Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 25

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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Criticism of Dunkin' DonutsCriticism of Dunkin' Donuts → Dunkin' Donuts#Criticism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such section is contained at the target. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Schützenpanzer: This link was broken because Guacpocalypse renamed this section from "Criticism" to "News." I have fixed this broken section anchor, so the link is working again. Jarble (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that, withdrawing this then. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:24, 26 May 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 Surf Curse * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Buds (Surf Curse album)Buds (Surf Curse album) → Freaks (Surf Curse song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Article failed notability and reputable sources; instead of deletion was redirected causing misleading links Fredlesaltique (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Surf Curse as a {{R from album}}, unless the article is restored. Steel1943 (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  Retarget to Surf Curse, which makes sufficient mention of the album in multiple sections. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:13, 1 June 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...} 21:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• I've played these games before! → Squid Game season 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The phrase isn't mentioned at the target article and there isn't another article which would be suitable for retargeting. Suonii180 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I changed the redirect to something else where it is mentioned which I also put in the article, It was Squid Game season 2 to Squid Game season 2#Episodes. Rafael Gauden R. Maglalang (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

It is mentioned at episode 3 "001" if you can not find it. Rafael Gauden R. Maglalang (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete--a rather random insertion in a plot summary doesn't make it content so relevant that it would even need a redirect. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Trallalero-tralalà 2607:FEA8:3360:7600:DB2B:94F5:F6A9:C8D2 (talk) 00:06, 28 May 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 Turn to article * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Bitterzoet → Eefje de Visser  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is redirecting for a less relevant topic. Most of the links are relating to the venue, not the album. Dutch language has no article for the album, but an article for the venue. Should at best be disambiguated, but I would suggest deleting. Fazzo29 (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I mostly contribute to nl:wiki and am therefore not familiar with the policies or conventions of en:wiki. But I agree with @Fazzo29 that it doesn't seem logical to redirect 'Bitterzoet' to Eefje de Visser (a Dutch artist who has an album + title song named Bitterzoet). The Dutch Wikipedia article Bitterzoet is a disambiguation page which lists 7 meanings, four of which have their own article on nl:wiki. Michzondag (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC).

• Comment I created a translation from the nlwiki page on the venue below the redirect. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Turn into standalone article, thanks to Schützenpanzer's draft. Jay 💬 14:34, 1 June 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 Elijah McCoy. Jay 💬 10:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Automatic lubricating cupAutomatic lubricating cup → Lubricant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Automatic Lubricating CupAutomatic Lubricating Cup → Lubricant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This phrase, and specifically the word "cup", is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear why readers would be redirected to the target article when searching these terms. Steel1943 (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep since it's an important invention with lots of coverage in sources. It has good possibilities for a section, or even an article, but at least a mention. Better to fix the lack of mention than to delete it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  ...Something being that notable seems to be eligible for WP:REDLINK if it's not mentioned. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Keep but Retarget per Mdewman6 below. Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Automatic lubricator#Displacement lubricator for now, and add a mention. This seems to refer to patented invention by Elijah McCoy, known as The real McCoy; both articles mention his "oil-drip cup invention", but the best target would be the article describing the invention and related things, not the inventor or terms derived from the invention. There is old content at Automatic Lubricating CupAutomatic Lubricating Cup but it would definitely be a case of WP:TNT if brought to AfD, as it is more about McCoy than the invention. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

In the interest of improving upon the status quo and achieving consensus, I would be okay with retargeting to Elijah McCoy for now, with no prejudice against retargeting in the future to another target if a better target arises due to content being added. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom until a mention can be established. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Elijah McCoy for now, since the invention is by him. Not prejudiced to redirecting if a mention gets added to another article. ApexParagon (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple targets have been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to Elijah McCoy, which at least mentions a cup in context, even if it doesn't use this phrase. I lean delete as a second choice, since it seems very likely a reader searching this term would already know more than what we can deliver. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

See my amended comment above. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:42, 7 June 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...} 21:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Khattar (surname) (disambiguation) → Khattar (surname)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect performs no useful function. The target is a surname SIA and does not require a WP:INTDAB redirect.WP:G14 declined by @Pppery: with edit summary "A surname article is a page that "perform[s] disambiguation-like functions (such as set index articles or lists)." IMO so G14 doesn't apply. Probably should be deleted at RfD". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete: implausible redirect. मल्ल (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I see that we already have Khattar (disambiguation) redirecting to Khattar, which is a duplicate of our target Khattar (surname). I have added {{merge}} tags at both. Jay 💬 14:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Xoontor (talk) 11:55, 2 June 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 No consensus * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Alberta separatism and annexationismAlberta separatism and annexationism → Alberta separatism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - Implausible search target; redirects to a shorter title; created from an inappropriate page move; NPOV violation. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 15:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The target is about movements both for independence (separatism) and annexation by the United States (annexationsim) so it's not misleading and doesn't seem implausible. The title length is irrelevant and I'm not understand why you claim this is an NPOV violation? Even it if is non-neutral, it's important to note that redirects do not have to be neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete on the basis, that the redirect was part of a unexplained move and the article is 97% not on annexationism compared to other articles, so agree largely implausible. Alberta annexationism would redirect readers to the more relevant article. DankJae 22:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The redirect implies that the current target covers both topics, thus hiding the existence of the section to which Alberta annexationism currently redirects. Nyttend (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep Per Thryduulf Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• keep 2607:FEA8:3360:7600:DB2B:94F5:F6A9:C8D2 (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. What the hell? As pointed out by others, this was the result of an inappropriate page move, which should have been reverted without leaving a redirect -- a redirect which is misleading and a completely ungainly, ambiguous, unlikely search term to boot. Absolutely no one is helped by this, and its existence is actively problematic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:XY. Users are better served by the existing links of Alberta annexationism and Alberta separatism. मल्ल (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Except it isn't XY when the first sentence of the target article notes that the subject of the article is both separatism and annexationism. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep There would be a stronger XY case if there were a full Alberta annexationism article, but even then, I'm convinced that separatism is the broader concept for which such a redirect is appropriate. And while this is obviously a controversial topic, I see no NPOV concerns; both of these phenomena exist, and this redirect makes no additional claims about them. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Wrong redirect. Vampyrellidium is a genus of probably-nuclearid, mentioned as "not to be confused with the cercozoan Vampyrella" in https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6792443/. Artoria2e5 🌉 07:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 15:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Subst:Unsigned IP → Template:Unsigned IP  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:Subst:Unsigned → Template:Unsigned  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm not even sure how you would use this template shortcut? I guess Template:Subst:Unsigned IP works, but the "normal" way you would display this would be {{subst:unsigned IP}}, which works regardless of this shortcut's existence. I think this can be deleted due to its dubious utility and potential for confusion about what the subst: prefix means. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I don't think anyone would choose to write {{subst:subst:Unsigned IP}}. Besides, it looks like a double redirect; Template:Unsigned IP redirects to Template:Unsigned. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 06:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete, and Also delete Template:Subst:Unsigned: As far as I can tell, the user who created these was correctly using {{subst:Unsigned}} and {{subst:Unsigned IP}}, but using edit summaries that attempted to link Template:subst:Unsigned and Template:subst:Unsigned IP (ref). But then, immediately after creating the redirects, they switched to just using {{Unsigned}} and {{Unsigned IP}} (e.g. Special:Diff/1199770620). Anomie⚔ 13:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree with deleting TM:Subst:Unsigned; added to nomination. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:31, 25 May 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. If the entry is re-added, feel free to recreate the redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:NEWSCIENTIST → Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#New Scientist  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect used to lead to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#New Scientist. The target section has since been deleted, and now it only links to the top of the page, which is not very helpful. The New Scientist section either needs to be restored, or the redirect deleted. Since I don't know why New Scientist was removed from the list of perennial sources, I am unsure of what my opinion on this would be. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 04:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete The RSP entry was removed two years ago. If a new entry is added then the redirect can be recreated, but it's redundant at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per ActivelyDisinterested. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• New Scientist certainly is perennial (has at least 4 discussions with participation on RSP, 3 of which mention the source by name in the heading) and thus deserving of an entry on the list. I agree with @Hemiauchenia—the editor who added and then removed the entry—that I'm not sure what status to give it, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  I deleted it because I felt uncomfortable with the "generally reliable" rating I had given it that I didn't feel was really representative of the discussions, but like you say I couldn't come up with a better alternative because the discussions often were about very narrow contexts that were difficult to generalise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per all. If the entry makes a comeback at the target, the redirect shortcut can be recreated. Jay 💬 15:09, 1 June 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) Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Patrick McDermottPatrick McDermott → Disappearance of Patrick McDermott  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The disambiguation page was previously proposed for deletion. Probably best to discuss the redirect first to see if we actually agree with it in the first place. Also, I know he was the partner of Olivia Newton-John which is the main factor of his notability, but I still think I discussion is best to determine whether to Keep or Dabify and move Patrick McDermott (disambiguation) to Patrick McDermott without a disambiguation Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and take Patrick McDermott (disambiguation) to AfD since the PROD was contested. Jay 💬 16:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like the WP:PTOPIC. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as primary topic, and send the disambiguation page to AfD. Closer can ping me and I'll do the AfD (I was the editor who PRODed it). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Better Go Home → DJ Khaled  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Song does not appear to exist. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Unable to find any sourcing on the existence of this song. Maybe a hoax? मल्ल (talk) 17:13, 28 May 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).