Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 9

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 retarget. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Artemis ThreeArtemis Three → Artemis II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wrong target. Artemis III exists even if it hasn't happened yet. This redirect was unilaterally changed just 5 days ago. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 21:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget per nom, imo the bold change could have been reverted as an obvious mistake. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget; I suspect the change by @Sahaib was an accident given that they also changed Artemis TwoArtemis Two to use {{R to numerals}} at the same time. (and Artemis FourArtemis Four, and probably others in uppercase, though the lowercase ones such as Artemis twoArtemis two still use {{R from alternate name}}.) --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment, was a mistake. Sahaib (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I have just fixed the redirect. We didn't really need a discussion for this to be honest. Panamitsu ✨ 22:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with this being closed quickly. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 22:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Goes without saying, but uhh retarget and SNOW close? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:44, 10 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 Transgender history in the United States. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• History of the transgender movement in the United StatesHistory of the transgender movement in the United States → LGBTQ movements in the United States#History of the Transgender Movement in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

better redirected to Transgender history in the United States Skemous (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. The presently-targetted section does not exist - it was renamed by an IP editor in February 2020, while the edit summary is unhelpful ("yes") the name change did better reflect the section contents. LGBTQ movements in the United States#Transgender activism is the closest extant section but that is only a single paragraph that at first glance covers only the period from 1966-1974 and points to the proposed target as the main article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Transgender history in the United States. This target is broader but essentially covers what could be described as the history of the "movement". Note that the link to this redirect at Transgender history in the United States#See also will need to be removed as this will be self-referential if this is retargeted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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) 21:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Unlikely acronym for "death by a thousand cuts" that is not the target article title. Most uses of the acronym are likely for the song or for other media. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 21:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. No mention anywhere in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The 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) 23:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• 640-553 IINS → Cisco certifications#Associate certifications  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 640-460 IIUC → Cisco certifications  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These terms are not mentioned at the target, and so the redirects are confusing for those who don't know why they're being redirected there Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". Redirects should not be deleted if the connection to the subject is obvious to most people, or if the redirect is correct but not appropriate for inclusion in the article, such as {{R from brand name}}.

I think people will quickly figure out why they were taken to this page. You have to remember that, unlike RFD folks who search for random unmentioned redirect names, the readers who are searching for something on wiki already have some off-wiki context. I also suspect that a lot of people really just want to know basic information, like "Is this thing on his résumé one of the Cisco things or one of the Microsoft things?"

If you want to provide the alternate names, then I believe you'll be able to easily find sources in your favorite web search engine. 640-553 IINS is the old name for a CCNA Security test, and 640-460 IIUC is the old name for CCNA Collaboration (formerly "Voice"). However, I suggest not cluttering up the article with a long list of former brand names, and just leaving the redirect alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete – The target article itself, Cisco certifications, has article issues, like excessive use of primary sources, like Cisco itself. Also, I just assumed that they are some weird phone numbers without realizing that they are/were really for. In other words, I question their plausibilities to be searchable without either exact memory or ability to be copied-and-pasted... or highlighted and then searched for, i.e. right-click to open options. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This target is a bit of a mess, but it is more or less a "List of Cisco certifications". These items don't appear on the list, nor anywhere else on en-wiki, and should be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WhatamIdoing. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Myceteae. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Not helpful to send readers who search for either of these two obscure exams to get sent to a 2,700 word article that doesn't describe these terms. We have no information on this, and it is unlikely that any information will be developed, so the best way to indicate that is by deleting these redirects. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per all. If readers are looking for information about these specific certifications on Wikipedia, they are looking at the wrong place, because we don't. There is one sentence at the target saying ..the expiration of the 640 series tests..., but this could have been the target of a redirect about the 640 series if we could come up with such a redirect title. Jay 💬 07:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. After three relists, there is rough consensus to keep these pointing to their current target. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Kelly WiglesworthKelly Wiglesworth → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kelly wiglesworthKelly wiglesworth → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
• Kelly wigglesworthKelly wigglesworth → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
• Kelly WigglesworthKelly Wigglesworth → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC))

In my mind, she is best known as a runner-up in Survivor: Borneo, while she was eliminated in Survivor: Cambodia. Perhaps the page should be redirected to the Borneo page due to how far she has come. I doubt that sources covering her Cambodia appearance would justify retargeting the page to the Cambodia one.

Indeed, plenty of reliable sources covering her Cambodia gameplay discuss mostly her elimination. This mag piece deeming her a "boring" TV character of Cambodia would be one of grounds to restore the article. So would how Cambodia has changed her life. Unfortunately, a draft article about her that I made (Draft:Kelly Wiglesworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) wasn't approved, so good luck to those favoring an article restoration.

I can't help wonder how the current target destination has helped readers seek her name. Indeed, they would have to look for her name, click/tap on either the season that she first appeared in or the subsequent season that she also appeared in. Also, how much data has the MediaWiki server infrastructure handled over the years since it was retargeted from Borneo to the list?

If the list is no longer a suitable target for this person, then the page should be (again) retargeted to, preferably, Survivor: Borneo. George Ho (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC); edited, 17:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Nom's further comment – The outcome should depend on how the results comply with WP:RASTONISH. If the current target is the "least astonishing", then... all right. George Ho (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The current target contains the most information and links to the other two sources of information. Only problem is it's not easy to navigate without searching the page. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep all per J947. The master list serves as a directory of all her appearances. She may well be more associated with Borneo but there substantial coverage of her gameplay in the Cambodia article and picking one obscures the other and may misleadingly suggest that was her only appearance. The target is unwieldy but steering readers away from it isn't a solution to that problem. Perhaps the list needs to be reorganized or perhaps a separate, alphabetical list of contestants with multiple appearances would be a better service to readers. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 Wanyan. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 02:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Wanggiya (surname)Wanggiya (surname) → List of Manchu clans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As I know, "Wanggiya" only means the Manchu surname, which is a variant of Wanyan, and there is no need to disambiguate by parentheses. Therefore, I suggest to create the redirect "Wanggiya" (without parentheses) which would be redirected to Wanyan and delete this redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahogany115 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• I have gone and redirected Wanggiya (and Wanggiyan) to Wanyan as alternative transliterations. This seems to be a R from unnecessary disambiguation; I don't think it needs to be deleted. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  (To be clear, I believe that, if not deleted, this should point to Wanyan. I do not have an opinion on whether it should be deleted.) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The correct redirects are there, so a one with parentheses is not necessary TNM101 (chat) 12:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Wanyan and tag as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. This gets about 9 hits per month. There are no links to this redirect in articles but it's possible there were until recently and/or that external sites use this link. I see no benefit to deletion and real harm in breaking links or disrupting whatever method readers are using to access this redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget per Mycetae. Eventually, it can become necessary disambiguator. Skemous (talk) 04:49, 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 retarget to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Chaotix Detective Agency. I took into consideration the opinions on redirect target in the AfD, but there's still consensus here. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 02:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• ChaotixChaotix → Knuckles' Chaotix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should target the character group, named just the Chaotix, rather than the game, as a reader searching for this word more likely means the character group. All incoming mainspace links are for the characters, further illustrating my point. I'm only bringing this to RfD because I was reverted. The reverter's objection was that the game is known as "Chaotix" in Japanese, but this is the English wikipedia and the English title of the game is only a partial match, unlike the name of the character group. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 04:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Chaotix is the name of the game in certain regions. The group of character that originate from the name is usually referred to as "The Chaotix" or "Chaotix Detective Agency", both of which correctly redirect to the List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters list. Considering the characters are also prominently listed off Knuckles Chaotix in the gameplay section, there's no need for change here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters § Chaotix Detective Agency. Don't agree that the group is usually referred to with the definite article; there are enough exceptions that it's plausible readers wouldn't use it when searching. The game Sonic Heroes refers to them as Team Chaotix, for example. Chaotix should share the same target as The Chaotix and Team Chaotix. It's very plausible someone searching this would be looking for the group not the game. I agree with the nominator's objections to the current target (the game). I've added a link to the game at the proposed target, so any readers redirected there would also find the game. – Scyrme (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Also, regarding it being the name in Japan, that would be true if romaji (Chaotix) were the usual way of rendering the title, however it seems that katakana (カオティクス) is more common. While romaji is often used in Japan, it doesn't seem to be the primary way of rendering this title. I don't think the language affinity overrides it's primary use in English, especially since it's usually written using a different script in its native language. – Scyrme (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  There's no need for that sort of speculation here - a quick Google search shows it very clearly says Chaotix in plain English on the Japanese boxart. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  It wasn't speculation, it was based on search results (which is why I said "it doesn't seem to be" rather than "I don't think it is"). The box art is a different situation, since it's branding. That's the sort of context in which romaji might be expected, as a stylistic choice similar to how branding in English is often stylised in all caps or with mirrored letters etc. My understanding is that's a common way to use romaji in Japan. The box art has the katakana directly above the romaji logo to indicate pronunciation, and it's the katakana title which people would actually use in discussions or to search. The Japanese Wikipedia article title for the game, for example, is in katakana, and the article uses katakana throughout in its prose, though it mentions the romaji in brackets in the lead paragraph and includes an image of the romaji logo. While I'm not fluent in Japanese so may be mistaken, my attempts to search indicate that Japanese-language pages and discussions online generally use the katakana, reserving romaji for branding. It's a stylistic choice, not the usual way of using the native name. – Scyrme (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  All of this misses the point, which is that the game is both named "Chaotix" in Japan, and its name is portrayed very prominently, in English, on its box art. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  No. It's named カオティクス in Japan. That is how it's actually discussed and searched for. (It's also carries a trademark on the box art, so a valid version the title legally not just a guide to pronunciation for the actual title.) The English is used for style. Even if it were the actual title used in the Japanese-language to discuss and search for the game, it still wouldn't override the fact highlighted by the nominator that this is the English-language Wikipedia and the priority should be on how English readers would primarily use the term. Maybe some English readers would search it based on the title they read on the Japanese box art, but they would be a minority, and I as I said I added a link to the proposed target to deal with that. – Scyrme (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Again, beside the point. "Chaotix" is the single most present word on the game's box art (and the game itself). That the most identifying aspect of a physical game released in the 1990s. That's why its a valid redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  How is it beside the point that only a minority of English readers would search for the game based on the most identifiable English word on the Japanese box art? I didn't say the game wasn't a valid target. It's one of two valid targets. External search results for just the word "Chaotix" by itself doesn't bring up the game, it brings up the group/team. In English the group of characters are the primary topic over the game which originally introduced them. – Scyrme (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Your entire argument is based on your own person research that "it's not really the name", which is, quite frankly, preposterous. But rather get into it with you on that, I was trying to take another route by pointing out that, whether its the name or not, the word "Chaotix" is plastered across the game and game box more prominently than anything else.

  I also am perplexed by statements that "External search results for just the word "Chaotix" by itself doesn't bring up the game". I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but the very most basic test of that, simply typing the word "Chaotix" into a Google search, is currently showing 2 of the top 3 hits being the game. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's not what my entire argument is based on, it was my response to you insisting the Japanese name is most important detail in all this, whereas the name in Japanese was entirely ancillary to my arguments and I discussed it as an aside following my main points. Repeating myself in different words probably wouldn't be helpful so let's just agree to disagree.

  On my end the top 3 hits are , , . This is when including the quotes. Using the link you provided, which is a search without the quotes, the top 3 for this are (same top result as last time), Knuckles' Chaotix, and . In the first set zero are for the game. In the second set only 1 of 3 is for the game, and it's the Wikipedia article.

  Perhaps this difference is due to search histories or our being located in different countries or something. I can only communicate what I see on my end. Part of the point of having a discussion is to each share evidence. You have evidence I don't. I repeatedly stressed that this is how things "seem" rather than how they "are" because I'm aware that search results for one person aren't strong evidence.

  Do you have stronger evidence that the game is the primary topic? If not, then it shouldn't be the target. If there's no primary topic, it should be a disambiguation page. If the team is the primary topic it should be the target. – Scyrme (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  whether its the name or not, the word "Chaotix" is plastered across the game and game box more prominently than anything else.

  Yes, and the conclusion I infer that you draw from this is that you assume that people would generally associated the word "Chaotix" very strongly with the game as a result. I haven't seen any evidence that is actually the case, which is why I kept bringing it back to how people actually discuss and search for the game, whether in Japanese or English. Hence looking at search results. Hopefully this makes what I wrote earlier clearer to you. If not, then I don't know what to write to make you understand my reasoning. I agree that it's plausible that some might take "Chaotix" from the box art, but the box art by itself isn't persuasive evidence of usage.

  It's entirely plausible many people familiar with these characters don't even know the Knuckles' Chaotix game exists at all (it failed commercially according to the article). Many may have first encountered them from Sonic Heroes (which was very commercially successful), for example. If this is most people, then it would be easy to see how the game wouldn't be the primary topic even if those who do know the game very strongly associate it with that topic. – Scyrme (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - for some background, it was a unanimous decision to redirect it to Knuckles Chaotix back at its AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaotix. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  It was a short AfD that mostly focused on the article previously located at Chaotix not being independently notable. A lot of the details raised in this RfD were not brought up in the AfD and the outcome may have differed had these points been brought up. – Scyrme (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Both targets were mentioned in the nom though, so its not like no one thought of it as an option. The nominator recommended redirecting it to the game, all 4 participants agreed, no one dissented, and it remained in effect since 2019, except for the one time Arnav tried changing it once back in October 2025. People can take that as they will. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  The AfD was presented on the false premise that most of the sources about the characters were about the game. A simple count shows that at least 20 of the 36 references in the article at the time of the AfD weren't. Also, the characters have had more significant appearances since then, which would have only added to this count - IDW, TSR, CrossWorlds and Chaotix Casefiles. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 07:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  20 out of 36 is...55%. That's a pretty weak argument for showing a stronger tie. And the problem is that these characters are not a prominent part of any of these things - they're side characters in ensemble casts in everything except Casefiles, which is, of all things, a very minor "audio-only" short story. None of this is a strong argument. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  55% are not tied to the game, which means 45% are tied to the games, my goal is to show a weaker tie to the game, and you say 55% is not a strong tie, so 45% is even less. And that 45% would only have gone down. They are main characters in Heroes, from which they also derive much of their current characterisation. And that 45% should have been less, as the article includes lots of Knuckles' Chaotix reviews and few Sonic Heroes ones. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I understood what you said, I'm just saying 55% is a very weak "correlation". Barely more than an even split. I can't comment any further than that with such a vague claim. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Chaotix Detective Agency. I find the arguments for this far more convincing. The article section (list entry) provides a concise overview of the characters in one place, with a prominent link to Knuckles' Chaotix. This is also a logical place to expand coverage of their other appearances, if appropriate. Mention can also be made of the fact that Knuckles' Chaotix was released as Chaotix in Japan. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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) J947 ‡ ^edits 02:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

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

This could also refer to Matt Chessé in addition to being a common misspelling of cheese. This would be {{R to diacritic}} and {{R from surname}}. Searching here would reveal that it refers to the person quite often compared to the alternative spelling of chess. There are also some places like here and here where it most likely refers to cheese. Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. There are quite some different things that Chesse can refer to. Sixaxis^Yes 18:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate; although the Oxford English dictionary solely describes "Chesse" as a medieval variant of "Chess", the number of people who will inevitably misspell Cheese as such makes me decide that a disambiguation is necessary, especially once combined with the guy with the diacritical surname. Even if Chess is considered the WP:PTOPIC for that spelling, a hatnote to the DAB page should be added to it regardless. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate given Matt Chessé even though they are a PTM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. I would have said this even without the people named Chesse, as it's clearly an easy typo for cheese; when I saw the listing I initially misread it and guessed that you'd jokingly nominated Cheese here. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested (done). Left guide (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does somebody want to draft a dab?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Besides the person, what is there to actually disambiguate here? It's not a plausible misspelling of "cheese" (which wouldn't warrant an entry on a dab page), and if the above is accurate about it being an archaic spelling of "chess", then it also doesn't belong on the dab page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's not a plausible misspelling of "cheese" (which wouldn't warrant an entry on a dab page)

  Misspellings, words with one-letter differences, homophones and rhyming words (e.g. cheese/chesse, Palestinian/Palestrinian, Middlewich/Middleditch, etc.) often end up in the "See also" sections of their dab pages since readers can often confuse with each other. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. Draft provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep (1st choice) or delete. A dab page consisting of only one topic actually named "chesse", a partial title match, and a misspelling is bonkers. If there's really so much concern for ambiguity/errors, update the hatnote to include Matt Chessé and Cheese or add Matt Chessé to Chess (disambiguation)#See also (it already includes Cheese (disambiguation)). Or delete. That's what we typically do for vague errors, where it's unclear whether something is more likely to be a misspelling of one or more topic or intentional use of an obscure word for another. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Google Books Ngrams hint at the potential for also documenting Ralph Chesse, and our search also finds several references. I don't think squashing this meaning together with others is going to improve navigation for readers who look for this specific variant. Disambiguation seems like the safest choice, and will allow us to see reader statistics later, when we can reconsider with more data. --Joy (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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) J947 ‡ ^edits 02:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Monica CulpepperMonica Culpepper → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Admittedly, she appeared in two Survivor seasons: One World and Blood vs. Water. Nonetheless, she fleshed out more in the Blood vs. Water season. I thought about retargeting her to her returning season, but then she's also the wife of Brad Culpepper, an ex-NFL player who also appeared on Survivor. If the page cannot remain as-is, i.e. redirected to the list, then shall she be more associated with the Blood vs. Water season, the ex-NFL player, or her debut season where she was eliminated pre-merge? George Ho (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Why can't we just leave it alone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

You want me to withdraw and let it redirect to the whole slow-loading list? --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. She appeared on multiple seasons, both of which are mentioned and linked to at the current target. The list is a bit unwieldy but it effectively serves as a directory of articles that discuss her gameplay. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:38, 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Palm Springs Walk of the Stars/Archive 1 → Palm Springs Walk of the Stars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Hyphanet/Archive 1 → Hyphanet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate redirects in mainspace; there might be system-wide ways to handle the "article" links of talk pages but they should not be created for individual talk pages. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:31, 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 02:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:New pages → Help:Your first article  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Special:NewPages. Makes a lot more sense as a cross namespace redirect to a popular page than to the WP:Your first article page, I don't see why it's that. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 21:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget, per nom. A very odd redirect, clearly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  There's also WP:New page but at least that one makes more sense because your first article would, by definition, be one page. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 16:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• The redirect in the plural does seem a bit odd but do we normally have redirects to special pages? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  So, it looks like no based on precedent, there is no category for redirects to Special namespace. Perhaps instead we could retarget to New Pages Patrol? Or maybe create a DAB to include all of these? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• @Crouch, Swale and FloblinTheGoblin: It actually isn't possible to have a hard redirect to a special page! There are some non-soft redirects from pages in the special namespace to other pages in the special namespace, but those are "harder" redirects that are coded into MediaWiki itself from what I understand.
• Fun Wikipedia facts aside, a soft redirect is the best you can do, but at that point, I would propose to disambiguate instead. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 08:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Disambig per MEN KISSING. It is indeed not possible to have a hard redirect to a special page, see User:Thryduulf/R to special so our choices are a soft redirect, deletion or disambiguation. Given there are multiple plausible targets disambiguation seems to be the best of these. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested (done) Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does somebody want to draft a dab?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• I've drafted a disambiguation page on the redirect. Feel free to make any changes to it. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 06:38, 10 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) 21:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Opinion basher website but worse → X (social network)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is obviously a non-neutral redirect, which is not problematic in and of itself (c.f. WP:RNEUTRAL) but can be problematic in some situations. In this specific case, I can find no evidence that "opinion basher website" is an established term for anything (google finds zero results for the exact phrase; see also #Opinion basher website below), nor is it clear what the "but worse" is meaning here. Even if we assumed that it was clear that this is a direct comparison between Reddit and Twitter/X (which is a big assumption) then it is entirely subjective which is "worse" as the two are qualitatively distinct in multiple ways. All this comes together to make this a distinctly unusuful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. One person’s opinion that doesn’t belong as a redirect. I₂Overcome ^talk 18:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and I2Overcome. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 💬 15:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Opinion basher website → Reddit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Honestly, I dont think i even need to explain why this shouldnt be here but I will. This is pure opinion. same user also made Opinion basher website but worse Finnfrog99 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I was expecting this to be ambiguous with other websites that allow readers to express opinions, but outside of this redirect I cannot find a single use of the exact term. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. One person’s opinion that doesn’t belong as a redirect. I₂Overcome ^talk 18:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Made up coinage by a single editor that serves no purpose to the wider community. Obviously non-neutral, to boot! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Kamerad Ribbentrop → Joachim von Ribbentrop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Kamerad" does not appear in target article. Error? Vandalism? Gjs238 (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Kamerad is just German for comrade, but it is a far from common term to refer to Joachim von Ribbentrop, at least that I can find. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 15:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The motivation for the redirect is clearly the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, but it's not a term that's recorded. Tevildo (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:22, 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 Jim Miller#Sports. Pinging @Casablanca Rock per their request. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Jim Miller (athlete)Jim Miller (athlete) → James Miller (pole vaulter)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are several other athletes who go by Jim Miller (e.g., Jim Miller (pitcher), Jim Miller (halfback), and Jim Miller (punter)). I would suggest retargeting to Jim Miller#Sports, where a list of athletes of that name can be found. Also, I haven't seen any sources that refer to James Miller as Jim Miller. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 05:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Jim Miller#Sports per nom. The suffix (athlete) is discouraged per WP:NCSPATH: it's best to disambiguate by event category rather than use a generic '(athlete)' suffix—Bagumba (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The pole vaulter is the only athlete here; it's already disambiguated by event category. Pitchers, halfbacks, and punters do not engage in athletics but in baseball and gridiron football. Nearly everyone at Jim Miller#Sports plays/played baseball or some sort of football; the only exceptions are one MMA competitor, one skier, one curler, and one administrator. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  They are still considered athletes, despite what you mentioned. Also, please refer to my second point and Baguma’s point. Results on my end have shown the targets I mentioned above and the ones in the disambiguation page. Thanks. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 21:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  See the article athlete, which notes that, while the definition you give of athlete is used, so is a definition of athlete that includes all sportspeople. Based on this, retarget per nom. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  This is a WP:ENGVAR situation. In the United States "athlete" is used to refer to all sportspeople while in other countries it's generally only used to refer to sport of athletics competitors. --Habst (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Jim Miller#Sports but first someone must go to Special:WhatLinksHere/James Miller (athlete) and retarget all of those to James Miller (pole vaulter). I'm curious, for anyone here who can answer with more experience at RfD -- is this standard practice, after any action on a redirect, to retarget the links in WhatLinksHere? I can imagine this could be closed without the retargeting which would create ten new disambiguation links that were unintended. --Habst (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Whoever the closer is can ping me and I'll fix the links if the decision is made to retarget (which is very much how it's heading). Casablanca 🪨^(T) 18:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  When there is a large number of links they are usually left until the retargetting happens, as then tools like dabsolver can make it easier than changing them all manually. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf, thank you for explaining. That's frankly not a great solution, because it relies on someone else cleaning up the mess later and it can be difficult to determine as time passes and other people may add other links to Jim Miller (athlete) not about the pole vaulter (currently they're all about the pole vaulter).

  Dabsolver I think requires individual human action on each link -- ideally XfDCloser would auto-handle this instead immediately on closure because in this case it's clear what to do for each dab link. --Habst (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• See Olympedia for usage of "Jim". J947 ‡ ^edits 01:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Jim Miller#Sports per nom and Bagumba and tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. 'Athlete' is ambiguous and is explicitly discouraged per WP:NCSPATH. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 by moving Gaslight (disambiguation) to Gaslight. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Gaslight → Gas lighting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Gaslighting.

The term "gaslight" is ambiguous. I can easily find recent uses of it in the methane-related sense,^[1] in the psychological one^[2] and for various proper nouns, so either page (or Gaslight (disambiguation), for than matter) would be a plausible target for the redirect.

Gaslighting is more frequently viewed than any of the pages or redirects with "Gaslight" or "Gas light" in the title. It had 7633 views/day over 10 years against 3687 for the other pages and redirects combined, of which 300 were for Gas lighting.^[3][4]. There was a big spike on 21st May 2016, but the page was more commonly viewed than everything else combined before then.

Far more people who visit Wikipedia are looking for the psychological version than the methane one. If those who visit the redirect are similar (and I know of no reason to think otherwise), this change would help more people than it would hinder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoeuidhtns (talk • contribs) 02:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Wikinav shows that around 40-45% of people viewing the Gaslighting article follow the link to Gaslight (1944 film), with the same article being the top destination from Gaslight (disambiguation) with 30-40% of outgoing views. From Gas lighting, the top destination is gaslighting but that's just over 16% of views. Wikinav stats for the redirect are apparently not available. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• I would suggest to retarget to the disambiguation page, and fix the link on the disamiguation page towards gas lighting: there are apparantently 9 more meanings aside from the the methane and psychological usage, including even the play/films that lent their names to the psychological usage (and that were themselves named after the methane usage). --Enyavar (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to the disambiguation page. While more readers may be here to view one meaning over the other, they effectively have the same name (differing only by a single space). Therefore, I think it's hard to call one of the two topics the primary. In fact, the disambiguation page already highlights the artificial lighting as the primary (but then, oddly, links to the redirect): Gaslight is the artificial light produced by burning gas. I take issue with this edit because all this uncertainty makes it impossible to know which of the two topics should be considered primary, aside from web traffic, which again is not a slam dunk, in my mind. — voidxor 16:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Gaslight (disambiguation) per others and fix the link at the top. I₂Overcome ^talk 17:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Dabify and retarget Gaslight (disambiguation) to Gaslight. Dab drafted over redirect. I₂Overcome ^talk 21:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    • You have to move the dab page, not copypaste the text in elsewhere.--Srleffler (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

      Yes, that makes sense. My bad. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Target DAB no clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: wouldn't retargeting to the dab page result in WP:MALPLACED? Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I have drafted a new dab at Gaslight. I₂Overcome ^talk 21:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• If the consensus is that gaslight does not have a primary meaning, the right solution is to delete the redirect and move Gaslight (disambiguation) to Gaslight, editing the page to the form for a dab without a primary meaning.--Srleffler (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Move Gaslight (disambiguation) to Gaslight: no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Move Gaslight (disambiguation) to Gaslight. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• If there is a proposal to move Gaslight (disambiguation), the watchers of the page need to be aware. Just notified of this discussion at their talk. Jay 💬 15:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• It should simply be disambiguated by moving the existing disambiguation page there, yep. --Joy (talk) 18:31, 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).