Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 24

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) 23:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Pokal HervisPokal Hervis → Slovenian Football Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear what Hervis is. Is it a company, a sponsor, a person's name, the Slovenian word for football? There's no mention at the target. But the article was known by this title for a year in 2007-2008. Delete if there is no useful info. Jay 💬 19:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Pokal Hervis seems to be an alt name for the Slovenian Football club. Hervis seems to be the person who at one point sponsored the cup. 2011–12 Slovenian Football Cup uses 'Pokal Hervis' interchangeably with 'Slovenian Football Cup' suggesting that they're either the same thing or that the 'Pokal Hervis' tournament forms a part of the Slovenian Football Cup. In any case, it seems like a term used by native speakers to refer to the Football Cup. Anyone searching for 'Pokal Hervis' would be looking for 'Slovenian Football Cup'. Katiedevi (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• FWIW "Hervis" is not mentioned in the Slovenian article on the cup. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - 'Pokal Hervis' is used, but not in any reliable soirees that I can see, mainly betting websites and stats databases. GiantSnowman 20:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - Hervis is a sportswear company, it was the sponsor of the Cup between 2005 and 2012. The competition was known as "Pokal Hervis" in this period. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  In which case, Keep' - ideally with sources added to verify this? It's definitely worth having a sponsored name redirect, it's common in England as pointed out below. GiantSnowman 21:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep That sounds good enough for me. I'm looking at EFL Cup for comparison, and seeing older sponsor names like Carling CupCarling Cup redirect there. Hypothetically, a single-year sponsor might be redirected just to that year, though I don't know how common that is. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 31 October 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) 18:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• JirardJirard → The Completionist  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

first name shouldnt have a redirect, subject known more by you tube name than first name Karl 334 ^{Talk--Contribs} 21:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Only notable man with the name. Often called just Jirard by friends or fans. Humanbeing9 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as a {{r from given name}}. If other articles about topics with this name are created, this can be converted to a WP:NAMEPAGE or disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 14:59, 31 October 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 Television in Ukraine. Unchallenged WP:SILENT consensus for the nominator's proposal. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• National Television Company of UkraineNational Television Company of Ukraine → Suspilne  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Television in Ukraine. The National Television Company of Ukraine (NTU) and Suspilne are completely separate entities, operating under different ethics and legal frameworks, with the latter replacing the former as part of Ukraine's transition from state to public broadcasting. The Suspilne page contains almost no information on NTU beyond naming it as its predecessor, whereas the Television in Ukraine article situates NTU within the wider history of television broadcasting in Ukraine, providing the necessary context that the current redirect lacks. Agwjkl (talk) 20:17, 24 October 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. Hog Farm _Talk 19:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• User talk:ArticlesForCreationBot/Shutdown → Wikipedia:Help desk  (subject · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

what's even going on here? can we just say it was created as vandalism and the blar was an accident? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:49, 24 October 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. Hog Farm _Talk 19:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Helpdes → Wikipedia:Help desk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

no incoming links, seemingly not a plausible abbreviation. i believe most people can be bothered to type that last k, they can do i consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:44, 24 October 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 Bad. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Bad!Bad! → Bad! (XXXTentacion song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• BAD!BAD! → Bad! (XXXTentacion song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Malplaced redirect. The target was proposed to be moved to the base title in 2022, but was opposed and not moved since the David Guetta and Showtek song's stylization also uses an exclamation mark. So I suggest Retargeting to Bad (the dabpage). ArthananWarcraft (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Nominator comment: I've also nominated BAD! because the other song mentioned above also uses the same stylization. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:11, 25 October 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 Legal status of transgender people. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Anti-trans lawsAnti-trans laws → 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States#Anti-trans laws  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirecting "anti-trans laws" to 2020s anti-trans laws in the United States looks like a clear case of Americentrism and recency bias. Mosplot (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

If there is a better target then it should be redirected at that but there is no reason to delete otherwise. I'm thinking that a retarget to Legal status of transgender people might be OK. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Concur! --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel's retarget suggestion. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed! User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Legal status of transgender people (first choice) or delete (second choice). I agree that the current target demonstrates WP:AMERICENTRISM and recency bias. MidnightAlarm (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Legal status of transgender people as most plausible target --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Legal status of transgender people as an appropriately broad target – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:20, 26 October 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 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) 06:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Victim of Circumstance (Public Disturbance album) → Lostprophets#Studio albums  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Album of a band that was redirected, Public Disturbance (band), so this is useless now FMSky (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ^Complex/_Rational 17:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• 2026–27 AFC Champions League Two → AFC Champions League Two  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target page and there is a draft of the same name. Qby (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:REDLINKS. GiantSnowman 18:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• This didn't require a RfD and could have been deleted as a WP:G4. Listed the previous RfD. Delete and salt. Jay 💬 16:48, 31 October 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 Shearling (band). (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Motherfucker, I am Both: "Amen" and "Hallelujah"... → Sprain (band)#Shearling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Motherfucker, I am Both: "Amen" and "Hallelujah"Motherfucker, I am Both: "Amen" and "Hallelujah" → Sprain (band)#Shearling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Phrase not mentioned at the target article. This is apparently an album, but without any discussion about it at the target page, people looking for information on this album are left without any. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This was mentioned at the target until last month but then removed, for unclear reasons. Perhaps that removal should simply be reverted. Fram (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Shearling (band) where it is now mentioned. SignTheSign (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Shearling (band) per SignTheSign. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk ⋅ edits) 14:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ^Complex/_Rational 17:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Eastonmd → Easton, Maryland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems like an implausible way to search for a city and state, delete. Left guide (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom, implausible. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:53, 25 October 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 💬 17:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Sexy phase → Scott Pilgrim  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target; will be confusing and not provide context for searchers. Google informs me that this is a reference to the main character's girlfriend having a female ex. Rusalkii (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as vague. Lots of people have a or speak of a sexy phase! It's a generic concept, although I don't think there's an article to be written about it. Google gives a surprising number of hits for sexual response cycle; they don't call it "sexy phase(s)" but I see the connection. I know there's a range of opinions about movie lines. At a minimum, they need to be distinct to be considered. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 14:58, 24 October 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. Rusalkii (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Men who lie with menMen who lie with men → Men who have sex with men  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Keep, retarget to Sexual practices between men or something Book of Leviticus related, or… ? I retargeted a handful of other redirects away from the current target to Sexual practices between men, which is the more general article on the subject rather than specific "men who have sex with men" ("MSM") terminology used especially in public health contexts. "Lie with" can be a direct substitute for "have sex with" here and this specific phrasing has religious and cultural connotations that don't apply to the others so I'm unsure what to do with it. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it's fine. MSM is a pretty common term, and lie with is basically a synonym. I'm not that prejudiced towards the retarget though. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies for additional input. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to The Bible and homosexuality, as it's pretty clearly invoking (albeit not directly quoting; it's generally translated as a "you" statement.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Not a standard term, no incoming links, long-term usage is less than one view per month on average.--Trystan (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and tag with {{R from euphemism}}. Lie with is a euphemism for have sex with, so someone typing this is most likely specifically looking for Men who have sex with men. Someone looking for information about the Bible is more likely to type something more specific, such as a direct quote. Trystan's arguments do not convince me because redirects are cheap. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk ⋅ edits) 17:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep or convert to disambig page. The fact that it is used nowhere in Wikipedia (except in references to this discussion or redirect) might argue for getting rid of it (although search logs might show otherwise), however ngrams show a miniscule (but non-zero) use of the term in books. Checking those books that are in the 2019–2022 cohort, they are almost all religious references (mostly Leviticus 20:13^[redirect], also Corinthians, Timothy). If someone comes to Wikipedia because that is the term they have been exposed to, we should take them to the right place. Which place that is depends on what they are searching for, and it seems most likely that they are wondering about the topic of male homosexuality or men who have sex with men. Unless we do a poll to see what searchers really want to know, we won't know for certain, however redirecting to The Bible and homosexuality seems a bit like lecturing someone who came here with a legitimate question which they couched in the only terms they are familiar with, so I would lean against that. We could cover the uncertain intent by making it a disambig page, which could include Leviticus 20:13, Male homosexuality, Men who have sex with men, Sexual practices between men, and The Bible and homosexuality. Mathglot (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing any sort of consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Notified Talk:Book of Leviticus, Talk:Human male sexuality, and Talk:Gay men. Talk page notices were previously placed at other potential targets/dab page entries mentioned in the discussion so far. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 16:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep I could see this being a mistaken interpretation of MLM, Men who love menMen who love men, which redirects to the same place. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 24 October 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:DONOT → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is anything but unambiguous. There are so many "Do not" Wikipedia policies, and this redirect only exists because it was once redirected to WP:NOT and the double redirect fixer "fixed" it. This redirect shouldn't be deleted, but seriously should either be retargeted or become a dab page. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 14:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• My first thought would be Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but there are plenty of other pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Do not that this could point to. There's also WP:DONTWP:DONT and WP:DON'TWP:DON'T, both of which currently redirect to WP:Don't panic. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  Then why not turn DONOT into a dab page? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 22:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Definitely DONOT keep, but as for viable targets? Maybe retarget to Wikipedia:Dos and don'ts if anywhere, but I don't know if any of the "Don't ..." targets would make much sense over any of the others. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe this page should be a disambiguation, or at the target page, we could say

  "Wikipedia:DONOT" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:DONOT (disambiguation).

  BodhiHarp 17:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  No need to do this, because it is unused now. --Altenmann >talk 15:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete, this is too vague Shocksingularity (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Turn into dab All pages with titles beginning with Wikipedia:Do not and retarget WP:DONTWP:DONT and WP:DON'TWP:DON'T there. Clearly, the phrase is highly ambiguous . --Altenmann >talk 15:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

DABify per above. No objection to adding other plausible targets to the dab. This shortcut seems useful but is ambiguous. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per Altenmann, I think deleting is too harsh and, frankly, it made me think of WP:DON'T since that's just a contraction. It might take a while to put all the don't and do not pages in one dab though... Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I've reconsidered, per @Tavix, and would like to Oppose the dab and would rather Retarget to WP:DON'T. "Don't" is a contraction of "do not" so it is a more rational option than WP:ISNOT, and a WP: shortcut that redirects to a dab is useless. Yeah I really changed my mind there ahah. I like @User:BodhiHarp's Template:Redirect hat idea though! Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: If this title were to be disambiguated, what pages would be included in it? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 23:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  Never mind, it's the pages listed on the page that Altenmann mentioned. I'm favoring disambiguate anyways. Should probably also include the pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Don't as well. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 00:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  At this point, forget disambiguating. I agree with Tavix, and thus withdraw my !vote. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 11:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support dab per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose disambiguation because it could no longer be used as a shortcut for any of these pages. Shortcuts are short and as such are ambiguous by nature. Just pick the target that makes the most sense—the current one is fine. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  What do you mean DONOT redirecting to WWIN is fine? It's certainly not. "Do not" is imperative, while WWIN project page doesn't have an imperative tone. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 18:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well, WP:NOT includes 'do not' imperatives such as: do not use Wikipedia for any of the following, do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, Do not insult, disparage, harass, or try to intimidate, Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats, etc. That said, I'm fine with any target suggested except for disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think per @Drunk Experiter to retarget to Wikipedia:Don't panic just like WP:DON'T is fine. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 18:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or Keep w/ hatnote or Retarget to WP:DON'T w/ hatnote, per Tavix's reasoning and Drunk Experiter. I am persuaded that a dab page defeats the purpose of a shortcut. We tolerate many ambiguous WP: and MOS: redirects, although it's reasonable to avoid creating new ones. Since this doesn't have much use and is ambiguous, deletion is reasonable but so is pointing it somewhere a little more intuitive. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Dos and don'ts per IP35. Do the same for WP:DONT and WP:DON'T, or bundle those with this discussion. Jay 💬 17:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:24, 24 October 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. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

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

I propose a retarget to Make America Healthy Again, since that is the main topic for this particular capitalization. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• No, MAHA in capitals has other meanings. It is an initialism for microangiopathic hemolytic anemia. Makes more sense to send to the disambig. JFW | T@lk 18:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, per @JFW. The initialism has a lot of meanings, Make America Healthy Again is popular but it could be argued to be recentism. Someone should check how many hits the other pages are getting, if it's decided Make America Healthy Again is PTOPIC by a very significant margin then I could reconsider. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  In the last month, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia has only had 59 daily pageviews, while Make America Healthy Again has had 511 daily pageviews. Everything else under the disambig isn't all caps, so a search for those would still bring up the disambiguation page. @Drunk Experiter @JFW Shocksingularity (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  Considering that Make America Healthy Again is currently popular but will likely be less so in the future, a 59-to-511 ratio is not significant enough for me to withdraw my !vote. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Make America Healthy Again per Shocksingularity. On the Maha disambiguation page, there are only two options that "MAHA" could refer to as an all-caps acronym. Of these, Make America Healthy Again appears to be the primary topic in this WP:ONEOTHER situation. Because there's only two possibilities, and one has 10x the pageviews, hatnotes should be used to navigate instead of disambiguation pages. This should go the slogan's page, with an added hatnote saying: "MAHA redirects here. For the anemia, see 'microangiopathic hemolytic anemia'. For other uses, see 'Maha (disambiguation)'". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget → Make America Healthy Again; add a hatnote to Microangiopathic hemolytic anemia and Maha in the spirit of the essay WP:1OTHERPRIMARY. Make America Healthy Again is very likely the primary topic; either that or it's too soon to tell or it's a split decision because the anemia has a claim to long-term significance. Readers seeking Make America Healthy Again represent the large majority per pageviews and WikiNav. They will save a click by being taken directly to the article they are looking for. Readers looking for microangiopathic hemolytic anemia will have the same number of clicks but instead of landing at a dab page first they will land and another article. We can always re-evaluate in the future as usage changes. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really know if this affects anything, but I don't think this is a WP:ONEOTHER scenario because of Hockey Manitoba, which was commonly referred to as MAHA for a long time. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 18:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  I can't tell when Hockey Manitoba changed their name. It doesn't get any traffic from Maha, at least not in July and August. If there's reason to believe Hockey Manitoba is still a plausible candidate for co-primary or co-secondary topic, a hatnote is still reasonable per WP:TWOOTHER. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think it legally changed its name in 2015, but had been using Hockey Manitoba alongside MAHA for a number of years previous. I don't oppose hatnoting, I was just noting it might need two hatnotes. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 23:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Definitely worth noting. I missed Hockey Manitoba when I skimmed the entries at Maha. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per JFW. Enix150 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The large gap in pageviews can be attributed to WP:RECENTISM, and there's no guarantee that Make America Healthy Again has much staying power once it's out of the news cycle. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 04:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• I have listed the May RfD. (Disclosure: I was the closer). Keep per that RfD. Too soon for renomination, and there wasn't anything newer from the previous nomination. Jay 💬 17:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning keep per SmittenGalaxy's comment on WP:RECENTISM. If this is still the overwhelming favorite in five or ten more years, the question can be revisited. BD2412 T 19:09, 24 October 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 or at a minimum no consensus, which would amount to the same functional outcome. It seems unlikely for a consensus to emerge for any other result, so I see no point in relisting further or otherwise leaving this open longer. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. → Inigo Montoya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. → Inigo Montoya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Someone who types out four sentences in this situation, already knows who Inigo Montoya is (they had to include the name in the quote). This quote is not currently mentioned in the article, and people searching for the page for "Inigo Montoya" would not spend time writing out the four short sentences he says. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to The Princess Bride (film) Shocksingularity (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

To weigh in on this suggestion, this phrase is not mentioned at the film's article either. An uninformed reader has no reliable way to figure out which of these targets this redirect would take them by looking at it, as it's basically a coin flip. Neither page gives the necessary content, with mention, to satisfy people deliberately searching for the quote instead of searching for the film, or character. If someone don't know the name of the film, searching this quote in Google would give the name straightaway. Wikipedia is not a script database, redirects for important lines from the movie are an exception, not standard. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• This is one of the movie's best-known lines. Retarget/keep if a mention is added somewhere; otherwise soft redirect to q:The Princess Bride (film), similar to I do not think that means what you think it means. - Eureka Lott 16:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I would support a wikiquote soft redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment: This list of incoming redirect towards "The Princess Bride", a disambiguation page, is a mess ... and I'm not sure the best path to clean them up at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, was mentioned in the article until removed by the nominator (reverting that edit would be more helpful than deleting this redirect). Useful to people who remember the iconic phrase but do not remember his name, as just typing "Hello my name is" will bring it up. No policy based reason for deletion has been given. —Kusma (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - harmless, points where it should, unambiguous. WP:RFD#K5. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I understand the nom was agreeable to soft redirect to q:, but I prefer deletion. Jay 💬 11:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I have restored the line to the article and added two sources noting how iconic the line is for the character, and that in preparing to save those lines Mandy Patinkin walked around the grounds of the castle thinking of his own father's death from cancer, and imagining his confrontation with the six-fingered man as a way to go back and save his father from that cancer. BD2412 T 19:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, with thanks to BD2412 for the work on the article. Any article on this character should clearly have this line and as long as it's mentioned the redirect is obviously useful. Rusalkii (talk) 19:43, 24 October 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. --BDD (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Kha'y → Wine#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

a vintner (scientific term for people who make adult grape juice) from ancient egypt or something. currently unmentioned. is apparently an r from merge, though i genuinely don't see what could have been brought in, and even if something was, it's long gone (aside from coincidentally citing the same book that served as the blar's only source). while i found a couple sources, i'll have to check them in a while, though they might not be reliable, and seem to only have the text string in them by coincidence

also unmentioned in egyptian wine, by the way consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 16:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Formerly a stub for a person attested from goods in Tutankhamun's tomb. Seems like maybe worth mentioning in that article and then redirecting there? If any images of the goods could be tracked down that seems like the thing to do to me. --Slowking Man (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to Tomb of Tutankhamun.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Either Delete or redirect to list of ancient Egyptians. The source for the original article was Vintage: The Story of Wine (1989) by Hugh Johnson. I know nothing about that book, but I'd be more comfortable with an Egyptological source. But I don't think Kha'y, or any variant of that name, is mentioned in the books about the tomb on which the tomb article is based. As he was reportedly a royal chief vintner, there might be reference to him in some other text—but I looked at Who's Who in Ancient Egypt (1999) by Michael Rice, which is the closest thing I know of to a biographical dictionary of ancient Egypt, and Kha'y is not listed there. A. Parrot (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
• There is a Khay (vizier) at List of ancient Egyptians but this doesn't appear to be the same person. Their name is also rendered Kh-'-y in the article. I'm not familiar with transcription schemes for Ancient Egyptian but if Kha'y is another variant I would retarget to Khay (vizier), otherwise delete. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
• It was merged to the target in 2008, and remained there until March this year, when Ligaturama removed it while trimming the history of wine by moving it to History of wine, where he mentioned Tutankhamun's tomb, but omitted this vintner. Jay 💬 18:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Just tagged it as {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 11:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. No suitable, unambiguous target. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There's always a compromise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

nah, i think this would've been a delete consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:53, 25 October 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) 02:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Martin (chess bot) → Chess.com  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unmentioned at target. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 01:26, 24 October 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 Psychoactive drug. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Psychotic drugsPsychotic drugs → Psychosis#Psychoactive drugs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Psychotic drugPsychotic drug → Psychosis#Psychoactive drugs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as vague. The phrasing is ambiguous for substance-induced psychosis, psychoactive drug, psychedelic drug, antipsychotic and possibly others. It is not correct terminology for any of these so not appropriate for a dab. Antipsychotic is probably the best target if there is one. Or retarget to Psychoactive drug. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC) Edited per discussion below. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Antipsychotic makes the most sense to me Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep or Redirect to Antipsychotic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, Drugs commonly alleged to induce psychotic symptoms include [list] at target gives exactly what I was seeking via the term. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect/retarget to Psychoactive drug, which is a better target than the current one. I oppose retargeting to Antipsychotic, because those are the exact opposites, despite sounding similar – that would be like redirecting "good" to "bad", or "up" to "down". (I agree with the nom that the term is an incorrect one, but since it could be a search term, at least send the reader to the closest correct match, where it might be appropriate to have a hatnote telling readers about antipsychotics.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  Umm, antipsychotics are a class of psychoactive drugs, not the "opposite". Paradoctor (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  I understand what you mean, but I was trying to indicate that "psychotic drugs", whatever that means, is the opposite of medicines used to reverse psychosis. I see your point below, that it's not a good search term, but I think it could be search term used by confused readers, and I would rather send them to the right place than to leave them confused because we decided that we should not honor a flawed search strategy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  I was trying to indicate that "psychotic drugs", whatever that means, is the opposite of medicines used to reverse psychosis. 🤦 Paradoctor (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Facepalm back atcha. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think it could be search term used by confused readers, and I would rather send them to the right place than to leave them confused because we decided that we should not honor a flawed search strategy. The challenge is that psychotic drug(s) sounds close to multiple different targets. On what basis do we decide which real thing editors are most likely looking for with this bad search? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  That's a very good question, and the best I can offer is to send them to a relatively broad topic, where they can start reading and then decide if they want to look somewhere else, and that's what I was aiming for by retargeting to Psychoactive drug. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  This makes sense, thanks for expanding on your thinking. I'm on the fence. On the one hand, Psychoactive drug is the umbrella category that includes all the other possible targets. On the other hand, it barely addresses the topics we think readers might be looking for, and we are still only making a best guess at what they might mean by psychotic drug(s). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete All results I found for this term are either partials of "anti-psychotic drug", or of "psychotic drug user(s)". This term is not in use, and not a good search term. Paradoctor (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Psychoactive drug. This seems to be the most sensible option. Article "Psychoactive drug" includes both the psychosis inducing substances as well as antipsychotics and more. Ion Soggo (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to psychoactive drug per Tryptofish and Ion Soggo. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• I've updated my nomination to support retargeting to psychoactive drug. I still find the case for deletion roughly equally strong but psychoactive drug is the least worst option if we don't delete. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since deletion is still being considered as an option by the nom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no one has said anything outside of relists since 6 October
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dr vulpes @WhatamIdoing are you OK with retargeting to Psychoactive drug per the arguments made after your initial responses? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 16:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds okay to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

and for the record I support retargeting as an acceptable compromise. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it appears to be the best compromise here. I mean there's been three relistings at this point. Might as well be bold. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:36, 26 October 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 Risk#Environment. A few other things were discussed here, but they can be followed up with another nomination (for Environmental risk analysis) or a potential article created over this redirect. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Environmental riskEnvironmental risk → Risk#Environmental risk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Consider retargeting? Unsure what a proper target would be, but the section it's targeting no longer exists. Environmental hazard has a "not to be confused with" hatnote pointing here but I'm not actually sure what the difference is. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete unless a suitable target can be found. There is a difference between risk and hazard so redirecting one to the other would be inappropriate. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the helpful link! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Another reason to delete is that the meaning is vague. Environmental risk could refer to risks to the environment (e.g., pollution) or risks from the environment, which can be further divided into different meanings. Risks from the environment could be risks related to climate or weather or things like the social environment. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Environmental risk analysis also redirects to the same target. but to another non-existing section #Health,_safety,_and_environment. Perhaps add an achor at the Environment entry at Risk § By field, and refine to there? The entry has links to both, hazards and issues. Jay 💬 05:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

  Seems a reasonable suggetion. Best option so far. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Risk#Environment. I have placed the anchor. I would prefer a more substantial target but I guess this will do. Perhaps consider Environmental risk analysis in a separate nomination. I'm inclined to think it doesn't belong at the same target but I haven't thought it through. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 02:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: easier to just do it know than to remember to do it in 2 hours
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel like we should just have an article on the concept of environmental risk. BD2412 T 03:52, 25 October 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).