Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 23, 2026.

Ahimsa (U2 and A. R. Rahman song)

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) 00:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The subject of this redirect is also mentioned at A. R. Rahman#Performing and other projects and A. R. Rahman discography#As lead artist, meaning due to the inclusion of "A. R. Rahman" in these redirects' disambiguators, and since the topic of these redirects do not have an article (the redirects Ahimsa (song) and Ahimsa (U2 song) also exist), probably best to delete this as having ambiguous disambiguators. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 23 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).

"Waves ([artist(s)] song)" redirects targeting Kawhi Leonard

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 "Kawhi Leonard song" and delete the rest. Left guide (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Odd situation here. The subject of these redirects seem to be mentioned in the target article, but the combinations of all of these disambiguates for these redirects makes it kind of odd. For one, Culture Jam redirects to Culture jamming (meaning if "Culture Jam" is meant to represent an artist or a musical group, that article does not exist), the target article refers to it as an album name, and there's no definite evidence of that the song in these redirects and the album are related. Also, Gunna (rapper) (I'm assuming this is the intended subject) and Polo G do not mention the subject anywhere in either article. With all that being said, due to the potential ambiguity of all of this, and no real care information about the subject, I'm posing a delete all stance on this with the caveat of "very weak keep Waves (Kawhi Leonard song)" because it is mentioned in the target and the disambiguator matches the title of the target page. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete all except Waves (Kawhi Leonard song). I don't see why a song by X should be redirected to Y, where X is not even mentioned. Not just these redirects do not give the informations the readers were arguably looking for, they are a perfect recipe to confuse them. Cavarrone 06:11, 28 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME. This is a non-notable minor whose name should not be on the project. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, and the name is not mentioned at the target anyways. 1isall (talk | contribs) 23:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Of note the editor who created this redirect was indeffed for BLP violations. TarnishedPathtalk 23:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is an article content discussion and may be taken up at that page. Mention was there at target during the nomination, and continues to be there. Should there be a policy to have a family tree without non-notable names? We have a help page, but not policy. Jay 💬 07:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, no mention at the target. thejiujiangdragon (TJD) TALK/CONTRIBS 23:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep but change section link to Family of Joe Biden#Tree of descendents which is the section in the article where they are mentioned, and have consistently been mentioned. Whether they should be mentioned is not a matter for RfD, but while they are a redirect is fine. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Rerefine to Family of Joe Biden#Tree of descendants per Jay and Thryduulf. If the mention is removed, delete. J947 ‡ edits 23:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jay. The nominator's statement is fundamentally about content at the target article, not suitability of this redirect. FWIW, there is a redirect for the next-oldest grandchild but not the younger one (nor the great-grandchild). I don't find BLPNAME very helpful here. I could see reasonable arguments for or against the idea that the descendants of a US president qualify as "heir to a throne or similar". Personally, I lean towards no, aligning me with the nom here, but again, just looking at this redirect as things stand at the target, it's got to be a keep. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 12 March 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).

USECAR

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) 00:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

No information on USECAR related to redirect target. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. We have no mentioned of any person or thing with this name anywhere on en.wp that I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 25 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).

Kumo (spider)

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 💬 18:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

"Kumo" (蜘蛛) is the Japanese word for spider. I don't see what affinity spiders have with this language, so I think this should be deleted per RFOREIGN. Also, this contains the target as a disambiguator, so I don't see how this is a plausible search term. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:32, 23 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).

Liberal Party (Chile)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 2#Liberal Party (Chile)

The Democrat

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 2#The Democrat

PS Seabird

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 shipwrecks in Lake Michigan. Left guide (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

No mention at target or anywhere else on enwiki. A quick Google search brings up nothing about a paddle steamer with this name. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Add mention and keep but mark as a {{R from misspelling}}. Most of my Google results were partial title matches for the "PS Seabird Survey" by the Washington Ornithological Society (I'm guessing that "PS" stands for Puget Sound here). However I was able to find which states "In 1868, [paddle steamer] Seabird was engulfed in a fire and at least 100 people lost their life through fire or drowning." but I don't know how reliable that site is. This book is reliable and confirms the existence of the ship ("Among the other notable boats were the Seabird and the Eliza Anderson. The former carried immense crowds, but drew too much water for the river trade.") but doesn't say anything else about it. This Facebook post about a different shipwreck includes the sentence "The Alpena was purchased by Goodrich in 1868 From Gallagher to replace the Steamer Seabird which burned off of Waukegan IL in 1868." That led me to which contains more than enough referenced information about the sinking of a paddle steamer named "Sea Bird" off Waukegan, Illinois on 9 April 1868 for an entry, indeed it looks like there is enough information to write an article. "Seabird" is very obviously a plausible search term for "Sea Bird". Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
    Retarget to List of shipwrecks in Lake Michigan now that that page exists and has a mention. It should be marked as a {{R from misspelling}} and {{R avoided double redirect}} of PS Sea Bird that user:Akaza has created as a redirect to the shipwreck in Lake Michigan page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources are available but mention has not yet been added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to List of shipwrecks in Lake Michigan, where it is named and referenced. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 10:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
@Akaza: thanks for putting that together, and I support a retarget there. I see there is a lot of content at List of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes#Lake Michigan that doesn't exist at List of shipwrecks in Lake Michigan. Are you planning on merging the two? Content can be moved from the Lake Michigan section into the main article (following WP:CWW) and a link left at the Great Lakes page, as is the case for List of shipwrecks in Lake Superior, which is simply linked from List of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes#Lake Superior. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
That's the plan. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 10:35, 1 March 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).

Autopedophilia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Autopedophilia

1970 Coup

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 coups and coup attempts#1970. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Not fully convinced this is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Cursory Internet searching of this term largely turns up results for 1970 Cambodian coup d'état and more sparsely for 1970 Omani coup d'état. Disambiguate or delete? Left guide (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The Syrian article has the least page views among the three. Left guide (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above. Very nice find Tavix, thanks. Left guide (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. Guy Harris (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix --Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 25 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).

distrito federal

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 15:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

federal district (brazil) is the primary topic by a pretty wide margin, the only other "federal district" that exists in the context of portuguese can just stay mentioned in the hatnote, and the only other "distrito federal" was mexico city, which i will be genuinely surprised if anyone even remembers. all of this is to say, the current target is borderline surprising, i had to do some detective work to find the only plausible non-brazilian target (whose existence i can confirm), and a hatnote at the proposed target can do the trick consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom and add hatnote to Mexico City and the current target. There is obvious affinity between the Portuguese name for a place in a Portuguese-speaking country, so there are no RLOTE issues, and my investigations match the Brazilian district being primary topic but with Mexico City getting sufficient results to justify a direct hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Too ambiguous for me to justify a primary topic here. It might be because I'm a USian, but I thought of Mexico City first personally and would've been surprised if I landed at an article about Brasilia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • WP:SMALLDETAILS could apply, but it's hard to be sure based on clickstreams at the Federal district destination page - we don't measure them per-redirect, so we can't tell specifically how the "[Dd]istrito [Ff]ederal" readers reacted.
    Maybe it would be best to start by splitting out a short disambiguation page for these 2 specific meanings combined because of case difference only, plus a link to federal district for anything else, and then after a month check how the clickstreams look then. This sounds like a safe way to streamline navigation for both of the specific non-English phrases. A more straightforward short list would usually improve things for those readers, and relieve us from this level of guesswork. --Joy (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    I'm open to the idea of a DAB page as well. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    WP:SMALLDETAILS does not apply, or at least does not clearly indicate that Federal District (Brazil) is the intended target since capitalized Distrito Federal is at least equally likely to refer to Mexico City—and probably more likely. Neither sentence case nor the proper name resolves this. A dedicated Distrito Federal dab page is reasonable. Distrito Federal was a dab page listing Federal District (Brazil) and Federal District (Mexico) (a redirect to Mexico City) for most of its history. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    In reviewing links in articles to Distrito Federal, most refer to Mexico, with Brazil as a distant second. Other instances I found are at Pedro Quartucci where it is used for Buenos Aires, which apparently used to be a Distrito Federal; at Miss Venezuela 1981; and as the title of an album at Graham Coxon discography. The Federal District dab page did include Capital District (Venezuela) for a time. I haven't investigated this but if there's evidence that Capital District (Venezuela) was previously named Distrito Federal, this could be included. The album listed at Graham Coxon discography is listed at Mexican Institute of Sound#Discography, which could be included on the dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    So if it was like that for most of its history, then we just go back to that? Why was it redirected to the more generic list, was there a rationale? --Joy (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
    Found the edit from 2018 - "Does not warrant its own article". As it was just an assertion, we don't need a big discussion, just a click on the fine undo buttons :) --Joy (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
    The issue back then was probably that it was formatted as some sort of a set index, but it wasn't clear that this was warranted. Reformatting as disambiguation was trivial enough, though. --Joy (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Distrito Federal shows Alejandra Lazcano, which uses "Mexico City, Distrito Federal" for Distrito Federal (Mexico). ZNático (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    Of the 50 uses in articles, most refer to Mexico. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep or DABify DABify (1st choice) or Keep (2nd choice). I strongly disagree that the Brazilian Federal District is the primary topic. Mexico City was known as Distrito Federal for nearly 200 years, until 2016. The Mexican capital is more well-known to the large English speaking population of North America, many of whom speak Spanish as a first or second language. Monolingual English speakers frequently encounter Spanish phrases and place names, especially in works written about Mexico. Retargeting to Federal District (Brazil) will be WP:RSURPRISEing to many more readers. Honestly, I think Mexico City has a strong case at being the primary topic, despite the name change, but a dedicated Distrito Federal dab page is reasonable here. My Google search (from the US) exclusively returns results in about Mexico City in English and Spanish on the first several pages, including the Britannica article "Federal District". The WikiNav (clickstreams) data show that nearly 2x as many readers navigate to Mexico City as to Federal District (Brazil) from the current target page. This isn't a huge difference and we can't know for sure how readers arrive at Federal district but this is certainly inconsistent with the notion that large numbers of readers are searching for the Brazilian district specifically and are somehow confused by the current situation. Note that Brazil is much higher on the page but Federal District (Brazil) still gets fewer clicks. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    Updated !vote with a preference to DABify, based on further discussion and discoveries. The DAB page should live at Distrito Federal and the sentence case Distrito federal should redirect there. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
    There's a dab dabbifying both: DF#Places. ZNático (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
    I did see that. A separate dab page could also list "Distrito Federal, 2021 Mexican Institute of Sound album", which doesn’t belong at DF and isn’t a place. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
    Added to Joy's draft. Jay 💬 14:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • For the former redirect, disambiguate / restore disambiguation page. In 2016 I might've considered the notion that CDMX is the primary topic. Now, we're a far cry from one in either direction. I think the fact that we're getting all sorts of anecdotal opinions as regards the existence of a primary topic is indicative that a disambiguation page at this title is not overkill. It's a very common search term, so we can do better than the current target – though I don't mind keeping as is as a second choice.
    The latter redirect can be retargetted to that disambiguation page. It links to Federal district prominently if that's really what the reader with the lower-case search term is after. J947 ‡ edits 08:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting along with related discussion for Distrito Federal (disambiguation)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Drafted disambiguation at the bottom of Distrito Federal. ----Joy (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    Looks good to me. I have no strong opinion as to whether Buenos Aires or the former Venezuelan capital should be added. That could be worked out after this is published through the normal editorial process. The three entries you've you and Jay listed are clearly appropriate and make for a good dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Presidentman, you initially !voted 'keep', noting that the meaning is too ambiguous. Are you OK with a dedicated Distrito Federal dab page? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, this looks good to me. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:54, 5 March 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).

Distrito Federal (disambiguation)

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 Distrito Federal following my closure of the discussion above as disambiguate. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect contains "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page. Distrito Federal has not been a disambiguation page since 2018. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per convention Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 06:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment, as the target functions as list of federal districts, this redirect is not eligible for G14 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
    So is it WP:SIA? ZNático (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
    Not really, but the line between list article and set index article can be blurry. Regardless, the page (like many lists) performs a "disambiguation-like function", which is the wording used in the speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • delete, only sort of per nom. it's kind of hard to disambiguate a term that only actually has one possible target, that being the federal district (whoa)
...is what i would say, but it turns out rio de janeiro was the former "federal district" before the capital was moved!!
...is what i would say, but it turns out that people referring to it will almost invariably slap a year on it (such as in ptwiki) or just skip the middle man and call it "rio de janeiro" because that's what it's been for longer than anyone around here who isn't a math or history teacher has been around, so there would be no need for a dab when a hatnote can and already does do the trick, and the current federal district is the primary topic by a really wide margin, so it does pretty much only have one possible target
...is what i would say, but- actually, i don't have a third plot twist. only two terms actually exist that this name could refer to, and neither of them are or need a dab, so i'm just gonna nom those redirects as well consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
no, wait, i did find a third plot twist by looking at the pre-blar content of distrito federal for about 7 seconds. mexico city actually also was a federal district. frankly, i'm not even entirely sure mexico knew that, so it can just be added to a hatnote and nothing of value will be lost. don't restore that, though
except i lied, because i have a fourth plot twist!! buenos aires also was one, and let's already get to the much more boring fifth plot twist that the fourth plot twist is a lie, as it doesn't seem to have ever been known as a federal district, meaning i accidentally told the truth (ew) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting along with the discussion that ZNático referenced
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Distrito Federal if that becomes a dab page—which it should. Wait, otherwise, pending outcome of the related discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:05, 26 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).

La Araña and others

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 La Araña (disambiguation) to La Araña and retarget the rest to La Araña. Left guide (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"La Araña" is Spanish for "The Spider", and the others are based on this redirect. Per RFOREIGN, I don't think these should point to our article on the arachnid, as I'm not seeing any affinity with the language. La Araña (disambiguation) has some options for where this should target. We could also just retarget to the disambiguation page itself if there isn't a primary topic. Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd say that we should move La Araña (disambiguation) to La Araña and retarget the rest to La Araña. This would match our approach for Las Arañas as the plural form. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion on this, but Shogun's suggestion makes more sense. I'll support moving the DAB to be the primary and retargeting the rest to there, given it seems there is not an actual primary topic. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 18:54, 23 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).

Iranian plate

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 5#Iranian plate

Nicole Cathcart

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 6#Nicole Cathcart

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Art

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 25#Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Art

Death and Dying

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. wbm1058 (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this is an x and y redirect, as we also have an article on dying. My first instinct was to have this deleted, but maybe this should be retargeted to dying, since death is mentioned in the lead sentence. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The use of title case makes me somewhat sympathetic towards retargeting but the lack of the word on is significant. I'm slightly more inclined to just deleting to remove ambiguity, but I wouldn't wholly opposed to retargeting. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. On its face it’s WP:XY in form and if anything the capitalization adds more ambiguity. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, given the existence of the book with this proper noun title, and OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, which seems to have thus far gone unobserved in this discussion. BD2412 T 03:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget, Disambiguate, or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, textbook case of WP:XY. The proposed disambiguation page would basically consists of WP:partial matches, since OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying and On Death & Dying are actually different from Death and Dying, and are almost certainly NOT what users typing Death and Dying are looking for. Search function results (which list among top results a wide range of relevant topics, such as Death, Dying, Death anxiety, Five stages of grief, Assisted dying, Manner of death, Death by Dying, as well as above mentioned Omega (journal) and Elisabeth Kübler-Ross) would be more helpful for readers, and would allow them to decide what they are actually looking for and what they want to read. --Cavarrone 09:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambig per BD2412. This is not a "textbook case of WP:XY" because we have multiple articles that discuss both concepts - "death" and "dying" and it is a very plausible search term. XY is for situations where X and Y are not discussed together in an encyclopaedic context. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per BD2412 and Thryduulf. thejiujiangdragon (TJD) TALK/CONTRIBS 23:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    @BD2412, @Thryduulf, @Thejiujiangdragon, those voting to disambiguate, can you justify how the entries on a DAB page would not qualify as WP:PTM? Forgive me if I come across as belligerent; I'm just not seeing it. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    It is very common for journals with names like "Journal of Foobar" to be referred to just as "Foobar". Getting to "Death and Dying" from "On Death and Dying" is not much of a stretch either, given that "On" is a common preposition. Given that Death and Dying would also go on the page, that is enough. BD2412 T 01:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    @BD2412, your first statement about the journal name seems reasonable enough. However, the other two are still PTMs. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    These things are not always black-and-white, though. I am less concerned about including an "On Foobar" title as a PTM on a "Foobar" list than I am about the prototypical example of someone wanting to include Bronx Zoo on Zoo (disambiguation). BD2412 T 00:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation draft requested (done) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Dying per nom. I don't see this as suitable for disambiguation, since the book and journal are both WP:PTMs (admittedly, it comes extremely close for the book title). I would not oppose deletion. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation drafted. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment from the nominator: When I made this nomination, I didn't think it would take over a month to resolve. I have no objection to disambiguation. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:21, 15 March 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).

Loco Escrito

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) 00:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Suggesting deletion per WP:RFD#DELETE#10, currently a redirect to a list which say absolutely nothing about the singer. Such a redirect forces readers to one result and obscures search function results that would be more helpful, showing his presence in numerous articles, notably 2018 MTV Europe Music Awards, 2020 MTV Europe Music Awards, Swiss Music Awards and MTV Europe Music Award for Best Swiss Act. Based on his pages on German and Italian wikipedias this artist passes GNG, ANYBIO and numerous points of MUSICBIO, and per WP:REDLINK a redlink would be more useful, as it would encourage editors to create the page. Cavarrone 08:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. J947 ‡ edits 22:04, 2 March 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).

Free New Mexico Party

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 (and refine). (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 22:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Though this redirect was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 16#Free New Mexico Party, the recreation of this redirect (I did not tag it with {{Db-g4}} since it has a different target than it did prior to being deleted as a result of the previous discussion), and the new target does not resolve any of the issues that were mentioned in the previous discussion since the target is still affiliated with Libertarian Party (United States), which the subject of the redirect apparently no longer has any affiliation with, resulting in a WP:REDLINK situation to potentially connect the subject of this redirect with its new primary parent topic. Steel1943 (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae, Lenticel, and Chessrat: Ping participants of previous discussion, as well as the creator of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
@Steel1943: As I mentioned, the subject of the redirect is currently affiliated with the Libertarian Party (United States) and has been since 2022.
Situation pre-2022: The Libertarian Party of New Mexico was the state-level affiliate of the national party Libertarian Party (United States). Those links were severed in 2022.
Situation post-2022: The Free New Mexico Party is the state-level affiliate of the national party Libertarian Party (United States). The Libertarian Party of New Mexico is the state-level affiliate of the national party Liberal Party USA.
The statement "the subject of the redirect apparently no longer has any affiliation with" is incorrect and has been incorrect the whole time. The Free New Mexico Party was created in 2022 and has been affiliated with the Libertarian Party (United States) the entire time since its creation.
Not sure how to make this any clearer. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this is actually stated on the current target page of the redirect. The table entry says "Free New Mexico Party (LNC affiliate)" to make it clear that the Free New Mexico Party is the state party which is currently affiliated with the Libertarian Party (United States).
I thought it was pretty clear- I understood the situation as soon as I came across the article- but I have just added dates to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) to hopefully make it even more clear? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much I cared to go into the weeds on this to figure out what the truth is. (Maybe I did before, not anymore, maybe I had something backwards?) Long story, short, if the consensus for this discussion is "keep", all should be well. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Doesn't take much "going into the weeds" to "figure out the truth"- it's pretty explicitly stated in that list article and on the party's website that the Free New Mexico Party is the current New Mexican state affiliate party of the US Libertarian Party. There's literally nothing anywhere claiming otherwise- which is why I'm really confused as to how every participant in the previous discussion seems to have come to completely the wrong conclusion. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
...Not when an editor really doesn't care to do more than automated edits due to having no time to make any substantial edits that require using one's brain. That is all yall get for now. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
If Free New Mexico Party is now the official state affiliate of the Libertarian Party (United States), then this makes sense. The dates at the target are helpful. The '(LNC affiliate 2022–present)' is a little unclear, specifically the piped link to Libertarian National Committee, since it might suggest the the LNC affiliation is somehow unique to the Free New Mexico Party. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Good point, I've reworded it a bit more to hopefully fix that issue. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I have redirected it to the New Mexico section of that article for consistency with the other state affiliate parties Libertarian Party of Hawaii, Libertarian Party of Rhode Island, and Libertarian Party of West Virginia (none of which have ever had the existence of the redirect be questioned!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessrat (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
@Chessrat, it is generally bad practice to change a redirect’s target in the middle of an RFD discussion. It can be quite disruptive and can cause confusion about the redirect’s status at various points during the discussion. This refinement does seem reasonable, though. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment The only reason this is up for discussion at all is based on completely false information by the editor who proposed it (doing so twice- not only last month but again now!) despite the editor in question openly admitting they did not even do basic research on the topic/read the article, which would have easily shown their claim to be false.
I think that's the more concerning thing here- it is incredibly irresponsible editing to not only attempt to delete information from Wikipedia without spending a few minutes to check the facts, but also do so a second time despite being corrected. This should not be on RfD still and it should never have been on RfD. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 02:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
The situation before was a bit confusing. Perhaps we all could have searched harder but I couldn’t find much coverage of the party. I appreciate the work you’ve done to settle this and your transparent approach. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Sort of disagree here at the basis of the argument, but no matter. I believe my argument in the previous discussion was that WP:REDLINK applies, and in this case, it technically still does because there's no article at this title. Regarding something being "irresponsible", we go by the facts that we can find based on what issues we perceive with these titles, so based on what I found, there was an issue. Stuff like this happens all the time at WP:AFD, which is why I don't participate there very often: An editor could be looking for hours trying to find references that establish notability, and then after finding nothing, will nominate the article for deletion ... but then an hour or so after creating the nomination, some editor will flyby and tag it as a "keep" with some kind of a secret handshake reference that the nominator was unable to find that establishes some level notability. So, it is what it is, and I'm not taking any stock in this discussion other than restating my WP:REDLINK concern. Also, regarding "This should not be on RfD still and it should never have been on RfD.": Good luck trying to find any editor on any WP:XFD forum who is batting 1000, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH applies. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Both your nominations were valid and clearly in good faith. I agree that the REDLINK or WP:RETURNTORED concerns still persist. A list entry is a common target for redirects but a state Libertarian party seems potentially notable enough to sustain its own article or more detailed coverage somewhere. At a minimum, I would think whatever went down in 2022 would have been covered in some reliable sources. Most of the other state parties listed at the current target do have articles. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:50, 23 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).

Template:PAL

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 3#Template:PAL

Snoozing

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 Snooze. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

"Snoozing" and other variations are not mentioned at sleep (for some reason), which makes it difficult for readers to understand the concept of snoozing. However, there is a disambiguation page called Snooze where the first three entries, including snoozing on an alarm clock, could be referred to as "snoozing". Alarm clock does mention "snooze" once, while nap does not mention the word. "Snoozing" could also refer to a song in Why Not (Ella album), but this is rather obscure. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Retargeting to Snooze seems uncontroversial. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Retargeting to the dab at Snooze could have been done boldly. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Snooze. I agree this is likely incontrovertible uncontroversial and could have been targeted without discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:59, 25 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).

List of The Big Bang Theory characters4Amy Farrah Fowler

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 💬 14:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete these implausibly long redirects with a strange 4 in it. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Given they both had about 600 page views immediately after creation, my guess is there was either an internal or external link to these targets. I can't quickly find any keyboard layout that has "#" on "4" but 3 is next to 4. So likely that is the cause, either from the mistaken link reason or just a typo making these. In either case, recent page views are definitely low enough for delete. Skynxnex (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Skynxnex. There are no remaining internal links and they aren't getting any traffic from plausible external links either. मल्ल (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Skynxnex. The most plausible explanation is that these were created in error and proliferated in links somewhere that were eventually removed/corrected. We have a plausible story for how/why these errors might have occurred. Having been resolved, there’s no reason to preserve these. This is not a common typo or plausible search term would aid in searching. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:49, 26 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).

User:Alexander vee/sandbox/NCSC

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 speedily deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I no longer need this sandbox page. Alexander vee (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete under G7. @Alexander vee, there is no need to nominate a page for deletion if you're the creator and no one else has contributed significantly to it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:46, 23 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).

Rightclick

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 Computer mouse#Operation. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

These redirects should all have the same target. I'm split between the two, as both Left click and Middle click redirect to Computer mouse, but Context menu is the result of a right click. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:46, 23 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).

Wikipedia and china

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 Chinese Wikipedia. (non-admin closure)Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, the actual result of this discussion was retarget to Wikipedia in China. My thanks to Thryduulf for pointing my mistake out. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Current target is obviously no good. The redirect previously targeted Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China, but even that doesn't seem quite right (too narrow a topic for such a broad term). I vote to delete. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:29, 23 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).

Representative Mann

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 💬 06:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

This redirect is confusing and may mislead readers. The current target mentions many people with the surname Mann (as well as disambiguation pages of people with identical names), and the representatives are scattered with no indication of being representatives except for Tracey Mann. I think this redirect should be deleted to allow for searching, which does a better job at finding representatives with the surname Mann than a surname index that links to many disambiguation pages. An alternative is disambiguating representatives at "Representative Mann", formatted similarly to pages like Senator Mann. Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate as per WP:RETURNTORED/nom, pages that fit include but are not limited to Tracey Mann, William Mann (MP), William Hodges Mann, William Mann (Australian politician), Bhagwant Mann, Curtis Mann, Douglas Mann (politician), Erika Mann (politician), Homer B. Mann, Charles A. Mann, Abijah Mann Jr., and throw in a see-also to Senator Mann given senators are also representatives.
There's almost certainly more but I'm going to stop here; check the Mann (surname) for more politicians that are under entries that are "several people" and link to sub-dab pages. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Of these, only Tracey Mann, Douglas Mann (politician), Homer B. Mann, and Abijah Mann Jr. should actually be listed. The rest are MPs, state senators, or New York State assemblymen. I2Overcome talk 08:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Drafted. Deliberately excludes MPs, MEPs, state senators, New York assemblymen and Virginia delegates. Since I am sort of involved, I will leave this for someone else to close. I2Overcome talk 08:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Members of Parliament (MPs) should not be listed at this dab page, since they are not called representatives. I2Overcome talk 08:03, 3 March 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).

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks