Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 7, 2025.

Lifted(Song)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move without redirect to Lifted (2015 Dallas Smith song). This close replicates what I have seen some administrators do (and thus I have been replicating) for valid cases of WP:X3 for the title but the redirect has history: Moving the history to a title that reflects the history present, usually in the form of a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Doubly malformed disambiguator; the correct form Lifted (song)Lifted (song) already exists. X3 doesn't apply because of the non-redirect revision (which was about Lifted (Dallas Smith song), but was not merged there). jlwoodwa (talk) 23:52, 7 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).

Az muthal quantum number

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 23:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Implausible. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete The only results I can find for "az muthal" are OCR of hard to parse texts, but they're not in common enough usage to justify keeping this. Casablanca 🪨(T) 23:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, it is implausible! Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as too weird to be a plausible typo; it'll only occur as an OCR error, and that will be uncommon. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 04:13, 8 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).

Miami Memorial Metropolitan Expressway

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 23:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This appears to have been something that was made up one day. No shade to the redirect creator, as they were simply creating a redirect to something mentioned in the Interstate 95 in Florida article, but the content /there/ was added by an IP editor in this edit without comment or reference. I can find NO sources on this. Google for this turns up that article, two Wikimirrors, and a quote lifted from Wikipedia in a Youtube video description, and nothing else. No gBooks, no nothing at all. (What would be being memorialized anyway? Miami still exists...). This very much appears to be something that a random editor sneaked into the article at one point that wasn't caught until now (and has now, accordingly, been removed from the article) and thus this redirect has no purpose. The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 7 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).

Borito

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) 22:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Redirect created about 6 months ago (stating this since I may have considered not nominating this redirect if it were older). Delete as an ambiguous misspelling: See List of programs broadcast by PIE (TV channel)#PIE Borito. In addition, third party search results for "Borito" seem to return primarily results for unnotable bands. Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete. Maybe someone tried to joke around and chuckled to themselves while making this. It's not a very valid nor common misspelling. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    That would be me, and no, I wasn't. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as an ambiguous misspelling and the real name of multiple subjects with little or no coverage on en-wiki. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:44, 8 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).

Big Fruit (record producer)

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) 22:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. He may be notable enough to warrant his own article. The producer is mentioned in numerous articles, mostly in infoboxes, but no song or album article contains significant biographical information. The redirect arbitrarily selects one song he produced and obscures search results for Big Fruit which reveal other projects. See also: search results for his real name Leland Clopton. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:25, 7 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).

Standard YouTube License

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 YouTube features#Content accessibility. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Linked section doesn't exist anymore, neither does one on the target page makes sense to link to. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:59, 7 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).

Madhya Pradesh League

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Redirect with no mention at target page. Vestrian24Bio 09:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete whilst that article did previously list the event, its is correct to only list notable events there e.g. ones with articles. Thus, this event should not be listed at target article, and so redirect is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore, and AfD again if its failing GNG. The previous AfD did not have any support for deletion, and the closer did not got for a soft delete either. Second choice, as an WP:ATD, retarget to Madhya Pradesh Premier League. Jay 💬 11:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore per Jay. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Deleteper the previous AfD, which did not have any support for keeping the article—the only !vote was for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Restore List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India as a contested WP:BLAR (Vestrian24Bio's redirection was reverted, so the next step needs to be AfD) and retarget there per subsequent discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India closed as redirect, so restoration of that list is no longer viable. I'm now back to my original delete recommendation. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete AfD has already decided this shouldn't exist as an article. RfD can now decide this shouldn't exist as a redirect either. There's no reason to play ping-pong as Jay suggested. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • The closer to decide if the AfD did not have support to keep or did not have support to delete or both! Jay 💬 14:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
If you want to restore something, the solution would be to restore List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India so there'd be a feasible target to redirect to. That'd also be what was established by the AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that, since it was more exhaustive than the current target, and cannot be compared to the current target. Vestrian24Bio, what do you think, since you have been reverting any attempts to restore the list page? Jay 💬 06:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India is a junk article being used to list non-notable tournaments. Any notable tournaments are already covered in the article List of Twenty20 cricket competitions#India, and listing non-notable things for the sake of it is against list guidelines. If that article is restored, I will be taking it to AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
The list notability guideline asks if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, not whether the items are notable. There are plenty of stand-alone lists with non-notable entries (eg: members of Category:Redirects to list entries). There are sources discussing regional T20 leagues in India as a group ( ), so I don't think an AfD would be a foregone conclusion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
The purpose of this RFD is to decide what to do with Madhya Pradesh League, not to try and demand restoration of other articles that are different redirects. But my point still stands- if restored I will AFD it, because I do not believe it meets WP:NLIST. Therefore, redirecting to that article is not beneficial. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I have restored List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India. Jay 💬 12:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
And as promised, I have AFDed that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another try, I guess, to allow time for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India to be discussed since its result could affect this RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 5th relist, I probably cannot close this discussion as intended as a non-admin, the transclusion of the page this discussion came from most recently (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 15) doesn't appear on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion due to WP:EXPENSIVE issues caused by newer dates' listings. (Soon after I relist this, I'm posting this discussion at WP:RFCLOSE.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Posted on WP:RFCLOSE: Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 7 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).

Tcheque Republique

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 per WP:TRAINWRECK, except for TschechienTschechien, for which there was consensus to keep. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

All of these are translations of "Czech Republic" into different languages failing WP:FORRED. First 4 are French, next 2 are Spanish/Portuguese, next 2 are Hungarian, then German, last is Romanian. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 06:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all, especially the German one, since FORRED sucks. Its weak reasons for deletion do not outweigh the fact that these redirects are very well used, showing their utility in getting from one language version to another by changing just two letters in the URL, and generally for readers who know a topic's name in one language but not the one they want to read the article in. Either that, or do the work of putting down an anchor on List of country names in various languages (A–C) etc. per precedent. J947 ‡ edits 23:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
    This is just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument against FORRED. FORRED is not a weak argument at all. In fact, it shows exactly what the problems with your proposal are. You say that you want a reader to be able to change de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tschechien to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tschechien and still end up in the correct article. But what happens when word gets around that this works now and a Dutch speaker tries to do the same with Bodem? They'll end up at an irrelevant surname index. So, naturally, they'll add soil to the see also section. Then a Danish speaker will try the same with dam. They'll end up at an irrelevant topic, so, naturally, they'll add pond to dam (disambiguation). So, because users will expect the English Wikipedia to support their language, we'll end up with people creating tons of irrelevant dab entries and hatnotes. Meanwhile if anyone wants to get from de:Tschechien to Czech Republic they can follow the interlanguage link. Warudo (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    If the best justification FORRED has to delete a redirect is that it *could at a pinch* cause editors of other wikis to add navigational aids that *aren't really needed*, it is not a strong argument. Yes, I don't like it, because it's a collection of very poor arguments. J947 ‡ edits 00:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    WP:WAX. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Raladic's argument about official EU languages in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 30 § Austurríki. Particularly strong keep on the German one per Thryduulf. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
per @Tamzin per me. I don't care so much for the wrong/missing diacritic ones, so I'm more neutral on those, given that modern browsers can automatically correct them for users nowadays.
I'll expand a bit more on German and Hungarian: the keep for German language is literally unimaginably strong due to the historically strong link in history (Kingdom of Bohemia, Sudetenland,Nazi Germany Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945),,). There is currently some 150 articles on en-wiki (many in refs, but some several in article text) using the modern word Tschechien, eg. in Germans in Czechia (Deutsche in Tschechien) due to the historic link of the Czech lands, and to some degree Hungarian as neighboring Kingdom, which includes areas of modern-day Slovakia (see Kingdom of Hungary).
Anyway, due to the rather intricate history of Europe and its overlap over hundreds of years, including large movements and settlements of populations, it's pretty hard to disentangle many of the foreign language names for the countries as many of them have been part of one or another over the course of history, whether it was the (not very holy, nor very Roman) Holy Roman Empire, which the Kingdom of Bohemia was part of for some hundred years, and inside of it, the complicated history of the Sudetenland. Following the Roman Empire it then was part of the Austrian Empire, which became the Austro-Hungarian Empire thereafter until the formation of Czechoslovakia.
But wait, there's more, unfortunately I'm out of free steak knives today, BUT, I can offer Minority languages of the Czech Republic, which I cleaned up (getting distracted by a "brief" detour in history and fixing some articles along the way, the honeypot strikes again), and discovering that the Czech Republic, has a whole series of legally recognized minorities, which raises German and Hungarian as within those recognized minority languages into officially legally recognized name level.
Romanian isn't officially a recognized minority group, but does have a fair chunk of people living there due to some of the historic stuff and EU official.
As for the last two, being Portuguese and French, I refer back to the EU official argument from the Austurríki thread.
Basically it's messy, but wholesale RfD's listing several language redirects without doing some history digging on some rather strong historic overlaps of the countries, and thus whether the official foreign language name is relevant or not should be considered more case-by-case in the future. Might be worth linking to this and the Austurríki redirect discussion above once they close somewhere in the WP:FORRED for reference for future users. Raladic (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Tschechien due to historical connections. Delete Tcheque Republique, Republique Tcheque, Tcheque Republic, Republica Checa, Csehorszag. Weak delete Csehország, Cehia, République Tchèque, República Checa. EU membership doesn't seem like a sufficient argument to me – like if, for example, the EU excludes Hungary, will we delete the redirect overnight? None of those countries have a significant population in the Czech Republic, even though Hungarians are recognized as an official minority (but Romanians are not, not to be confused with Romani people!). FromCzech (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be clear consensus on only one of the listed redirects, but otherwise, this discussion looks as though it is getting into WP:TRAINWRECK territory. Hopefully a relist can remedy that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Either delete all or retarget the ones that are mentioned to Name of the Czech Republic. Even the German redirect, for which there is a connection is not mentioned anywhere in Czech Republic and should not be kept as is. Warudo (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Tamzin and Raladic. -- Tavix (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, agree with previous relist that this looks like a WP:TRAINWRECK nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all, I'd say. Some of these have weak affinity, sure, but they're specific enough that they wouldn't need to be redirected anywhere else, and they don't have any alternative definitions in other languages. This is kind of a weak argument, but Raladic, Tamzin and Thryduulf make better points than I could. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • KeepRetarget all to Name of the Czech Republic. These are clearly useful redirects. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Tcheque Republic. This is an amalgamation of the French and English names. It's not entirely implausible but doesn't align with the 'keep' rationale for the others. Retarget the rest to Name of the Czech Republic. The article could use some updating but this is the page that actually uses several of these terms and is the place it makes sense to add content on the others. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Name of the Czech Republic where they’re mentioned Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:32, 15 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).

⁢

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 14#⁢

Leaf mimicry

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 15#Leaf mimicry

ɰ̃

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) Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Not mentioned at the target and it can be recreated when my article Draft:Nasal velar approximant is ready. BodhiHarp 20:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why this request would even need to be made, when the old version of the page read #redirect [[Voiced velar approximant]], meaning it should have already been redirecting to the requested page and simply needed to be corrected to caps #REDIRECT. (not sure what I was on about here)
As for the article you are drafting, only 1 out of the 10 sources you have added to it is actually reliable, that being Vance (2008), which does mention a nasal dorso-velar approximant.
As for the rest, 3 of them are PHOIBLE, which itself is not a valid citation, its references must be checked and used; 3 of them are other WP pages; 1 of them is on a mirror wiki; 1 of them is from a random forum post; and 1 of them is from an incomplete dataset which also must have its referenced checked.
So I'd say keep to correct the typo and rather than make an entirely new page, just note it as a special occurrence in Japanese in Voiced velar approximant#Occurrence; not a separate section about a nasal approximant, just listed in the table with everyone else. oklopfer (💬) 22:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I realize now this implied a deletion and not a fixture, but the rest still stands, and I think it should just be fixed. oklopfer (💬) 02:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@Oklopfer It does not appear to be mentioned at the target.
Also, if there is a misunderstanding, I meant it is not mentioned at the target, and if my article gets accepted, this redirect can be recreated after being deleted per this discussion. BodhiHarp 03:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
And I don't think the article should be created to begin with, since it is only one reference for one language, it can simply be in the occurrences box as mentioned above on the page it is currently attempting to redirect to. oklopfer (💬) 03:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Now it does appear at the target, as I have added inclusion of the occurrence based on the reference. oklopfer (💬) 02:38, 3 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! 17:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. No prejudice to retargeting to a better target or renominating for discussion/deletion as content is added or removed to relevant pages.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no point of redirecting to the separate draft, and the corresponding draft should be redirected into this page. Zarceational (talk) 01:45, 9 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).

Identity cards in the United Kingdom

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 start a broad concept article first. No further participation since two weeks after the relist. There is agreement that the redirects should not point to the 2006 article, but to the broader topic that needs to be created. Jay 💬 17:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be an overspecific redirect. There are multiple aspects to ID cards in the UK, including the ID cards issued during WWII, the general debate about whether we should have an ID card scheme and how it should function and the new digital ID scheme that is now being talked about. — Smjg (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, this is an article about the history of ID cards in the UK, not just a specific instance of that. It would be reasonable to pull out an article about the Identity Cards Act 2006, its background and context, but that's not what this article is. Revert the move and restore the original title. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
There is nothing to revert to. The 2006 Act article is all there ever was. Identity cards in the United Kingdom and National identity card (United Kingdom) were both created as redirects to Identity Cards Act 2006. So what is really needed is a new broad concept article (at Identity cards in the United Kingdom?) which describes the 2006 Act in brief and adds material about the latest Cunning Plan™. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I've just had a look at the history. The article was moved from National identity card (United Kingdom) to its current title on 4 November 2010. The edit summary said "refocusing article on 2006 act, rather than the cards in general" but, looking further back, I see that it was always primarily about the 2006 act and the stuff that led to it. On this basis, I think the best plan is indeed to start a broad concept article. This would cover all of the aspects I've mentioned. The Historical and international comparisons section can be used as a starting point for the content about the wartime scheme. And we should see how much of the content of the Objections to the scheme section is relevant to ID cards generally, or aspects common to multiple ID card schemes, actual or proposed. — Smjg (talk) 16:28, 27 September 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! 16:42, 7 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).

Michael J

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 23:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Ambiguous terms, these can refer to hundreds of other people. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. Also, Michael J J is an odd way to format this name. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget the first two to List of people with given name Michael#J where those people are listed. Delete Michael J J. -- Tavix (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't make any sense to delete any of these redirects. Typing a name followed by the first letter of the person's family name or middle name is almost as stringent as it gets for a plausible redirect. Either retarget the first two to List of people with given name Michael#J and keep the last one or don't change anything at all.

    Michael Jackson is (still) that famous and globally dominant that these redirects make sense to redirect to him. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget the first two to List of people with given name Michael#J and delete Michael J J per Tavix. Michael Jackson is among the most famous people to have ever lived but he is not routinely referred to as "Michael J. Jackson" (in fact, there is another primary topic for Michael J. Jackson). There are numerous people named Michael with the middle initial 'J' and a last name beginning with 'J'. They aren't neatly grouped nor easily identified from the dab page because some of them, including Michael Jackson, aren't commonly known by their middle name or initial and don't have it in their article title. Michael J J has no good target and isn't useful. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as an ambiguous name without a clear target. The initial could easily refer to a last name (like the current target) or a middle name (like Michael J. Fox, for instance). - Eureka Lott 17:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    Is there evidence of Michael J. Fox being referred to as simply "Michael J."? That example feels like a WP:PTM to me, but I haven't entirely ruled it out. -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
    Is there evidence for any potential target being referred to as simply "Michael J."? I'm not seeing any, and that's another reason why redirects of this nature are undesirable. - Eureka Lott 19:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all per original reasoning and per Eureka Lott. Too ambiguous. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all because yep, cannot assume that "J" represents the surname when it could represent the middle name. Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • To closer, wait 2 more days, or relist, as the last 3 entries (J. J., J.J., and JJ) were added 2 days later. Jay 💬 05:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to ensure full discussion given the later additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 16:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete "Michael J" on Google returns Michael J. Fox (apart from it appears only 1 result namely the Wikipedia article Michael Jackson) and "Michael JJ" doesn't return anything for Michael Jackson. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per C,S. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all per the many wonderful arguments above me. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 01:19, 8 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).

Nucleon decay

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 15#Nucleon decay

Material constitution

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 14:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

In the article, it is stated that "The Ship of Theseus paradox can be thought of as an example of a puzzle of material constitution". An example, not every use of things being constituted of materials. Search results will show the Ship of Theseus pretty quickly, but I don't think a redirect needs to exist here. "Material constitution" is also discussed on Materialism, Sociology of space, and also has a surprising mention and discussion on the Constitution of Quebec. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. A standalone article could be written on the philosophy topic, of which Ship of Theseus is an example or subtopic. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:24, 8 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).

Counting or not counting gang violence?

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 but refine to Assassination of Charlie Kirk#Assassination. Seeing as that’s the numerical advantage and how the momentum has switched towards a keep, there’s no way the result will be delete. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Quote unmentioned at the target, though currently does occur at List of last words, List of last words (21st century) and Charlie Kirk. 1234qwer1234qwer4 06:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete as it is highly unlikely to be a search term for someone. Inclusion in the list of last words makes sense, but that isn't the same as a redirect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dennis Brown. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as not redirect worthy. Although relevant to the subject per "last words", the quote itself isn't notable enough that readers would be searching for an individual or event using this quote. CNC (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, patently ridiculous, what goes through people's minds when they create redirects like this? McRandy1958 (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete unlikely to be a search term. Psychloppos (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Keep, very famous quote, redirects are cheap and this is totally nonsensical. 2804:388:4108:F363:1:0:64BF:EBEC (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
So you are not suggesting to change the target either? 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
1234qwer1234qwer4, no strong opinion in this regard. But I do oppose the deletion. 2804:388:4108:F363:1:0:64BF:EBEC (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons above, although I would also have no objection to retargeting to Charlie Kirk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
    After seeing subsequent comments, I'm leaning more towards keeping and retargeting. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form. If it's mentioned at Charlie Kirk, it should also be mentioned at the main article for the event. Searching aside, I appreciate the redirect because it populates at Category:Last words. -- Tavix (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I've added it to the Assassination of Charlie Kirk article. -- Tavix (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: get traffic from category and also is googleable Bildete (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid and non-problematic redirect. No reason to delete.—Alalch E. 23:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Charlie Kirk#Assassination, where it is mentioned, secondarily prefer retarget to any other location where it is mentioned, then delete; oppose keeping as long as it isn't mentioned in the target. Rusalkii (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tavix that "If it's mentioned at Charlie Kirk, it should also be mentioned at the main article for the event." I would have boldly added it, but there is a caution comment there to discuss at the talk page first, so I have started Talk:Assassination of Charlie Kirk#Last words. Add content at the target, and keep. Jay 💬 12:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above, to assassination article if possible. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Retarget per @Utopes Shocksingularity (talk) 04:59, 8 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).

Different dimensions of reality

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 14:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

None of the pages on this disambiguation page go by the name "different dimensions of reality". Utopes (talk / cont) 08:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete as too vague a phrase to have a reasonable redirect target. "Different dimensions" is a highly informal way of talking. It could refer to one or more of the ideas listed at parallel universe. It could also refer to one or more of the ideas listed at fourth dimension. Both of these are disambiguation pages, and here we have further ambiguity on top of that. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete not a thing. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:03, 11 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).

Matt Mahoney (computer scientist)

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) Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Stumbling9655 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep, no rationale to delete given, and this redirect is correctly targeted to the History section where computer scientist Matt Mahoney is discussed as the creator of many of the PAQ algorithms, including the first. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per @Utopes. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 01:23, 8 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).

Novigrad (the Free City)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 15#Novigrad (the Free City)

Grim Facade: The Artist and The Pretender

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) 19:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

No mention of "The Artist and The Pretender" at the target article. People who are searching for this title tagged as an "r from creative work" will not be able to read about it at the page for Big Fish Games. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:41, 7 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).

Tertiary reference works

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 14#Tertiary reference works

Meiguo

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Retarget or Delete. The Chinese romanization of United States is not "Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products", although mentioned in the targeted text, and it is unlikely to be a common search term for non Chinese speakers. Meiguo is also romanization of Chinese term for Berry (莓果) which can cause confusion. Either delete this redirection or direct it to DAB pointing to both Names_of_the_United_States#Names_in_the_Asian_cultural_sphere and berry. Flower-iroseka (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep. A redirect to berry would be inappropriate per RFOREIGN as berries have no specific connection to Chinese language or culture. On the other hand, "Meiguo" (with tone diacritics) is mentioned and explained at length at the current target article. Toadspike [Talk] 09:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
It is inaccurate to say that berry is not associated with Chinese culture. China grows the largest annual amount of multiple species of berries, which poses a significance in areas where it is spoken. One Chinese learner is likely to search for what a "meiguo" is.
As I said in the original comment, even given it is mentioned in the article, "Meiguo" is not the official name of United States. That means it remains the same standing as berry - either both appropriate for WP:FOREIGN or both inappropriate. Flower-iroseka (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
This is completely at odds with the actual wording of WP:FOREIGN and with the norms for assessing an appropriate redirect. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how it is "completely at odds" when original text of WP:FOREIGN was quoted or atmost rephrased. With my explanation above it would be double standard to say one is appropriate while the other isn't. Flower-iroseka (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:FOREIGN says Common words or concepts are inappropriate non-English redirects. Berry qualifies so your assertion that it should be in the running as an equally plausible redirect target is completely at odds with the letter of the law. The current target is appropriate because Měiguó and related terms are used and discussed in some detail. When a word or phrase is used and defined in an article section, this is usually seen as a good justification to keep a redirect. We have encyclopedic content on Meiguo and we should point readers directly to it. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 13:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term is used and defined with appropriate context at the target. I agree that the potential berry redirect would be totally inappropriate so we can safely dismiss that concern. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:59, 7 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).

LOLOL

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 LOL#Variants. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

While LoLoL redirects to the list of lists of lists, I don't think the fullcaps shares the same accuracy with this capitalization. Someone searching for this seems to be more likely to want something to do with LOL#Variants, and Lolol is also a Chilean town. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Strong retarget to LOL#Variants. This is a common variant of this extremely common, enduring phrase. I'm not convinced LoLoL redirects appropriately and I may take Lolol to RM for reconsideration… --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to LOL#Variants per @MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫, LoLoL functioning as an acronym is something more fitting of a WP space page rather than a mainspace article. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to LOL#Variants per above Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to LOL#Variants per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:14, 8 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).

XCQ

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 14:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Incredibly vague and not seemingly a synonym. Searching for this gives me primarily info about xQc, but "XCQ" is also a stock-ticker as well. The reason why this exists is because the last 3 characters of the "Never Gonna Give You Up" music video on Youtube ends in "xcq"... but the amount of letters to use is arbitrary. We already have dQw4w9WgXcQ as a redirect; we don't need the final 5 letters as a redirect here, or the final 4 letters, or the final 3 or any other amount. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete as ambiguous. References do Rickrolling don't support this all-caps styling, making it more plausible as a search term for the Coterra Energy stock symbol or one of the other subjects actually called XCQ. A misspelling of xQc is also possible. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:57, 8 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).

Sunny (upcoming TV series)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No longer "upcoming", released over a year ago. In addition, the target is now cancelled ... which is almost the opposite of "upcoming" for released media. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Weak keep To clarify the nomination (which confused me) the target article is about a TV series that was cancelled after a single season. Page views indicate the people are still looking for something at this title, it seems probable that most those people are looking for information about a second series (not knowing there will not be one) and/or are following outdated links. The first group of people will definitely be helped by the existence of this redirect, and the second group will not be harmed. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    ...3–4 4–6 page views in the last month 20 days represents "people [who] are still looking for something at this title"? Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know where you are getting that figure from, but the 30 days prior to this nomination saw 10 hits and 1 January to 28 September saw 123 hits - and the pattern of those views indicates a continuing trend not declining views. Both of those unquestionably indicate that people are still looking for something at this title Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    I meant 4–6 in the last 20 days: Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    Anybody can cherry pick arbitrarily small periods of time to make a point, but 20 days is simply not a long enough period over which to make any reliable determination about what the long-term usage of a redirect like this is - which is why I looked at the stats for the whole year. Over that meaningful period of time stats show that the usage of this redirect has not tapered off and is not displaying signs of tapering off, rather remaining constant. That's not evidence that this is no longer used. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    "Anybody can cherry pick arbitrarily small periods of time..." For the record, actually, all I did was use the default timeframe the page view tool utilizes and didn't care to change it. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe we should change the default? If you look at page views since it was redirected to this TV series, it's 800 a month, which is more than about three-quarters of all articles. However, use dropped off sharply about a year ago.
    Perhaps we should restore the original target, which was the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page Sunny#Film and television. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
    The "stats" link in the RfD header uses the 30 days prior to nomination, and that's a reasonable default for most cases, but for some, such as most "upcoming" and similar redirects, long-term trends are important and you cannot tell that without looking over a period of multiple months. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meets the intent of WP:UFILM criteria. There simply isn't an upcoming series. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    The intent of UFILM is that redirects are not deleted before their usefulness has concluded. The stats show the usefulness of this redirect has not concluded. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is an actively misleading redirect that gives an incorrect and confusing picture. The series is cancelled as of 11 months ago, but readers see that the redirect says "upcoming", which leaves ambiguity and confusion. This series was released over a year ago and is no longer upcoming, which is ample time for views to drop off (and they have dropped off). 5 clicks in September renders this insignificant. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:UFILM: no longer accurate and thus misleading to readers. -- Tavix (talk) 16:08, 17 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).

India military national cricket team

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 14#India military national cricket team

Congratulations!

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move Congratulations! (opera)Congratulations! (opera) to Congratulations!, which will be done via page-swapping. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Malplaced redirect. Retarget to dabpage Congratulations or move? ArthananWarcraft (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Retarget to dab. I doubt the opera is the primary topic. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    Despite my reluctance to ask the closer to read yet another SMALLDETAILS discussion, I note that "Congratulations!" is a common interjection. Its appearance on greeting cards and during every year's commencement season makes it a plausible search target. Comparisons to "Airplane!" etc. may not be straightforward. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Move "Congratulations! (opera)" to "Congratulations!" per WP:SMALLDETAILS; it seems to be the only item with the exclamation point at the end. Anyone adding the "!" can get pointed back to the dab page with a hatnote if needed. I understand the hesitation here, but we do have a similar situation in place at Airplane! already. Can anyone find any others? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Notified talk of related dab. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Move as it appears to be the only use so like Airplane! etc anyone intentionally using this term could only be looking for the opera. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Move Congratulations! (opera) to Congratulations! per SMALLDETAILS and the canonical Airplane! example. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
    I acknowledge Rotideypoc41352's comment about Congratulations! being a common interjection. This still passes the SMALLDETAILS threshold for me. For one thing, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we have no encyclopedia entry on the most common meaning/usage of the word in English. Every entry at Congratulations is a work titled Congratulations that either has a parenthetical disambiguator or is naturally disambiguated as a partial title match. The only title that actually contains an exclamation mark should absolutely live the base name Congratulations!. In addition to the examples already shared, we also have Help!, where Help! is also a common exclamation. (Side note: the opera needs to be added to the dab page. I'll try to remember to do this once this RfD is resolved.) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Move Congratulations! (opera) to Congratulations! per WP:DIFFPUNCT (aka SMALLDETAILS). If there were a WP:DICDEF article about the interjection, I would argue that it would be the primary topic for "Congratulations!". But it seems the opera is the only encyclopedic topic using the exclamation point, so that article should exist at the base name. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:07, 7 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).

Lakatos (disambiguation)

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Target is not a disambiguation page. GilaMonster536 (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep While not technically a disambiguation page, it performs a "disambiguation-like function" which WP:G14 notes would make it not a category to be speedy deleted in that way. I think it ultimately helps the reader who might know that Wikipedia pages that perform disambiguation-like functions end in (disambiguation) if they search this to go to Lakatos instead of ending up at a search page. I don't think there is much ambiguity here. Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep because the redirect doesn't not qualify for WP:G14 since the target is "disambiguation-like". Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I remember there's a software issue in one of our commonly used disambiguation tools where this sort of a redirect needs to exist, otherwise you can't mark direct links to the surname list as unambiguous using these tools. --Joy (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • uh... weak move to lakatos and vice-versa? i found like two results that weren't just surnames (lakato and lakatos award), so they might warrant moving to a more disambiguation-shaped title consarn (grave) (obituary) 11:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
    There's no singular/plural between Lakato and Lakatos, the former is a (single) place in Madagascar. Does anyone actually refer to the award as just "Lakatos"? --Joy (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
    lakato would've most likely just been a hatnote or see also lol. as for the award... eh. i can't really say for sure, but it's in the name, so maybe? mouse (disambiguation), for example, has a good handful of things that aren't just known as "mouse" (like michael rat or whatever his name was), and dream diary (second d capital, very important distinction) has yume nikki (which isn't literally known as "dream diary" like its reboot, even though that's what its name translates to), so i think that's fine consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 16:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need for a hatnote between Lakato and Lakatos if we can't identify any such usage. Likewise for the award. I'm not sure if those other examples are just undetected violations of WP:PTM or just a difference of opinions between consarn and the folks over there, as WikiNav for mouse shows clickstreams to Mickey Mouse and Dream Diary has too little traffic to identify clickstreams and has been untouched since 2022 - so this is moot. --Joy (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep target does perform a disambiguation-like function. No need to move for now, but that might be worth revisiting if more potential topics that share the same name are identified. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete The target, Lakatos, is a name list, which are not dabs. Per MOS:DABNAME: Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages ... G14 is irrelevant as this is RfD, not a speedy del request. —Bagumba (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per all. This RfD nomination doesn't offer anything more than G14, which is not eligible. Jay 💬 16:29, 18 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).

Luzes (song)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Unable to find sourcing that this song exists. मल्ल (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete both. A search through enwiki found no song that I would plausibly just call "Luzes". Taking the base page name and retargeting (e.g. to luz (disambiguation)) or soft retargeting to Wiktionary is only dubiously helpful at best. DuckDuckGo for "Luzes" "Juice Wrld" yielded me nothing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: The song did exist, but it was taken down. ItsMario97 (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:27, 7 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).

Ebmaster

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. as it was G7ed by author + consensus anyway KylieTastic (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

"Ebmaster" is a unique topic. Apparently "ebMaster" is an online learning website, and a topic that is not communicable via a redirect to a soft redirect to wiktionary. "Ebmaster" does not appear on Wikipedia at all, skipping the first letter of "w" is not a likely misspelling. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:24, 7 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).

List of state visits made and received by Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands

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) 05:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete, as we already have separate articles List of state visits made by Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and List of state visits received by Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 05:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:XY. There are slightly higher page views than I expected, but a DAB seems over the top for this. Casablanca 🪨(T) 13:05, 7 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).

Luigi's Mansion 2 SD

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 speedily deleted per criterion G7. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I could not find evidence of there being an "SD" version of this game. No results on Google for this full search term. No mention of "SD" at the target, nor any mention of "Luigi's Mansion 2 SD" on all of Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

redirect was created under the assumption that Luigi's Mansion 2 HD implied an SD version. however, the 3DS actually has a dissapointingly low resolution, and thus would not likely classify as SD. Oreocooke (talk) 05:32, 7 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).

Race and sexuality

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) Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I feel like this is not the right target - but I want to open the discussion on where to point it. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

not good redirect which is basically americentrism
suggested action: disambiguate Oreocooke (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
actually there is nothing else
not good Oreocooke (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete, case of WP:XY. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 06:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete - very US-centric and there are no other suitable articles (that I know of) to retarget to. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 08:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete per XY as things currently stand. It's plausible a coherent, more globally focused article could be written and a red link may encourage this. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Procedural close - the redirect was created from the undiscussed move of the page to Race and sexuality in the United States, which I have reverted per a request at WP:RMUM - the current article now sits at this title until further activity, and was per a 2021 move discussion which can be found here - as such no deletion should occur for now. ASUKITE 20:10, 7 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).

6-7

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 24#6-7

Diagnostic trait

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Also commonly refers to medical conditions, so not suitable for a redirect here IMO Shocksingularity (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Then the namespace should be converted into a disambiguation Anthropophoca (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
that isn't what a namespace is but still disambiguate anyway Oreocooke (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most uses on enwiki are the taxonomical use, and the current target appears to be the best target for the redirect. Other uses include Special interest (autism), Mayan languages, and Mayan culture, but there doesn't seem to be any content on enwiki to disambiguate for these other uses (in anthropology and psychology). Mdewman6 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I personally would just keep it for now; it's not a big problem unless someone starts creating links in medical/ethnology articles en-masse. Anthropophoca (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mdewman6 and Anthropophoca. This is the predominant use of the term on en-wiki and the only one that has a distinct target rather than a passing mention, although unfortunately it is not mentioned at this target. Ideally the phrase would be used and defined here—I may work on this later if I have time. No prejudice against future DAB or revisiting the discussion of content describing other uses is added to other pages. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:28, 14 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).

Mercury(I) carbonate

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) 05:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target article. Keres🌕Luna edits! 00:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

dpa Oc(t⋅c) 05:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as erroneous per Mdewman6. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 02:55, 13 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).

Trench (Star Wars)

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 Star Wars: The Clone Wars. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a character called Admiral Trench who will no longer be mentioned at the boldly restructured List of Star Wars characters (in progress, so it's a little bit of a mess). There is also the iconic "trench run" in the first Star Wars movie. Is the character or the event the better target? In either case, a redirect is necessary due to the character not being mentioned at the new hub page, or should this be deleted outright due to an unclear target? TNstingray (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Looking at List of Star Wars characters#Stand-alone lists, it appears there should be a list for Star Wars: The Clone Wars characters. If we had a List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars characters, that'd be the perfect location for this redirect. I would think Trench run is a red herring, I wouldn't expect content on the trench where the run took place. -- Tavix (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
    I'd like for there to be a standalone list of Clone Wars characters. It's just slow work since I'm working on this by myself. If we think the character is the primary target as opposed to the trench run, then I would say retarget to Star Wars: The Clone Wars for now, until I get past the lists for the three trilogies. TNstingray (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me, thanks for having it on your list. Retarget to Star Wars: The Clone Wars for now. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 7 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).

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks