Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 26, 2025.

Finding Ola

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the redirect's undeletion. Rusalkii (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Mentioned in the target article; however, third-party search engines show that this subject has at least two seasons and returns a good amount of results, meaning WP:REDLINK applies due to high article potential. Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 26 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).

Henry Sugar (TV series)

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. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target article. It seems this redirect is meant to refer to either The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (film) or The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Three More, but neither one of these are TV series. Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete not mentioned as such at the target, and potentially confusing as a TV series is not a film. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 20:41, 29 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).

Esio Trot (TV series)

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. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in target article. Per third-party search engine, seems that this was a television series that was announced in 2018 to be produced for Netflix, but has he had to be put in production. In addition, the most related articles, Esio Trot and Esio Trot (film) mention nothing about a TV series adaptation, leaving both of the aforementioned targets not helpful to retarget the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 26 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).

Untitled Kanye West docuseries

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. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:UFILM. No longer untitled, target subject released over 3 years ago. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WP:UFILM clearly applies. -2pou (talk) 19:10, 29 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).

Licentiate of the Royal Institute of British Architects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 9#Licentiate of the Royal Institute of British Architects

Untitled Alejandro G. Iñárritu film

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 no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The film's title is now confirmed to be "Digger". Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 08:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep, WP:UFILM says that untitled film redirects should be sent to RFD no earlier than 30 days after the film is titled. Still sees a lot of pageviews. mwwv converse∫edits 13:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    Thankfully Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 21:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Information Note: Bundled the two noms together since they had identical rationales and only differed in capitalization, and Mwwv, your keep vote on the second one just referenced that of the first, so I'm going to assume that's ok. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per mwwv. Jay 💬 07:35, 9 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).

Judy (2026 film)

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. The name is now mentioned in target, which renders the rationale of the delete votes moot. Rusalkii (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The film's title is now confirmed to be "Digger". Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 08:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't see why the fact the name has changed means we shouldn't have a redirect from a former name. I can see online discussion using the name 'Judy' for the film. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    Which name change? It was never meant to be named Judy. That's why the page was not named Judy. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 21:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    Its a name used to refer to the film , which makes it a completely appropriate redirect. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. No mention of it being called "Judy" at the target. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep per Traumnovelle. Minimal attestation is sufficient for a redirect. BD2412 T 14:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as not mentioned at target. `* Pppery * it has begun... — Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
    I just added a mention as the working title using the ref above, supported by a reference that was already present as well. -2pou (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep because mentions of working titles is a valid reason for the existence of WP:CHEAP redirects; it can also be tagged with {{R from working title}}. I added mention of this to the body to eliminate any WP:ASTONISH concerns. -2pou (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Very likely search term, reader unlikely to be confused even without a mention as it's a normal redirect from former/incorrect name. J947 ‡ edits 04:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Traumnovelle as unclear nomination rationale. Jay 💬 07:41, 4 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).

Queer Eye: Brazil

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. Hog Farm Talk 23:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in target article. Linked in Queer Eye (2018 TV series), but other than a brief mention, the subject of this redirect is not explained. Possible WP:REDLINK potential. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to bundle Queer Eye Brazil with this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
@Myceteae and Lenticel: Pinging current participants to let them know that a new redirect has been added/merged into this discussion in case it changes their stances. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the ping. Still delete --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Thanks, —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:01, 27 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).

Billy and the Minpins (TV series)

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. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target article. Apparently, this was an animated television show for Netflix that was announced in 2018, but never came to fruition. In addition, the target of Billy and the Minpins, being The Minpins, doesn't seem to mention any information about a television series, leaving retargeting the nominated redirect there unhelpful. Steel1943 (talk) 22:32, 26 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).

Pick & Sepulveda

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 22:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target article. Seems the subject of the redirect represents a series which was announced in 2018, but as of the present day, was never put into production. In addition, without context, this title could potentially conflict with another article's title on Wikipedia: Pico and Sepulveda. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 26 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).

A Chorus Line (TV series)

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 22:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target article. Per third-party search engines, this show was either supposed to be or is about (sources are mixed on whether or not this has ever been released) a reality show where Broadway dancers are auditioning for spots on a chorus line. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 26 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).

Heaven's Forest

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 22:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mention in the target article. Per third-party search engines, the subject of the redirect represents an animated series that has been in development since either 2018 or 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete not mentioned at the target. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 20:27, 29 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 Green Beret's Guide to Surviving the Apocalypse

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 22:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target article. Apparently, this was a series which Netflix had created somewhere between 1-6 episodes of (third-party search engine seemed to vary between stating one episode or six episodes had been created) but ended up being shelved. (iMDB entry) Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 26 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).

Amneisa (song)

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. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Implausible misspelling combined with a parenthetical disambiguator. The article existed here for 8 minutes in 2009 before being created by the same user at the correct title; nothing in either page history requires that attribution be preserved. Complex/Rational 22:04, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete only at the title briefly, insignificant pageviews so unlikely there is an issue with incoming external links. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 20:25, 29 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).

Crocodile (TV series)

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 22:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mention in the target article. Third-party search engine seem to return only results for a series titled Wild Croc Territory, which we seem to have no article for. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 26 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).

Dark Web (TV series)

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 22:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mention in the target article. Seems that third-party search engines don't know what this refers to either; results are mixed between Unfriended: Dark Web (which is a film, not a TV series) and a TV series which we apparentlyly do not have an article for titled Dark/Web: (IMDb link). Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 26 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).

Catrina: La Santa Muerte

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 22:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mention in the target article. Third-party search results seem to not know what this title refers to either; for English results, third-party source engines returned a combination of results for The Book of Life (2014 film) and Katrina: Come Hell and High Water. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 26 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).

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp

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. Beland (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Unnatural title without significant history, so maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm rather inclined to keep because it isn't doing any harm and may well be useful for something or contain history that doesn't look valuable but in fact is. Almost certainly it isn't useful, but I don't see any danger in keeping it around. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete It looks like the sum total history is "With Wikipedia:Votes for deletion currently broken -- no one seems to have a way to add edits, see Village Pump for discussion -- I have set up this page as a temporary location for the usual work of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I've made a remark to this effect on the Village Pump. Once WP:VFD is fixed, all this should be merged." over 20 years ago, with the following edit turning it back to a redirect with the summary "oops". No incoming links. If someone digs up an actual reason to keep this I have no objections, but might as well clean up whatever this old mess is. I somewhat concur with Cremastra's assessment that this is harmless, but since it's up for discussion let's mop it up. Rusalkii (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep It was really useful ~20 years ago as it was the only way to contribute to VFD. It's still useful even today as an archive of posts from that aforementioned time. Deleting it now would only get rid of ~20 year old posts. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 00:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep Per @Someone-123-321 Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't have historical value. Some pages from long ago should certainly be kept, but we don't put every iron nail from the 1800s in a museum solely because they're old. It has to have actual importance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • delete, technically per nom. it might just be me having smallbrainitis, but i couldn't actually find any evidence of this being used as a temporary substitute for vfd that hasn't already been cleaned up and/or never actually existed. no history, no logs, no incoming links, nothing. it also seems to have lasted a little under a month as a thing that isn't a redirect, so the estimate of 21 years of history going down the drain seems kind of exaggerated. considering the rationale for redirection, the creation could've also just been a mistake or something consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete no important page history is contained here. Might as well clean it up since we're here. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep no harm. I don't see a WP:DEL-REASON for deleting it. Sun8908 Talk 08:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Irrelevant noise. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep old history is neither irrelevant nor noise. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
    does this mean you found the history? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep and add {{R with history}}.Delete. See below. --Grufo Whether the redirect is noise or not is irrelevant when the goal is preserving the page history. That page history seem to have practical use still today, so by definition it is significant/substantial. --Grufo (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    no, really, where is the history that's allegedly not noise? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
    @Consarn: It seems you are right. I assumed this sentence by Someone-123-321 was correct, because nobody contradicted it while people were using it to back their “keep” votes: “It was really useful ~20 years ago as it was the only way to contribute to VFD. It's still useful even today as an archive of posts from that aforementioned time.” I will try to ask them, and possibly change my vote accordingly. @Someone-123-321: How is that tiny history significant/useful? What revision id in particular interests you? --Grufo (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
    Until a reply is provided my vote shall be !delete. --Grufo (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the page this nomination was formerly located was not appearing on the main RfD nomination page due to WP:EXPENSIVE template/parser call issues. (Reminder that per WP:RELIST, if consensus is found, this discussion can be closed at any time.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 26 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).

Prime Minister of the United States

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. There was more combined support for keeping or retargeting compared to deleting, with the most common justification being WP:POPE. There was a lot more support for keeping than retargeting, on the grounds that this was almost certainly what the reader was looking for. I have adjusted Prime Minister of the United States of America to keep them in sync, as suggested. President of the United Kingdom was re-created and is under discussion again. Beland (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Also note that this redirect has already been tagged {{R from incorrect name}}, as suggested. -- Beland (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Now that President of the United Kingdom has been deleted and WP:SALTED, I think we can get rid of this one too. We shouldn't have redirect for something that doesn't exist, since the existence of that title may cause confusion. I2Overcome talk 10:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete, no such office exists unless in fictional form. Similar to 'Governor of England' or 'Potentate of Russia'. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree with the logic here, a big falacy. The redirect will not, in any way, confuse someone and make them think the US has a Prime Minister. In the unlikely even someone types that in, it would take them to the proper article, with the proper title, then they would know the office is President, not Prime Minister. I doubt it gets much use, but there is at least a little logic to the redirect, as it is plausible that someone would type it in out of habit of using that title rather than President. Marginally useful is not the same as harmful, and it isn't harmful. It's managed to be here almost 12 years without incident. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support, as no such office exists and as it is an extremely unlikely search term. Drdpw (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  • delete and competitive game community per nom Oreocooke (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per the recent precedent for President of the United Kingdom. If consensus emerges not to delete, then retarget to match Prime Minister of the United States of AmericaPrime Minister of the United States of America, namely Presidential systems without a prime minister. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
    admittedly, i don't think the consensus there was necessarily to delete as implausible, just as created by a sock. this means that it would probably be fine if someone who isn't footwear recreated them consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, tag appropriately as a wrong name. The G5s used during the previous RFD are disappointing for reasons explained by Shazback in this comment. I also think linking to 20 year old AFD listings for other topics is a bit overkill for an RFD listing. Redirects do not need to be for exactly correct titles, and it is often beneficial when they appear for incorrect titles (see {{R from incorrect name}}). Anyone who searches for this term will be taken to an article that shows the correct term. Those who think it is innate knowledge that the US has a President but not a PM may be being too Western-centric. We shouldn't ignore users who are looking for information on a topic just because they don't know the exact term for it yet. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No clear rationale for deletion has been outlined. Contrary the insinuations above, pageviews demonstrate this is an extremely well-used redirect. The easy response to it causing confusion is retargetting to List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Presidential_republics_without_a_prime_minister. However, the reader likely wants to access the POTUS page, and that retarget has no link to it. So keeping is IMO preferable. Either that or the disambiguation proposed last RfD, which explains that the U.S. has no president nicely and also links to other United Stateses. J947 ‡ edits 21:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The United States does not have, and never has had, a prime minister. It's impossible to know what people using this redirect want, but anything other than an article that says very clearly, up front, "The United States does not have, and never has had, a prime minister" is misleading the user. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirects should be created for one of the purposes listed at Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. This does not meet any of those purposes. DrKay (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    That list is inclusive, not exclusive. J947 ‡ edits 22:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Textbook WP:POPE. The nomination is literally correct about President of the United Kingdom, though the most recent deletion was specifically a G5, and the salting and quick close of that RfD look overzealous to me. I would both keep this one and see President of the United Kingdom recreated, though I'm fine keeping the variants from the other RfD deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Keep. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, and we do that best when we take people to the articles why their plausible but inaccurate search terms are incorrect rather than leave them guessing in the face of mostly not relevant search results. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    I'm also OK with retargetting to List of countries by system of government#Presidential republics without a prime minister per Tavix below. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • If kept, it should be retargeted to List of countries by system of government#Presidential republics without a prime minister where it's noted that the United States does not have a prime minister. The current target does not make that distinction, which could be especially confusing for those familiar with a system that has both a prime minister and a president. Failing that, delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    I'm also okay with any other target that explicitly notes that the United States does not have a prime minister. I noticed this is mentioned a couple of places at Prime minister (and there could be others?). -- Tavix (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as there is no reasonable doubt as to what the person is looking for - the primary political office in the United States. WP:RPURPOSE is clear that Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include: [...] Likely mixed-up technical names (for example, Oxygen chloride redirects to Chlorine oxide).. That the US does not and has not had a PM is not a strong argument on this basis. PM or President are effectively technical names for a political office. Furthermore this redirect is WP:CHEAP and we should not penalize users or make it harder for them to find the information they want when this is a good example of WP:POPE. The page title they arrive at clearly states "President of the United States" and from there they can search more about the executive function as well as titles of political roles in the US if they so wish. Shazback (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, while oxygen chloride could be mixed up with chlorine oxide by anyone who doesn't know chemistry very well, the UK and USA's governments are rather common knowledge. We should let the search engine handle this. User:Easternsaharareview this 00:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep I can see someone searching this, same with President of the United Kingdom. Someone might not know that it's a president and not a prime minister. Retargeting would also make sense. 77qq 💬 22:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
    @77qq You appear to have !voted twice here, once as keep and once as delete (below). I2Overcome talk 01:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't notice i had voted already, my vote is delete Jq 💬 contributions 19:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep and restore President of the United Kingdom as valid {{R from incorrect name}}s. The other RFD was deleted as G5 despite keep !votes in the RFD, so it holds no precedential value here. Both are plausible search terms for people confused about what the office is called especially if they live in a system where the position that holds the government's actual executive power has the other title. Anecdotally, as a Canadian, I have heard people incorrectly use variants of this. Tavix's proposal is also acceptable, but would be my second choice. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect it to Politics of the United States, Parliamentarism in the United States, or keep the redirect to President of the United States. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete the US has a president and there is no prime minister 77qq 💬 contributions 18:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - Office doesn't exist. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
    Well it did. See Prime Minister of the United States of Indonesia. J947 ‡ edits 00:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of countries by system of government#Presidential republics without a prime minister per Tavix and others; that is the most informative solution and the most useful to readers, and the least likely to result in another new redirect being created through salting and starting yet another new argument about it. Presidents and prime ministers are not equal positions in their respective governments - some of the responsibilities of POTUS overlap with those of a prime minister, but a prime minister's role also overlaps with the Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House, and notably a prime minister serves under the head of state while a president is the head of state. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: as someone said, textbook WP:POPE. I don't know whether the head of government of Kazakhstan is a President or a Prime Minister. Maybe they have a Finland-like arrangement with both. I don't know. But if they only have one, I should be redirected from the incorrect one to the correct answer. There is a distinction between republics with Presidents and republics with PMs – they operate differently. But most casual readers don't know and don't care. As far as they're concerned, there's a person in charge who's wither called the President or the Prime Minister. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:POPE arguments listed by Cremastra, Patar Knight, BDD, Thryduulf, et al. Let's say a young lad of 6 in the United Kingdom learns about his own Prime Minister, and gets curious about what the Prime Ministers of other countries might be like. He's heard of America, and starts his Wikipedia search there. Having this redirect is the difference between teaching this young lad that the United States has a presidency rather than a Prime Minister, and having him stare at the "There is no page with this title" page, confused about why Wikipedia wouldn't have information on this topic. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    I'd also like to bring up for your consideration: Prime Minister of the United States of America exists as a redirect to List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Presidential_republics_without_a_prime_minister, which is perhaps a more heavy-handed way of teaching the lad above the same WP:POPE lesson of 'The US doesn't have a Prime Minister but does have a President'. Either way, the two should really match-- so either bundle Prime Minister of the United States of America in with this redirect, or Retarget this one to match it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of countries by system of government § Presidential republics without a prime minister. WP:POPE is a fair point, but a prime minister is not equivalent to a president, and redirecting it as such would imply that they are. Retargeting would give greater clarity. --Sable232 (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    Like I said above, to the casual observer they are equivalent. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    Perhaps equivalent, but there are differences. Better to enlighten than to leave confused. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. I find the argument to keep or retarget entirely unpersuasive. The US President is one of the best-known offices in the world. Pageviews shows very little daily traffic, indicating a lack of real-world usefulness, despite various scenarios put forth in these discussions. In these hypotheticals, it's not actually clear what the reader intends, what their prior knowledge base is, or which target would help more than confuse. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
    Pageviews shows very little daily traffic: I don't know where you get this idea. This redirect received 277 pageviews in the year before nomination. As I've responded to you before, that's actually heaps. Comparing it to the roughly 30 other non-deleted redirects nominated on this page, none even approach that figure. Only 3 received more than 50 pageviews, demonstrating this is extremely popular for a redirect. Moreover, I clicked Special:Random 9 times and 2 of the articles I found received fewer pageviews over that period than this redirect. I take it that you don't think Gmina Wieliczki or 2013 in Chile should be deleted because of a lack of real-world usefulness? J947 ‡ edits 23:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete The United States does not have a prime minister. That fact is conveyed just as well by a redlink as it would be by List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Presidential_republics_without_a_prime_minister. The current target is actively misleading. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the page this nomination was formerly located was not appearing on the main RfD nomination page due to WP:EXPENSIVE template/parser call issues. (Reminder that per WP:RELIST, if consensus is found, this discussion can be closed at any time.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 26 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).

Surya Namask?r

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 no consensus. By the numbers, there are more !votes to delete than to keep. However, two of these came before the !voters had any idea what the purpose of this redirect was, so I am weighing those less; same for the comment that this is "a typo that is unlikely to be used", as it seems to misunderstand the context. We have prior consensus that redirects like this should be kept, which was based on a combination of WP:RfD#K5 and a lack of a strong argument for deletion, both of which remain true in this discussion. As such, I have no solid basis upon which to close this discussion with consensus to delete.
There is very clear consensus that Legobot should be fixed to handle special characters. I would greatly appreciate if any editor manages to make that happen. Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm assuming this redirect refers to Surya Namaskar, a redirect targeting the same target as the nominated redirect, but the "?" is both not plausible and not a "with" or "without" diacritic version of the aforementioned other redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, seems an attempt to use a wildcard which isn't needed and we don't do it anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - all I can think of with these is masking, where people mask letters in words that are expected to trigger automated content filtering on some social media platforms (for example if you write "sex" on Instagram you'll get a content warning or even have your account shut down, but not if you write "s3x" or "seggs" or "xes" instead). I don't know why this title would trigger an abuse algorithm, but there could be some valid cases for titles like this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    Keep WP:RFD#K5 per below. It would be better if Legobot could be fixed to handle titles with diacritics, but we can't do that from here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep The reasoning behind it is none of the above. I created this redirect when Sun Salutation was up for GA. At the time (the page has been moved twice in the meantime) its name was Surya NamaskārSurya Namaskār, and the GA review, which is now at Talk:Sun Salutation/GA1, was therefore at Talk:Surya Namaskār/GA1. Legobot - which sends out messages for GA reviews and RfCs - has difficulties when page names contain diacritics, hence the need to create redirects like this whenever Legobot sends out a notification containing a redlink that itself contains a question mark. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8#Redirects for Legobot no longer linked to: since then, nothing has changed - Legobot has not been amended, and this problem does still crop up occasionally. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    Seems that's one of the reasons why we have WP:SALT ... to avoid keeping trash, recreated titles. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    Which one was recreated after deletion? Please provide an example which was either (a) SALTed; or (b) where delete/recreate occurred multiple times. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
    Either you misunderstood my point, or I misunderstood your point, but meh. Steel1943 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K5 as Redrose64 has illustrated a use. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not a plausible search term and seems a bit odd to use a redirect as a patch for fixing technical issue. Asteramellus (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lenticel. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and also his !vote at the 2023 RfD. Needn't keep a redirect that was created during a past discussion to help a buggy bot. Jay 💬 18:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
    Wow, sure enough I had participated in the RFD involving the talk namespace redirects. Though my two responses were both comments, seems the second one definitely applies here as well. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete a typo that is unlikely to be used. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm obviously WP:INVOLVED, but the page this nomination was formerly located was not appearing on the main RfD nomination page due to WP:EXPENSIVE template/parser call issues. (Reminder that per WP:RELIST, if consensus is found, this discussion can be closed at any time.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 26 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 Enclosed CJK Letters and Months. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

hmm... it should be a valid r from unicode character, but wouldn't it first require affinity with japanese? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  • delete per WP:FORRED --Lenticel (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget to Enclosed CJK Letters and Months where included in a table. Depends whether the reader wants the history of the Unicode character or what the symbol means (probably the latter, so keep as is IMO). How do any of the reasons given at FORRED apply to single characters? J947 ‡ edits 05:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    the same way it applies to entire words. it's why having www as a redirect to lol wouldn't work without affinity, for example (ignoring that that's already a redirect to a more plausible term) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    And why would that be a bad redirect, ignoring problems of ambiguity? None of the reasons at Wikipedia:Affinity apply, and all of those at WP:FORRED seem weak or irrelevant. J947 ‡ edits 23:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    i should probably clarify that this is only opposition to keeping, for which the reasons at forred apply as the month has no demonstrated affinity ("additions (...) that have no specific affinity to one title over any other" applying to stuff other than punctuation and formatting is commonplace here, if it needs saying). a reader going to this title expecting the month would have their needs better met in wp:ja
    that said, yeah, the other proposed target seems fine and dandy consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 01:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
    This redirect is a singular character. How are there any "additions" to it? J947 ‡ edits 02:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
    the redirect itself is the addition in this case. the wording there could probably be tweaked to reflect this, but i guess that's besides the point for now consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 02:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
    No that's surely not what it's meant to mean. The answer is that "affinity" has changed meaning like WP:XY and consequentially WP:Affinity redirects to the wrong place. Luckily there's a forum to resolve that somewhere nearby... J947 ‡ edits 02:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
    for once, that forum is not rfd lol consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Enclosed CJK Letters and Months, where it is mentioned. Consarn is correct that there must be some connection between an article and a foreign-language term for the foreign-language term to redirect there. We can explain the meaning of this term at the new target article. (It's currently already visible if you hover over the character with your mouse, but that's not good for mobile users.) Toadspike [Talk] 10:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    I've added a description of the meanings of this character and many others to that page. Toadspike [Talk] 10:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    then retargeting there will be fine and/or dandy consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:33, 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).

Septilis

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 22:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

what consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:47, 26 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).

Satambar

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 Lots of words here but in the end WP:1AM applies. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

what consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RLOTE. This appears to be Punjabi for "September" (see wikt:सितंबर). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:FORRED --Lenticel (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, normal harmless redirect from synonymous term. J947 ‡ edits 05:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    not quite. this redirect implies affinity with romanizations from punjabi, which it doesn't have. it would be the kind of logic that would allow redirects like setembro (from portuguese) or 九月 (from japanese). just being "synonymous" says nothing by itself, and calling it "harmless" is a stretch at best consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    What's your argument? That the reader who searches up "Satambar" might be misled to think that the month of September has some sort of special connection with Punjabi based on their knowledge of Wikipedia redirect practice? Seems implausible. J947 ‡ edits 23:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    the thing being missed here is association (or affinity as the folk 'round these parts call it), which is where forred comes in. the concept of september is no more strongly associated with punjabi than it is with scots, javanese, russian, french, 1337, or pig latin. in blunt but not untrue terms, this is a roundabout way of saying that languages should stay in their own lanes, which is why dominio público was deleted (as no affinity with spanish is demonstrated in its target), but música mexicana wasn't (as affinity with spanish was demonstrated in its target). to imply affinity where there is none can very much be considered "harm", as it opens the way for probably the one kind of genuine use for wp:pandora consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 01:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
    Can you explain why the reader, having searched up Satambar and been directed to September, would think Punjabi has a specific affinity with September? J947 ‡ edits 02:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
    because they're trying to get to a title from punjabi in the first place, meaning that succeeding can mean they'll think wikipedia accommodates other languages more freely than it does. that's a job for wiktionary or the punjabi wikipedia. arguments that a reader can just not know the word in english also don't work, because i can just say i only know it in one of the aforementioned languages and it'll be just as valid, and oh whoops that's the aforementioned one kind of genuine use for pandora consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 02:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
    So you're saying that there's a chance the reader may try to search in Punjabi again and be met with disappointment. They succeed once and fail once. But that's surely better than searching up Satambar and getting nowhere, i.e. failing once. Better something than nothing, right? J947 ‡ edits 02:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
    same for every other language any given concept isn't strongly associated with. wikipedia doesn't tend to appeal to extremely niche cases of language mismatch like this. so yes, i do think getting nothing will be better in the long run, and also in the short run consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per FORRED. Unnecessary foreign language redirect. No affinity between the target and the Punjabi language. CycloneYoris talk! 20:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Presidentman. There is a reason FORRED exists. Jay 💬 14:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
    That reason being? In most RfDs editors voting delete explain why the redirect is harmful. Language redirects just see lots of barebones "per FORRED" and "per nom" (not that "per nom" is an option in this RfD) which leaves people confused if they read FORRED and note it has lots of different arguments for lots of different scenarios and no one has explained which ones apply in that instance. "Per FORRED" really means "per precedent" and given most of us weren't around when that precedent was last litigated, I don't want to see it treated as a silver bullet. After all, many bad practices persist for a long time. J947 ‡ edits 21:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
    this is a whole bunch of words to say what's really starting to just look like "i don't like forred". i know this isn't the intention, but if allegations were made, i don't think this would beat them
    and even then, an average reader would know from even a quick red that this falls into the "common word but in another language" category, so your argument here is at best actively wrong. it's not like forred is a yiik-length yapfest or anything for confusion to be plausible consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 02:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    Well you've completely missed the point, which was to stop treating "per FORRED" like gospel. That this redirect is a common word but in another language without affinity isn't an argument to delete a redirect. I'm talking about the 5 arguments given in the #Rationale section. J947 ‡ edits 03:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    Are you trying to say that someone who's advocating for deletion as per RLANG would only be using ONE of the arguments in WP:RLANG#Rationale rather than... all of them??? Because all of them would apply in basically every scenario that RLANG gets brought up in. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    Well let's go through them shall we? The 1st argument is irrelevant here as "Satambar" has no false friends and moreover appears unambiguous. The 2nd is also irrelevant since both the Western and Eastern Punjabi Wikipedias have articles on September. I've said my piece as to why the 3rd is silly. The 4th is counterintuitive given D10. The 5th is irrelevant once a redirect has already reached RfD because the past RfD nom accessible in the talk page and history will clarify why the redirect exists. So only 3 of the 5 arguments are applicable here and neither are exactly strong. J947 ‡ edits 06:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    Let's start with the 5th, because the 5th is actually probably the MOST relevant; in order to acquire the power to use a prior RFD to look up necessary information, you... need to HAVE that necessary information in the first place, it's a chicken and egg situation. And in turn, that necessary information is also necessary in order to deal with the 1st argument and 2nd argument-- I'm probably able to count the number of English-Wikipedia RFD users that speak Punjabi on one hand.
    I'll admit that the third and fourth arguments lean a little into WP:PANDORA-- and I've already made my case EXTREMELY clear regarding my thoughts on Pandora-- but at the end of the day, it all boils down.
    This is the English Wikipedia. It is not built to deal with the demands of serving readers who don't speak English. If they would like to read Wikipedia, they have their own Wikipedias, for their languages. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    The first port of call for anyone confused as to why a redirect exists is to look in its history for a helpful edit summary from the creator or past discussion, or alternatively to notice whether its talkpage link is blue. It's nothing special. This redirect isn't slightly incorrect in an imperceptible way, nor is September likely to ever be renamed.
    I'm quite aware that this is the English Wikipedia. But there is not a one-to-one correlation between people and languages! This redirect caters for people who want to read the English Wikipedia, but don't know or have briefly forgotten the word "September" in one language or accidentally typed it in the wrong language. It also caters, probably moreso, for readers who don't speak Punjabi, have come across this word and want to know what it means. J947 ‡ edits 22:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    It also caters, probably moreso, for readers who don't speak Punjabi, have come across this word, and want to know what it means
    Except we need to keep in mind WP:NOT-- specifically for the purposes of this discussion, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that includes a translation dictionary. If a reader wants to find out what "Satambar" is in Punjabi, they can type it into Wiktionary instead... okay, Wiktionary:Satambar is a redlink, but my point is still that that's where the info should be, not here on Wikipedia. (And besides, they're more likely to plug it into Google Translate, anyways.)
    This redirect caters to those who read the English Wikipedia, but don't know or have briefly forgotten the word "September" in one language or accidentally have typed it in the wrong language.
    I still find it extremely implausible that a bilingual person whose Punjabi is strong enough, and English is weak enough, to plug Satambar in while forgetting September, would reach for the English Wikipedia instead of either of the Punjabi Wikipedias. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    If you read WP:NOTDICTIONARY, it mentions how redirects are used instead of dictionary definitions. If redirects aren't meant to fulfill the functions of a dictionary, then why does SeptembersSeptembers redirect to September or do CreakletCreaklet, Creek (water)Creek (water), RiverletRiverlet, WatercourseWatercourse, and Brook (hydrology)Brook (hydrology) etc. target stream?
    There are many reasons why. It can be an absentminded thing, using English Wikipedia as a language-learning tool, or simply preferring the much more reliable and in-depth English version despite limited proficiency. Besides, when you're searching, you really don't want to wait 5 seconds for your mind to click and remember the relevant translation, as often happens. J947 ‡ edits 06:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    "Delete per RLANG" (I personally prefer that shortcut to FORRED or RLOTE partially because I can't figure out what the former comes from and can't ever remember that the latter is the initialization of the article's name, meanwhile RLANG is self-explanatory, R for Redirect and then LANG for language, but all three go to the same essay) pretty much always boils down pretty simply. You're right in that RLANG has a lot of different arguments and tests; however, nearly all of them are tests to see if a given redirect being in another language has affinity for that language-- i.e. there might be some reason why an English user might be typing THAT into the English Wikipedia's search, rather than using the English word (or alternately, typing the non-English term into a non-English Wikipedia's search instead).
    If we're advocating for deletion as per RLANG, the accusation is clear-- NONE of the tests in RLANG come up positive, marking the redirect as not having affinity. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    Again, I'm talking about the #Rationale section, not the #Examples section. J947 ‡ edits 06:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    this goalpost-moving also doesn't work because of the first 5 words of the rationale section consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 15:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    I am not moving goalposts. As for "This wiki serves English speakers", roughly 80% of English speakers speak more than one language. J947 ‡ edits 22:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    this argument is still completely irrelevant and would be a misleading, nonsensical mess even if it wasn't, since it's as much an argument for punjabi as it is for spanish, swahili, scots, somali, serbian, and sfrench, and only takes priority of "this is the english wikipedia" in concepts with affinity with any given language (for example, deutschland as a redirect to germany because i hear some germans speak german), which is "coincidentally" exactly what forred is about
    as an aside, i couldn't find a good source for that multilingualism claim. the closest i found were limited studies that said a varying number of people in burgerland and/or crumpetland were multilingual (the numbers are all less than 80%), or that specific amounts of multilingual people speak english as one of their languages (which is not what i'm looking for, and not something i could find percentages of). that is to say, if you got sauce for that claim, i wanna see it consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    Okay? This is also the Correctly-Spelled Wikipedia but we still encourage redirects from common misspellings, because a large portion of the readership finds those helpful. The same is true in this instance. That this is the English Wikipedia doesn't mean that when it comes to redirects, other languages might as well not exist. Per English-speaking world, David Crystal calculated in 2003 that non-native speakers outnumbered native speakers by a ratio of three to one. Other estimates are similar. I'm presuming roughly 20% of native speakers can also speak another language, hence the "roughly 80%" figure. J947 ‡ edits 01:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    that's... an indirect assumption from a geographic scope limited to places where english is a language that is either native or widely used, personal scope limited to multilinguals who speak english as a second language (that is, not all of them, and on a scope rigged by the previous aspect), from 2003 (before the internet really got out of hand, for starters). that's a couple too many distinctions for me to consider this correct, to be honest
    on a less important note, pluasible tyops are kept, implausible ones are deleted, so this is both a false dichotomy (in that languages and tpyos are different areas) and also wrong (in that redirects from other languages can exist if affinity is proven). for this to even have a chance of being considered, someone would first need to argue that it would have affinity with punjabi, which you haven't even bothered to try beyond the kind of appeals to hard-to-confirm but still decisively small chances that would invalidate the entirety of rfd outside of csds if seriously considered. really, the ghōṛē dī lāśa is starting to attract vultures, so if you're not here to try to argue for that affinity (and good luck with that, i couldn't even find conclusive info on my original search), this whole thing is a waste of time, so i'll recommend stopping consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 02:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    As I clearly stated, other estimates are very similar to Crystal's – e.g. List of languages by total number of speakers. Maybe it isn't exactly 80%. Maybe it's only 75%. That's why I said "roughly 80%".
    pluasible tyops are kept, implausible ones are deleted: if only that applied to terms from other languages, but instead the unrelated test of affinity is applied. Very well-viewed misspellings are rarely deleted but I've seen many very well-viewed redirects from other languages get deleted. The only times very well-viewed non-ambiguous alternative names are deleted is if they're redirects from other languages. In fact, even very rarely viewed alternative names are typically kept. Why should redirects from other languages be any different? J947 ‡ edits 03:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    the unrelated test of affinityThe test of affinity exists to determine if and when we should ignore all of these rationales for not having cross-language redirects at all. If a given language has affinity for a certain target, then there is a damn good reason to keep that given language's redirect that outweighs all of the rationales. Otherwise, without affinity, those rationales immediately mean we should delete.
    For example, take the redirect beygl, which is currently here at RFD-- this is the Yiddish word for bagel. Bagels were invented by Polish Jews, who spoke Yiddish; the English word 'bagel' is a transliteration of bagel. Thus, the Yiddish language has affinity for this topic, and we'll almost certainly keep the redirect beygl. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    I know. J947 ‡ edits 06:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    so you should also know why this fails that test (no idea why you'd think it'd be unrelated lmao), and why your attempted arguments don't work in this situation. this isn't a plausible search term, as made evident by the creation being its only view pre-rfd, and to try to humor the idea that "well, someone someday might look for it" or "what if they don't know that much english" will at best say nothing, because it could still just as easily apply to сентя́брь (from russian), סֶפְּטֶמְבֶּר (from hebrew), or shtator (from albanian) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    Yes. This fails the test. Do I need to repeat "I don't want to see it treated as a silver bullet" again? No, you're lying, the creation was not this redirect's only view pre-RfD. Yes, my arguments, which you are handwaving away rather than seriously engaging with, could also apply to those other redirects. So those shouldn't be deleted if created either, per RHARMFUL and K5. The fact of the matter is there are no genuine arguments for deleting redirects from other languages without affinity, except if you think the old PANDORA "if these redirects aren't deleted (because they're harmless) then people could possibly create millions more (that are also harmless)" counts. There's also no policy basis for deleting these redirects. There's only self-aggravating precedent. J947 ‡ edits 21:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    this is a case where i'm just gonna slap a citation needed tag here, honestly. call me bad at looking for stuff, but i couldn't find claims similar to david's, recent or otherwise. the statistics i found were mostly of unrelated stuff, like "how many people speak english" (at least 10, and multilingualism isn't guaranteed), "how many people are multilingual" (at least 9, and english isn't guaranteed), and the aforementioned "how many people from places that speak english are multilingual" (at least 11, and english also isn't guaranteed). if you have sources that could lead you to this conclusion from at least after 2010, i'd like to see them, but also, this is probably best taken elsewhere lol consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    I literally gave you one. From this year. I'm not making your task difficult. J947 ‡ edits 21:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • comment: this is a really funny thing to only note now, but per wiktionary, the romanization of the most plausible punjabi word for "september" would be "sitambar". this isn't all that useful, but i guess it can be added to the pile of reasons this redirect is implausible consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 02:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    ...That would explain why Wiktionary:Satambar is a redlink. And directing what I'm about to say over to User:J947 real quick: it is also, for the record, a very good example of why we can't just take creation/edit rationales at their word re: what a given redirect means in another language-- it might be wrong, and it is a lot harder to tell when something is wrong when it's in a language you don't speak. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry to break it to you, but wikt:sitambar is also a redlink. J947 ‡ edits 06:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    to be unfair, both of those can just be fixed if someone there is in the mood consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:20, 5 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).

Beer crate

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. Hog Farm Talk 23:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

there are about 8 different types of crates this could refer to, and while some (two to my count) are technically shown and/or mentioned in the article, there's nothing about their use for containing beer (in cans, bottles, barrels, or whatever else), so would the target be surprising as is? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:14, 26 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).

Musicke

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! 20:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

either an obsolete spelling of "music" or a probably even more obsolete synonym of "mosaic". somehow only sees use in seemingly coincidental stylizations in album and band names, so i really doubt a reader would come in not knowing what the term means in those contexts. might be better off soft redirected to wiktionary consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Leaning keep. Stylistic usage is sufficient to support a redirect. BD2412 T 14:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no harm to include an obsolete spelling (that is still used in stylizations) for a redirect, given that there is no other meaning, as shown in wikt:musicke. Sun8908 Talk 18:42, 28 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).

Human music

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 3#Human music

Emily Pitcher

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 procedural close. Target is at AfD and will be deleted per G8 if the target is deleted. (non-admin closure) HurricaneZetaC 20:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Leads to a page that is nominated for deletion, which fails WP:GNG. I'd say delete the redirect Wikiman2230 (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  • procedural close. the target is at afd, and i really doubt it's likely to survive it, there's no need for this rfd, since it'll just sink with the ship consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:03, 26 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).

Meaning (music)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 3#Meaning (music)

The Greatest Hit

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 Move The Greatest Hit (song) back to The Greatest Hit in accordance with the 2012 RM. Jay 💬 19:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Malplaced redirect, retarget to Greatest Hits (disambiguation) (since The Greatest Hit (Money Mountain) is also there) or move? ArthananWarcraft (talk) 18:05, 26 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).

Haiqua

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. Hog Farm Talk 20:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

unmentioned and stuff

you already get the drill

no sauce found either consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete, that section is gone from that article anyway Poweroffriendship (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:11, 28 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).

Tinywords.com

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) 20:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

probably technically not a leftover from an afd, but it might as well be. only mentioned in passing in the target under a very broken source, and not in any form that would warrant a redirect consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete - this was the previous title of Tinywords that was deleted at the aforementioned AfD. Jay 💬 16:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Jay. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:19, 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).

Lune (poetry)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 10#Lune (poetry)

Random haiku

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. Hog Farm Talk 20:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

was once an essay

implausible redirect

implausible search consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 16:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Causes more harm than insight
Delete, simplify
--Lenticel (talk) 02:14, 28 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).

ASK-Kodansha

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 9#ASK-Kodansha

Amerinds

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 Amerind. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Amerind as r from plural. Seems like the most likely target. ~2025-42329-12 (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

All of which are in this dab. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Three of those five are "See also" entries. Amerind is WP:TWODABS, the people and the language. In the case of Foo, Foos would be the people not Foos language, e.g. Americans, Turks, Witotos, Guaranís, Mapuches, Quechuas, Mayos, Ojibwes, Lakotas, etc., etc. Amerinds used to redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas, and as User:Neelix pointed out in 2010, "This is the only entry that can be pluralized in this manner." Yuchitown (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Three of those five are "see also" entries
I don't see why this is an applicable issue. Especially Native American name controversy, given this is a term that is discussed on that page-- and actually, discussed more thoroughly there than on Indigenous peoples of the Americas.
"This is the only entry that can be pluralized in this manner"
Again, this fails to take into account Native American name controversy which discusses the term itself, as well as Paleo-Indians and Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which also discuss the people. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
The fact that they are listed in "see also" is application because they aren't synonyms and likely not what anyone typing Amerinds in Wikipedia is actually looking for. From Oxford Languages Dictionary: "plural noun: Amerinds: a member of one of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas (used chiefly in anthropological and linguistic contexts)". Since Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, people are typically looking for the concept not a "word as word". The one article linking to Amerinds is Pátio do Colégio, has "Since its beginnings, the Jesuit action in evangelising the Amerinds clashed with the interests of many settlers, who used indigenous slave labour and profited from the indigenous slave trade." 00:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Yuchitown (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
The one article linking to Amerinds As per WP:DAB, in that situation where a link in an article would be taken to a DAB, such as a reference to, say, the planet Mercury, it should be changed to a link to the specific article rather than a link to the DAB through piping the link (with that example, [[Mercury (planet)|Mercury]] > Mercury).
This narrows down what we should worry about to people arriving via search, who may not know what 'Amerinds' even means, nor any information on the topic. In that case, all five of these links are valuable information they might be interested in-- not just who the Amerinds are, but also, what languages they spoke (yes, languages plural), and why the term 'Amerinds' even exists rather than simply referring to the group as 'Native Americans' or 'Indians' or et cetera.
In any case, I'm interested in hearing what other people have to say on this topic rather than just us two, so I'll step back and let the discussion breathe from this point forward lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Amerind If the peoples, rather than the languages, are a primary topic for the term "Amerind," then that should be discussed in a different venue. For now, we should remain consistent in our disambiguation for the singular and plural forms. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:03, 31 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).

Module:Bar box

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) Casablanca 🪨(T) 03:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

No incoming links except its own doc page, which is up for deletion. No reason to keep as not used and not a plausible typo. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:06, 26 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).

Polytypic taxon

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned at target. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It being mentioned at Polytypic makes me think it is {{R with possibilities}}, and REDYES could be an option, but maybe someone who knows biology could speak to whether it should just be included in taxon, and the redirect kept? Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 00:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Notified WT:BIOLOGY per my previous comment before the relisting. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 18:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    I've also notified WT:TOL. This page tends to be more active and deals specifically with taxonomy. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding a short section on monotypic and polytypic taxa at taxon and changing the redirect to that section, as I don't think there's enough to say to justify a stand alone article. However I find that monotypic taxon has a quite substantial article. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
The taxon article probably should have a section briefly describing monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly, although these are covered in the paraphyly article. Another option is to link to the phylogenetics section in that article, Paraphyly#Phylogenetics, which has a figure illustrating the distinctions.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
I find your intent ambiguous. Yes, it make sense for taxon to discuss the terms in -phyly (or link out to where you suggest). No, Paraphyly#Phylogenetics is not an appropriate redirect for polytypic taxon. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Agree —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No updates yet at the target article regarding this topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete since no one has seen fit to add a description. The term is not synonymous with taxon but describes a (very common, arguably the default) type of taxon. The meaning will be obvious to readers familiar with biology jargon but the much larger community of readers will get no help from this redirect. The term is also quite rare, probably because monotypic taxa are usually the ones worth calling out. Polytypic taxon has few hits on Google Books Ngram and only one just 237 on Google Scholar. The term is valid but doesn't need to be forced into this general audience encyclopedia in order to justify a redirect. This serves no purpose and should be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    Amendment: My initial Google Scholar search contained a typo and returned only one hit. The correct spelling returns 237 hits, which is not nothing. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Myceteae. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:50, 10 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).

Mermaid tears

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 9#Mermaid tears

Tloen

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 💬 05:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a common misspelling of "Tlön", as initially intended by User:Eubot (although it is attested on the web as such). Instead, according to google, this term seems to be most associated with a non-notable American ML engineer. Maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's a made-up name with a made-up diacritic, so there's no basis for writing it as oe. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:14, 28 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).

Yes daddy I love cheddar

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 💬 05:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Phrase not mentioned at target, unclear why it exists or how it could be helpful. Left guide (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete A line from Ratatoing, but so out there as a redirect that it's only among a small following of regular folks. Nathannah • 📮 01:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Not useful per above, could disrupt searches starting with "Yes daddy". MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 02:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete and add to WP:DAFT as an unmentioned, out-of-context phrase. Xeroctic (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:14, 28 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).

Kyryll

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 2#Kyryll

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI