Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 25

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 without prejudice to creating an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Unified ProtocolUnified Protocol → UniPro  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could also refer to the psychological treatment methodology described in this lit review and a number of other articles, which probably warrant an article of their own. AspiringGnome (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep (almost speedily), as the nominator hasn't actually suggested any alternative targets. We do have Cognitive behavior therapy#Unified Protocol, which seems to be what the above link is talking about, but the current target seems way more primary than this, and a hatnote could suffice here. I don't see any other reasonable targets, but if anyone finds any, I'm happy to reconsider. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am asking because I would like to start a Unified Protocol article - I would ideally want Unified Protocol to be a disambiguation page, which links both the original target and this new article. AspiringGnome (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  WP:WTAF then. If anything needs to be shuffled, it can be figured out. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  @AspiringGnome you don't need an RfD to do that. Start the article at whatever other title you believe is appropriate and then just boldly edit Unified Protocol to be a disambiguation page. It does have to be done in that order, and until another article exists the status quo seems the most useful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per WP:REDIRECTPURPOSE as the redirect is an alternative term for the title of the target article. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC) —  PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:29, 27 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 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) 01:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Pax Judaica → Greater Israel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Pax Judaica" is currently not mentioned in the target article. This violates WP:RSURPRISE. We should fix this or delete the redirect. Chrisahn (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I have to intention to relitigate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pax Judaica. I don't really care if the redirect gets deleted or not, and I don't know if the term "Pax Judaica" is notable enough to be mentioned in the target article. But the current state of things goes against our rules, and we should fix it, one way or another. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. No substantial content on Wikipedia discussing the topic to redirect to. There's a passing mention at Jiang Xueqin, but I doubt someone searching this would be looking for his biography. The article did not pass the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) per the AfD, so should not be restored. No content was merged so there's no risk of losing history relevant to attribution requirements (WP:ATTREQ). – Scyrme (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nomination and all above. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC) —  PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per Scyrme. Jay 💬 21:31, 2 May 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 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) 01:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Andrea (Cars) → List of Cars characters#Andrea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Aiken Axler → List of Cars characters#Stock car race cars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Albert Hinkey → List of Cars characters#Albert Hinkey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Antonio Excellente → List of Cars characters#Maseratis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Antonio Veloce Excellente → List of Cars characters#Maseratis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Alphanumeros → List of Cars characters#Alphanumeros  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Names aren't mentioned in list and I couldn't find articles related to the Cars franchise which mentions them. Suonii180 (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC) —  PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, not mentioned at the target. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Per the history, most of these minor characters were mentioned back in September 2022 and were removed by various users for excessive detail. Removed sections probably won't be restored. Blepbob (talk) 04:20, 29 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 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) 01:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Vereinigtes Königreich → United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:FORRED, German is not a common language in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Per the comments on the previous discussions, there is some affinity between the UK and German sufficient that WP:FORRED is not a slam-dunk delete but equally it's not a slam-dunk keep either. As such I strongly encourage whomever closes this to ignore any !votes that cite that guideline as their only reasoning (regardless of what outcome that commenter prefers). Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree for several reasons. First and foremost, consensus can change. A "no consensus" result from ≈10 years ago is an especially weak basis for preempting or discarding these arguments. WP:FORRED is often accepted as a valid deletion rationale, though it is not without controversy and country names are a perennial source of disagreement. The 2017 RfD, in particular, had limited focus on this German-language redirect, which was bundled with several others. 'Keep' arguments in the prior discussions focused on the wording of WP:FORRED at the time of the respective discussions. FORRED has been updated since 2017. That said, editors should be specific about why FORRED does or does not apply as a deletion rationale for this specific redirect, with reference to the essay, reasons to delete generally, and other typical considerations, as well as to the prior discussions to the extent they are relevant today. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  Note: I've added two more-recent discussions to the Old RfD list, both from 2020. I do think that four prior RfDs makes the bar a bit higher but I maintain that FORRED arguments are not automatically invalidated. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree. Arguments to keep or delete that simply state "FORRED" are not at all useful in this case given that there is neither an unambiguously strong affinity nor an unambiguous lack of affinity as four no-consensus outcomes should unquestionably demonstrate. Comments explaining why the commenter feels this is or is not a useful redirect are what will provide value here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  Per the comments on the previous discussions, there is some affinity between the UK and German

  I don't find the arguments made in those discussions very persuasive. English being a Germanic language doesn't mean there's an affinity between the UK and the German language. English diverged from German over a thousand years ago. You may as well argue that there's affinity between Portugal and Romanian because Portuguese is also a Romance language. And where do you draw the line? Is there affinity with Bulgarian, as a fellow European language? Or Pashto, as a fellow Indo-European language?

  That 9% of the country reportedly know German as a second language based on a very outdated survey doesn't mean there's an affinity, it just reflects the fact that studying a modern foreign language is part of the education system. Many Germans know English as a second language; it doesn't mean there's an affinity between the English language and Germany. An "affinity" would imply that readers may have a reason to search for a topic in that language even when searching for an English-language article, for example, because a topic may be discussed using a loanword in some sources or using a related term in the native language rather than a translation.

  That the present royal family is descended from a German line of nobility doesn't mean there's an affinity between the German language and the country. Charles has much more recent Greek and Danish ancestry via Prince Philip, but that doesn't mean there's now an affinity between the UK and the Greek or Danish languages. The heritage of the nobility would only suggest an affinity if they had maintained German as a court language, but they did not. Instead, the royals adopted the English language and have maintained it over multiple generations and over a century now. Nobody would be searching for the UK by its German name on the basis that the royal family has some German ancestry.

  All these arguments are tenuous links, and it is a very far stretch to go from any of them to there being an affinity which justifies this redirect. – Scyrme (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Patar knight in the 2017 RfD:

  Almost none of the rationale for deleting these redirects under WP:FORRED applies here, because these all unambiguously refer to the UK. There is no possibility of confusion or conflicting definitions, and the original language Wikipedia should be very prominent if not first in search engine results, which have gotten much better since 2008 when FORRED was written. These are also low maintenance, because they shouldn't point at any other page.

  Therefore, very little separates the circumstances of this redirect from that of any other. Any other redirect that receives a pageview every two days and is unambiguous will always be kept. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RLOTE. Any argument for an affinity is a reach too far. Nobody would plausibly use any of these rationales to search for an English-language article about the United Kingdom using its name in the German-language. Someone using the German-language name probably wants a German-language article. – Scyrme (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with this entirely. "Vereinigtes Königreich" is used over 80 times in enwiki articles, and many more in English-language pages across the internet. The reader can likely guess it's German, but probably doesn't know what that term means, so they do the very natural thing of searching it up. This redirect tells the reader what it means. If it's deleted, they instead look at a slew of the same search results that made them wonder what "Vereinigtes Königreich" meant in the first place. That's the most common reason why one might search for a topic in another language. But there are many others. A native German speaker who temporarily forgot the country's name in her second language. A polyglot accidentally searching in the wrong language. Someone reading a document in a language they do not comprehend using Wikipedia as a translation service, seeing an official name that's clearly the name of a country and wondering which country it is. We should not cater for the minority of readers who were accidentally on enwiki rather than dewiki. Even in the instance of a reader trying to find a German-language article on en.wikipedia.org, I think directing the reader either to search results or to an English-language article will equally communicate that they're out of luck. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Vereinigtes Königreich" is used over 80 times in enwiki articles Looking at the search results, most of these shouldn't be using it. They appear in references, presumably because some article content was translated and whoever did the translation did an incomplete job. All of those should be fixed. The few uses where it appears in actual content the language is specified and a translation given, eg. Vehicle registration plates of Germany where it appears in a table with a heading that specifies "in German". – Scyrme (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  This sort of commonplace translation error should be fixed, but will crop up again. I'm even seeing addresses on gov.uk containing this term ( ). This redirect reduces the damage of those errors. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  This is a misleading or spurious argument. Company House just lists information as provided by the owner/secretary of the company. One can just as easily find the Polish name for the UK (, ). That people make a mistake and use another language doesn't indicate any affinity. Shazback (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  It does when such mistakes are so common. If this was a misspelling, the evidence above would normally see it kept. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  As for your examples for why someone would search in another language, those seem like either very niche edge cases, far rarer than someone not understanding that there are separate Wikipedias for each language and that you can't navigate/use Wikipedia in any language (a mistake which I see made very often), or attempts to use Wikipedia as something it isn't; Wikipedia isn't a translation service, it's an encyclopedia. – Scyrme (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Very niche edge cases" become common when the target article is as well-viewed as this one is. The unlikely typo of United KingomUnited Kingom receives above median views (many more views than each of the first five redirects listed on this log page). To me, searching in a different major language is more likely. Perhaps a great deal of readers are searching the wrong encyclopaedia. I don't see how this happens, since they first must look at a page that is entirely written in English. But surely for those readers, directing them to the current target, which contains an accessible interwiki link to the dewiki article they seek, is much more helpful than listing search results consisting of untranslated citations?

  If Wikipedia is not a translation service, then why does Category:Lists of exonyms exist? Because some translations of official names are of encyclopaedic significance. This is one. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  A native German speaker who temporarily forgot the country's name in her second language. A polyglot accidentally searching in the wrong language. Someone reading a document in a language they do not comprehend using Wikipedia as a translation service, seeing an official name that's clearly the name of a country and wondering which country it is. FORRED/RLOTE directly addresses this. Readers should not expect en-wiki to function as a translation service or to reliably return English-language articles from non-English words, names, and phrases. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  In this instance they should. If the reader is helped by this redirect, makes an assumption, and tries a different German-language term that doesn't work, the count is even at 1–1. That's better than not being helped by this redirect, or 0–1. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why would it be less useful if it goes to search? Try Соединенное Королевство, and you get links to Wiktionary and to the Russian language Wikipedia (the first article being the article on the UK). The polyglot that can't remember the translation is provided with it, and the non-speaker can move easily to the correct page on the relevant language Wikipedia. Shazback (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  That only works where there are zero enwiki results. Try searching Vereinigtes Königreich or Special:Search/Wielka Brytania – other Wikipedias do not show. You still get a link to Wiktionary, but it's difficult to spot (anecdotally, I can't remember the last time I clicked on one of those) and even then it only helps readers wanting the definition of this term. It does not help readers wanting the English Wikipedia or German Wikipedia article. Besides, a redirect means the reader does not have to scan search results and make an extra click to learn what this term means. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to German exonyms#United Kingdom. Not only is the term mentioned as meaning United Kingdom, but the title makes it clear that the term is, well, a German exonym. German and English names for selected parts of the United Kingdom are also mentioned, which may be helpful for the reader that searched this because they were trying to understand a map in German. Readers who search this German term as opposed to searching "United Kingdom" are more likely to seek information located at the exonyms page and want to know about the country in general. (The country is linked in the exonyms page anyway if readers do want to know about the country in general.) Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  That article has only one citation and many of the entries there seem inappropriate, Vereinigtes Königreich included. Many are just direct translations, calques, or straightforward loans from English spelled in German orthography. Such examples are categorically not "exonyms", and should probably be deleted per WP:NOTDICT. Vereinigtes Königreich is just a straightforward translation/calque of "United Kingdom". An exonym is something like "Georgia" or "China", as these are names applied to those countries by English-speaking foreigners and are not derived from the native names of these countries as used within said countries. (This said, if the redirect isn't deleted this retarget proposal is my second preference.) – Scyrme (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. There is not sufficient affinity to justify deviating from WP:R#DELETE 8. The arguments to keep are not convincing in my eyes, relying mainly on very tenuous links (origin of the royal house, common root language, surveys on linguistic ability, length of international relations), editors' mistakes from translations, or devising absent-minded polyglots - without showing why German polyglots should be given special treatment over those of significantly more common languages, nor calling for the implementation of a more radical and extensive list of translation redirects.Shazback (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Keeping a redirect does not necessitate creating more. The bar to create a redirect is much higher than that to keep one. I don't think this redirect could ever reasonably be construed as a novel or very obscure synonym for the UK, so D8 and by extension FORRED don't apply. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:REDIRECTFOREIGN. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC) —  PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FORRED, which squarely applies. First sentence: This guideline for deleting redirects states that redirects in languages other than English that point to articles not directly related to that language or a culture associated with that language (affinity) should generally not be kept. The United Kingdom is not directly related to German or a culture associated with German. It meets none of the examples of appropriate redirects and fails per the second example given as an inappropriate redirect (and is comparable to all the specific sub-examples given therein). Largoplazo (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per FORRED (aka RLOTE, RLANG, etc.). I agree with the other 'delete' arguments presented. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Draft:Untitled Grand Theft Auto gameDraft:Untitled Grand Theft Auto game → Grand Theft Auto VI  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obsolete draft redirect from former placeholder title; little or no navigational value now that the game has an established title. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Strong Keep under WP:RDRAFT, but I think it's also worth considering if the target page should be changed (eventually), as it will likely also be the working title for GTA 7 and onwards. Slamforeman (talk) 04:20, 1 May 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 19:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Tmbg discog → They Might Be Giants discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Moved from Tmbg discog

• Note: originally proposed by User:The Twists and Turns using prod on the page.

This does not seem to be a very important redirect, so I think it should be speedy deleted. This page doesn't need to exist; "TMBG" is not capitalized even though it is an acronym and the title of this redirect is unnecessarily using an abbreviation of "discography". Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 07:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom and WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #8. "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target", it says, it should be deleted. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per above. TMBG discography is fine and will help those navigating in an environment with autocomplete but this one isn't useful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 29 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 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 Kansas City, Missouri. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Kansas CityKansas City → Kansas City metropolitan area  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should be redirected to Kansas City, Missouri, which editors just found to be the primary topic in this RM discussion. Ladtrack (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Kansas City, Missouri per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Kansas City, Missouri per nom and WP:USPLACE. Skynxnex (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep the metropolitan area is the broader topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not aware of any American city name that redirects to its metropolitan area article and appears to be contrary to the long-standing consensus documented at USPLACE. Skynxnex (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget Kansas City to Kansas City, Missouri per nomination, all above, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC) —  PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• retarget per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per those above. - Eureka Lott 16:28, 29 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 05:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Bonita, Californi → Bonita, California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typo. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 05:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Typo that is uncommonly used. --A1Cafel (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:REDIRECTPURPOSE] as missing a last letter is a common typo. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC) —  PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Californi doesn't even exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete prior to being listed here it was getting almost no page views, and most likely no non-bot ones. Clearly not a common typographical mistake. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:39, 29 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 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) 00:42, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• チャイナ → China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:FORRED, I don't know if Japanese has enough significance in China that can be kept A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. This isn't a translation from another language, it's just the English word "China" transcripted into Katakana. Even if you accept FORRED as holy scripture, I'm yet to see how any of its rationales apply in this case. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why would anyone plausibly search in English transliterated into katakana? This is far more likely to be search in Japanese for a topic that actually has this name, like the wrestler Chyna, whose Japanese Wikipedia article has this title (with a parenthetical disambiguator), than someone searching in English but transliterating their searches queries into katakana for some incomprehensible reason. – Scyrme (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. ja:チャイナ is a disambiguation page with no primary topic unlike 中国. This also appears to be a shortening of チャイナドレス, meaning qipao, a type of Chinese dress. The dress is reflected in image search results, so a redirect to the country, especially when Japanese primarily uses 中国 for the country instead, would not be helpful for most readers. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know if it's ambiguous with qipao. Excluding that for now, this redirect is presumably as much ambiguous as the English term "China" is. That term obviously has a clear primary topic. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  チャイナドレス is the katakana transliteration of the English "China-dress", which is evidently a loanword from English into Japanese for this style of dress. This example is comparable to ボーンチャイナ, "bone china", which is also a loan from English. In both cases チャイナ does refer to the country, but only indirectly in a round-about way via set expressions borrowed from English which happen to include the English name of the country. Since these are loans from English to begin with, they're not likely to appear in English language sources as untranslated loanwords. I don't think it's plausible that an English-language source would use the Japanese loanwords from English rather than just using the original English. As far as I know, the country itself isn't referred to as チャイナ in isolation. If チャイナ is often used by itself as short for チャイナドレス ("China-dress"), this would support that チャイナ isn't often directly associated with the country making it all the less likely that an English reader would encounter it being used in that way. – Scyrme (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This title is a disambiguation page on the Japanese Wikipedia page with about 20 entries, so not only is this a redirect in a language other than English (WP:RLOTE), it's a highly ambiguous one. This might be overlooked if there was a particularly strong association between this katakana title and one of these topics in English language sources, but I'm not aware of any evidence of that. Online search results bring up overwhelmingly Japanese results. Attempting to search only for English-language results specifically brings up uses of Japanese on otherwise English-language websites or people transliterating personal names.
  Maybe a case could be made that there's an affinity between China and the Japanese language specifically in the context of Japanese imperialism and expansionism in the early 20th century, but this seems like a stretch since the standard Japanese name of China isn't "China" written in katakana. If someone were reading about, say, the history of WW2 in East Asia, this is not the name they would encounter and search for even in that context.
  I don't see a reason why readers of the English-language Wikipedia would have a plausible reason to search for China by the katakana for the pronunciation of the English name of the country. This is far more likely to be an attempt to browse Wikipedia in Japanese. – Scyrme (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Let's not cater for readers attempting to browse Wikipedia in Japanese. They're not going to be helped whether this redirect is kept, targetted to China (disambiguation), or deleted. Like any other {{R from alternative name}}, this redirect's value comes from the reader encountering an unfamiliar term and researching it to learn what it means. However, it's not quite the same as other {{R from alternative name}}s. This happens a disproportionate amount for names of countries in other languages. Foreign-language names of countries are far and away the most common language redirects found at RfD. Their repeated creation in a way not seen for historical events, academic concepts, people, etc., signals the plausibility of encountering a country's name in another language. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Even if I agreed with this without reservations, this isn't actually a country's name in another language, so the argument is not applicable for this particular redirect. It's a phonetic rendering of "China"/"Chyna" into katakana. In Japanese, this how the personal name is transliterated, for example. That is the most likely circumstance in which an English reader would encounter it, if at all. – Scyrme (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sure. But it does speak to the plausibility of search terms of country's names in different languages and scripts that one was even created based on a transliteration. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This is more problematic than a standard FORRED county name. Although this can be reasonably glossed as 'China', it is not the main Japanese name for the country and when used it does not correspond directly to the country in English. This redirect is more likely to mislead than to be helpful. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FORRED. This seems even less useful than the examples of inappropriate redirects in that essay. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per above, particularly Scyrme. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 29 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 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) 00:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Regno Unito → United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:FORRED, Italian is not a common language in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as a clear-cut case of FORRED. I really don't understand any of the previous keep rationales. That England has some vague proximity with Italy politically isn't even remotely a valid justification to keep this. Most counties have names in most languages, but Wikipedia's redirect system is not supposed to be an English ↔ XYZ dictionary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with Deacon Vorbis. There's no affinity here. The rationales to keep are all a stretch too far. An "affinity" would mean that readers would have a reason to search for the topic by its Italian name because it is often referred to as such in English-language sources, just as they might have a reason to search for topic that is often known by a loanword or untranslated title. An affinity with a language does not mean any random tenuous or tangential contact between a topic and a language. Things like past EU membership or there being a portion of the population who know Italian as a second language because learning a modern foreign language is part of the education system does not establish affinity. These would not be plausible reasons for searching for the UK by its Italian name. Someone searching for the Italian title probably wants an Italian language article or the title of a book, like Regno Unito by Alessandro Torre (which Wikipedia doesn't have an article on). – Scyrme (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Deacon Vorbis and Scyrme. I agree that prior 'keep' rationales strain the concept of 'affinity' and directly contradict the WP:FORRED recommendations. Membership in multinational organizations, present and historical bilateral relations, and small numbers of speakers in a given country are not demonstrations of special affinity. Note that I have removed the inappropriate use of these redirect links from the Ru dab page and from The Blue Kiss. These likely account for the small amount of traffic to this redirect.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm going to pull you up on this again. It's really not a "small amount of traffic". It's actually comparable traffic to that article, The Blue Kiss. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Over the prior 12 months, The Blue Kiss got almost twice as many views per month this redirect. When links appear in articles, we expect them to drive some traffic. This is especially true when a foreign name is used inappropriately, since many readers likely don't know what it means and are clicking to make sense of what they're reading—which they shouldn't have to do. Regardless, this wasn't really central to my deletion rationale. I only made note of this to counter arguments from pageviews—which are bad, anyway—to point out specific problems with this redirect, and for transparency. The presence of links in articles is sometimes an argument for 'usefulness'. People sometimes object to the removal of redirect links mid-RFD because it can look like an editor is trying to obscure its potential usefulness. When I correct inappropriate redirect links that I discover in the middle of an open discussion, I try (and sometimes fail) to remember to mention it and state my reasoning. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  My only point is a redirect receiving half as many views as many articles is clearly punching above its weight, because redirects are a heck of a lot cheaper to maintain than articles. (And incidentally links are surprisingly little-clicked. Perhaps 1 in 100 of readers on that article clicked that link, which would account to 1 in 50 of this redirect's pageviews.) J947 ‡ ^edits 04:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:REDIRECTFOREIGN. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2026 (UTC) —  PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, common alternative name. Not seriously ambiguous. There may not be "affinity", but the arguments at WP:FORRED for deletion in that case aren't convincing in this instance. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: United Kingdom of Libya does have affinity with Italian (Regno Unito di Libia), and more so than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Note that the United Kingdom of Libya (Italian: Regno Unito di Libia) is mentioned at it:Regno Unito (disambigua), the Italian version of United Kingdom (disambiguation). On a separate note, I would've thought there could be a connection to Unification of Italy, which unified Italy into a kingdom, but there apparently isn't. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  I seriously doubt that's what most readers are looking for. it:Regno Unito has the UK as primary topic. But, yes, it does have affinity inasmuch as that should matter. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  I seriously doubt that anyone's looking for it at all, and if they are, that they care about anything more than a simple translation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree the current target is best. Would you like to change your !vote? J947 ‡ ^edits 20:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Facepalm –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Were you referring the implausibility of encountering this redirect, rather than the proposed target we were discussing? I presumed the latter, since a quick tap on the "stats" button up at the top should assuage any worries about this redirect being unused. Besides, the reader wanting a simple translation is exactly why this redirect exists. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  the reader wanting a simple translation is exactly why this redirect exists

  This is an argument against keeping it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a translation service or a language learner's dictionary. There are other websites for that. This is not Wikipedia's purpose. – Scyrme (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a translation service. Wikipedia is also not a repository of abbreviations. Wikipedia is also not a common spelling mistake correction website. Wikipedia is also not an emoji glossary. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary. Yet abbreviations, misspellings, emoji, and related words are all accepted as good redirects. Those things all exist as redirects largely because readers are liable to encounter them in the wild, and want to know to what they refer and read about what they refer. I'm aware that the usecase for this redirect falls more in the "what does this refer to?" camp than "I want to read about what this refers to". But redirects are flexible like that. They're not content, so they can accomplish a range of things articles should not.

  For example, An Ríocht Aontaithe, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and UKoGBaNI all target United Kingdom just like this redirect. I presume you support those redirects' existence. They all translate a less common name into a more common name. Despite the consensus that FORRED codifies, there is no logical basis for those redirects being right and this redirect being wrong. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Irish is a co-official language in Northern Ireland, which would suggest this is one of the official names of the country at least within the devolved jurisdiction of Northern Ireland; it's not an arbitrary non-English redirect and does not contribute to the impression that Wikipedia can be used as a translator or that Wikipedia is intended to be navigable in any language. Great Britain and Northern Ireland isn't an uncommon expression, particularly when talking about the UK in the context of geography or natural history, rather than as a sociopolitical unit, albeit still confining the topic to its sociopolitical borders. United Kingdom is the main article for the place in general, not just the state as a sociopolitical entity, so it's an appropriate target. The long initialism of the official name of the country seems odd to me, but evidently people use it; regardless, it's not an attempt to navigate Wikipedia in another language and anyone searching this would reasonably expect an English-language article about the topic (if you'd argue otherwise, then it should be retargeted). I don't see how either of your English-language examples are logically comparable to a non-English redirect.

  While redirects are more flexible than other article titles, I do not agree that this flexibility encompasses "what does this refer to?". That does not fall within the scope of the purpose of redirects, nor should it as it's literally an attempt to use Wikipedia as a dictionary. Fundamentally, the various purposes of redirects are all to serve Wikipedia's basic purpose as an encyclopedia. Redirects from common misspellings or abbreviations do generally help readers find the topics they want to read about, not merely to find the correct spelling or what an unfamiliar abbreviation means (though they may also incidentally accomplish these things in addition to their intended purpose). Emojis are often used as abbreviations by mobile users, so a case can be made for redirecting them to topics (though personally I don't feel strongly one way or another). – Scyrme (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  By definition any redirect of the type "what does this refer to?" will also fall under "I want to find information about this thing". Just because this redirect falls on one side more than the other compared to those three examples doesn't make it less helpful. It is by no means alone in this regard. Do you think VoracityVoracity should not redirect to Gluttony? J947 ‡ ^edits 02:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's not the purpose of Wikipedia or its redirects to be helpful in every conceivable way they could be helpful, even they are helpful in some unintended ways sometimes. I don't understand the point of the question. Are those not two names for the same topic? I suppose "gluttony" has religious connotations as a sin which "voracity" doesn't, and those are the primary focus of the article so maybe it should be nominated. – Scyrme (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  "United Kingdom" and "Regno Unito" are also two names for the same topic. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Only if you pretend they're in the same language, as though it never makes a difference to what someone might be looking for. What else someone may be searching for has already been addressed, so at this point we're going in circles. – Scyrme (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry? Do you think "Regno Unito" and "United Kingdom" refer to different things? J947 ‡ ^edits 04:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Not in English, they aren't. The latter doesn't exist in English. Yes, it's the name in another language, which brings us back to WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:FORRED, how this project isn't a translation dictionary. Largoplazo (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  By that interpretation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY (which unsurprisingly limits its scope to articles), "voracity" → "gluttony" is also a bad redirect. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe retarget to Kingdom of Libya per above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FORRED, which squarely applies. First sentence: This guideline for deleting redirects states that redirects in languages other than English that point to articles not directly related to that language or a culture associated with that language (affinity) should generally not be kept. The United Kingdom is not directly related to Italian or a culture associated with Italian. It meets none of the examples of appropriate redirects and fails per the second example given as an inappropriate redirect (and is comparable to all the specific sub-examples given therein). Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why not retarget? The United Kingdom of Libya has undoubted affinity with Italian, one of its languages. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Is it ever referred to as just Regno Unito, as opposed to Libia? – Scyrme (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Not often, it appears. But the idea of a disambiguation page is that anything listed on it (except in the see also) would justify a redirect from the basename if it were unambiguous. The disambiguation page in question is it:Regno Unito (disambigua) (or United Kingdom (disambiguation)). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Are you only inferring that it does appear based on that being a criterion for inclusion in a disambiguation page? It might be that partial title matches were listed by editors unfamiliar with how disambiguation pages are intended to work, which sometimes happens, so perhaps the United Kingdom of Libya shouldn't be listed even though it is. If Regno Unito is sometimes used in isolation for the Libyan kingdom, then a retarget may be reasonable. – Scyrme (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's almost certain that it was shortened that way in reliable sources from time to time. Even if it wasn't, it's a pretty big PTM: I'd redirect "United Kingdom" there anyway, were it unambiguous. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, your 'keep' rationale was that Regno Unito is Not seriously ambiguous for anything other than United Kingdom, but now you are suggesting we retarget to either Kingdom of Libya or United Kingdom (disambiguation)? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Retargetting to Kingdom of Libya is the logical conclusion of the idea that redirects in other languages should only redirect to topics for which there is affinity. In this instance, that's absurd: readers are way more likely to be looking for English-language information on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland than the United Kingdom of Libya (try a Google search for "Regno Unito", limiting your results to those in English – it's entirely results for Britain). FORRED stresses that readers aren't looking for the English Wikipedia article on a topic by searching for it in an unrelated language. It fails to account for instances where a topic is so well-viewed that readers search for it in numerous different ways. If a redirect to Kingdom of Libya would marginally be justified if unambiguous, why shouldn't a redirect to United Kingdom be justified? J947 ‡ ^edits 04:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  The argument for Kingdom of Libya was special affinity + unambiguous. It does't bear out. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 13:35, 28 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 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 Manti (food). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

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

When I first saw this, I assumed this was an alternate way to pluralize mantis. Search results didn't bring up mantises, so I guess not. Praying mantii exists, but I didn't bundle it because I saw plenty of use online. On its own, however, this could be a typo of anything listed at Manti. Should this be retargeted to that disambiguation page or deleted? Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:REDIRECTPURPOSE as incorrect plural names are common terms that readers search for when looking for an article. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC) —  PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  I could find uses for "praying mantii" referring to mantises, but not mantii by itself. How can we be sure that readers searching for this don't want something listed at manti? Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Manti (food). External search results for "mantii" overwhelming are for the food, specifically relating to Balkan recipes as it appears мантии/mantii is the correct spelling of the name of the food (or its plural) in some South Slavic languages, such as Macedonian. – Scyrme (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Further points, in case it's helpful: My search results for "praying+mantii" do corroborate Chess enjoyer's findings that this incorrect plural does occur naturally, but I think more weight should be given to the correct name of a topic than to an uncommon mistake. Practically, if someone did search mantii on Wikipedia looking for the insect and ended up at the food, it probably wouldn't take them very long to think of trying to search for the singular mantis or the more specific praying mantii instead. As noted in the nomination, praying mantii already exists if they were to try that and it doesn't have any ambiguity problem.

  Looking at manti (disambiguation), I don't think anything there would ever be spelled "mantii" except the food, except perhaps as a typo from holding down the I key too long, and disambiguation pages aren't intended to disambiguate between ambiguous typos.

  As an aside on the grammar, the plural of "mantis" you would have if you were to follow the grammar of the original Greek would give "manteis", not "mantii". If you were to follow it as a loan into Latin, the plural would be "mantes" not "mantii". Whether you approach it from English, Greek, or Latin grammar, "mantii" is unambiguously a mistake rather than a valid variant interpretation. – Scyrme (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  No objections here. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:16, 26 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 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 speedy delete as a WP:G7. Involved close, but there is clearly no reason to leave this open any longer. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Elena Povelyaykina → es:Anexo:Asesinos en serie de Rusia#E  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:SRD, soft redirects to other language wikipedias should not generally be retained, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case. Recommend deletion. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I deeply apologise @~2026-14944-70, I was not aware of that. Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

If you'd like, you can tag the page for speedy deletion under WP:G7. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 06:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, it's probably for the best... Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

All good. Easy mistake to make. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 14:14, 25 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Keurig Dr Pepper brands. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Wink (soft drink)Wink (soft drink) → Canada Dry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There had been an article but it was replaced by a redirect on the grounds of a lack of independent notability. But there's no mention of "Wink" at the target article, so the result is confusing. Largoplazo (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of Keurig Dr Pepper brands, where it is at least mentioned in a list (and its cplus brand, which Dr Pepper Snapple Group does not mention although it does include Wink)? Skynxnex (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per Skynxnex --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per those above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:05, 26 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 06:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Ensaf movement "libya" → Ensaf Movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ensaf Movement "Libya" → Ensaf Movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

That is in fact not how you do disambiguation. Delete. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 00:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC) —  PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:47, 26 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 06:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Verbal caution → Miranda warning  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently refers to at least both the Miranda warning and something in the UK. Either way, sounds very ambiguous. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 00:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This has meanings in different legal contexts as well as many non-legal contexts, for example in human resources and educational settings. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:39, 29 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).