Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2026.

Herscu

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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This could also refer to Jonah Herscu, who is the head coach of Rip City Remix. I would suggest setindexifying it. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 23:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Conventionally, only articles matter for set-index purposes. There's only one article with "Herscu" in its title, so this redirects there. Nevertheless, there's a case here that search results are more helpful. J947 ‡ edits 02:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    • I did see a few set-indexed pages having redirects, so I thought there could be a chance that Jonah has a redirect, and then Herscu can be turned into that type of page. He is mentioned at a few targets on here, which means creating a redirect does seem possible (if I'm understanding this correctly). There's a chance "Herscu" may come off as confusing, as Jonah appears to be the more common topic here. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 04:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
      • That's a good idea when there's lots of mentions able to be included (though again, a bit unconventional). If it's a stretch to include more than George and Jonah, then a hatnote will suffice. J947 ‡ edits 05:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jonah Herscu is mentioned on a number of pages but none are suitable redirect targets since they are passing mentions with no substantive biographical information. There's also Herșcu Aroneanu mentioned and red-linked at Francisc Rainer, People's Party (Romania, 1918–38), Barbu Lăzăreanu, and N. D. Cocea. Search is better here and will help readers locate these and the other one-off Herscus I found mentioned in other articles. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, see my comment below. --Altenmann >talk 19:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Comment : Herșcu/Herșco is a Romanian-language diminutive for the name Herschel or Hersh when belonged to Romanian Azhkenazi Jews, similar to Hershke. It can also be used as a surname. It produced patronymic surname Herșcovici, akin to a bunch of other, see Hershkowitz. Not to say about Hershko. Possibly I will write a "given name" article for all this. --Altenmann >talk 19:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 23:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep if George is the only notable person otherwise disambiguate if there are multiple. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2026 (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).

Pope Trump

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 AI-generated content in American politics#Election campaigns. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 02:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The word Pope is not mentioned. People may also be looking for relationships between both, such as in Holy See–United States relations § 1984–present or Rationale for the 2026 Iran war § Religious criticisms. Skemous (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Oppose deletion fwiw, but would support a redirect change if there's any consensus for such. Btw, this is obviously a reference to this heretical AI slop Yacàwotçã (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    If it’s a reference to something that is not significant enough to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, why do you oppose deletion? Delete as no appropriate target exists. I2Overcome talk 11:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    See below. Also redirects are cheap and that's a possible search term. But doesn't surprise me at all Yacàwotçã (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmentioned, with no clear connection to the target (or any target). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    Updating to retarget per TN and CE below; that does seem like a reasonable alternative instead. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: I created this redirect, and it is no longer mentioned at the original target. Redirect to AI-generated content in American politics, where the incident in question is briefly mentioned at the subheading "Election campaigns" and we could also attach the file that was provided in one of the comments above. TNstingray (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to AI-generated content in American politics#Election campaigns per TNstingray. A Trump Pope is mentioned in that section, and this is a plausible search term for readers looking for that information. Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Nom here. I agree with retargeting per above. Skemous (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: There are a couple plausible retargeting options, but this is a redirect based off an unlikely search term with minimal navigational value. The only articles where this term could plausibly be used don't use sources that use this term. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2026 (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).

Greater America

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 20#Greater America

Third Gulf War

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 Gulf War (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 02:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

It appears sources are now sporadically using this term to describe the current Iran war (, , ), and it seems reasonable to accordingly retarget this redirect there. I could see how this might look like recentism, but it's unclear what else would be the "Third Gulf War" if not this. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep, at least for now. Based on the target, there are at lefourtast four conflicts that could be regarded as the third gulf war. At present I'm not seeing a primary topic for the search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf, if you're referring to the DAB page, most of the entries are from before the original Gulf War. There's one that took place in the immediate aftermath of the First Gulf War, but it seems dubious that this internal Iraqi conflict was ever described as a "Gulf War" (no source is provided for any of the entries). In any case, "Second Gulf War" is overwhelming understood to refer to the war that began with the 2003 US invasion, and this recent conflict is the only one listed that has occurred after the "Second Gulf War". — An anonymous username, not my real name 14:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    That assumes that everyone searching for this term is also familiar with what people mean by a different term, and I don't think we can be sure of that, especially as Second gulf war also targets the dab page (Second Gulf War targets Iraq War though, so see separate nomination shortly). Regardless though of whether the "Second" has a primary topic, it's clear from search results that the "Third" does not (yet). Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    Looking at sources from between the invasion of Iraq and this recent war, I see three specifically using this term to describe a hypothetical war with Iran (one during the buildup to the current conflict, one in the context of the Twelve-Day War (describing a hypothetical escalation), one from several years earlier). The National Interest has been using this tag on articles on similar scenarios for years. It seems rather uncanny that they all essentially describe this conflict before it even happened — and of course, there are a great many more using this descriptor now. As a sidenote, I cannot imagine that the Iraq War wouldn't be the primary topic for the Second Gulf War, but I suppose we'll see. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    Making it explicit that I believe Gulf War III and Third Persian Gulf War should be retargetted to the disambiguation page. That three different redirects for variants of the same term have been created with three different targets strengthens the case for there being no primary topic imo. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like fairly niche use so far to me, considering the breadth of coverage of the conflict. The Iran-Iraq war is sometimes referred to as the first Gulf War, so there would need to be much more widespread use to make the current war primary topic. Need for DAB is clear. —BrechtBro (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reason as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 6#Second gulf war. A bunch of Google Scholar results that refer to the Iraq War by this term. There might be some influence from other languages, as German calls the 1990/91 Gulf War the second one. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep with no prejudice to retarget in, say, a few weeks' time especially if more countries get involved. Passengerpigeon (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note I've just added Gulf War III to this nomination as it should have the same target as Third Gulf War, regardless of what that target is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Third Persian Gulf War redirects to Iraq War. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    • I've added that redirect to this discussion as it should have the same target as the other two. We should pick one as primary and mark the other two as {{R avoided double redirect}} of it to keep them in sync in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note comments above saying "Keep" refer to the first nominated redirect only. @Passengerpigeon, 1234qwer1234qwer4, BrechtBro, and An anonymous username, not my real name: Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    Target all to Gulf War (disambiguation) —BrechtBro (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep because the name is relevant. SavagePanda845 (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting following User talk:Thepharoah17#Third Gulf War.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: where should these all target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note While this discussion was reopened, from the initial close until now these redirects were not tagged for being at RfD. Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Just disambiguate them all by retargeting the outliers to Gulf War (disambiguation). --Joy (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:47, 12 April 2026 (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).

Minor Dalek variants and terms

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 except for Suonii180's retargeting suggestions. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

These are minor or unclear Dalek variant redirects leftover from the recent consensus to redirect Dalek variants to Dalek. These are minor variants unmentioned in major sources that don't currently have a place to be sent to, and thus are better off deleted for the time being. There are also some terms in here without much place elsewhere. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete all apart from New Dalek Empire which could be retargeted to Dalek#Revived Era as the rebuilding of the empire is mentioned there and The New Daleks which could be retargeted to Dalek#2010s and redesigns. Suonii180 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:35, 12 April 2026 (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).

Terrell Carter

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) 17:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The actor is listed as a cast member but there is zero biographical information at the target, nor would this be an appropriate place to expand coverage. He is mentioned in numerous articles about other TV shows, movies, and plays he has appeared in. Terrell Campbell is also listed as a song writer at multiple articles including Tevin Campbell (album), MK (record producer), and others. There are also student athletes named Terrell Carter, who I think are different people, listed at several articles including 2014–15 Fresno State Bulldogs men's basketball team, 2020 Southeastern Louisiana Lions football team and others. The actor–songwriter is potentially notable, in which case WP:RETURNTORED applies. Either way, redirecting to his most recent role is arbitrary and obscures the breadth of coverage about his work across Wikipedia. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Basically, you demonstrated it needs to be a dab page, not a deleted page. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
What would go on the dab page? There is at least one Terrell Carter, mentioned in dozens of articles, but who has no article of his own. There is also one or more college athlete with the same name. They are less likely to be notable and also don't have their own articles. A list of Terrell Carter's credits, none of which are works titled Terrell Carter, would be totally in appropriate for a Terrell Carter dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
You said it:
Terrell Carter may refer to:
Such pages are not forbidden. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
I intentionally didn't mention Playboi Carti, who to my knowledge is not referred to as "Terrell Carter" alone. Terrell Carter the songwriter/vocalist and Terrell Carter the actor are the same person. Why associate Terrell Carter with only one of his credits and not all the others that have articles? A performer with dozens of credits should not be arbitrarily linked to just one on a dab page. Deleting would reveal the breadth of coverage in 40+ articles and may encourage article creation per WP:RETURNTORED and WP:REDLINK (although incoming links would need to be reviewed and many more could be added to the numerous articles where the performer is mentioned). Also, the two non-notable college athletes are listed in more than one article, for different seasons, so I'm not sure what basis there would be for selecting one article over the other for each of them. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the best solution is after some researching. Google searches showed mostly results about the actor. However, searches throughout Wikimedia projects showed that it mostly refers to the basketball player: see in Italian Wikipedia, in Russian Wikipedia, and on Wikimedia Commons. Wikidata has two items, one for the basketball player and one for the actor. All links in articles refer to basketball, probably for the basketball player mentioned. WP:RETURNTORED may not be a good idea since it's hard to tell whether someone who eventually comes to create an article about someone named "Terrell Carter" would most likely write about the basketball player (for consistency with itwiki, etc.), the actor (first results from searching), or someone else. There might be a way to work this out, but I'm not sure and don't have an official suggestion yet. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    There are just three links from articles, all referring to the basketball player—I assume the same former college player but I haven't verified this. However, the actor/vocalist/songwriter is mentioned in many more articles and could/should be linked. Mass-linking him now might be disruptive and may create a need for major cleanup depending on how this closes. But I don't think the small number of incoming links tell us much other than the association made by one or a handful of basketball readers. This redirect had zero views in the last 90 days, until yesterday when I started looking into this, so there doesn't appear to be much organic search interest in "Terrell Carter" and the basketball links don't drive traffic, despite some of the articles receiving a lot of pageviews. WikiNav for the basketball articles does show that they drive traffic to other player articles. I take your point about WP:RETURNTORED, but the linking appears to be an artifact of the basketball player being listed in a few articles where every player name is linked, and not reflective of actual usage in English-language sources on or off en-wiki. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    I feel like the main issue is that the basketball player "Terrell Carter" is already used in a few places. People who play sports are more likely to be linked than actors, but this isn't the only place where "Terrell Carter" is involved. Since the Italian Wikipedia has an article about the American basketball player (emphasis on American, so affiliated with English language) at it:Terrell Carter, and Wikimedia Commons has a category about the same person at c:Category:Terrell Carter, it may possibly be confusing for different Wikipedias to have different people with the same name since it's possible for someone to think these people are the same (even though they aren't). Even though the actor Terrell Carter is more popular, we have more information on the basketball player on Wikidata. This only adds to the confusion on what the purpose of the page Terrell Carter should be, which I'm unsure what it should be. Mathguy2718 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
    The only sensible thing to do is delete. Articles can be created for either Terrell Carter at any time and, in the event that they both end up with articles, they can be disambiguated appropriately. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it is now, this redirect just gets in the way of the search engine. If there are two or more possible topics, and two or more possible targets for each but nothing substantial at any of them, it's misleading to point readers to just one when the search engine would give readers multiple choices. The ideal solution would be to create stubs at Terrell Carter (actor) and Terrell Carter (basketball), at least, assuming they're notable, and then make Terrell Carter a dab page. Station1 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:00, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as best option, despite the issues raised that someone creating the article could mix up multiple persons, and there can be some caution needed to link to commons or other language wikipedias. Shazback (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2026 (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).

Anna Kang

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 20#Anna Kang

Iphone 4.0.1

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. Left guide (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Iphone 4.0.1 is needed because there are 0 page views and its a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 15:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. Conflating iPhone 4 and iOS 4 can only lead to confusion. No articles mention this version of the phone. - Eureka Lott 18:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Eureka Lott. At best, this redirect is misleading. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2026 (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).

Conmhaícne

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 unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This redirect and all other redirects with 'Conmhaícne…' titles

See talk:Conmaicne. These are all misspellings originating from Wikipedia and many are completely unattested interpretations/plain misinformation by the same user. Additionally, redirects which should be included in this mass deletion are:

Once these are deleted I will create any required redirects e.g. accented vs unaccented forms, modern Irish spellings, etc. Though there will likely be a bit more clean up. Saighneánach (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: tagged the other pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
@Saighneánach: you need to tag all the pages with RfD templates. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
@Voorts: I think that’s sorted now? Saighneánach (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 15:42, 12 April 2026 (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).

Control commission

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 20#Control commission

Score (magazine)

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. Left guide (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Currently this is a redirect to a publisher of a niche American porn mag of unclear notability; the target section no longer exists. The name is more likely valid for a Czech video game magazine: cs:Score (časopis) which seems notable (dozen refs; over 20 years of history and still ongoing).This should likely be a red link until the magazine entry is translated from Czech Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 12 April 2026 (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).

55 Cancri h

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) 17:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No mention at target. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_2#55_Cancri_i. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Jay 💬 06:01, 20 April 2026 (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).

Bruce Perreault

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 Survivor 45. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 02:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

IMO, should be redirected to Survivor 45, where his role was bigger there as a returnee. In Survivor 44, he was the first out... well, medically evacuated due to injury. Also, the 45 article mentions his prior 44 gameplay adequately, IMO. George Ho (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2026 (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).

Semi-decidable

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 to create a disambiguation page or merge articles. There's very little discussion and zero agreement about what to do with the redirects left behind so I don't feel I can find any conclusion other than the status quo, however it might displease the nominator. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 02:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

These should lead to the same target. Some discussion has previously occurred at Talk:Semi-decidable. For comparison, Undecidable is a disambiguation page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 20:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Create a disambiguation page at semidecidable or semidecidability (the spelling with a dash seems to be less common), retarget all others to it. The disambiguation page should have links to Decidability (logic)#Semidecidability, Recursively enumerable language and Computably enumerable set (but no other pages; Undecidable problem isn't appropriate). These three are related but separate subjects. I think none of them can claim to be the "main" kind of semidecidability. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
    I hope it's ok if I ping a few users who seem to be around and have contributed to these or related articles: @D.Lazard, @David Eppstein, @Jochen Burghardt: What do you think? (I bet there are many others, but I'm not very active in that area...) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
    As I just wrote on the talk page: I don't understand what distinction is being made here. Decision problems (as specifications of which inputs should have the answer yes and which no), languages (sets of strings, the strings for which the answer should be yes), and sets (maybe of natural numbers rather than strings) are all equivalent formalizations of the same concept. Why do we have three different link targets, none of which clearly state that these are all equivalent ways of thinking about the same thing? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
    I replied at Talk:Semi-decidable#What is the best redirect target? — Chrisahn (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaving a note for WP:WPMATH asking for input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
  1. Semidecidable has the most incoming links (7, second place belongs to Semi-decidable with 4).
  2. This is used much more commonly as an adjective than as a noun in our existing articles, in a hypothetical article about semi(-)decidable problems, and, according to Ngram, in books.
  3. The variants without a hyphen are the only ones used in the current link targets. We should either hyphenate this everywhere or nowhere.
As D.Lazard pointed out here, it would be good to have an article on Semidecidable problem, and once we do, it might become the primary topic. If that happens, we can move the disambiguation page to Semidecidable (disambiguation), retarget everything to Semidecidable problem, and include a hatnote there. Personally, I'm against this idea. Anyone who uses the search box for "semidecidable" will immediately see Semidecidable problem thanks to the autocomplete, and these redirects could cause editors to link to the wrong article by accident.
David Eppstein and Chrisahn noted here that we could at some point turn Semidecidability into an article about the general concept, and maybe even merge some or all of the link targets into it. If that happens, obviously we should retarget everything there. Streded (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for draft of DAB page and to remove from old log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 15:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Draft started at Semidecidable. David Eppstein, maybe you can help clean it up. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
    So now we have separate content forks at semidecidable, recursively enumerable language, and computably enumerable set, all of which concern the same topic? How is creating yet another content fork an improvement? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    Recursively enumerable language is the original article, which has history dating to June 2002.
    Computably enumerable set was started by Michael Hardy @1 October 2003.
    On 9 November 2004, User:MathMartin did a "Complete rewrite of recursively enumerable language. Most content in the article was not directly relevant and is better covered at recursively enumerable set".
    Q. what's the difference between recursively enumerable language and a recursively enumerable set?
    A. (ChatGPT) Short answer: there’s essentially no difference—they refer to the same idea, just from slightly different viewpoints.
    Core idea: Both terms come from computability theory and describe collections of objects that a Turing machine can list or recognize.
    A recursively enumerable set is:
    • A set of objects (usually strings or natural numbers)
    • For which there exists a Turing machine that:
      • Enumerates all elements in the set (possibly with repetition), OR
      • Accepts any element in the set (halts and says “yes”), but may run forever if the element is not in the set
    A recursively enumerable language is:
    • A set of strings over some alphabet
    • With exactly the same property:
      • There exists a Turing machine that accepts all strings in the language (and may loop forever on non-members)
    So what’s the difference? It’s mostly terminology and context:
    • “Set” → more general (could be numbers, encodings, etc.)
    • “Language” → specifically a set of strings (used in formal language theory)
    In fact: Every recursively enumerable language is a recursively enumerable set, and vice versa (if you encode elements as strings).
    Think of it this way:
    • A language is just a set of strings
    • “Recursively enumerable” describes how that set can be generated or recognized
    So the two phrases describe the same property, just applied to slightly different types of objects. The real conceptual jump happens in how this differs from decidable (recursive) languages. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    It is not appropriate to redirect this page to "recursively enumerable language", since that is not what "recursively enumerable" usually refers to, and is only a special case of a more general idea. – Michael Hardy 20:52, 30 September 2003
    Should we merge these articles to Recursively enumerableRecursively enumerable or Semidecidable? wbm1058 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    I don't think it's important which name we choose as primary. There is actually a conceptual difference between semidecision algorithms (which answer yes or no and might not ever halt if the answer is no) and enumeration algorithms (which take no input and list the strings for which the answer is yes) but the sets they define are the same because one kind of algorithm is very easily converted into the other (as a merged article should discuss). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    Q. What's the difference between "recursively enumerable" and "semidecidable"?
    A. (ChatGPT) There’s no difference in meaning—the terms are equivalent, just emphasizing different viewpoints.
    In computability theory:
    Recursively enumerable (RE) focuses on generation:
    A set/language is RE if a Turing machine can
    • enumerate (list) all its elements, possibly with repetition, possibly never halting overall
    Semidecidable focuses on decision/recognition:
    A set/language is semidecidable if a Turing machine:
    • halts and accepts when the input is in the set
    • may run forever when the input is not in the set
    • If you can enumerate elements, you can check whether a given input appears in the list → accept if it does (semidecision) – “Recursively enumerable” = “I can eventually list all members”
    • If you can semidecide, you can run the machine on all possible inputs in parallel and output the ones it accepts → enumeration – “Semidecidable” = “I can confirm membership, but might never reject”
    – wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: fifth relist to hopefully resolve this. @David Eppstein & @wbm1058: The page that's drafted at semidecidable is not a DAB. If you want to create an article, you can do that separately from RfD, but I can't close this as disambiguate without an actual dab draft.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
@Voorts: You can't close this as disambiguate, because there is no consensus to disambiguate. The guys you should ping are those who suggested disambiguation. They need to explain how they would disambiguate all the links I listed above which would require disambiguation if this was closed as an ambiguous topic. I don't really want to create a new article; I think articles should be merged, so I guess the way forward may be to close this as no consensus, and then put two or three articles up for deletion with the hope that we can figure out how to merge them. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Q. what's the difference between recursively enumerable language and a recursively enumerable set?
A. (ChatGPT) Short answer: there’s essentially no difference—they refer to the same idea, just from slightly different viewpoints.
Recursively enumerable language is currently an article. Recursively enumerable setRecursively enumerable set redirects to Computably enumerable set.
Q. what's the difference between a recursively enumerable set and a computably enumerable set?
A. (ChatGPT) There's no difference—the terms recursively enumerable (r.e.) set and computably enumerable (c.e.) set refer to the same concept in computability theory.
The difference is purely terminology and historical preference:
  • Recursively enumerable (r.e.)
    • Older term, coming from early recursion theory.
    • Emphasizes definitions using recursive functions.
  • Computably enumerable (c.e.)
    • More modern term.
    • Emphasizes the notion of computation (algorithms, Turing machines).
Q. what's the difference between a recursively enumerable language and a computably enumerable set?
A. (ChatGPT) In practice, there's no real difference in computational meaning—the distinction is about what kind of objects you're talking about.
A recursively enumerable language is just a computably enumerable set viewed as strings instead of numbers. Same concept, different viewpoint. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
If you don't really want to create a new article, why did you draft one? I'm very confused by what's happening in this RfC. The ChatGPT conversations are not helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
David Eppstein and Chrisahn noted here that we could at some point turn Semidecidability into an article about the general concept, and maybe even merge some or all of the link targets into it. If that happens, obviously we should retarget everything there. Streded (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
– including recursively enumerable language and computably enumerable set.
I'm sick of editors who make low-level, extremely specific articles and then demand disambiguation of broad concepts. Maybe there's a need for a low-level article (I'm skeptical in this case, given how simply ChatGPT describes the minor distinctions), but the priority should be to write the broad-concept article first. I just spent the better part of a day on disambiguation of dozens of links to Constituent Assembly of Nepal. That was functionally equivalent to declaring United States Congress to be an ambiguous topic, and demanding disambiguation to 119th United States Congress, 118th United States Congress, 117th United States Congress, etc.
Ngram points to "recursively enumerable" as the more common term, not "semidecidable".
I find it odd to see so many links to "semidecidable" on Wikipedia, while the Ngram shows this to be an infrequently-used term, and Britannica doesn't have anything at all on the topic:
Britannica AI: The term "semidecidability" is not explicitly defined in the provided search results. However, the concept of "undecidable" is discussed.
An undecidable proposition or problem is one that is not capable of being decided or determined. In the context of algorithms and computability, a problem is considered decidable if an algorithm exists that can produce a yes or no answer in a finite number of steps. This is also known as a decision procedure.
Conversely, if an algorithm cannot exist for solving an infinite class of problems, or if a determination procedure never ends, the problem is undecidable. The concept of undecidability is closely related to the work of mathematicians like Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing, whose development of the Turing machine provided a rigorous definition of an algorithm and computability, leading to proofs that undecidable propositions must exist.
Would you like to explore the concept of decidability and undecidability in more detail? – wbm1058 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2026 (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).

Trump and Zelenskyy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 19#Trump and Zelenskyy

Seoul.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 19#Seoul.

Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Law

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. Jay 💬 11:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

As for Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Law, the current title is Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Act, so this redirect is useless. UnilandofmaTalk 12:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: These are three unrelated redirects so I'm splitting up the nomination. To clarify matters, the original nomination has be split into three and Katiedevi's comment has only been copied to the Jalaaluddin nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 21:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:19, 12 April 2026 (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 Liverpool Post

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. Three !votes with three different opinions on the primary topic, after the third and "final" relist indicates this is suited for a future nomination. Jay 💬 11:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Possible disambiguation here? The Mill (newspaper) also lists the Liverpool Post as one of its (existing) titles - see https://www.livpost.co.uk/ GnocchiFan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The same goes for the redirect Liverpool Post, FWIW. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to bundle Liverpool Post
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 21:39, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep with hatnote, per Katiedevi. – Scyrme (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate. The Daily Post is now probably the less likely intended target (as "Liverpool Post" is the full name of the new paper) and this will be increasingly the case over time as the new paper is active. Pmyteh (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2026 (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).

United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites

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. There was limited initial participation, and no further participation despite two relists. There is support for disambiguation although it was the nominator's second choice. Jay 💬 10:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites was moved from this title in early March following the beginning of the recent conflict, which has indeed included United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. However, the fact that this term still redirects there means there is little difference in practice. I think the earlier event remains the primary topic for this specific phrase, as it is still the only instance of United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites with an actual article. I would vote for the original title to be restored for the time being, with a hatnote to 2026 Iran war (List of attacks during the 2026 Iran war would be better in theory, but it does not specifically discuss nuclear sites). — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  • To clarify, the reason why this wasn't done as a simple RM is because I think DABifying would be the second best option, with total inaction being my least preferred result. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, Support for change from redirect to disambiguation page with two options (2025, 2026). There is no primary topic here. To rename the 2025 article use WP:RM process. Teterev53 (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
    United States strikes on Iran is already a disambiguation. Ingolar (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    Noting there is an RM open for that disambiguation page to broaden its scope. J947 ‡ edits 21:42, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 21:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:18, 12 April 2026 (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).

Member of the House of Lords

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. There were two targets proposed and there was support and no opposition to Lists of members of the House of Lords. There was no support for the current target, hence I'll do the retarget. The blocked anonymous user's vote was discounted. Jay 💬 10:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Lists of members of the House of Lords (or just House of Lords)? Note that every peer's infobox links to this redirect. charlotte 👸♥ 23:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I would keep if as it links to current members only. ~2026-18008-96 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep this as this redirect had been around for 20 years ~2026-18008-96 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as is or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 19:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Lists of members of the House of Lords as we cannot assume someone using this search term is only interested in current members. If the link in the infobox is intended to refer to only current members then it should be updated to link to that article directly. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:17, 12 April 2026 (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).

96-gon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 19#96-gon

New Xbox

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 19#New Xbox

Some ambiguous redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 28#Some ambiguous redirects

Security minister of Israel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 19#Security minister of Israel

Conical Peak

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 Conical Hill (disambiguation). Jay 💬 10:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

This redirect was created in 2010 when the page was moved due to the title being incorrect. Conical Peak is not an alternate name here. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 12 April 2026 (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).

Octave twelve

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 24#Octave twelve

Dark Oak

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 Refine to #Metarex. Jay 💬 10:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

People searching for "Dark Oak" could reasonably be looking for the Minecraft wood type. The Minecraft article doesn't mention the block, however. Bold suggestion, but perhaps a disambiguation page could be created at Dark oak (lowercase "oak") and then this redirect can be retargeted to there? Newbzy (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate. People searching for "Dark Oak" could reasonably be looking for, you know, Oak of a dark type. While there is no specific "Dark oak" subspecies, there are numerous Black oak subspecies. BD2412 T 21:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation draft requested. Left guide (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    Can I ask, has this request been placed at a specific page or category for someone to fulfil it from there, or is it that people in this discussion should work towards creating the dab page? Newbzy (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
    It's placed it in Category:Pages where a disambiguation draft is requested. J947 ‡ edits 23:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Sonic X#Metarex which is where the discussion in this article is located. Don't understand the suggestions to disambiguate. The Minecraft wood cannot be included on the disambiguation page. So we're left with the current target and an unusual capitalisation for the amorphous concept of "dark oak" wood: that's patently not enough for disambiguation. Maybe the real-life wood warrants a hatnote – but to where? J947 ‡ edits 23:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Look, a Google Books search for 20th century hits for "dark oak" returns dozens of results; obviously the primary historical meaning is oak (wood) that is dark. BD2412 T 17:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    It's a popular concept, sure. But it's a vague one. Lacking any content about "dark oak" as a class of oak, directing the reader to oak is a bit duh, and black oak, while slightly better, is only a related topic. Besides, a disambiguation page can't link to both of those concepts, but a hatnote can. J947 ‡ edits 02:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per J947. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @J947: are species called "black oak" also known as "dark oak" in practice? If not, that's a stretch too far. Usually "dark oak" refers not to a particularly dark species of oak, but rather to oak which as been darkened as part of the finishing process, ie. by ammonia fuming - this article is all about the process of darkening oak wood. Varnishes and dyes marketed as "dark oak" are intended to mimic the look of this finishing process. – Scyrme (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    I presume you meant to ping BD2412. I agree black oak isn't worth directing readers to. Even though it's not mentioned Ammonia fuming could be a good target for dark oak and/or worth a hatnote for Dark Oak. J947 ‡ edits 22:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    I continue to believe that disambiguation is in order, and the existence of ammonia fuming does not lessen the potential ambiguity. We are in this situation in the first place because apparently both Sonic X#Season 3 and Minecraft have things by this name as elements. BD2412 T 23:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    Minecraft doesn't mention the block. Unless you can find a suitable mention to link to, disambiguation between Sonic X and Minecraft isn't viable as there's nothing relevant to the latter on Wikipedia. – Scyrme (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    I pinged you because it looked like you were suggesting hatnoting for black oak species, but you're right that I should have pinged BD2412 too. I initially hadn't noticed that BD2412's first post. Should've been more attentive. Regardless, since you agree that black oak isn't relevant, I think a hatnote makes more sense than disambiguation due to the capitalisation of Dark Oak. Maybe something like:
    "Dark Oak" redirects here. For oak wood darkened by fuming, see Ammonia fuming.
    I am conflicted about whether to create dark oak as a redirect to Ammonia fuming since the exact phrase isn't used there, but "oak" and "darken(ing)" are discussed throughout so maybe it wouldn't be surprising. – Scyrme (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2026 (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).

SpinCo (company)

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 Versant. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Two reasons why this need to be deleted; one is that name is already given as Versant and the other is that this then-target doesn't exist. Intrisit (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Versant, where "SpinCo" is mentioned as a valid ATD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    Or you could rather re-target the unDABbed SpinCo itself to "Versant" and leave this to be deleted. At least I haven't bundled it here or listed it here. Intrisit (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    Looking at Google Books, "SpinCo" seems to be used as a common placeholder term when discussing hypothetical spin-offs (, , and ). So I think the unDABbed version is at the right target. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • What Presidentman said. Jay 💬 10:22, 19 April 2026 (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).

Ram Singh Pathania

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 21#Ram Singh Pathania

US invasions

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 the first two, retarget the next two to Lists of wars involving the United States, no consensus on the last. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Invasion of the United States sounds ambiguous (eg: Invasion of the United States to Afghanistan), but at least this could be kept.
The others should have the same target. Which? Abesca (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Most of these are ambiguous between invasions of the US and by the US. I'm not sure what to do here. Ideally, we would have lists or set index articles at Invasions of the United States and Invasions by the United States, and then a disambiguation page at US invasions could link to both lists. Then again, how often has the United States itself been invaded (as opposed to attacked in some other way)? – Scyrme (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American invasion decided for deletion and redirect. But at least one editor was in favor of WP:TNT, so it could exist, if well formated. Abesca (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
No it couldn't because the outcome was delete and redirect not TNT. Spartaz Humbug! 02:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Then TNT means draftifying? And I never said that was the result. Abesca (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
go back and read what you wrote and my response. No, TNT is not draftifying. TNT says the subject is notable and can be recreated from scratch. In this case the consensus was not to have an article at all. That one votir thought TNT might apply does not a consensus make. Spartaz Humbug! 06:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep US invasions, United States invasion as {{r from subtopic}}. Any invasions both of and by the United States would be listed there, though as far as I'm aware only the War of 1812 with the occupation of Maine might qualify for the former.
Retarget American invasion and American invasions to Lists of wars involving the United States. While "[country] invasion" and "[nationality] invasion" don't necessarily need to share a target, "American invasion" implies an invasion by the US and that list is where such invasions are listed. If someone drafts a disambiguation page for American invasion, then I may reconsider, but it doesn't look like anyone's interested in attempting that. Until then, the list seems like the best place for it. The current target is far too broad.
Delete List of invasions of the United States, no such list exists and as far as I know the United States hasn't been invaded often enough for such a list to exist. If not deleted, retarget to List of wars involving the United States, which is a list which includes the war of 1812. – Scyrme (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 12 April 2026 (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).

SL-3

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 19#SL-3

20th Century Fox Consumer Products

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 20th Century Studios#20th Century Fox Consumer Products. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 23:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This title was subject to an AfD which resulted in a delete and redirect which I've not heard before as either an ATD or AfD result. Pinging Trivialist who enacted that AfD to explain why his is the earliest edit recorded in the page history of this title. Also, Eureka Lott and Pppery, since you're admins, a plea to like dig into the archives why this isn't showing anywhere in the title's logs as any HM has/had happened because the diffs and edits I'm seeing in here makes this title worthy of a listing here! Intrisit (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  • The page log appears to be complete, and I don't see any evidence that a history merge was performed. Are you seeing something unexpected, @Intrisit? - Eureka Lott 21:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    Then I need to hear from JJMC89 who closed the AfD to inquire if there was any history for this title prior to the AfD listing. Maybe something is missing in there.... Intrisit (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 00:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

JJMC89, I'm waiting for your input! Intrisit (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:52, 12 April 2026 (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).

Mediabistro

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 without prejudice to opening an RM for Mediabistro (website). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Mediabistro (website). This redirect currently points to Mecklermedia, a holding company that liquidated in 2015. The Mediabistro brand and platform continued operating independently and now has its own article. Anyone searching "Mediabistro" is looking for the active job board, not a defunct corporate entity. The Mecklermedia article itself notes the brand continued under separate ownership. Disclosing per WP:COI that I am affiliated with the current parent company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MENTR1977 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 20:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment if the Website is the primary topic it should be moved over this redirect (c.f. WP:MISPLACED) but I'm not sure it is. Most of the incoming links are in reference sections where it appears to be used in the Publisher field for sources like Adweek and TVSpy. I'm wondering if primary disambiguation, linking to the website, Mecklermedia and any other relevant article is the best here? Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Comment - Thanks for the note. On the WP:MISPLACED question, I have no objection to moving the article over the redirect rather than retargeting, if that's the technically cleaner solution per policy. The end goal is the same: someone arriving at "Mediabistro" should land on the article about the active platform, not Mecklermedia. I defer to experienced editors on which mechanism is more appropriate. On disambiguation, I'd say it's probably unnecessary here. There are really only two referents - the current platform and Mecklermedia, which held the brand before liquidating in 2015. The Mecklermedia article already covers that history. A dab page for a brand that has had essentially one continuous identity since 1999 seems like more structure than the situation calls for. Disclosing again per WP:COI that I am affiliated with the current parent company. MENTR1977 (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 12 April 2026 (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).

Black mirrors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Black Mirrors for the plural one (or hatnote) and probably Black Mirror (disambiguation) for the singular one? (or even move dab to that title) Abesca (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Realized I said retarget for Black mirror when it is already targeted at Black Mirror; I meant that as Keep. Also updating my vote on Black mirrors to Keep with the addition of a hatnote to the disambiguation page—I think that makes more sense based on page views per Myceteae and Mathguy2718. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Searching up "black mirror" gives mostly results about Black Mirror. This is supported by the TV series getting about 75-100x more views of claude glass. On the other hand, searching up "black mirrors" gives mostly results about actual mirrors. Black Mirrors gets about 10-20x less views than claude glass. See this pageviews analysis (best in logarithmic scale). Hatnotes would be useful for both cases. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    Google does not detect differences in searching decapitalizedly or not. Abesca (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    That doesn't really matter since both nominated redirects are in all lowercase and most people search in all lowercase, so looking at Google results is reasonable here. Also, "decapitalizedly" isn't a real word, so not sure of the meaning here. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep both. I agree with Mathguy2718's assessment based on pageviews. I disagree with the application of WP:DIFFCAPS suggested by Eureka Lott. DIFFCAPS applies in situation where capitalization is assumed to most often represent a deliberate choice by readers to refer to a specific topic. This most often applies with the inclusion of capitals, not their omission. It is a common practice online to type in all-lowercase, especially in search bars. Unlike Wikipedia, most web searches are not case sensitive and readers often 'lazily' omit capitals when searching. Given the overwhelming popularity of the show Black Mirror, it is likely that this is the intended target for the vast majority of readers searching black mirror. The plural is a different story. Readers are less likely to pluralize the proper name of a TV show. Hatnotes should be added to Claude glass pointing to both Black Mirror (disambiguation) and Black Mirrors just in case. WikiNav also supports the current setup. WikiNav for "Black Mirror" shows that the dab page is not in the top 10 pages readers navigate to. This indicates that a large number of readers are not landing here on accident. WikiNav for "Black Mirror (disambiguation)" shows that most readers do arrive here from Black Mirror but Black Mirror and Claude glass are neck-and-neck for the #1 destination. Overall, these redirects are consistent with typical practice with respect to capitalization and plurals and are supported by pageviews and navigation stats. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    I have the impression that article titles ending with "(disambiguation)" or parentheses in general typically have less views than disambiguation pages without title disambiguators. And the search tool avoids showing disambiguations at the top, probably because of wikilinkings. Abesca (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not sure. But it makes sense to me that '(disambiguation)' pages are de-prioritized. Dab pages are super helpful but are usually not what readers are hoping to find when they search for a word or topic. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 20:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget both: "Black mirror" -> "Claude glass" per WP:DIFFCAPS; it's the only lower-case match we have. "Black mirrors" -> Black Mirrors; although this one doesn't match the case, the pluralization is a big hit against it, and this is the only match of the actual plural form. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep 1st as the series doesn't appear to be in the plural but retarget 2nd to the DAB as a compromise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:48, 12 April 2026 (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).

2025 CAFA Championship squads

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) 01:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target page and the official name of the competition is 2025 CAFA Nations Cup. Qby (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 20:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep CAFA Championship redirects to CAFA Nations Cup, where it is mentioned, and seems to be an alternative (or former?) name for the competition. Nobody using this search term is going to be mislead. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. GiantSnowman 20:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2026 (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).

ScanScope Virtual Slide

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Does not seem useful without an explanation at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep Let's add an explanation at the target rather than deleting the redirect. A single sentence to the effect that "ScanScope Virtual Slide" format is another name for TIFF is what I am thinking. The harder part if finding a citation to show that we've verified that. I'll give it a try... but if you have such a citation handy, please post it here. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    I've added TIFF § SVS. Please critique or improve. Hopefully, this is enough of a start to justify keeping the redirect currently being discussed, either as a redirect to TIFF or to TIFF#SVS. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 20:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've reverted the addition mentioned above. Not only didn't the source back up the sentence added, but it seemed to directly contradict it, that this is some sort of unrelated proprietary file format. Even if it were related, it's an obscure proprietary format used by a specific piece of hardware and has no business being mentioned at the target. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for the feedback. In case it helps ... having done a bit of medical image work for universities, using open source software such as openslide, it is my experience that SVS is not simply some commercial product nor simply some obscure product, but rather is both non-commercial in its use patterns and widely used. That's not much for the rest of you to move forward with, but it is convincing to me.
    Also, I fear that it's not terribly encyclopedic but a source that highlights the strong connection between SVS and TIFF is this one, which includes An SVS file is a Tiled TIFF image that has a few additional pages (images) that include the slide label, overview image, and a few smaller, scaled copies of the scanned slide..
    I fully acknowledge that I haven't yet located a good source to back these common-enough-for-Wikipedia and SVS-is-TIFF statements, so that's on me. But FWIW, I continue to be confident that these statements are true. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    In case it helps ... I've used tiffdump to examine SVS files. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 12 April 2026 (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).

Disney Channels MENA & Europe

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) 01:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

These redirects was created via this (shall I say) convenient move here by copyvio-blocked Ridwan97 in the heat of the aftermath of the acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, maybe anticipating a folding of these regional divisions of Fox Networks Group into Disney Channels Worldwide, hence these titles. They were reverted via a unanimous consensus at this RM. Apart from Disney Networks Group Asia Pacific, which was the last non-TV channel remnant to remove the "Fox" name and doesn't really exist, these titles here are akin to the titles below and may I say they don't need to exist anymore. Intrisit (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 12 April 2026 (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).

Disney Channels Asia Pacific

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) 01:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The rationale for this nomination is the same as the above bi-nomination, except that this particular one was re-targeted a third and then-final time to this then-current target, because this compromised account, Fanofbfolders, thought that this division (if it ever existed) oversaw the Disney channels and networks prior to the 21st Century Fox acquisition, which are/were not proven or cannot be proven. Intrisit (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 12 April 2026 (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).

Fox Networks Group redirects

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) 00:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Judging by the page histories of both titles, there is near-unanimous consensus that they barely meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE to have articles themselves, despite little sources they have/had, which have since been incubated into their then-current target for more "flesh" and "beef-up" of/for the latter. The Latin American one was just a few days ago retargeted to its current target despite its initial creation as just a redirect to Star Channel (Latin America) around this time the previous year. Since both page histories are more detailed, regardless of how well sourced/unsourced they are/were, they may split the community into two as to what to do with them, hence why I'm listing them here for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 12 April 2026 (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).

Warner Bros. Discovery Japan

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) 00:55, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

This title was created via this move log by ValenciaThunderbolt and was reverted by JSH-alive 3 months later upon sight and action. It seems like unlike other regional divisions and subsidiaries of Turner Broadcasting System that got folded into Warner Bros. Discovery, this is the odd one out, kinda like Yahoo Japan (maybe Hulu Japan also?), so I'm listing it here for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: @Intrisit: Going by the Japanese Wikipedia page of the article, it suggests it was renamed to Discovery Japan... which is rather odd if you ask me. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Well, JSH-alive wasn't to know that; that's why he did what he did. He could be wrong, if proven. Whichever name given for WBD's Japan company, I want this redirect deleted! Intrisit (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 12 April 2026 (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).

Timeline of X

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 Timeline of X (social network) for now without prejudice to opening an RM. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Target doesn't mention Timeline of X (social network). Abesca (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Too vague to redirect to Timeline of X (social network), and no mention at target. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Move Timeline of X (social network) to Timeline of X. Nothing else named 'X' has a timeline article. -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    It's just generally a confusing title, though, and readers don't know that there isn't any other timeline article with X. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    There's nothing confusing about searching for "Timeline of X" and being directed to a timeline of a product called 'X'. If someone is looking for a timeline of a different X, they wouldn't find what they were looking for no matter what so there's no need to cater to them. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    It would be significantly more clear if, in the title, what X was is specified. "(social network)" does this. The disambiguator is needed. "If someone is looking for a different X, they wouldn't find what they were looking for no matter what so that doesn't matter" is ridiculous to say. We don't want to inconvenience readers... 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 19:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    If you don't want to inconvenience readers, then it's ridiculous to want to delete this redirect. Anyone searching for "Timeline of X" is going to be helped by this redirect if they are looking for a timeline for the social network. Deleting it makes it harder to find that content, and is thus an inconvenience. As for the title, it's not the job of the title to explain the article—that's the article's job. Including "(social network)" is unnecessary so long as there is only one Timeline of something named X. -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    It could refer to X#History, but that doesn't add any timeline I guess. Abesca (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    Another redirect that is malplaced currently is Middle Eastern crisis. Abesca (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    Why is that relevant here? – Scyrme (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    it's incorrect as some are suggesting about retargeting Abesca (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't understand. How is that redirect relevant to this discussion about Timeline of X? Did you intend to post this as part of a different discussion? – Scyrme (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Abesca:  Fixed. (I coincidentally resolved that before seeing this discussion.) –Gluonz talk contribs 00:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Move the Timeline of X (social network) article to this title per @Tavix. RfD would usually be an incorrect venue for such a proposal, especially when an RM discussion for the relevant article recently took place, but this proposal would actually align with the outcome of that discussion. @InfiniteNexus moved the article to its current title after the discussion was closed. Alternatively, if the article remains at that title, my preference would be for this redirect to be retargeted to the History of X page, which would become a disambiguation page, perhaps with the following entries:
Also, deletion of this redirect, as proposed by @Organhaver, is not an option in this case, as WP:MISPLACED explains.
–Gluonz talk contribs 00:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Move Timeline of X (social network) to Timeline of X per Tavix and Gluonz. This title also reflects the general consensus around this article title and where different versions of this redirect have pointed in the past. Add a hatnote pointing to X (disambiguation), which is where History of X points. I'm sympathetic to the ambiguity concerns but we have other timelines for the other X's. Timeline of (letter) strikes me as an implausible search term, certainly far less plausible, anyway. Timelines of companies and technologies are fairly comomon on en-wiki. History and timeline are sufficiently distinct that they don't necessarily need to point to the same target. Most, if not all, of the entries at X (disambiguation) contain at least some history but only this article is structured as a timeline. We can certainly monitor WikiNav and Pageviews and reconsider if there is evidence of navigation problems, or if another timeline is written that could compete for the base title. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm reminded of a similar discussion recently regarding Outline of JavaOutline of Java, which redirects to Outline of the Java programming language even though the primary topic for Java is the country. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Don't retarget to the timeline of Twitter, because readers will reasonably expect it to be a timeline of the subject of the X article. I'm leaning toward retargeting to X#History, because it's the closest thing we have to a timeline about X. Preferring Twitter over the letter of the alphabet is just as bad as (or worse than) if someone created Timeline of Apple and preferred Steve Jobs' company over a kind of fruit — one is a company created well within living memory, and the other is a basic concept that was known millennia ago. Nyttend (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    Noting Timeline of Apple should be the timeline of the company. The fruit's version would be Timeline of (the) apple. J947 ‡ edits 07:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Nyttend @J947 we do actually have a somewhat comparable pairing with History of Amazon (the company) and Timeline of Amazon history (the geographical area). Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • The only reason "X (social network)" has a disambiguator is the letter's existence (I assume). I would be shocked if readers searching up "Timeline of X" intend a timeline of the letter's history (why?). Additionally, the social network receives ~9 times the views of the letter. From a redirect standpoint, the vast majority of readers will be intending the current target. But I think there's a strong argument it shouldn't be the article title. This argument has been very recently litigated. Notifying relevant parties of this RfD: UltrasonicMadness, OmegaAOL, DankJae, Jack Frost, InfiniteNexus. J947 ‡ edits 07:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
    Perhaps a hatnote could be used, with links to X#History or History of the alphabet, and maybe X (disambiguation) as well. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Timeline of X (social network) based on J947's reasoning. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    The problem with this is that the resulting situation would be WP:MISPLACED. I think the only realistic outcome here is starting a new RM. J947 ‡ edits 23:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Timeline of X (social network) (or disambiguation between this and X#History). I believe this should be an exception to WP:MISPLACED (note that Wikipedia:Base names must not redirect to disambiguated pages does not exist; it is only "should" and is an essay anyway with the related policy stating only "as a general rule"), and I also believe WP:IAR applies. One example that comes to mind is Half cent, a redirect to Half cent (United States coin). The purpose of having the article located at the disambiguated title is to encourage external links use the disambiguated title in order to not break links in case Half cent becomes a disambiguation page. The same can be said for Timeline of X. Having (social network) makes it less likely for external links to break if a timeline of another "X" is created, whether that be the letter or another thing called "X". Mathguy2718 (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2026 (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).

Trials of the Nazis

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 19#Trials of the Nazis

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks