Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 15

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) 20:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Lang-fr → Template:Langx  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should not need another XfD discussion but the IP thinks it does. A long and full TfD took place over a year ago and almost all lang-xx templates were replaced and deleted, per the nomination and per the discussion. No new versions of these should be re-created as that goes entirely against that outcome. Additionally, this is a very bad redirect as users who use it think they are getting text surround by a lang template with the French language, which it doesn't do. It also hides incorrect usages as a red-link template appears broken in articles and also in database reports, where editors can spot and fix them. Gonnym (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per the outcome of the TFD discussion. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per the TFD and because it does not (and cannot) work as editors expect when copying text from other-language Wikipedias or remembering how the template worked in the past. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Jonesey95. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Mclay1 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 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) 20:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Quirrel (Hollow Knight)Quirrel (Hollow Knight) → Hollow Knight  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not mentioned at the target, a virtually identical example to this discussion that was closed as delete. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Minor NPC with minor plot relevance, having a redirect is unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  OBJECTION! Zote, Cornifer, Last Judge, Savage Beastfly, and Sherma are also redirects that are not really mentioned in the articles! TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  @TalkTuahLunchly please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, I don't think that those redirects should exist either since they aren't mentioned in the target (except potentially Cornifer, since he is mentioned in the target article, though when I examined it last the paragraph that the character was mentioned in failed verification from the cited source). Fathoms Below (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe keep. Other Hollow Knight characters that aren't too important to the plot of the games also have redirects. TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  No. That's an argument that the other redirects you listed should also be deleted. casualdejekyll 20:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, unmentioned at target. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:19, 18 November 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 History of Wikipedia#Early roles of Wales and Sanger. WP:SNOW close as obvious improvement. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Co-founder of WikipediaCo-founder of Wikipedia → Jimmy Wales  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous redirect, as both Jimbo and Sanger are widely considered the co-founders of Wikipedia Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Deliberately not !voting, but the co-founder issue is discussed at length in Jimmy Wales#Co-founder status controversy and briefly at History of Wikipedia. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Weak retarget to History of Wikipedia#Early roles of Wales and Sanger; the other proposed target (Jimmy Wales#Co-founder status controversy) seems like it gives too much weight to Jimmy Wales, which could violate WP:NPOV. Duckmather (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to History of Wikipedia#Early roles of Wales and Sanger as I've never heard Jimmy as opposed to Larry Sanger called the co founder. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to History of Wikipedia#Early roles of Wales and Sanger, where both are covered together with the issue of "founder" vs. "co-founder". Yngvadottir (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

there's also Wikipedia co-founder ~2025-33439-19 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per Duckmather, Crouch, and YD above. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to History of Wikipedia#Early roles of Wales and Sanger per the reasons already given. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to History of Wikipedia#Early roles of Wales and Sanger per above. 123957a (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to History of Wikipedia#Early roles of Wales and Sanger per above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:44, 18 November 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) Left guide (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• 2025 Squash World Cup2025 Squash World Cup → Squash World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It happens in a Month. Very much a redirect worth discussing. It will probably need an article soon. Delete per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – this is a very popular redirect, there is relevant information at the target (if limited), and none of the previous competitions have articles. Considering all that, and also the fact that this redirect was created by the same editor who created the target article, I fail to see how deletion will benefit either readers in the short term or the squash editor community when they want to create an article on this. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as there is 2025 specific information on that page, and no evidence that a separate 2025 tournament article will, or even should be created (as 2023 tournament redirects back to there). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 17 November 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 Murder of Cindyana Santangelo. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Cindyana SantangeloCindyana Santangelo → Ritual de lo Habitual#Personnel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was RfD'd in April but I think that discussion somewhat missed the point. Just based on a simple scan of how news results on Google talk about her, Cindyana Santangelo is notable for, in order: 1) having been murdered by Libby Adame, 2) appearing in single episodes of several TV shows, and 3) appearing in music videos. It is one of those music videos ("Stop" by Jane's Addiction) that is the context for this redirect, but it gets little media coverage relative to other facets of her life, especially her murder. As such, this violates WP:ASTONISH and it would be better to let this go to search results, which do currently show only this one result, but could conceivably gain more mentions of her in the future if more is written about other shows and music videos she was in. Furthermore, now that Adame has been convicted, and because this is her second homicide conviction, neither WP:BLPCRIME nor WP:BLP1E are any longer an obstacle to bluelinking Libby Adame, so WP:RETURNTORED may apply, as if that is written Santangelo could be redirected there (with a link somewhere in the prose to the current target as part of background). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - This is the best target, until an article is created for Libby Adame. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Killing of Cindyana Santangelo which was created after the nomination was made, thanks to User:Eric Carpenter. Jay 💬 09:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Left guide: I think this can just close as retarget per WP:COMMONSENSE/WP:NOTAVOTE—with the caveat that I've moved the target to Murder of Cindyana Santangelo. My argument for deletion and Jax' argument for keeping are both completely trumped by an obviously better target being created, and there is no reasonable possibility of any outcome other than retargeting there (unless someone creates a full bio on Santangelo, but that would moot the RfD entirely). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: You are absolutely correct, don't know how I missed that, my apologies, will close momentarily. Left guide (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 10:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• 在台ベトナム人 → Vietnamese people in Taiwan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:FORRED, Japanese is not a common language in both Taiwan and Vietnam A1Cafel (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G5, created by a particularly unpleasant WMF-banned LTA.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FORRED (i.e. per nom); the original phrase translates to "Vietnamese people in Taiwan" in Japanese. Duckmather (talk) 20:38, 15 November 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) 02:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Handegg championship → Super Bowl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely to be the primary referent and possibly confusing. This phrase is used to refer to a variety of events and not just gridiron football ones, but rugby football ones as well. What should we do with it? retarget to an existing DAB, DABify, or delete 204.111.137.106 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Google makes it clear this is the primary topic as discussion of this name is always about the Superbowl. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  I did not search just google, but when I do the top hits all relate to angry birds. The top google result for me relating to American gridiron football refers to the AFC conference championship. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, utterly pointless. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• This is quite possibly the same user using 2 different IP addresses. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  No they aren’t. Check their history and contributions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As for other major gridiron football championships, the College Football Playoff National Championship and the Grey Cup come to mind. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:39, 15 November 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 Electro–optic effect. There's appetite to keep the lowercase version in sync, so I will likewise retarget that one too. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• Electrooptical EffectElectrooptical Effect → Electrophoresis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at current target. There is a separate article called "Electro–optic effect", which explains that the term encompasses various distinct phenomena. ~2025-32085-07 (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Electro–optic effect. A quick internet search shows that "electrooptical effect" returns only results associated with electro–optic effects. Not sure why this retarget would be controversial. Is there a reason we can't just go ahead and do it? Uhoj (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

At the time, I didn't feel confident enough to retarget it due to my lack of domain expertise and not knowing whether the "-al" suffix made any difference. I do suspect that retargeting is the correct decision.

By the way, the redirect Electrooptical effect is similar, and its edit history shows that it originally pointed to Electro-optic effect but was retargeted to Electrophoresis a year after its creation. ~2025-32085-07 (talk) 06:06, 19 November 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 List of Happy Tree Friends episodes#ep22. Suggestion has gone uncontested. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• It's a snapIt's a snap → Bob's your uncle#Synonyms and variations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 06:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of Happy Tree Friends episodes#ep22 to align this with It's a SnapIt's a Snap, and tag it as a {{r avoided double redirect}} and a {{r from miscapitalization}}. - Eureka Lott 17:14, 16 November 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Antler sleeve → Axe#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

archaic meaning seemingly lost to results, since they were almost exclusively predictable mixes of antler-shaped stuff on sleeve-shaped stuff (and vice-versa). existed as an unsourced stub until 2008, and is unmentioned in the target now. has one incoming link of note, but it's mentioned in passing, undefined, and also unsourced consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• This was merged to the target and I have tagged it as an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 15:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:BetaWiki → mw:Extension:Translate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure why this points here. Wouldn't https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmcloud.org/ be the more expected destination? Not sure if it existed when this was last considered in 2016. Sdkb ^talk 19:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguate between meta:translatewiki.net and https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmcloud.org/, I guess? Betawiki is the old (pre 2009) name of translatewiki.net but a search at WP:VP shows that in recent times people also use the term to refer to https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmcloud.org/ instead. Because the interwiki prefix betawiki: still works and leads to translatewiki: I think we should record the old meaning somewhere. Warudo (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging the previous RfD participants: @Steel1943, Nemo bis, Patar knight, Gorthian, and Deryck Chan:. Jay 💬 02:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
• Write the manual. Turn this into a lightweight manual page. I guess this is compatible with the "disambiguate" and "soft redirect" options - it's a Project namespace page afterall. I'll draft one. Deryck C. 04:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This is an incorrect or ancient name for multiple things, and not really a plausible search term for any of them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Per Deryck. While this might not be well searched per Pppery, those who are are looking for such information can be helped by the manual that Deryck drafted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Deryck's draft. Seems like the most useful outcome. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Deryck's draft ... since I apparently can't close this thing without looking WP:INVOLVED since I was the nominator in the previous discussion. (This resolution does fix the issue I mentioned in the previous discussion though.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Fall Weiss (1943) → Operation Weiss  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fall Weiss is the plan for the invasion of Poland 1939. "Operation Weiss" was not called "Fall". The redirect is misleading. KnightMove (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Fall translates as “Case” and was used by the Germans for major campaigns, not a specific operation (Unternehmen) such as this. The redirect is not plausible and is confusing as Fall Weiss was the invasion of Poland in 1939. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fall Weiss is the codename for the German invasion of Poland 1939. That's not ambiguous. The term „Fall“ is reserved for operational plans devised by the German General Staff like „Fall Gelb“ and so forth. There was no Fall Weiss in 1943, but, according to the German sources, an Unternehmen „Weiss“ (see, e.g., Shepherd, Terror in the Balkans, p. 325), i.e. Operation Weiss.----Assayer (talk) 10:25, 18 November 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) 00:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Fall Weiß (1943) → Operation Weiss  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fall Weiss is the plan for the invasion of Poland 1939. "Operation Weiss" was not called "Fall". The redirect is misleading. KnightMove (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete As above, Fall translates as “Case” and was used by the Germans for major campaigns, not a specific operation (Unternehmen) such as this. The redirect is not plausible and is confusing as Fall Weiß was the invasion of Poland in 1939. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete As above, just different spelling.----Assayer (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Notified of this discussion at the target and creator pages. Jay 💬 11:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Peacemaker and Assayer's comment on Fall Weiss (1943) --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• Fall Weiss (1942) → Operation Weiss  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fall Weiss is the plan for the invasion of Poland 1939. "Operation Weiss" was not called "Fall". The redirect is misleading. KnightMove (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete As above, Fall translates as “Case” and was used by the Germans for major campaigns, not a specific operation (Unternehmen) such as this. The redirect is not plausible for that reason but also because Operation Weiss was in 1943. It is also confusing as Fall Weiss was the invasion of Poland in 1939. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete That was a double redirect in the first place. Keeping it makes no sense at all. ----Assayer (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Notified of this discussion at the target and creator pages. Jay 💬 11:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  This was obviously me fixing a mistake in the year back then, just get rid of it speedily, having a discussion is entirely pointless. --Joy (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 11:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Best songs of the decade → 2000s in music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"The decade" probably meant 00s in 2009 when this was created, but now it's woefully ambiguous. "Best" also doesn't really describe the contents of the target either. casualdejekyll 04:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. An opinion based on unexplained criteria that isn't what the target article is about. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - ambiguous and subjective. BugGhost 🦗👻 10:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• I'm rather surprised List of songs considered the best is a redlink (psst, leek, project for you?), but so long as it is, delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  Forgot to actually click the redlink before posting this, so I'll note that that did once exist, but its deletion seems to have been mostly on copyright grounds; I expect that something structured similarly to List of video games considered the best would survive AfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• retarget to match cbat, obviously delete as vague, essentially per nom consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Pinacoteca Provinciale di BaRI → Pinacoteca metropolitana di Bari  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete for having an implausible capitalization of Bari. The article was originally created at this title, but has been histmerged to the target, so there is no longer an attribution issue. ^Complex/_Rational 04:13, 15 November 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 by a rough consensus. While a minority of participants supported retargeting to various other articles, the main divide in this discussion was between the current target and the list article. Editors supporting both positions presented reasonable policy-based arguments, which I could go into. However, there was a simple majority (11 of 20 participants) who preferred to keep (or retain) — it would take an exceptional circumstance for me to decide to override that as a closer, and this is not one.

A quick note on the primary topic of the phrase Russian invasion of Ukraine, since I fully expect that this will be revisited at some point in the future: this discussion did not examine the usage of the phrase in reliable sources, which I would have liked to see as a closer, and instead focused on editors' anecdotal experiences of how the phrase was used in the wild. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

• Russian invasion of UkraineRussian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was left behind when the article Russian invasion of Ukraine was recently moved to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) as a result of this RM, which found consensus that it is incorrect to describe events beyond the initial attack as an "invasion" but rather a phase of the larger "war". Hence, the current redirect target contradicts this consensus, as the RM had explicitly rejected the characterization of the "war" as an "invasion", and defeats the corrective purpose of the move.

The other logical target would be 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was recently split from the main page after the RM, since it is the only article that bears the title "Russian invasion of Ukraine". However, it would only be a valid target if it were deemed to be the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine", in which case the article should simply be moved to remove the unnecessary qualifier per WP:TITLEDAB (only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used [...] if the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification) and WP:OVERPRECISE (titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that).

There was actually already consensus for this being the primary topic back in 2023, but editors argued that it had been nullified by the most recent RM, so a new RM was initiated. Unfortunately, that discussion has just been closed inconclusively, with the closer finding an absence of consensus here as to the primary topic of 'Russian invasion of Ukraine'. Hence, we must now disambiguate. Our options are:

1. Retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine
2. Retarget to Russo-Ukrainian War
3. Restore Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation)Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation)

InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• I've maintained throughout several successive RfDs that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" can refer to several major invasions historically and that it is recentist to treat the current one as primary. It's worth noting that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a partly disambiguated title (the base title being just "invasion of Ukraine"), meaning that there is a higher bar to consider any one invasion primary. While I respect that this argument failed at previous RfDs, the fact that we now have two articles on recent things that are both called the Russian invasion of Ukraine (the invasion proper and the ensuing war), not to mention earlier aspects of the war that also constituted Russian invasions of Ukraine, I think the case is even clearer to retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, which disambiguates these and more. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retain the current target Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) – As the proposer discloses above, Russian invasion of Ukraine was recently moved to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). As a result, the vast majority of the myriad links to Russian invasion of Ukraine across the encyclopaedia are intended for the current target, Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). Therefore, I oppose any change until this situation is remedied. Adopting any of the alternatives proposed here will result in a great inconvenience to the reader. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  WP:DEADHORSE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  The horse is very much alive. Take a look at the links. In any usual situation, I would support Tamzin's argument, and I agree that List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine is the most appropriate target. However, the link situation remains, just as it was a month ago, without any obvious evidence of amelioration. The onus is on the proposers of this change to take up the work of minimising any negative outcome for our readers. Until there is evidence that this problem will be addressed, I cannot support this change. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  Redirecting to the war article is not a tenable position. As has been explained to you several times, the August RM was closed with consensus that it is not correct to call the war an invasion. Therefore, continuing to point the "invasion" redirect to "war" blatantly disregards that consensus. It has also been explained to you several times that the links are not a big deal because they can be fixed en masse. I will gladly mass-convert all the incoming links from Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), but the only reason I have not done so is that other editors have said that some links should point to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine instead of Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), which would necessitate a manual comb-through, but I do not have unlimited time to edit Wikipedia and there are currently 11,811 incoming links — impossible for one editor alone to inspect each and every of them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

As you are most likely aware, we have Template:R from incorrect name. Redirects from 'incorrect', but commonly-used titles are common across the encyclopaedia. I am not going to comment on whether I think this specific use of 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' is incorrect, nor do I think this is a particularly useful argument to make in this specific case. All I ask is that you think of the reader. I am opposed to any mass-conversion without manual consideration, as this will also inconvenience the reader. Our most important goal in this endeavour is to make sure that our readers are directed to the article for which they are looking. If you do not have the time to perform the massive clean-up of nearly 12,000 links that will be required to implement this change, you should not be proposing it in the first place. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 08:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Redirects from 'incorrect', but commonly-used titles are common across the encyclopaedia – If "invasion" were a common or acceptable name for the 2022–present phase of the war, then what was the purpose of the move? To create a needless headache for editors and confuse readers by having a separate article titled "invasion"? This logic doesn't add up; clearly, the consensus was that the war is not commonly called an "invasion".
• If you do not have the time to perform the massive clean-up of nearly 12,000 links that will be required to implement this change – You are confused, the problem of some links to Russian invasion of Ukraine being intended for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and not Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) was created by the previous RM, not this RfD. There is already a present need to clean up those thousands of links, primarily to disambiguate between those two articles, and retargeting will not add to the burden.
• I am opposed to any mass-conversion without manual consideration – Mass-converting all incoming links to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) is equivalent to maintaining the status quo of pointing all links to the war article, so your opposition to such an action is inconsistent with your !vote. That said, I noted that I too do not think this is an ideal solution and only mentioned it because you demanded that all links intended for the war article be "fixed". Tamzin below has outlined ways to semi-automate the clean-up process, and I am sure there are other editors we can enlist to help.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the point of this argument? I don't care whether 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' is a 'correct' name for anything, I only care that the reader gets to the right page. From your first proposal, you have continued to go on and on about the bureaucratic necessity for a change without any thought about how to implement it in such a way that does not negatively impact the reader. This is precisely the same mistake that was made by the RM proposer. All I have asked for was for a clear plan for resolving the obvious issue that exists. You never provided such a plan, but I am grateful to Tamzin for providing one below. Provided that we agree, here, to implement this solution, I will support retargeting the article per Tamzin. That means that you and other editors will need to help resolve this issue. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 21:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, the links issue was created by the RM that moved Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). Contrary to what you have repeatedly suggested, neither this RfD to retarget Russian invasion of Ukraine nor the failed RM to move 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine will exacerbate the situation. In fact, disambiguating is more beneficial to readers because they will be able to find both articles, whereas pointing the redirect to one or the other will only benefit half. It's not out of a "bureaucratic necessity". InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The vast majority of existing links are clearly intended for the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) article, not the new article about the 2022 military operation, irrespective of whether that article is truly the primary topic of Russian invasion of Ukraine. If there were evidence that half or even many of these links were intended to link to an article limited in scope to the military operation that took place between February–April 2022, then perhaps disambiguation might benefit the reader, but there is no such evidence. For this reason, disambiguating will not benefit 'half of readers'. I agree that retargeting to a de facto disambiguation page (List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine) will eventually be helpful when the link issue is solved, because I agree that there is no clear primary topic of Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, as Wikipedia decided to maintain an article about the 2022–present war at Russian invasion of Ukraine for many years, our existing articles are designed with the expectation that Russian invasion of Ukraine is the article about the war, i.e. what is now titled Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). Any retargeting that does not take this fact into account can only be called shortsighted. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure it's correct that "The vast majority of existing links are clearly intended for the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) article". I just scrolled down to an arbitrary point in that list and looked at a selection of twenty articles in a row:

• Likud - target would be 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Patti Smith - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) for first use, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for second use.
• COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine - either works
• COVID-19 pandemic in Russia - either works
• Joko Widodo - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Edward Snowden - target would be 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Playing card - can't tell immediately, would have to look up sources (currently unsourced)
• Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Catherine, Princess of Wales - target would be 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• SBV Vitesse - target would be 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• University of Kent - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Large Hadron Collider - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Peak oil - can't tell immediately, would have to look for sources (currently unsourced)
• Bernabéu Stadium - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Russia–United States relations - targets would be both Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (several instances of each)
• Salvador Allende - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• 2021–2023 global supply chain crisis - target would be Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
• Armed Forces of Ukraine - targets would be both Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (several instances of each)

A majority yes, but not a vast majority. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 07:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Just on a technical note, if links are the concern, one thing I've done occasionally as a closer for RfDs like this is temporarily create a DAB at the title, dabfix all the backlinks, and then turn the DAB into a redirect to wherever there was consensus to target. It's a little hacky, but it gets the job done well. If the exceptionally large number of backlinks here means that that process takes a week or several instead of the normal hour or several, so be it; that said, there's a decent number of strings like 2022 [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]] and full-scale [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]] that could probably be blitzed in an AWB/JWB run, significantly speeding things up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I am much obliged for your response, and what you have proposed seems like a reasonable solution. I am ashamed to admit that I have no experience with such automated tools, but if there will be a collaborative effort to fix this problem, I should be happy to help in any manner that I am able. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 10:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The Move+ extension also allows one to update links in fairly quick succession. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine per the arguments from InfiniteNexus and Tamzin, as there have been several historical Russian incursions into Ukraine. That target already has a hatnote for "Invasion of Ukraine" pointing to the current overall war, so there is no harm in expanding upon it with this redirect to ensure readers locate what they are looking for/ I would say the Russian invasion was the more common term in 2022 and 2023, but since it has continually perpetuated as an ongoing war, that is likely to have more long-term significance than the starting invasion of said war. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine – by far the most logical option as that page functions as a disambiguation page and easily directs the reader to the article they want. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 07:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to "List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine". Given that no particular event is currently regarded as being the WP:PRITOP of this title, redirecting to an article ("Russo-Ukrainian war") that merely happens to encompass some information about two or three of the most significant events to which the title may refer would probably be unhelpful. Readers likely would not understand why this title redirects to the article of a conflict that is not an invasion in itself. A separate disambiguation page is also unlikely to be necessary given the presence of the "List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine" article. The high number of incoming links to this title may be an issue, but it is clearly a fixable one. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 17:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retain the current target Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC both per usage and per long-term significance. The latter is evidenced by the fact that the term was almost never used prior to 2014. Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) has five times more daily pageviews than 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and readers of the latter article typically navigate to the former, the opposite movement almost doesn't happen. This proves that they're mostly interested in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) article. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  I will pose to you the same question I did to another user above: If there's no problem with calling the war an "invasion", and the war is commonly called an "invasion", then what was the point of moving that article away from Russian invasion of Ukraine (thereby breaking thousands of links) and creating a separate sub-article entitled "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine"? To create a needless headache for editors and confuse readers by having two separate articles with similar titles? The status quo means Russian invasion of Ukraine and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would co-exist but point to different pages — that is confusing to readers. The pageview comparison is irrelevant because the 2022 invasion article was just created two months ago. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Consensus can change. The RM that brought us here determined that there is no consensus for the primary topic of Russian invasion of Ukraine, so the past discussions are irrelevant.

  Retaining the redirect wouldn't lead to any problems with broken links, in contrast to retargeting. Having multiple articles with similar titles is standard practice for Wikipedia, the year in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine acts as a natural disambiguator. Pageviews are relevant as they are stable, WP:PT1 refers to the current usage, not a hypothetical future one. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Retaining the redirect wouldn't lead to any problems with broken links Yes, it would. There is currently a large number of links to Russian invasion of Ukraine that need to be retargeted to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine instead of Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present); Chessrat has provided a list of examples above. This was caused by the RM in August/September, not this RfD; disambiguating would help both readers looking for either article get to their desired target. "Consensus can change", yes, but unlikely in the span of just two months, and this RfD obviously cannot override larger consensus on another page (WP:CONLEVEL). The most recent RM also did not contradict the consensus of the RM before that. I will reiterate that pageviews are not useful in this instance because we have a significant number of backlinks to the three-year-old article compared to the two-months-old article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that for some it would be better to redirect to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I disagree that they are "broken", as they somehow managed to serve their purpose before the creation of the separate article on the invasion. This is a community discussion, so it can easily override local consensus formed on the talk page. The most recent RM overturned the past consensus, had it been otherwise, the RM would have been closed with "moved".

  I don't understand your argument with respect to pageviews. If you want to say that the problem is that we don't have enough links to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, then this is not the case, as a five-fold difference cannot be explained by this. 30% of incoming views at Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) are from other articles. Let's say that one-third really should be targeted at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In that case, pageviews for the war would drop by 10%, and for the invasion article, they would increase by 50%. We will still get a three-fold difference, which is large enough to satisfy WP:PT1. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Chessrat's list is somewhat tangential; as for why, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article is an inferior article, that consists largely of content copied out of Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), with very little original material. See Cinderella157's analysis. An editor that ends up at Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) from a link to Russian invasion of Ukraine will never be inconvenienced, because this is a comprehensive article that contains all of the relevant content related to the 2022 military operation, as well as broader events. On the other hand, any editor mistakenly directed to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article will have to wade through irrelevant content before arriving at the more comprehensive article. At present, the 2022 invasion article offers very little to the reader. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Responding to both Kelob2678 and RGloucester: The RM in August resulted in consensus to move this page to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), alongside a consensus to create a separate article about the 2022 invasion. This was a very well-attended and highly contentious RM, with the closer writing a lengthy and thoughtful closing statement in their assessment of the community's consensus, so it is bold of you to suggest that a handful of editors unhappy with the outcome of the RM and/or the present quality of the split article (remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress) can somehow override, ignore, or overturn hard-fought community consensus obtained in a high-profile RM. I think I've said this elsewhere, but I personally have no opinion on the outcome of the RM; however, I do care that consensus is enforced, and if the community has agreed that the approach most beneficial to readers is to have an article titled "war" about events post-2022 and another article titled "invasion" about the initial attack, so be it. If your argument is that the distinction between "war" and "invasion" does not, in fact, benefit readers, and the split article was a terrible idea, then please challenge the consensus by opening a new RM or RfC. As for the pageviews matter, I am struggling to understand why Kelob2678 keeps going on about PT1 and whatever — the point I was making is that the "2022 invasion" article is brand-new, hot-off-the-press, so of course it is not going to have very many pageviews compared to a much older and longer article! This is essentially a form of WP:RECENTISM argument. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  No one is contesting the original page move, or the creation of the invasion article. All we want is to make sure that readers get where they want to go. Based on your attitude here, I do not think I can support a retargeting, because it seems like you are attempting to make a WP:POINT, rather than trying to improve the encyclopaedia. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Enforcing community consensus is not disruptive behavior to make a point, and falsely accusing others of doing so is itself disruptive and not WP:AGF. As I wrote above, it seems we are in agreement that whatever we do should benefit readers, and yet your proposal (i.e. the status quo) does not align with what the larger community thinks is best for readers. If you think the community is wrong, this is not the appropriate venue to challenge that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  The August RM was extremely voluminous, and the discussion about primary topic wasn't central to it. However, the October RM centered around this issue and concluded with, I would find that there is an absence of consensus here as to the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine". The closing statement also said, a well-argued request might yield a different outcome at RfD i.e., the point of this RfD is to reargue the October RM. In these discussions, "No consensus" usually means retaining a long-standing status quo, in this case, it means sending readers who type "Russian invasion of Ukraine" to the article that covers the war as a whole. Here, readers should be especially put first, as the redirect itself gets more views than 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I also don't think language such as "hard-fought" is appropriate for this discussion. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  The August RM came to the consensus that "war" and "invasion" describe two distinct topics, while the October RM found no consensus on the primary topic for "Russian invasion of Ukraine". The former strikes off Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) as a possible target because editors agreed that the article should be called a "war" and not an "invasion" (the nominator's rationale was: The word 'invasion' is used only in reference to Russia's initial 24 February act of invasion, and is not used to describe the current war, and the closer wrote that the word "invasion" creates a mismatch between title and scope), while the latter strikes off 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as a possible target because editors did not agree it was the primary topic (which I disagree with, but respect and accept). This seems like a fairly clear reading of consensus to me, and I am not sure why some editors disagree. Do you agree with this interpretation of the two RMs' consensus? (P.S. "Hard-fought" means "achieved through a large effort", as in it was very difficult to come to a consensus on what to call the war, but a consensus was eventually achieved, and it was to call it "war" and not "invasion".) InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree with this interpretation. The August RM didn't rule on the primary topic, the quote from the closure you provided was a summary of the argument, not the closer's verdict. "No consensus" in the October RM means that the current redirect should be retained, as usually happens in "No consensus" RMs, AfDs, and RfCs. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  When did I suggest the August RM "ruled" on the primary topic? I said it found consensus that the war article cannot and should not be referred to as an "invasion". That is quite literally what the closer wrote. Yet the status quo does just that, continuing to call the war an "invasion" via a redirect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  It did not find this. That was an argument made by one side of the debate, which the closer accurately summarized. The closer found that Consensus to move this page to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), alongside a consensus to create a separate article about the 2022 invasion No one challenges this, we are not at RM or AfD. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  This is irrelevant. As I said above, redirects from incorrect but commonly-used names are common across the encyclopaedia. This discussion is about the redirect, not about the article title. Again, no one is relitigating the article title. The presence of a redirect from Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) cannot in any way be considered equivalent to 'calling the war an "invasion"'. Redirects are for navigational purposes only, and the existence of a redirect in no way legitimises the accuracy of the name used by that redirect. In fact, redirects are, by default, names that the Wikipedia community chose not to use as an article title for one reason or another. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Consensus is determined by comparing the arguments of supporters with those of opposers and determining which is best supported by PAGs and benefits the reader the most. In this case, the closer found consensus in favor of the proposal, meaning they found consensus in favor of the arguments presented by the supporting side. If the closer found consensus for the proposal but not for the reasons presented, you would think they would say so as this is unusual (and dubious, as it would likely be a WP:SUPERVOTE). InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retain the current target Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), per the reasons of the previous comment. Lklundin (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retain the current target or Re-target to Russo-Ukrainian war – There is only one conflict that is widely referred to as the 'Russian invasion of Ukraine': the currently on-going conflict between Russia and Ukraine. There are two phases in that conflict that are referred to by that phrase in reliable sources and those are the incursion in 2014 and the 'full-scale' invasion in 2022. If there is any need to disambiguate then that can be done by re-targeting to the wider scope article which covers these and has a reasonably large readership as well. Directing readers to a page that has less than a hundred daily views and that lists only one conflict that can be described as being between Russia and Ukraine anyway exacts a pointless tax on the readership. We'd be leading probably 99.5% of the readership to a page where they would ask: Ummm... Why'd you lead me here? and the majority of those will continue I just want to know what's going on in the conflict. There's only one target for that: Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present).
  I stated in the linked RM discussion that I am indifferent as to the title of the article limited in scope to the invasion period. It can hold the title 'Russian invasion of Ukraine', but with the precondition to resolve the issue that the majority of links to 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' are intended to direct the reader to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) before such a move. There are underlying issues with the structure and coverage of this conflict on Wikipedia. Too many to condense into a brief paragraph. There are hundreds to thousands of interrelated articles affected by major changes to the overarching parent articles. The proposal to move '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine' to just 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' should not on its face be controversial, but it has to be because it has consequential knock-on effects, and the links are simply one of the more noticeable problems.
  In the present circumstance, considering that the purpose of the encyclopedia is to benefit the readers the status-quo remains as the best outcome. The invasion article substantially duplicates the main war article, though it offers more detailed coverage of that phase of the conflict. Misdirecting the reader to the war article where the invasion article may have been more desirable has limited consequence. The reverse is less true particularly considering that most readers want to know what is happening rather than what has happened. Both are served by one article, whilst only the latter is served by the other. A weaker, but still functional choice would be to re-target to the main main war article which covers both plausible targets for a 'Russian invasion of Ukraine'. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Comment – "World War II receives substantially more pageviews than Invasion of Poland, and there have been many other invasions of Poland by many countries at many points in time throughout history, so Invasion of Poland should be moved to 1939 German invasion of Poland and the redirect left behind should be retargeted to World War II because readers would not be inconvenienced by being sent to a broader article that also discusses the 1939 invasion, is more well-written, and has more information overall."^[sarcasm] InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  The parent article is titled World War II not German–Polish War. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retain current target - That would seem to be the target sought by a user making the inquiry. Carrite (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retain current target A random person searching on Wikipedia for "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is almost certainly looking for the currently ongoing war - as I was when I was redirected and got to the redirect page that is currently 'broken' because of this request for deletion. Redirecting to a disambiguation page or to the 2022 invasion is just going to confuse people, and the faster this closes the better. Hentheden (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retain current target per Mr rnddude. --Minoa (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Russo-Ukrainian war. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began in 2014 with the seizure of Crimea and the intervention in Donbas. In 2022, this was expanded into a full-scale invasion. The article Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) deals only with that later phase. Therefore:

  Full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)

  Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (broader topic covering both 2014 and 2022) Hassan697 (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retain the current target Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) (as subtopic) or preferably (the main topic where there's a hatnote to the sub) Retarget to Russo-Ukrainian war. There's a clear PRIMARYTOPIC, but the choice of topic or subtopic isn't important. We don't bother readers by forcing extra clicks via a dab when (currently) this is clear. Widefox; talk 23:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as-is. I agree the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) would be the topic most likely sought by readers. It also has the expectation of being the target due to that being the title of the article for so long. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There have been other invasions of Ukraine by Russia, this is clearly the most notable currently at the moment. Redirects should be used to help our readers, this is the most specific information about the page. There, readers can clearly move on to more specific information about the war at large. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retain current target - That seems to be the target most users would think of .. The Seal F1 (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support either option 1 or 3 – Indifferent as to whether or not to restore the disambiguation page or redirect this to the list of wars and invasions involving Ukraine article. But I am certainly against having the ongoing war as the target. At the very least retarget to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The current war is overwhelming the most likely search target for readers, and likely to meet both prongs of the primary topic test compared to other invasions that could be titled this. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Retain - I just googled "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" as I was trying to find out some detail about it. This was the phrase I (someone who is not an expert in the subject) thought to search for, and I imagine it'll also be the case for many other people, so it makes no sense whatsoever to delete the redirect. Davidprior (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 02:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Șaaru River → Prahova (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Șaaru River was originally a stub on "a tributary of the Prahova River". It was converted to a redirect by Markussep in 2019, with the edit summary "not sure this river exists".I have done a little searching myself and am unable to find any online sources that confirm the existence of Șaaru River. The Romanian stub ro:Râul Șaaru still exists, but I cannot access its sources.The redirect receives very few pageviews and "Șaaru" is not mentioned on the target page. ~2025-32085-07 (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, and also the version without diacritics Saaru River and the version with the wrong diacritics Şaaru River. It's not in the Atlasul cadastrului apelor din România (should be on page 351 = scan 322 of 654). I tried again, without success, to find it on maps (according to Romanian wikipedia it should flow into the Prahova near Comarnic). Markussep ^Talk 15:38, 15 November 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).