Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 1

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• The AstronomicaThe Astronomica → Astronomica (Manilius)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Marked as an avoided double redirect to Astronomica (a disambiguation page), but I'm not sure whether it's plausible for any of the topics listed on the page to be referred to as "The Astronomica" (emphasis added), though this one seems like the most plausible one. I'm torn between keep and delete. Duckmather (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep (subject to the ongoing move request, i.e., it should target the Manilius work, wherever that winds up). That very much does seem to be referred to "The" Astronomica, and is done so in the very first sentence of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, keep targeting the Manilius work, and remove the double redirect notice. The wrong double-redirect target is is just some cruft from an abortive dab swap, sorry. As for the the, our RSes do do this, eg . I'm sure at some point in this wide world someone has referred to de astronomica as "the astronomica" somewhere, although it seems to me less frequently.

Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• It shouldn't be deleted, as both works (that is, Manilius's Astronomica and Hyginus's De astronomia) are referred to as "the Astronomica". For sources which refer to the latter work as such, see this Google Books search. As to whether it should point directly to Astronomica (Manilius) or to the disambiguation page (currently at Astronomica), I would want its target to be the same as Astronomica, which will depend on the ongoing requested move. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural close, and wait for the RM to play out. Jay 💬 06:06, 10 February 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 💬 07:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Javas → Flax#Flax seeds  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, even when the redirect was created. Not sure if anything at Java (disambiguation) is worth retargeting to or if this redirect should be deleted. Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete since google doesn't suggest any clear standout meaning; the search results are split between coffee, the Java programming language, the island, a given name (???), and a word in Sanskrit. Though it should be noted that wikt:java suggests that coffee is the only pluralizable meaning Duckmather (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 4 February 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 move Red Carpet (Namie Amuro song) to Red Carpet (song). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Red Carpet (song) → Horn (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I came across this redirect while trying to add entries to Red carpet (disambiguation). This redirect does not make sense, as there is an article about Red Carpet (Namie Amuro song). Either this should be the title of the article about the Namie Amuro song, or the redirect should be retargeted to the disambiguation page. Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Red carpet (disambiguation), where a couple of songs title Red Carpet are listed.–DMartin (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• Move Red Carpet (Namie Amuro song) to Red Carpet (song), since it's the only song of this title with an article, and add a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 20:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Move per Eureka Lott. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Move per Eureka Lott. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Move Red Carpet (Namie Amuro song) to Red Carpet (song), and add a hatnote to the top of the Namie Amuro song article pointing towards the disambiguation page, per Eureka Lott. ApexParagon (talk) 16:48, 9 February 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) 09:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Blue-ribbon bisexual → Lesbian#Sexuality and identity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Blue-ribbon bisexuals → Lesbian#Sexuality and identity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned; misleading. Abesca (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Web search turns up a variety of related uses. It is not specific to or even clearly associated with lesbians. These redirects are indeed misleading or, at best, will confuse or frustrate readers seeking an explanation of this specific terminology. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  If there are a variety of meanings with suitable targets mage a disambiguation page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC).
  

  A search of Wikipedia reveals no suitable targets and in fact no mention of the phrase blue-ribbon bisexual anywhere except for these redirects. My external (web) search, referenced in my initial response, revealed a hodgepodge of similar phrases. None appeared notable and none used these specific strings of words. A Google search for "blue-ribbon bisexual" with quotes turned up only two hits: This RFD discussion and this seemingly inactive Twitter account of a non-notable individual with fewer than 700 followers. Two hits is staggeringly low. Even fairly niche LGBTQ slang and terminology will (often) have many page of Google hits from wiki-unreliable sources and often some coverage in RS. By all indications, the term blue-ribbon bisexual is essentially not in use but may be an occasional coinage with no consistent meaning and no wiki-verifiably notable meaning. And, again, no specific relationship to lesbians. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC) edited 23:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  "It is not specific to or even clearly associated with lesbians"... "lesbians"? Do you mean bisexuals, or am I missing something? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Organhaver The current target is a section of the article Lesbian. I’m trying to be crystal clear that I can find no consistent association with the current target nor with any other target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment: this was originally a redirect to Gold star lesbian, which was merged within Lesbian and now it exists under another title for the general term Gold star; Blue ribbon says it's something that exists at high quality. Looking at the page historial, the term was mentioned, from this website, here's the meaning: Blue-ribbon bisexuals – have had multiple serious relationships with partners of different genders. What it appears to be: a proposal for an inverse counterpart to Gold star lesbian, and implying this would be a high-quality (blue-ribbon) bisexual. But as Myceteae found out, this term never really caught on. That website was probably one of the first shown via Google at that time, now it's faded into obscurity. Abesca (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abesca. Okay. But do you think the redirect should be deleted? Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – not queer. 09:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes Abesca (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. As terminology goes, it's a made-up term that isn't used within the bisexual community, nor the lesbian community. In the quick Google search I made, it appeared only 2x: as someone's personal declaration on an X.com post, and this Wikipedia discussion. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – not queer. 09:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom and per Pyxis Solitary — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:55, 2 February 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) 16:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Ethopharmacology → Pharmacology#Behavioral pharmacology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would delete this unmentioned redirect but this is an {{R from merge}} so I understand that is not to be done lightly. Note that the "Behavioral pharmacology" section no longer exists. Ethopharmacology was previously a poorly sourced stub that was merged into the main article in 2015. The content was reorganized and moved around and eventually removed in 2020 (Special:Diff/936612708) as part of an entire section that failed verification. Now the redirect only serves to frustrate, confuse, or mislead readers who will find zero coverage of the topic. The topic is probably notable, with over 4,000 Google Scholar hits, so WP:RETURNTORED applies. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment The term is mentioned at Human ethology#References and is confusing with Ethnopharmacology. Abesca (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The confusion with Ethnopharmacology came up in several back-and-forth edits to Pharmacology over the years. Ethopharmacology is also mentioned in a reference at Tandospirone and an in the infobox at Ina Vandebroek. I found no mention in article prose and no description or definition anywhere on internal search. If suitable coverage (more than a passing mention) is added back to Pharmacology or to Human ethology or some other article that may be a suitable target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Seems like a possible notable topic. Otherwise, it could also be possibly retarget to Psychopharmacology. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 4 February 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 Star Wars species (A–E)#B'omarr monks. (non-admin closure) ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• B'omarr MonkB'omarr Monk → List of Star Wars species (A–E)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecesary redirect. We already have B’omarr Monk which redirects to List of Star Wars species (A–E)#B'omarr monks while this one rdirects to the main page. Delete. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not retarget to List of Star Wars species (A–E)#B'omarr monks as {{R from avoided double redirect}} and {{R from alternate punctuation}}? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 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 Remedy#Medicine. No prejudice against another editor re-nominating if there is another problem with this redirect or if they feel this closure is inappropriate. Closing my own discussion per Thryduulf's suggestion and per WP:COSTLY and WP:CUAYD. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Medical remedyMedical remedy → Pharmacology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as vague. Remedy is not mentioned at the current target and the study of drug action is certainly not synonymous. The dab page Remedy lists Panacea (medicine), which seems too narrow, as a panacea is a subtype of remedy. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Remedy#Medicine where someone using this search term will find a link to whichever article they are wanting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Well, this seems obvious! I would have just boldly retargeted if I'd given this a little more thought. Thanks, @Thryduulf. I will close and retarget. No objection to another editor re-nominating if they see a different problem with this redirect. RFD listings are WP:COSTLY and I see it as my responsibility to clean up after myself by closing this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 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) 03:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Jacksepticeye2 → PewDiePie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at PewDiePie or jacksepticeye. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 15:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 4 February 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. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

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

No mentions of "Beamflot" at the target or on any other article. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Former Viking name of the Viking settlement there. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• WP:G7 as Beamflot is a misspelling, correct spelling is Beamfleot (which does have sources available for being historical name for Benfleet, probably South Benfleet. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 1 February 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 Hearts in Unicode#List of heart-related emojis. Closing this a bit early per SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

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

I suggest retarget to love. If 😍 redirects to love despite also being a "love face", why is this one redirecting specifically to Romantic love? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 07:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Weak retarget per nom. The official name of this unicode character is just "Smiling Face with Hearts," and it might be used to express love, adoration, happiness, gratitude, etc. There is similar ambiguity with 😍 ("Smiling Face with Heart-Shaped Eyes"). Hearts in Unicode#List of heart related emojis is another possible target. I₂Overcome ^talk 10:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Emojipedia and my own experience agree with you—like many emojis, this can have a variety of meanings from happiness to romantic love. Emojipedia says it is especially associated with being in love. I think Love is a better target than Romance but Hearts in Unicode#List of heart related emojis might be even better. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• In my experience, this emoji is used to express gratitude, agreeableness, or a thank you, and it's more similar to the use of 🤗 and care emoji. Abesca (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#List of heart related emojis because I think the idea of retargeting re: the meaning of the emoji is running into way too many WP:XY issues. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#List of heart related emojis. This emoji does not map unambiguously to another encyclopedic concept. Consistent with the consensus described at WP:REMOJI, this is a suitable target that provides context for the emoji itself without declaring a primary topic such as Love or Romance. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#List of heart-related emojis (note, I've amended that section title for grammar) per Myceteae. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Good catch. And yes, certainly retarget to the current name of the section. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I noticed that too. Thanks for fixing it. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#List of heart-related emojis per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#List of heart related emojis per above. Enix150 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 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 Ion#Anions and cations. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Minus ionMinus ion → Negative air ionization therapy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

big RASTONISH. i would expect it much more to redirect to something like ion instead of what it actually does. Oreocooke (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

ok so i did a bit of digging and it used to be an article but got BLARred. that answers why, but RASTONISH is about least astonishment, so it still applies. Oreocooke (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I would also expect this to point to Ion#Anions and cations but this is not a standard way to refer to anions. A cursory Google search reveals a lot of seemingly pseudoscientific products and concepts associated with the term minus ion, including but not limited to negative air ionization therapy. The term is not used at the current target, making this redirect unhelpful. The article that existed at this title was BLAR'd in 2010. No content was merged into the target and the pre-BLAR article was poorly sourced and promotional. It can safely be deleted. I doubt there is any information about minus ions that can be added anywhere on en-wiki. If there is, it would require all new sourcing and content and it's not clear that Negative air ionization therapy would be the best place for this coverage. The sole use of Minus ion in article space is at Little Girl (Miwa song). The meaning in the quoted material is unclear and is therefore in violation of MOS:NOLINKQUOTE; I will remove the wikilink. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC) Updated !vote after the relist. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Weak retarget to Ion § Anions and cations as an {{r avoided double redirect}} to negative ion. Either that or delete – we can't stay here.

Given that "minus ion" is clearly not the correct way to refer to an anion, I don't think you'll get very many google hits for it, especially since "negatve" is more used than "minus" in this context. However, in this case internet coverage doesn't necessarily reflect actual usage, and I find it perfectly plausible that someone with no knowledge of chemistry would refer not unreasonably to a "minus ion" if they forget the correct terminology. Pseudoscience is usually overrepresented on internet coverage, and mental errors underrrepresented as there is, usually, a barrier between what goes on on peoples' brains and what they publish on the web. (When doing some cursory searches, I did find this, which was interesting but not, I think, especially helpful to us.) I'm sure Thryduulf can attest that I have next to no confidence in LLMs, but I did find it interesting that when I typed in "minus ion" (no quote marks) to Google, its accursed AI Overview pointed me unhesitatingly to anions. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

i prefer this course of action Oreocooke (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this view and could maybe come around. My one hesitation is that it is precisely because pseudoscience is overrepresented online that readers searching an online encyclopedia for this term will very likely have encountered this specific usage and will be looking for more information on the pseudoscience or marketing topic. When a term is widely used in one context (or set of related contexts) that we do not cover on en-wiki, and is also a plausible but hard-to-prove error for a different topic that we do cover, I find it difficult to confidently assign the target. That said, the pseudoscientific use of minus ion does ultimately refer to anions. So the proposed target is not strictly speaking incorrect but it fails to address a (likely) common reason for the search. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

If you found an RS that discusses the term in the context of the fringe treatment, we could retarget per Cremastra but add a hatnote to the therapy. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 09:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that we lack reliable sources for either usage. But we have a large number of unreliable sources that use this in the pseudoscientific context. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Ion#Anions and cations. Clearly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC).

• Retarget to Ion#Anions and cations per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Weak retarget → Ion#Anions and cations. Eh, this is fine, after all. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 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. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• 10.69469 → Derbyana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Derbyana article is about a genus of beetles, not the Brazilian geology journal Derbyana that has 10.69469 for its DOI. There is no article for the journal, or its publisher (the Secretaria de Meio Ambiente, Infraestrutura e Logística do Estado de São Paulo). Plantdrew (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes I created this by mistake. You can speedy this. Picked whatever criteria you want. G7. G6/{{Db-error}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Tagged G7. I₂Overcome ^talk 07:53, 1 February 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! 04:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• President Silva → Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous with Artur da Costa e Silva, Aníbal Cavaco Silva, and probably more. Abesca (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Disambig per nom - this is a very plausible but ambiguous search term. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate as a TNDis per precedents like President Johnson, President Ortiz, and President Yun. BD2412 T 16:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Question: wouldn't it be more productive if retargeted to Silva (surname)#Political and military figures? Abesca (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Abesca: I do not. If a reader is specifically searching for a "President Silva" then they are not looking for any of the dozens of people in that section who are not a "President Silva", and should not be forced to comb through them. That is precisely why TNDis exists, and why we have numerous disambiguation pages for presidents by surname. BD2412 T 18:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• DABify. I agree with Thryduulf that this is a very plausible but ambiguous search term. I also agree with BD2412's reply above. "President Silva" is a specific search term and should return a narrower set of results. There are dozens of entries listed under Silva (surname)#Political and military figures and only a small handful have been presidents. Readers would be better served by a dedicated President Silva DAB page. The presidents should, of course, also remain on the master list at Silva (surname)#Political and military figures. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Also, would this be a DAB or a set index? Abesca (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  DAB seems right, since every entry is or can be known by the exact name/title "President Silva". WP:SETINDEX seems off since I would not conceptualize this as a list of a a certain type of person with the surname Silva who shares the characteristic of having been a president… I suppose one could approach this either way but I see this as a straightforward DAB page. Let me know if I'm missing something. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  We have nearly 7,000 pages in Category:Title and name disambiguation pages, and these have never been classified as other than disambiguation pages, so a discussion of that structure would exceed the scope of this RfD. BD2412 T 14:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguation draft requested (done). Left guide (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Left guide:  Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:15, 4 February 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 💬 10:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Nonsense redirect that should be deleted. Categorized as "to the same page name with diacritics", referring to Palojärv, which got deleted in 2024.

• Delete per nom and the previous discussion. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - as this is the English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - clutter for enwiki database--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 4 February 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. Thanks for confirming that no merge took place. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Nick Jonas Promotional Concerts → Nick Jonas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list identified in the target article. (However, this redirect is a {{R from merge}} as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Jonas Promotional Concerts in 2012; some of the content of the former article seems to be at Nick Jonas#Tours, but that section is not cover the entirety of the subject of this redirect. The history of the redirect also includes content not relevant to the Nick Jonas#Tours section.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• I can't find evidence of a merge. If it did happen to any degree, then this redirect's history must be kept. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was there a merge or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The nom tagged this as {{R from merge}} before listing this at RFD. Like J947, I find no evidence that the merge procedure was actually carried out, despite the outcome listed at the AFD. The AFD closed on 14 June 2012 but this was not converted to a redirect until 27 December 2012. The edit summary for the redirect does not say anything about a merger. There were no edits to Nick Jonas on the day Nick Jonas Promotional Concerts was converted to a redirect. The versions of Nick Jonas immediately before and after the redirect's creation make no mention of "Nick Jonas Promotional Concerts" and do not appear to contain any merged content per my spot check. My perspective is biased since I spend far more time at RFD than AFD, but this appears to be an all-too-common occurrence where an AFD is closed as 'merged' but no merger actually occurs. This creates confusion at RFD and can lead to the preservation of useless and misleading redirects. My understanding is that {{R from merge}} should only be used when content has actually been merged, and not solely based on a discussion that said a merger was supposed to have happened. Thus I would remove the {{R from merge}} tag if kept or retargeted unless I am mistaken. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Myceteae: "...this appears to be an all-too-common occurrence where an AFD is closed as 'merged' but no merger actually occurs". Yep, I can't stand when that happens either since it leaves someone who tries their darnest to get Rcats right in a position where they have to either trust the AfD result and assume it got closed right or not trust the AfD result and assume things did not get closed right and have to dig through the history to validate, as you and J947 did. This right here is why I am all about all close results needing the be executed by the discussion closer upon or shortly after the close ... unless the result was performed prior to the close: It creates a level of accountability that needs to occur here. (By the way, for what it's worth, if no merge occurred, this redirect would most likely be a {{R with history}} instead.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  At a minimum, editors !voting 'merge' should be specific about which content should be merged and where it fits into the target article. Closers should be more specific that consensus to merge is the outcome of the discussion without falsely indicating or implying that it has been done. I have (rarely) seen closes that say something along the lines of 'interested editors may complete the merger'. Thanks for doing your part, @Steel1943, to try and straighten this out. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:33, 2 February 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. Jay 💬 10:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• 2025 Federation Cup → Federation Cup (India)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm doubtful this is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT since Federation Cup is a dab page. Furthermore, some of the other dab entries have standalone articles for the individual 2025 event (such as 2025 Copa Federación de España, 2025 Nigeria Federation Cup, and 2025 FSA Federation Cup) whereas I could not find any for the Indian football event. Delete or maybe retarget to dab page? Left guide (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and convert inti dab page given multiple possible options above. GiantSnowman 21:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dab or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• DAB page for the ones listed above but not the Indian event (unless sources are found that it actually happened under that name- our article suggests the Indian Federation Cup was replaced after 2017). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested (done) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 1 February 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 no consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Edge of spaceEdge of space → Kármán line#Edge of space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect targets the section where it targets, but then the target article itself has a link for edge of space, targeting Outer space#Boundary. I'm not sure which target is more applicable/preferred. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Outer space#Boundary.–DMartin (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I was going to suggest retargetting to Outer space#Boundary and to update the two hatnotes which would need updating. The current target describes the Kármán line as simply one definition of the edge of space. But the current target also describes "edge of space" as a specific term with a specific meaning – near space, just below the Kármán line. We have an article on near space, but the current target arguably describes this term in more detail and with easier navigation to Outer space#Boundary. Complicating matters further, the lion's share of incoming links to this redirect intend "edge of space" to mean the Kármán line, rather than near space just below the Kármán line. Indeed, this redirect is actually a former title of the article on the Kármán line. So in conclusion, I have no idea. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. "Edge of space" is neither about Outer space (outside the edge) nor Near space (inside the edge). "Kármán line" is pretty much established to describe the concept generically, not limited to specific definitions. CapnZapp (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. There are many things that can be referred as "edge of space", including the film Edge of Space, a sub-show called "The Edge of Space" in Starstuff, and various terms like the Kármán line literally meaning the edge of space. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  I "sort of" oppose this option. I support the creation of Edge of space (disambiguation) per this comment, but I oppose putting the disambiguation page at Edge of space since this title has a WP:RPRIMARY target somewhere, whether it be the current target, Outer space#Boundary, or something similar. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  This is rather contradictory. If the primary topic is not obvious that would suggest the need to convert this to a dab page. Or is your position that these targets are all equally plausible places to describe the related definitions and that we should pick one that has the best overview of the related topics/definitions? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and create Edge of space (disambiguation). While it is ambiguous, the current target appears to be the primary topic so the disambiguation page should not take the base title. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  What we ought to do is have an article called "Edge of space" which discusses the Karman line (probably obsolete) and newer proposals, e.g. McDowell The edge of space: Revisiting the Karman Line. McDowell suggests 80km not Karman's 100km. Failing that,

  Redirect to Outer space#Boundary is currently the nearest thing to such a discussion (and it reaches 83km, not far off McDowell). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Created Edge of space (disambiguation). Jay 💬 10:41, 8 February 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).