Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 7

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) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

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

I don't see this as a plausible censoring style for the f word. Usually censored using asterisks, but not using X's. It's also not unambiguous - see Ferrari FXX-K. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 21:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Whilst there are also a few songs out there with the word 'Fxxk' (verbatim) in their title which almost could be deemed as potential DAB targets, that tenuous connection doesn't seem worthy of DABifying. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above. It's in 70 enwiki articles, including an article title, so it's certainly plausible! Pageviews bear this out. Unlike "FXXK", "Fxxk" will rarely refer to "FXX-K", and not refer to songs that are partial title matches. The reader should be unsurprised to end up at fuck. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  @J947 BUT here's the real question. Would readers SEARCH for "fxxk" to find the article about the F word? I seriously doubt it. I don't care if "redirects are cheap", by the way. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 12:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  You may not care if redirects are cheap, but RfD practice does. You're welcome to operate by your own rules, but outcomes continue to follow community consensus. Keep per J947. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Cremastra It's not that I don't care about it at all, I simply don't like that "redirects are cheap" is used as an excuse too often for problematic or questionable redirects. I've had many cases in the past where I nominated novel/obscure synonym redirects, ambiguous redirects, misleading redirects and/or downright vandal redirects here and some people said "nah, keep, redirects are cheap" without having any bigger argument (even though in many cases eventually retarget or delete won), so it might be a past personal experience though. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 02:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  This redirect is more viewed than most. I assume it's largely self-censorship. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Self-censorship? Even then, F**k, F*ck and F*** have 3-4 times more views than fxxk. https://imgur.com/a/VEiBgNf SeaHaircutSoilReplace 03:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. They're more common ways to censor oneself. Therefore they are more used than this redirect and more helpful than it. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  So, your initial point was less about redirect popularity, and more about the fact that fxxk is used in song titles to refer to fuck a lot? At least that's valid, I understand that right. But I still don't see much reason people would search for fxxk over asterisk based censors, as you said, they are more helpful than fxxk. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 05:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  People will search for "fxxk" because it is a frequent bowdlerisation, as all those song titles demonstrate. It is not as frequent as other variants, but that is no argument. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  At this point I think it's safe to WP:DTS and maybe close as keep. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 20:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I have seen this very occasionally, and find J947's evidence convincing. Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per J947. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: FXXK has existed from 15 December 2014, while Fxxk has only existed since 7 February 2022, so the lowercase term has technically redirected to the car variant for over 7 years when using internal search. A similar case maybe to consider is Fvck → Fuck. Even though "Fvck" isn't mentioned in the body of that redirect's target, a hatnote exists for an album and song containing the word. However, that redirect has had its target changed multiple times. I'm not sure if replacing "u" with "v" and replacing "uc" with "xx" would be a different enough case to justify two different targets though if "Fxxk" should not redirect to the car model. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:35, 8 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 per WP:SNOW. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

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

seems to be a really niche synonym, with only one result sort of implying it. the title of primary topic for the term seems to be a nickname for... uh... some unnotable women who seem to have nothing in common aside from being women? other results included ai slop, some vague gta thing, the horses one of the aforementioned women has gone from point a to point b on top of, and a bad pun consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I suspect that this redirect may have been inspired by the then-recent death of Steve Irwin (it was made 10 days after he got fatally stabbed by a ray). That was ~19 and a half years ago, the moment has passed, and the term isn't in use 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The redirect's statistics are also revealing - only 6 pageviews in the last year. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 12:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Search results are incredibly mixed and include strawberry (and sco:Straeberry), social media profiles (@stabray), the surname Stabrey, false positives for "Instabray" due to line breaks, a presumed misspelling/typo for Stan Ray clothing, and assorted other results. "Stingray" does pop up several times but there is no consistent or primary meaning. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:26, 8 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. Left guide (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Kæst skata → Stingray  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

as mentioned in hongeo-hoe for some reason, it's literally just fermented skates, which are not stingrays. i would suggest deleting as there's no mention that would warrant a redirect, but i'll instead suggest returning to red, as i've found a good few sources that might be reliable, and can dump them here if needed consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Possibly notable, and could be WP:REDLINKed from Hongeo-hoe, in which case WP:RETURNTORED applies. Notable or not, the current redirect is misleading and the dish is not discussed in any detail elsewhere on en-wiki. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:37, 8 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 Warner Bros.. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Warner Bros. Inc.Warner Bros. Inc. → Warner Bros. Pictures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This title is akin to the DABbed Universal Studios, the de-merged Lionsgate and the Walt Disney Productions redirect titles as it could also refer to the split-out Warner Bros. Entertainment. It could also house an article of its own to further quash Antony-22's concern on the talk page of Warner Bros. Pictures that the Warner Bros. media conglomerate between the Kinney National acquisition and the Time Warner formation had more going on than what was written about and sourced. The broad concept Warner Bros. page was just one of them and clearly needs rstructuring, but I'll dare say that this is the next step in bringing clarity to all this. So I've brought over here for a discussion as it hasn't fallen into one before. Intrisit (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a pretty good source on Warner Bros.' corporate history. Technically, the name "Warner Bros. Inc." was only used during 1969–1992, when it was a Kinney National/Warner Communications/Time Warner subsidiary. I'd say Warner Bros. is the best redirect target though, since searchers aren't likely to be that precise. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Warner Bros. - current target is too narrow and misleading - better to target to Warner Bros. Asteramellus (talk) 01:25, 11 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 Metal Gear. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Metal Gear Solid (video game) → Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous; see also Metal Gear Solid (2000 video game). A recent RM found no consensus to move the 1998 video game to this title. See also WP:PDAB. Retarget instead to Metal Gear, the WP:DABCONCEPT article for these games. 162 etc. (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Metal Gear per nom. मल्ल (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Metal Gear per nom, given the disambiguation is ambiguous. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 22:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep per comments on the RM. To quote NegativeMP1 on this, If you were talking about just Metal Gear Solid (which does redirect to Metal Gear), you'd have a point. But I fail to see how Metal Gear Solid (video game) is ambiguous. There are no other games named Metal Gear Solid that would necessitate a disambiguation (with the only other game with that name been moved to Metal Gear: Ghost Babel). A simple {{for}} template will clear any remaining ambiguity. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:43, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

To quote myself at the RM, "Moving the article to Metal Gear: Ghost Babel would not make the ambiguity magically disappear." 162 etc. (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see what ambiguity was there to begin with, nor have you specified what ambiguity is still there. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 05:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of this RFD is not to rehash the opinions presented at the RM. Some agreed with what you said, some agreed with what I said. There was no consensus. 162 etc. (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

That RM is still very much relevant to this RFD, and you cited it on the nomination as well. You provided the same argument on the RM as you are doing now, so naturally I can provide my argument from there.

But moving on from there, you cited PDAB and DABCONCEPT. There is nothing on PDAB that would support this RFD; if anything it contradicts it:

• It passes PT1 (...if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term), as it is clearly specified as the video game, hence "Metal Gear Solid (video game)", not the general name associated with the franchise (just Metal Gear Solid), and the only other game with that name is now Metal Gear: Ghost Babel.
• It also passes PT2 (for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term). The game alone is one of the most cited at our page of video games listed among the best, which should be saying something already. But even negating that, this is by far the most notable topic that is about a video game titled Metal Gear Solid, including Ghost Babel.

I want to go futher into DABCONCEPT, but enough has been said by LiquidSevens, so I'll put in short: the term Metal Gear Solid (video game) is not a broad concept. The (video game) part alone shortens any remaining ambiguity from the wider series of Metal Gear Solid to just the video games that are directly named Metal Gear Solid. Of the two games that are named Metal Gear Solid, one was recently renamed Ghost Babel, leaving the 1998 game as the only remaining topic for the name. As outlined in WP:BROAD, this would not classify as a broad concept, as it is about one specific game released in one specific time. Any remaining would be cleared up with {{for}} templates on each page. Lastly to respond to your other comment with Sevens, your treatment of "no consensus" falls more in line as a certificate that this redirect was indeed ambiguous. First, I hate to pull up a WP:VOTE, but that decision was very generously given (17 support to 3 oppose), and second, the RM closing note did indeed state that discussion of Metal Gear Solid's name should continue at Talk:Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game). Again, this is bizarrely long for an RFD comment, but I make my point clear. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Metal Gear per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Neutral.Keep. 162, I agree that we cannot ignore that older English-language news media referring to Ghost Babel refer to it as Metal Gear Solid, thus making "Metal Gear Solid (video game)" potentially ambiguous. But I would argue that it is common sense that Metal Gear Solid (1998) is the most famous video game with that name, greatly overshadowing Ghost Babel (2000) without a doubt; it shouldn't be necessary to prove that. In any case, the RM for Metal Gear: Ghost Babel shows that multiple contributors consider Metal Gear Solid (1998) to be a prospective primary topic of "Metal Gear Solid (video game)" — I don't think these sentiments can be ignored just because they erroneously cited WP:PRIMARYTOPIC instead of WP:PDABPRIMARY. Both existing uses in the article namespace of the redirect link "Metal Gear Solid (video game)" refer to the 1998 video game, not the 2000 video game. Currently, both Metal Gear and Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game) have redirect disclaimers related to the disambiguation issues with Metal Gear: Ghost Babel. It seems that this change, however inconsequential it may be (this redirect is barely used to begin with), could be negative overall. Between the current usage in the article namespace, assorted uses in Wikipedia, User, and various Talk namespaces, and usages in historical revisions, it seems incredibly likely that most (if not all) of those links refer to the 1998 video game. Thus, changing the redirect could create ambiguity, where previously there was none. WP:PDAB has been mentioned, but what about its sub-section WP:PDABPRIMARY? Is there precedence for not allowing video game articles to have primary topic PDAB page names? WP:PDAB alone lists a variety of video games that follow this convention: Apprentice (video game), Deadlock (video game), Portal (video game), Popeye (video game), TaleSpin (video game). Even Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) falls into this convention, despite having a year in the title (the various RMs for that article have concluded that Mega Drive Sonic is the primary topic between two games both titled Sonic the Hedgehog and released in 1991). In short: As the proposal stands, readers will be exposed to disambiguation disclaimers regardless of the outcome. Is Metal Gear Solid (video game) actually ambigous enough to deserve a redirect to the broad-concept Metal Gear page, and is such a change actually beneficial to readers or editors? Or is it being proposed merely to conform with an established precedent for video game articles? If so, what precedent? (I acknowledge how bizarre it is to make an argument like this for a simple redirect, and perhaps it would be better-suited in an RM for Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game), but since both WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PDABPRIMARY cover utilizing redirects for disambiguating primary topics, this appears to be fair game). LiquidSevens (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

If there was indeed consensus that the 1998 video game is a PDAB primary, then all this would be moot; the article could be moved to Metal Gear Solid (video game). However, we just discussed this, and there is no such consensus. We're left with a status quo where the less-specific Metal Gear Solid (video game) redirects to the fully-disambiguated Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game), and that's the worst of both worlds; it should not continue. 162 etc. (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree, there is no consensus. But why do you consider the current situation "the worst of both worlds"? In its current state, the redirect does not seem to be causing any harm or confusion. It is only utilized on five pages across all namespaces of ENWP (excluding transclusions of WP:RFD, of course). Anyway, considering the harmlessness of this issue, I will update my position to "Neutral" — I do not consider either outcome to be notably problematic. My apologies for increasing the deadline at the last minute, only to change my position. But perhaps this will invite more discussion. LiquidSevens (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Metal Gear per nom. Since the most-widely-known coverage this "Metal Gear" title gets in here is – on the video games – this makes absolute sense. Intrisit (talk) 21:05, 7 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 keep. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Untitled Eternals sequelUntitled Eternals sequel → Eternals (film)#Future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:UFILM, there has been no such sequel in development. There was only an erroneous statement from one of the actors, who later retracted it. Much of the target section discusses possibilities and aspirations for such a sequel, but nothing concrete has eventuated, so this redirect is misleading. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The target section does discuss a possible sequel that does not have a title, so if someone does search this title (and stats show some people do) they are taken to the correct location. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Ahh yes, the Hollywood as I know it. Yeeaah, it could be misleading, as is always the case with these "Untitled ... sequel/film" titles in here. Studios, performers, production crews and streaming media services/companies (or streamers) can and will continue to keep us the audience guessing whether such a thing or such thing would ever happen. My vote here is heavily based on my !keep vote in another such title, Untitled eighth Mission: Impossible film, which was kept based on the possiblity of such a thing happening within a year's time. Next year, if indeed they aren't in production through sources, we can always come back to re-nominate them (this title and that "M:I" title) here. But until then and for now.... Intrisit (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The target directly addresses the topic by discussing a rumored/previously-in-development "untitled Eternals sequel". WP:UFILM's guidance applies to redirects After a film receives a wide release or an official title but does not address this situation. There was significant interest in the potential sequel and it continues to be discussed. The typical concern with "upcoming film" redirects is that they become misleading over time. This target directly addresses the current lack of a planned sequel, describes past talks about a sequel, and is an appropriate place where future developments might be described. Readers won't be mislead or confused when they land here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:30, 8 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) 03:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Taco wrap → Burrito  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

by some weird culinary technicalities, this dish doesn't seem to actually be a burrito or a taco, and isn't mentioned in the target or taco anyway. i would suggest returning to red, but the stuff i've found is mostly user-generated, and the term is also vague with tacos' tortillas, so i don't think that'd work consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment my first thought was possibly a retarget to Wrap (food) as the appropriate generic article, but the only mention of tacos there is the see also to French tacos. The stuffed flatbread set index is also a possibility (should French tacos be added there?), but again I'm not certain. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The topic is not covered anywhere on en-wiki and the term has no consistent meaning. Google search returns mostly recipes for homemade Crunchwrap Supreme knockoffs and alternatives as well as more traditional "wraps" made with typical taco ingredients on the first couple pages. Results from Google Books (usage is scant) and DuckDuckGo are more mixed and include tortillas, taco shells, and various recipes. If someone ever constructs a suitable description this redirect can always be recreated. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:47, 8 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) 03:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Retarget to travesti? LEILA FERRAZ (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Revert to the disambiguation page in the history and update as needed (e.g. a couple of articles have moved). It was boldly redirected by Neelix because all the entries were clearly linked on the Transvestism page, but that doesn't seem to be the case now. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, base title is not ambiguous, so there's nothing to disambiguate and nowhere to redirect to. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  You mean not ambiguous with anything other than the list of things it is ambiguous with on the old disambiguation page? Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure any of those other things could reasonably share the same title. Dab pages are for that, not for things that are kinda sorta similar. The page itself already has a broader-coverage hatnote that should more than cover a wayward reader. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with Deacon Vorbis. "Transvestitism" is not properly used to describe these other topics, although one may find examples of inconsistent usage "in the wild" and the public is prone to confusion. The hatnote already covers the related and easily confused terms, especially with the comprehensive coverage offered at Cross-dressing. (Androgyny is quite distinct and Drag (entertainment) is covered at Cross-dressing but could be added to the hatnote if editors think that is warranted.) Restoring the dab page risks furthering confusion and misleading readers by suggesting that "transvestite" or "transvestitism" are correct and standard terms for all the topics listed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:05, 8 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 per WP:SNOW. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Pokemon char dawn → Pokémon Diamond and Pearl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

bad no good title consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

delete per nom 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom. Media Mender (chat, stalk) 03:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 12:48, 8 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 Persian War. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Persia WarPersia War → List of wars involving Iran  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Persia WarsPersia Wars → List of wars involving Iran  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget List of wars involving Iran (before 1979) or move Persia War (disambiguation) to this? LIrala (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Persian War, where Persia War (disambiguation) (referenced in the nomination) redirects. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Persian War – I created these from a request at WP:AFC/R, but agree the dab page is a better target. nil ^nz 22:20, 7 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 Foxx (rapper). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Jonathan ReedJonathan Reed → Davey and Goliath  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Reed, JonathanReed, Jonathan → Davey and Goliath  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Foxx (rapper) with hatnote back here. Is mentioned at target, just only by first name. The various other mentions don't rise to the level of disambiguation, and the article in the history prevents disambiguating by deletion. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Foxx (rapper) per J947. The rapper's birth name is bolded in the lead. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:09, 8 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. Left guide (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Mungus → Among Us  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could also refer to a type of mob in Minecraft, a fictional character in the Legends of Chima franchise, or a surname (though with no notable bearers), so I suggest either deletion or disambiguation. Duckmather (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This does not seem to merit disambiguation, since we do not have significant information on any of these topics (nor does it seem like any of them merit additional coverage currently). Leaving this to search seems like a better idea.

NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per NerdyEpiscopalian. Complete lack of coverage of that term in use, no suitable targets for a DAB. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:26, 8 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 per author request. ✗plicit 23:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Hugh Mungus → Gag name  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, and I don't see any evidence on google that this is anything more than a non-notable meme, so I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I have asked for the page to be speedy deleted under G7; the meme in question was deleted on lack of notability. Xeroctic (talk) 19:11, 7 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Mungu → Mungu ibariki Afrika  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Mungu" just means "God" in Swahili, so the target ("Mungu ibariki Afrika", meaning "God bless Africa") is a partial title match. The concept of God doesn't have ties to any one language, so I suggest deletion per WP:FORRED. Duckmather (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Refine to Mungu ibariki Afrika#Etymology: the word's meaning is explained at the target, voiding the rationale at FORRED. Second choice disambiguate (God; Mongolia; Mungu Crater; the various PTMs). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Now that I think of it, I like the idea of disambiguating between the topics you've proposed. I've struck part of my original nomination statement. Duckmather (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Definitely disambiguate. At the same time, the Swahili mention does not satisfy the guideline. Maybe this can be mentioned in a section of the existing Mulungu article? --Joy (talk) 10:00, 9 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 Taoyuan International Airport#Man A. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Man AMan A → Taoyuan International Airport#Accidents and incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was recently retargeted from placeholder name to Taoyuan International Airport#Accidents and incidents. I think the new target is an WP:RSURPRISE, it seems unlikely that a search for "Man A" would be looking for that specific "Man A" unless they were already looking at the Taoyuan Airport incident. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep. The only time the placeholder name "Man A" was used was during that incident at Taoyuan. Not enough for an entry in List of English-language placeholder names for people (the previous target). That's why I did the retarget in Special:Diff/1347529720. It's possible that someone who remembers the name but not where the incident occurred would search for "Man A". — Chrisahn (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Taoyuan International Airport#Man A. As suggested by Myceteae below, I introduced {{visible anchor|Man A}} in Taoyuan International Airport. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep Retarget to Taoyuan International Airport#Man A [updated 14:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)] and tag as {{R from merge}} (replacing the {{R with history}} tag). The merger was completed on January 17, 2024 per the outcome of this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man A. Editors there were explicit that the Placeholder name article would be a better target. I agree in theory but, unfortunately, Man A is not covered at List of English-language placeholder names for people but is covered at the current target. If content about "Man A" can be added to List of English-language placeholder names for people then I would support a retargeting. But if it's not a notable or common example and can't be explained, then redirecting there is a bridge to nowhere. As for WP:RSURPRISE, the solution is to bold Man A at the target and consider additional approaches like targeting to an anchor or visible anchor and perhaps even adding a hatnote to Placeholder name or the list article. WP:RSURPRISE does not mean that readers always arrive at the article they were expecting. It directs us to make it clear why they've landed where they have (with bolding, etc.) and not just plop them in a dense wall of text where the connection is non-obvious. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. I went ahead and and introduced {{visible anchor|Man A}} in Taoyuan International Airport. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. I've updated by !vote. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:48, 9 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. I will list the contributors on the target's talk page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Kyorosuke → The Legendary Starfy#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Also not mentioned in target article soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Japanese name of Moe (side character who appeared in every game), but that name isn't used on any article, seems safe to delete. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete to open up the mentions, in the light that the unreferenced article in history in no danger of being kept at AfD. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note that this is an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 16:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm. After deletion, the contributors need to be listed on the target's talk page then to satisfy attribution requirements; derived text was in the article as recently as 2018. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:48, 16 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. I will list the contributors on the target's talk page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Stapy → The Legendary Starfy#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Japanese name of Starly (character who appeared in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th games in the series), Japanese name isn't mentioned in any article, should be safe to delete. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete like above discussion. Note mention at List of Battle for Dream Island episodes. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note that this is an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 16:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  After deletion, the contributors need to be listed on the target's talk page then to satisfy attribution requirements; derived text was in the article as recently as 2018. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:48, 16 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 keep. Withdrawn by nom with subsequent editors !voting 'keep'. If there are new arguments that were not considered, a fresh nomination can be made or this can be re-opened. (non-admin closure) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Brazilian JujutsuBrazilian Jujutsu → Brazilian jiu-jitsu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

that's three spelling mistakes, wow. definitely implausible consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, etymologically jūjutsu (柔術) is correct. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 13:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

this is where i'll be full of wrongness juice for two of three reasons:

1. this specific term sees little use, mostly among people (extremely predominantly on social media and merch stores again, so "people" could be an exaggeration) who have mistaken it for actually being jujutsu, but is otherwise actually a correct alternative term despite bjj itself primarily using the other, technically incorrect romanization
2. the term is officially used or otherwise supported by one or more of the bjj federations and i somehow missed it
3. the term is used in that country with the cool pink trees (no, not brazil), large japanese population (no, not brazil), and lots of dragon ball stuff (no, not mexic- i mean, no, not brazil), and i missed it because i only searched in english and portuguese
4. the term actually is used commonly and deliberately, and i missed it in the aforementioned flood of social media and store shenanigans (which i think might not be the case, since i didn't get many results in the first place)

i guess this is to say that it can be closed as withdrawn if you're in the mood, though i'm actually not entirely sure for different reasons than when i nommed

yes, that was three, shush consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I think this at least falls under "Likely mixed-up technical names" from WP:POFR, if it isn't a real term for bjj. Most people aren't very familiar with the topic and could assume it's "jujutsu". Not quite a typo per se, but the same idea.

Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, seems plausible. Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 8 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Mexican Ground Karate → Brazilian jiu-jitsu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

a joke term coined and/or primarily used by bjj big shot and wrestly boy craig jones. not mentioned in the target or the article about him, and all sources i could find (mostly merch stores and reddit) only use the term in the act of quoting him, wondering what in the deep fried fuck he could mean by that, or trying to literally but not figuratively sell the term, and all of them also directly addressed it as bjj, so the target demographic for this term as a redirect or search result seems to be craig and... really, no one else consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems to me that people seeing a synonym, even a humorous one, and pasting it into Wikipedia search and getting the actual subject is supposed to be one of the main purposes of redirects, as I understand it. So, since this term isn't derogatory perhaps we should keep it. I see the point that it's not a common term, not used in the target, and possibly self-promotion, though; so I have no strong opinions about it.

Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. My findings are consistent with the nom's—the term is used almost exclusively in direct reference to Craig Jones (grappler), his gym, and his merch. Some sources also suggest the term refers to the particular fighting style used by Jones and his associates, although that is not consistent. Usage of this term appears confined to wiki-unreliable sources. It does not appear to be used as a general synonym for BJJ, so the unexplained redirect is both misleading and promotional. This term requires some explanation, which would be better housed at Craig Jones (grappler), if suitable sources can be found to justify coverage there. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:34, 8 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. Left guide (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Draft:Word (word) → Word  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

created as vandalism, and thus, wasn't even an actual draft consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Only potential targets would be Word#History (last sentence contains the original definition of 'dictiō', the original latin word for 'word') or wikt:word (about the word 'word'). 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 12:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

those rationales would apply to word (word) anyway, not a draft that wasn't actually a draft consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• How was it vandalism? It was a disctionary definition though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  that's why wikt: exists 🙃 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  check that last section in the pre-blar content lmao consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 02:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Word means Microsoft Word" is not wrong though even if it is badly written. There is even a hatnote in Word that points to Microsoft Word for this exact reason. How can you be so sure the edit was vandalism? Warudo (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. That did what word (disambiguation) already does. Skemous (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: yeah, it's would just be a dictionary definition (theoretically). And word will serve the same purpose if any editor needs it. Or wikt:word. As far as I can figure Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Agree with all that it was not vandalism. It bordered on test editing (which again, is not vandalism), but whether the editor was serious, we wouldn't know. That editor did blank a page almost immediately, but also even put up a deleted page at DRV an hour later, and got the deletion overturned, which is quite a feat! But yeah, delete this draft, which didn't serve a purpose, was BLAR'd within an hour, and doesn't satisfy WP:RDRAFT. Jay 💬 15:47, 14 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. Left guide (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Greece Interstate 37 → Greek National Road 39  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Greece Interstate 38 → Greek National Road 38  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Greece Interstate 44 → Greek National Road 44  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Greece Interstate 48 → Greek National Road 48  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Proposing to delete because there are no interstates in Greece, and interstates are exclusive to the United States: in Greece, there are motorways (Ax), national roads (EOx) and provincial roads (EPx). This nomination rationale has been copied from WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Greece "Interstates" where interstates 70 to 91 were deleted. Jay 💬 11:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Your explanation makes sense to me! Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:44, 7 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 💬 15:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Ironicon → Irony punctuation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused, unattested term for irony punctuation. Although it is a quite nice word — akin to obscenicon. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per very novel and obscure synonym. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 12:54, 8 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 💬 15:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Zing (punctuation) → Irony punctuation#Irony mark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unattested name for ⸮. Used to be on Zing (disambiguation), and only there, but I just deleted it from that page. I am not aware of any other punctuation called zing this could refer to either. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. "irony+mark"+"zing"+punctuation+-wikipedia gets a few Google hits, but it looks pretty made up to me. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:47, 14 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Jane Farrar → Bartimaeus Sequence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, not mentioned at the target. Geschichte (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Looking at the page history of List of Bartimaeus characters, she appears to have been a relatively minor character - nowhere near important enough to justify keeping this redirect. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 12:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete − despite the description at The Golem's Eye, ambiguity means search results are more helpful: Jane Farrar was also a 1940s American actor credited on various enwiki articles. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Just notified of this discussion at the target and creator talk pages. Jay 💬 07:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. I found a description at List of Bartimaeus characters §Jane Farrar from 12 September 2015. This became a problem on 10 June 2022, after removing lots of cruft per maintenance tag – which left Kitty Jones as the only character still mentioned in Bartimaeus Sequence. So, a thorough examination of this would review a boatload of character redirects to that article, as well as the List of Bartimaeus characters itself. – wbm1058 (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The actor mentioned and linked in Double Exposure (1944 film), List of American films of 1945, and A Song for Miss Julie is not a fictional character. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:04, 16 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 Succession to the Tongan throne. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Next king of TongaNext king of Tonga → Tupoutoʻa ʻUlukalala  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:CRYSTAL, subject to change A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Succession to the Tongan throne. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per J947. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 8 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 Succession to the Mosotho throne. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Next king of LesothoNext king of Lesotho → Prince Lerotholi Seeiso  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:CRYSTAL, subject to change A1Cafel (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Succession to the Mosotho throne. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per J947. Most "Next..." redirects that don't target an article specifically discussing the next whatever should point to an article that explains who, what or when the next whatever will be, or explains the process for determining that. It is usually only when we don't have such an article or that is unknowable (e.g. the next leader of a political party that is not currently holding an election for that position) that deletion is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 8 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 💬 07:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Heath Mitchell Quinn → San Francisco Giants minor league players#Heath Quinn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-notable minor league baseball player; Fails WP:GNG; Heath Quinn was deleted in 2022 Joeykai (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at target. Geschichte (talk) 05:14, 7 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 💬 07:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Draft:Ricardo Genovés → San Francisco Giants minor league players#Ricardo Genovés  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

non-notable minor league baseball player; Ricardo Genovés was deleted in 2024 Joeykai (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at target. Geschichte (talk) 05:14, 7 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).