppa crocodina appears to be an alternate capitalization of some redirects that were nominated at the previous RfD. Specifically, Trippa Troppa Tralala Lirilì Rilà Tung Tung Sahur Boneca Tung Tung Tralalelo Trippi Troppa Crocodina and Trippa Troppa Tralala Lirili Rili Tung Tung Sahur Boneca Tung Tung Tralalelo Trippi Troppa Crocodina. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 16:51, 23 December 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. No prejudice against recreation if and when relevant content is added at the target, since that seems to be the sole reason for deletion here. Left guide (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Eeffoc → Glossary of 2020s slang#E  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, not mentioned at target. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. It was there at the time of the redirect creation, but has since been removed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:22, 16 December 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• Maelstrom (whirlpool) → Whirlpool  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

this is going to be a mildly strange one, and will probably affect the dab at maelstrom either way

but would a reader searching for or clicking this more likely be looking for this target, or for moskstraumen? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Maelstrom in standard English refers to any whirlpool, and the disambiguation in this case is necessary, since the term is also often used figuratively. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

  but if it's being used as a disambiguator, wouldn't it make sense to have it target a maelstrom that could be considered a little more "the" than a general article like that? this seems more like having "hamburger (sandwich)" as a redirect to sandwich consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Unusual disambiguation of the form X (synonym of X); a more typical form would be something like "Maelstrom (phenomenon)". It's also an unhelpful redirect since no one's going to search for this. "Maelstrom" is a dab page, which lists the primary meanings at the top, which is plenty fine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete; the disambiguation seems to imply that the word typically has another meaning, but the whirlpool is easily the primary meaning; I'm surprised maelstrom is neither an article nor a redirect to Moskstraumen. Just update the disambiguation page to link to whirlpool and throw away this unusual format. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 21 December 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• American Nero → Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. All Google results for the term "American Nero" are for a book without a Wikipedia page. If this is a nickname, it is not a common one, and there's also WP:ATTACK concerns. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, unmentioned. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
• The book has two authors, Richard Painter and Peter Golenbock, and it's mentioned in both articles. I don't know if one would be a better target than the other. - Eureka Lott 16:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  then it seems it's better to just wait until it has its own article consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Richard Painter as {{R from work}}. He's the lead author because he's listed first. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  "He's the lead author because he's listed first." That's...not how that works. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Deacon Vorbis: Yes, that is how that works. See the lead author article for more information. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't academic publishing, so your argument is void. And even if it were, did you see the caveat: "In other disciplines (such as mathematics) however, authors are typically listed alphabetically rather than by contribution."? So again, no, that's not how that (necessarily) works. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  Painter is a professor so while not published in an academic journal, it would still be academic in nature. Also, Painter is later in the alphabet than Golenbock so it cannot be listed alphabetically. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. A book with two authors, mentioned at both their pages, should be redirected to neither. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not an established nickname for Trump and arbitrarily redirecting to one of the two authors is inappropriate. Also note that per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nero, this nickname has been applied to other US presidents. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 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. Jay 💬 07:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• Mana (miraculous food of bible) → Manna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Manna (miraculous food of bible) → Manna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term. This redirect only exists because of an inappropriate page move that was reverted shortly afterward. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: As of this nomination, the creator of the redirect who made the initial move is blocked, but it is set to expire well before the week is out. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Just not needed ScrabbleTiles (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: Bundled in the second entry (with 2 Ns). Courtesy ping TornadoLGS and ScrabbleTiles in case you want to amend anything. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep It being an inappropriate page move makes me think that this is a somewhat reasonable search term. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

  how does that even work lmao consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

  Delete I think perhaps 2025's reasoning is "Someone tried to put the article at this location, which makes me think that someone else might try to search for it there"? The issue is, that sort of usefulness justification, if accepted, pretty much invalidates the entirety of RfD because you can apply that logic to basically every redirect under the sun-- "oh, someone made this redirect, which means it might at some point get used".

  One person using a redirect once should not be the threshold we measure usefulness by. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete both as detritus from a disruptive page move, and wildly implausible search terms. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

  I would have. The only reason I didn't tag this for R3 is because the move was 2 months ago. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• regardless, delete both as a grammatically fucked up disambiguator consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:21, 17 December 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• China clay country → St Austell Rural District  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete St Austell River mentions china clay mining there, but I'm also finding regions notable for their china clay mining in Bulgaria, India, the US, and elsewhere in the UK just from a very quick search. We'd need stronger support for a generic title like this. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
• Maybe retarget to Kaolinite § Occurrence, the target article of china clay? Jay 💬 04:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be an actual term, but is not mentioned at the target. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:35, 16 December 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. While several possible targets were proposed, there was no more than weak support for any of them. Rusalkii (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• Concur → Concurrence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Given that this word has a strong connection to other topics, such as agreeing or understanding something, in addition to the target not mentioning the word "concur" even once without the "-rence" suffix, I do not believe that the current target is proper. However, seems like the only target we have for this is SAP Concur, which is where the original target of this redirect was moved to. With this information, I have no opinion between "weak retarget to SAP Concur" or "delete", but those are my two stances on this. Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to agreement, since "concur" and "agree" seem to be synonyms, even though it is a rather unsatisfying dab page. But wikt:concur is also a viable target. Do not retarget to SAP Concur per WP:SURPRISE; mention it in a hatnote at best. Duckmather (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  Ultimately, I agree about the SAP Concur opinion here, so I'm downgrading my stance on it to "weak retarget". Steel1943 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to agreement per User:Duckmather. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. The main meaning is a dictionary definition which we, appropriately, do not cover. Someone searching for this specific word is very unlikely to be looking for one of the "agreements" listed at the Agreement dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  I concur. Delete. MEN KISSING (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

• Nominator update: Oppose "retarget to Agreement" per Myceteae. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Myceteae. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 25 December 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 speedy delete. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Israeli necroviolence against Palestinians → Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Israeli violence against Palestinian corpses → Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Israeli desecration of Palestinian corpses → Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Cemeteries razed during the Gaza war → Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:CSD G5 - Creator was just topic banned in Arab-Israel conflict December 12. Redirects created December 15. These redirects dont serve any constructive purpose, especially in light of that case.

Note: Did not notify due to ban precluding contribution, but if an admin feels otherwise, notice can be made. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Nehushtani (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy delete per G5. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, should probably be taken to WP:ANI. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:37, 16 December 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).