Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 25, 2025.

Kirk shooter

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 moot. The target became a redirect, turning this into a double redirect, causing it to target Assassination of Charlie Kirk, removing the fact underlying this nomination, and therefore mooting this discussion. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 17:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Assassination of Charlie Kirk per violation of WP:BLPCRIME, see also Charlie Kirk shooter. CNC (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Speedy retarget BLPCRIME violation per nom. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom unless this is ambiguous - we have a very large number of articles about people called Kirk (Kirk (given name), Kirk (surname)) is Charlie the only one notable for being shot? Are any of them notable as shooters? If the answer to either is yes, is Charlie the primary topic? Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
    I did find DaBaby#Legal issues for "Kirk shot", there are probably other examples of this as well, but nothing else for "Kirk shooting". It also seems clear that the assassination article would be primary topic. CNC (talk) 13:07, 26 September 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).

Utah valley shooting

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 3#Utah valley shooting

Spatial singularity

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 between consarn and consarn, without prejudice to retargeting wherever or renominating immediately if anyone forms a stronger opinion. Rusalkii (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

while it's probably easy enough to figure out that a reader might want to see gravitational singularity (hence starting off with a suggestion to retarget to it), it doesn't seem to be a distinction without a difference, as singularities don't seem to be necessarily limited black holes, and spatial singularities (whatever those are, neither target defines them directly) don't seem be the exact same thing as gravitational singularities, so... what should be done with this? should anything be done with it? have i just come down with a terminal case of dumb? consarn (grave) (obituary) 14:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 25 September 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).

Immgration

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Recently created redirect in response to this rfd yesterday. Doesn’t seem like a likely typo. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete. This doesn't seem particularly common or noteworthy as a typo. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep typo by ommission of a single character, a common form of typo. This particular typo seems to bring up a lot of results in a basic web search -- 65.93.183.109 (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as likely useful typo. Respublik (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recently created and no reason to keep. CycloneYoris talk! 22:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete recently created per Cyclone. Our search suggestions from typos do a good job, so we needn't create typo redirects like how we used to years back. I don't see how this was connected to the rfd yesterday per nom though. Jay 💬 08:39, 3 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).

Ford Frick*

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 23:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

A stylization with no mention in the article, seemingly based on a controversy. The only usage I could find was in the title of a biography. — Hydrogenation (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete* I love Roger Maris and it was a pretty bad decision by Frick to be so biased, but a feud from 64 years ago does not need to be relitigated in wikipedia redirects. There is no possible instance where I can see someone seeing "Ford Frick*" and being confused as to who that is referring to. This is in essence an WP:RNEUTRAL and doesn't need to exist. Casablanca 🪨(T) 01:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
delete per above, and if not retarget to the controversy Oreocooke (talk) 19:56, 30 September 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).

Slash cities

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 23:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Improper title formatting. A cursory Google search seems to imply that these aren't used in sources (compared to, e.g., Biel/Bienne or Derry/Londonderry). — Hydrogenation (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. These slash names adding the Welsh name aren't really used as these places are in England where the Welsh name is not an official name, and less likely to be used as a slash name. Unlikely to be a search terms. Existing redirects (Rhedynfre) and hatnotes should be enough. DankJae 10:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
delete all and especially the one without a space (per nom) Oreocooke (talk) 19:57, 30 September 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).

Bunny wabbit

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 5#Bunny wabbit

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/retarget. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Criteria R8, unlikely and implausible search terms. From what I can tell from experience, we simply don't do such rds. Gotitbro (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  • weak keep they seem to he correct, and get people where they want to go. Though "shooter" could be retargetted to Assassination of Charlie Kirk. "Wife" was a particularly common manner of address in the 20th century. Wife of Charlie Kirk and Mrs. Charlie Kirk would also be one of those forms. -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Charlie Kirk's wife" and "Charlie Kirk shooter" are pretty common from what I've seen because people often search for information about a persons spouse or an individual involved in a specific event by using a descriptive phrase rather than a proper name. Deleting them would only make it harder for people to find information they’re looking for. WhatADrag07 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
"harder for people to find information": Not really, at the the end of the day we aren't Google. Gotitbro (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Agree, keep "Charlie Kirk's wife". I arrived here after searching on literally that term expecting to get details of his wife.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep the wife and retarget the shooter
Czarking0 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget (speedily) shooter per others, same reason as speedily closed #Kirk shooter above. Delete wife redirect as a bad case of WP:BIOFAMILY with there not being something encyclopedic worthy between Kirk and his wife and an improper usage as no incoming links demonstrates and could also be shorthand for f.e. funeral speech. Respublik (talk) 07:52, 2 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).

Land-Tenure in the Christian Era

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The word "Christian" is nowhere in the target article, meaning that the potential subtopic which this redirect represents is not adequately (or even) defined in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Soft Keep It's a redirect from the Catholic Encyclopedia lists Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics/L — Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 11:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry acknowledges that this points to the general article on Land tenure. That list includes other red links, appropriately. We typically delete redirects that are in use in a few places but don't have a good target. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: One of a number of poorly designed redirects with unlikely search titles recently created by this editor. The target is apt, but the redirect itself is almost inhibitive to a reader getting to the article directly. The redirect does not serve a meaningful role as a placeholder for a potential article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:53, 28 September 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).

WasabiXML

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#WasabiXML

Slaveowner

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 all to slavery. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

These should point at the same target. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Information Note: Slave master, slavemaster, and slave-holder all redirect to Slavery; while slaveholder redirects List of slave owners. Should these be added to the listing? I don't think there's enough distinction between all these terms that they would point to different targets. @ArthananWarcraft --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I've now added Slave-holder, Slaveholder and some others to the list. There is also a dabpage titled Enslavers which might be a better target for Enslaver. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I would say that all redirects should be targeted at slavery. The outlier makes no sense to be redirected to a different page. Felicia (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Target all → List of slave owners. These are all terms for a particular role in slavery and should point somewhere specific rather than the broad coverage at Slavery. There's also the Enslavers dab page which I would cover to a redirect; a hatnote pointing to StarCraft (video game)#Computer expansions could be added to List of slave owners. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
    No objection to Slavery. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  • retargert all to slavery. Enslaver is not the same as slave-owner, and neither is slave-holder. Enslaver can be slave-catchers. And slave supervisors can be assigned rights as slave-holders, who do not actually own the slaves. Renting out and borrowing slaves did exist. Slave catchers frequently aren't the slave owners, but they did enslave the people they caught, when getting fresh new slaves. -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
    Many dictionaries and usage notes define these terms as synonymous and the usage in Slavery reflects this or at least does not consistently make these distinctions. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
    The list article is not appropriate target because it is not a definitive list. It is not like a political office that would be a definitive list. Thus the only article available is the base article. Unless someone wants to add a large intro section about what a slave owner is, and how it can be variously defined, the list is not a proper target. The list is also vastly biased for the European colonial era. There are so many slaves in antiquity, and in non-European cultures, that the list isn't even funny in its focus. Even Biblical slave owners like Abraham are missing. -- 65.93.183.109 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    Fair points. Slavery is a reasonable target for all. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to slavery since people are more likely to be looking for information about the practice of slave owning, IMO, than a list of people who owned slaves. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to slavery. The List of slave owners is a valid directory of documented, notable slave owners, but probably isn't what someone searching for a more generic topic is looking for. pburka (talk) 02:41, 3 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).

99 Nights in the Forest

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Redirect was created when an entry for the subject with this title was added to List of Roblox games. However, that subject completely fails the inclusion criteria of that list, and has been removed and discussed before. For now, the subject is not on the page, and redirects should not exist to pages that do not mention the subject or offer any sort of substitution. λ NegativeMP1 17:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Brookhaven RP redirects to List of Roblox games because its a roblox game and so is this redirect for the same reason, so why shouldnt this redirect be kept AquilatorG10   Talk   Contribs  17:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Because Brookhaven RP is a game that is on the list, and meets the list criteria. The redirect makes sense because it goes to a section talking about it. This game does not. λ NegativeMP1 17:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
oh i forgot 99 nights got removed. AquilatorG10   Talk   Contribs  18:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:1B56:14B9:F321:AFC6 (talk) 23:08, 27 September 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 botanical cryptids

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 23:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete. The list does not contain any plants. This was retargeted here on the basis that the list previously included "umdhlebi" and man-eating plant. These are no longer included and are not described as "cryptids" in their respective articles. List of legendary creatures by type#Creatures associated with plants and List of fictional plants are poor targets. Their content and descriptions do not align with the concept of "cryptid". --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete. It was created in 2010 to redirect to Cryptobotany (Internet Archive). The content of the Cryptobotany article was deleted in 2016 and Cryptobotany was changed to a redirect to Cryptozoology. There was never a List of botanical cryptids article but there is currently Category:Mythological plants which serves the same purpose. 5Q5|✉ 11:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
    I know you are not suggesting this, but since someone might, I would object to retargeting this to Category:Mythological plants. These don't serve quite the same purpose although if "botanical cryptid" were a valid category there would be some shared entries. The relationship between cryptids and legendary or mythological creatures, creatures from folklore, etc. is a frequent source of disputes at List of cryptids. Any redirect target that treats these terms as synonymous is misleading. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:R: "Redirects from list titles to categories are highly discouraged." 5Q5|✉
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).

Paradote

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#Paradote

Mike Jack

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#Mike Jack

Wigan Athletic F.C. 8–0 Hull City A.F.C.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#Wigan Athletic F.C. 8–0 Hull City A.F.C.

Kha'y

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Kha'y

Bladed article

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 Offensive weapon#Bladed article defences. Consensus is that the term is roughly UK-specific and that the section is an appropriate target. I note that the term is an odd enough construction that it seems likely to be mostly used in a legal context. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

defined, seemingly primarily in uk law, as "any article (object) with a blade". this means knives are counted, sure... but so are arrows, spears, inordinately sharp sporks, saws, glaives, great swords, axes, and glass shards. so... retarget to blade, even in absence of a definition of the term in wikipedia (at least that i could find)? consarn (grave) (obituary) 16:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

and as it turns out, i seem to have a case of the Big Dumb™. the term is actually defined at offensive weapon#bladed article defences... but i also don't think that'd be a fitting target, because it only defines the term in the context of doing weapon things with them, so it doesn't really change my suggestion consarn (grave) (obituary) 16:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • retarget to blade ; "bladed article" literally means "bladed thing", which is not UK-specific -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe, but the phrase seems to be UK-specific. That, and the word "article" is nowhere in Blade. Steel1943 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, and it seems to always be specific to the particular legal classification, regulations, etc. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:34, 4 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).

Cape Verde national cricket team

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 15:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Unlike the redirects mentioned at #Algeria national cricket team there is content relevant to cricket at the target here in the "Other sports" section (which is why I'm not bundling it), however it doesn't mention there being a national cricket team, let alone give any encyclopaedic information about it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 25 September 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).

2 redirects to a fangame that is barely mentioned the target yayy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#2 redirects to a fangame that is barely mentioned the target yayy

Algeria national cricket team

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 15:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Cricket isn't mentioned in any of the target pages. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Note I've added Comoros national cricket team as it is also not mentioned on the target page (which doesn't have a sports section). — Hydrogenation (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Thryduulf. — Hydrogenation (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. Vestrian24Bio 02:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to delete these – there appears to be no notable content to write about. If a team does appear and there is notable content, we can create an article Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:25, 30 September 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 Victorian newspapers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#List of Victorian newspapers

Acidic acid

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 💬 07:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I would like this to redirect to Acetic acid like it did originally, since that is what I was looking for when I typed it in. However, I can see the logic in acidic acid pointing to acid, but I question how many people really would type in "acidic acid" and want to just read about acids in general. Tideflat (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete, neither target is particularly reasonable. "Acidic" and "acetic" are completely separate words, and "acidic acid" is otherwise vague...it seems unlikely for simply "acid". Maybe pH? Maybe some other measure of acidity? Best to just delete this as confusing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The current situation (which I caused) is neither useful nor conventional – we don't have salty salt etc. Search suggests that it's not a common typo for acetic, so {{R from misspelling}} may mislead when the phrase is the correct spelling of something different. Certes (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to acetic acid. This is an honest mishearing/mispelling based on the pronunciation of 'acetic'. The nomination shows it has utility and so, some amount of likelihood for WP:RPURPOSE. If others feel this redirect is too confusing then delete it of course. It just gets a pass for me. ⇌ Synpath 13:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget back to acetic acid or delete. I believe this is a plausible phonetic misspelling of acetic acid, i.e. someone hearing "acetic acid" and being unfamiliar with the terminology, hears "acidic" instead of acetic. But I also am not sure how useful it is and there is risk of confusion here. Definitely do not keep- we don't have basic base and we shouldn't have this redirect to acid. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delety delete. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as potentially confusing, and an unlikely typo for acetic. I also considered the possibility that this could be interpreted as strong acidstrong acid (and thus retargeted to Acid strength#Strong acids to avoid the double redirect) but a quick search didn't find any evidence of that usage. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague and potentially misleading. This is a plausible misspelling or eggcorn for acetic acid. However, it's possible someone could be looking for strong acid or perhaps superacid or simply acid or some other concept. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:40, 25 September 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).

Fernwood Park

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

represents a city park in Chicago but redirect had no info about the park itself Nickvet419 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep without prejudice to adding content about the park. This is a plausible search term for the housing development discussed at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC) See updated !vote below. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A1Cafel (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambig. Having done some more searching for this, the primary topic in my results was very clearly a caravan park in Shropshire followed by a housing development near Newark-on-Trent (presumably in Fernwood, Nottinghamshire but neither appear to be encyclopaedically notable. Of the topics that are on Wikipedia, the Chcicago city park, New York historical district and Fernwood Park race riot (which pipes "Fernwood Park" to Roseland, Chicago#Fernwood) are all about equal. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambig per Thryduulf. Katiedevi (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to consider the suggestion to disambiguate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Drafted the dab. Jay 💬 16:23, 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).

Phantom Luna

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

No mention anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Previous article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Phantom Luna. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep, these are possible search term and redirects are cheap. TarnishedPathtalk 11:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    The fact that this is a possible search term only makes this redirect more unhelpful, since anybody searching for this will not find the content they are looking for at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as unhelpful. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Jay 💬 16:51, 6 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).

Nike CTR360 Maestri

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Only passing mentions for "CTR360" on the English Wikipedia; no mention at target. Article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike CTR360 Maestri. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep, this is a possible search term and redirects are cheap. TarnishedPathtalk 11:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    The fact that this is a possible search term only makes this redirect more unhelpful, since anybody searching for this will not find the content they are looking for at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unhelpful redirect that does not provide additional information about the topic. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Jay 💬 16:51, 6 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).

Independent house

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. Given that Mycetae's !vote came in before Thryduulf's search-result-based comment, I think this is no clear consensus. We can speculate on the precise meaning plenty, but unfortunately this is a case where we can't read readers' minds. Since the current target is undesireable, I'm retargetting to "Single-family detached home" as an ATD. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The word "independent" is nowhere in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete could be referring to an independent household, off-the-grid survivalist independence, or a family (house) that is independant of an ancestral house -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
    Those are all theoretical uses, but I didn't find any evidence that the term is used in that way in practice to any significant level. In real-world usage there is a single clear primary topic, and I see no reason why we shouldn't redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 26 September 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 war in Ukraine

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 wars involving Ukraine. -- Tavix (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Could mix up with Russo-Ukrainian War which started in 2014 A1Cafel (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine to match Invasion of UkraineInvasion of Ukraine. If that term is ambiguous, so is this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    I assume the main ambiguity of the "invasion" redirect stems from the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and 2014 invasion of Crimea. Here, Russo-Ukrainian War appears to be the unambiguous primary topic and the correct target (with the hatnote that is currently in place). 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see what's unambiguous about it being the PTOPIC. Literally the most important war in human history took place (partly) in Ukraine. Thus if anything World War II in Ukraine would be the PTOPIC. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think it would be as commonly referred to as just the "War in Ukraine" out of context, mainly because it did not only happen in Ukraine. Web search results are certainly biased towards recent events (and only show results related to the Russo-Ukrainian War), but I think I remember RfDs with similarly biased outcomes. In any case, I have bundled seven similar redirects into this nomination, and would not feel too strongly about retargeting all to List of wars involving Ukraine. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to "Russo-Ukrainian War". This is the correct target, per above. I can understand Ms Tamzin's opinion about the potential ambiguity of these titles, but I do not think any other potential wars are actually called 'war in Ukraine' in practice, except in a purely descriptive manner. The current war, ongoing since 2014, is sometimes referred to as the 'war in Ukraine' in mass-media sources. If we think of the reader first, a redirect seems most appropiate. Any potential confusion can be stemmed with a hatnote to List of wars involving Ukraine at the target page. RGloucester — ☎ 23:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Except for two participants, all !voted when the nomination had only two entries. Pinging them for their opinion on the next 7 that were added, or to review their existing opinion on the first 2: A1Cafel, Toddy1, Hurricane Clyde, JasonMacker, and Tamzin. Jay 💬 15:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep on all per recent RM discussion. There is one thing that has changed since the nomination first went out that I think everyone should be aware of. The article: Russian Invasion of Ukraine was recently nominated in an RM discussion and the result of it was that they moved it to Russo–Ukrainian War (2022–present). As such, my !vote has changed to a "weak keep". As for why it is weak? I would still support retargeting to list of wars involving Ukraine article as an alternative to keeping them as is. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist so people can respond to Jay's ping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:39, 25 September 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).

Locked page

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 deleted by ERcheck as a G7. Jay 💬 14:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete WP:XNR to non-reader content. This is not content for the readership. Locked pages occur in memory management, and in word processing, and on non-Wikipedia websites; so this is wildly misleading. 65.93.183.181 (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree 186.52.242.28 (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm yes delete. I just requested G7. S0091 (talk) 14:42, 25 September 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).

Doctor Ivo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#Doctor Ivo

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks