Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 4

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. As a normal editoral action, I'll go ahead and move the article back to Universidad Mayor because it does seem to be the name used in English-language sources (eg: ). -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Major University → Mayor University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term "major university" is vague and could refer to something like list of largest universities rather than this fairly low-prominence Spanish Chilean school. -- Reconrabbit 16:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, it's Chilean, not Spanish. Secondly, this used to be the article name for ages, and it wasn't disputed until now. It is a literal translation and Google says it is somehow used to refer to this university. Of course "major university" (no caps) could redirect to the proposed article Bedivere (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistake. I only found out about it because the move to Mayor University created a new redirect that went to the new pages feed. -- Reconrabbit 18:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• keep seems to be a plausible WP:DIFFCAPS redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Revert both undiscussed page moves, moving the page back to Universidad Mayor, and delete this redirect. I don't know if User:Bedivere's choice of "Major University" was intentional, but it's most likely due to a misunderstanding of WP:USEENGLISH, as it seems to be someone's own translation rather than a name that's actually used in English-language reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Not really, such translation is actually used in English sources as a simple Google search can show Bedivere (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Most Google results for major university have nothing to do with this institution, of course. I’m not convinced this is a good WP:DIFFCAPS redirect since major university is a common phrase and I’m not sure how well known this university is to English speaking audiences. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 21:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per D1. I understand the DIFFCAPS argument, but I'm inclined to agree with others that this university is not known enough to the point where this redirect is likelier to cause confusion for the average reader than aiding them. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cfls (talk) 17:33, 5 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 Solitaire#Games. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Solitaire (game)Solitaire (game) → Patience (game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous; see Peg solitaire, Mahjong solitaire. Retarget to Solitaire#Games. 162 etc. (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget – according to our article and Wiktionary, the use of "solitaire" to mean card games in particular is uncommon outside the US, so I agree that this isn't the primary topic. (A broad-concept article might be appropriate, but maybe the disambiguation page section is sufficient.) jlwoodwa (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Solitaire#Games per jlwoodwa and WP:INCDAB: "the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such [disambiguated] titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation". Note both the RM history at Talk:Patience (game) and that there's ~150 mainspace incoming links which the closer should ensure are updated (either by pestering participants or doing so themselves). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Solitaire#Games per above and WP:GEOBIAS. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Weak retarget in England I'd say that this would normally today mean the card game but the other uses are common enough not to have a PDAB. Note that if the card game is ever moved to the base name Solitaire this should be changed to it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 5 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) 21:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Heated Rivalry season 3 → Heated Rivalry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Heated Rivalry (season 3) → Heated Rivalry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. At best, it's too soon. There is no discussion of season three in the article. The second season has just been picked up and no firm release date has been set but it will likely be in 2027. There is some chatter online about a potential season three and the article does mention that the lead actors are signed on for three seasons. This does not mean that there will be a third season, merely that the actors have some contractural obligation if it gets picked up. These have minimal page views (2 and 0, respectively, since creation) and anyone who might search these terms will either be confused, disappointed, or perhaps mislead into thinking the existence of these redirects confirms a third season. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. orangesclub 🍊 20:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. —User:Grigoryevich (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 16:21, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Mecca of albino squirrelsMecca of albino squirrels → Olney, Illinois  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Mecca of Albino SquirrelsThe Mecca of Albino Squirrels → Olney, Illinois  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Mecca of Albino SquirrelsMecca of Albino Squirrels → Olney, Illinois  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of it being a "mecca of" at the target, and I can't find anyone referring it to thus; it seems to be a fairly novel neologism. Delete all. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, googling results with several usages of this term, eg , , . The town motto is "Home of the White Squirrel", according to the info box - seems like a reasonable redirect to me. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  That it's called "home of the white squirrel" is completely irrelevant...that's not the redirect under discussion. And managing to find a couple obscure references to this does not a valid redirect make either...two of these are...sketchy at best (and they almost seem to be referring to a specific place in the town), and the third is a damn reddit post. None of that justifies a redirect, let alone one for a term that's unmentioned. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Redirects don't need to be direct quotes from Reuters headlines, we just need evidence people use the term to refer to the target, which those links do. The reddit post also links it to a Wierd Al track that also uses the term "Mecca of albino squirrels". I only bring up the motto because it shows that white squirrels are clearly something important to the town, and so these redirects aren't out of place. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep this search term unambiguously refers to the target. A mention would be ideal but is not required. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 6 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) 21:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• St. Jrome → Jerome  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible spelling error, telling that there's none for just plain "Jrome" either (and no one get any funny ideas, either). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 23:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Zero views in the last 90 days and only 9 since creation so not terribly useful. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Drew Stanley (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a random misspelling, not targeted. Ajheindel (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per above. There are a few google hits for this, but they are all either typos, OCR errors or in a couple of cases the result of a presumably buggy representation of French "Jérome" in book titles that just deleted all accented characters. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 6 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 Transcontinental railroad#Canada. Snow retarget since everyone including the nom seems to be fine with it. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Trans-canadian railwayTrans-canadian railway → Canadian Pacific Railway  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, and I find no indication that anyone refers to it thus either. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; additionally, the Canadian National Railway is also transcontinental, and it's not commonly known as the "Trans-Canadian railway" either. Carguychris (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Transcontinental railroad#Canada, where one can find information on the general topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's completely acceptable; I was unaware of the existence of that section. The redirect shouldn't target a specific railway. Carguychris (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Also fine by me. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget per the excellent target suggested by Tavix above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:35, 6 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Capture-recapture analysisCapture-recapture analysis → Mark and recapture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading, as there's nothing at the target about the analysis of this per se. Any type of data from anything can be analyzed. Unless that analysis is specifically the topic of encyclopedic discussion, we shouldn't be making redirects hinting that it is. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - the nom makes little to no sense. Analysis of capture/recapture data is discussed at length in the article. This is a completely normal redirect. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  The above keep vote makes little to no sense. Most of our articles feature some sort of analysis of something, but we don't make redirects that include "analysis" in the name, unless the article is about the analysis of something, and not merely an analysis of something. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  For example, the article Analysis of algorithms talks about how algorithms are analyzed; it doesn't merely offer some analysis of algorithms. It's a subtle, but crucial point, that the redirect violates the expectation of. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Have you read Mark and recapture? There's a lot of data analysis discussion in that article. If this article was merely just talking about capturing and releasing animals I would understand, but the bulk of the article is about interpretting and analysing the data retrieved. There's more <math> tags used in there than most math articles. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, and this all 100% affirms my reasoning immediately above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I don't understand this nom. "Capture-recapture analysis" is a standard term for the analysis of mark and recapture data, and the mark and recapture method and its analysis is what the target article is about. Take a look at the book Handbook of Capture-Recapture Analysis and the USGS publication Handbook of capture-recapture analysis as examples of the use of the term if you are not familiar with the field. There are many other refs demonstrating this is a standard term in the field. This seems a well-justified redirect and an unambiguous keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. If I understand correctly, the nominator interpreted the title as "Analysis of the capture-recapture method". In fact, "Capture-recapture analysis" means "Analysis of data via the capture-recapture method". So this nomination seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Havoc Crow (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with the other respondents. This article is about a type of analysis called (among other things) capture-recapture, ergo capture-recapture analysis. This is like saying Factor analysis should be renamed because the article is not an analysis of factors. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 07:22, 6 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Doing the moonwalkDoing the moonwalk → Moonwalk (dance)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another useless overly verbose, implausible search term. Anyone looking for information about the moonwalk is going to search for "moonwalk". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Anyone looking for information about the moonwalk is going to search for "moonwalk"
  On the contrary, I can easily see "Doing the" serving the role of an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}-- unnecessary because Moonwalk is primary topic, but they'd be trying to disabiguate away from the other results on Moonwalk (disambiguation)-- most notably, Extravehicular activity, the actual act of walking on the moon (or another planet, or spacewalking, or ect.) Obviously, if you're DOING the moonwalk, there's nothing you can be referring to OTHER than the dance move. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oh wait no, hold up, the dance ISN'T primary topic and Moonwalk (disambiguation) is simply a redirect to Moonwalk, where the dab page is. In that case I'm going to explicitly !vote for keep because this gets upgraded from {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} to {{R from natural disambiguation}}. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a common phrase associated with the dance move. Anyone searching for simply "moonwalk" is going to need at least an additional step to find the correct article so per Lunamann it's useful from a disambiguation standpoint. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Lunamann and Tavix. Indeed, this phrase is used twice at the target. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above, clearly a normal redirect. Probably a WP:SNOW scenario. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Three habitual keep voters don't make it a SNOW close. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  "Habitual keep voter" is a strange label to append to me given I've been worried I'm too much of a deletionist lol. Anyways I'm guessing that a cold response like that is indicative that you're not convinced re: the natural disambiguation thing? Care to explain why? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Lunamann and Tavix. Whether or not they are "habitual keep voters" or not is irrelevant, what matters is whether their rationales explain why they believe keeping this redirect is appropriate, and they do. I googled "Doing the moonwalk" -Wikipedia and with three exceptions every result on the first five pages was about the dance. The exceptions were a non-notable song (apparently about the dance), a non-notable compilation cassette and an article using the dance as a metaphor, so it's unambiguous that anyone using this search term is looking for information about the dance. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 6 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Creator of BarbieCreator of Barbie → Ruth Handler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These sorts of redirects that vaguely describe people or what they're known for are strongly discouraged and should be deleted. Wikipedia is not google. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a useful redirect for anyone who wants to know who the creator of Barbie is, which is a function that Wikipedia (and thus the Ruth Handler article) provides. Such usefulness should not be discouraged, strongly or otherwise. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Anyone who wants to know more can simply read the Barbie article and get a fuller picture there, instead of a mere factoid that a redirect like this can encapsulate. This could also be interpreted as referring to the manufacturer, Mattel. Questions like this very often have more nuanced answers than a redirect can handle. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  No, Ruth Handler is definitely and unambiguously the creator of Barbie. That said, her article also covers her association with Mattel should someone be interested in the corporate aspect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Tavix. I am struggling to think of reasons why this type of redirect is more harmful than most, as the nominator implies. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, per above logic, nothing seems wrong with this redirect. Descriptors like this get readers to where they intend to go, which is the only job of redirects. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, this is very ambiguous with the film and the franchise. If this redirect remains, what prevents the creation of redirects like Creator of the lightbulb, Creator of electricity, Creator of automobiles, etc. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 02:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  No outcome of this RFD has any affect on the creation of other redirects. I wrote an essay about this line of argument: User:bugghost/essays/Keeping isn't creating. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Some redirects like that would be good redirects. There are multiple types of lightbulb, most of them do not have an unambiguous single creator, and we don't seem to have an article about the general concept of a bulb vs other options, so while Incandescent light bulb#History might work as a target it wouldn't be great. Electricity wasn't created so that wouldn't be a good redirect. History of the automobile might make a good target for your third example though as it makes it clear there isn't a single creator, and links to the articles about various people who could be considered to hold the title. That isn't the case with Barbie though - that has a single, unambiguous creator (neither films nor franchises do btw) and the redirect takes people to that article, so keep. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)The doll is the primary topic, evidenced by the article on the doll being at the title Barbie. If you want the film or the franchise, you'll need to use disambiguation. None of the other redirects you propose have an unambiguous creator so those may have to target a general article (like History of the automobile). That said, those aren't the redirects being discussed and are thus irrelevant to this discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  Roughly nothing, but also, roughly nothing prevents them from being created if this one gets deleted. See also WP:BACKINBOX. (I also really like that essay, BugGhost :3) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:08, 6 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. There is no chance of any other outcome here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946Bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 → King David Hotel bombing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Overly verbose wording with the "in 1946" attached, useless as a redirect -- no one's plausibly going to search for this –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Events like these don't typically have official names so the title is going to be a descriptor of what happened. As such, we can and should be more lenient on what is acceptable and this one is reasonable given that the event occurred in 1946. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tavix. Redirect is neither ambiguous nor problematic. Deacon you've logged 10 RFDs in the span of half an hour, most of which I believe will be kept. RFD already has backlog issues and the reasons supplied here are pretty weak. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tavix. Reasonable copy/paste search term as well. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tavix and Bugghost. I don't see how this is an unlikely search term or otherwise problematic. TarnishedPath^talk 23:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per rationale by Tavix and Bugghost. Cfls (talk) 17:35, 5 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) 21:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Sans Serif Pro → Source Sans 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, misnomer not mentioned at the target –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, endorse as it's never been called that. Personally I would also move Source Sans 3 to Source Sans, as 3 is just the current version number, but I realise that's not the focus of this discussion. Blythwood (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Not what it's called. I'll move the other page after this closes if ?I don't forget. -- Reconrabbit 14:50, 5 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) 21:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Psychotic-like experiences → Psychosis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete unmentioned redirect. Anyone searching this is explicitly looking for a description of something other than psychosis. Psychosis#Diagnosis discusses the differential diagnosis of psychosis-like presentations but does not really describe subjective experience. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Thomas (name)Thomas (name) → Thomas#People  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I believe that this redirect should be retargeted to Thomas (given name), considering that the name is more commonly a given name than a surname. Basically the same logic of John (name) being a redirect to John (given name). GilaMonster536 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:APOAT guidance, which basically states the disambiguator "(name)" is ambiguous if there are separate "(given name)" and "(surname)" articles, which is happening here since Thomas (given name) and Thomas (surname) are separate articles. In addition, I disagree with the nominator's assessment that this is more commonly a given name than a surname; I've seen both used commonly. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:APOAT and WP:INCDAB. Thomas is not really on the same level as John. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:APOAT Cfls (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep the surname is probably common enough not to have a PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Anecdotally, I probably know about the same number of people with Thomas as a surname and as a first name (and one of my university coursemates was Thomas Thomas). Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 6 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Organismal biology → History of biology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Outline of organismal biology → Outline of biology#Organismal biology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete both per WP:RETURNTORED. Organismal biology is historically one of the major subdivisions of biology, a field which can be subdivided many ways, and the term continues to be used today. Organismal biology was discussed fairly recently and I strongly disagree with the outcome there. The brief mention at History of biology provides little information. The section Outline of biology#Organismal biology no longer exists and the word 'organismal' does not appear in the outline. A standalone article could be written from scratch and/or compiled from all the existing articles on the major groups of organisms and the corresponding subdivision of biology (e.g., plant and botany). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. But consider moving ecology and evolutionary biology to organismal biology, and reworking that article. EEB is just one label used for university organismal biology departments. There are others, such as "Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology" and "Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology". Regardless of what label any particular university department uses, "organismal biology" is concise and describes the entire field (I've described myself as an organismal biologist on my user page for years; I have a degree from an EEB department, but "ecologist and evolutionary biologist" sound awkward). Plantdrew (talk) 00:35, 5 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) 21:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Pin symbol → Google Maps pin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too ambiguous, there are many things "Pin symbol" could refer to, and this isn't the primary target for this name. Maybe retarget to Pin or Pin (disambiguation), otherwise delete as ambiguous. HurricaneZeta^C 14:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete as WP:XY with 📌 et al 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the nom and Lunamann. Additionally, this feels promotional. Even in the world of maps apps, which all together are not the primary topic here, other apps feature similar symbols and "dropping a pin" functionality. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:38, 5 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 💬 09:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• みとよ かわて → List of Japanese supercentenarians#Mitoyo Kawate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, section target broken and translation of name not in article. Suonii180 (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• seems more like a case of "just fix it". in this case, an anchor should do the trick. that said, return to red, as she actually seems to be somewhat notable

...is what i would say, but i'll actually also note that she has an article in ptwiki, and while it's a stub, it works as an argument to delete this specific redirect, as the name would actually be 川手 ミトヨ. why this redirect is written in hiragana (as opposed to katakana) with non-japanese name order is beyond me consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• • Note that the former target was previously an article before being redirected following an AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 14:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete per consarn saying the name is written wrong. I think its fair that a redirect could exist, 川手 ミトヨ, linking to an anchor in the list. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:46, 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 speedy deleted as g5 by izno. (non-admin closure) consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Phantom Force → Jason of Star Command#Season Two  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Current target is obviously harmful, and I'm not convinced this term is worth disambiguating. Results on Google mostly discuss the Pokémon move, and on Scholar I see it used to describe all sorts of physics things. There's a song of the same name from V (Havok album), a comic by Jack Kirby, a different comic called Phantom Force 5, a comic by Dan Panosian, and various others. To my mind this is what Special:Search is for. lp0 on fire () 13:37, 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 Hearts in Unicode#List of heart-related emojis. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• 💑💑 → Love  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 👨‍❤️‍👨👨‍❤️‍👨 → Love  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 👩‍❤️‍👩👩‍❤️‍👩 → Love  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 👩‍❤️‍👨👩‍❤️‍👨 → Love  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The name of these is "couple with heart." I think romance or intimate relationship might be more suitable targets, or Hearts in Unicode#List of heart-related emojis. I₂Overcome ^talk 12:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#List of heart-related emojis per nom. मल्ल (talk) 05:47, 6 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#Smiling face with heart-shaped eyes. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Similar to 🥰 (although perhaps to a lesser extent), this emoji has multiple possible meanings, including love, happiness, excitement, enthusiasm, infatuation, obsession, etc. Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#List of heart-related emojis? I₂Overcome ^talk 11:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. मल्ल (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom. Enix150 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#Smiling face with heart-shaped eyes per Thryduulf. Enix150 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#Smiling face with heart-shaped eyes which discusses this emoji specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Hearts in Unicode#Smiling face with heart-shaped eyes per Thryduulf, due to the multiple potential meanings this emoji can have. ApexParagon (talk) 16:55, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G8. ✗plicit 23:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Znak (musician) → Tave (musician)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A new user created this for Tave (musician), but I can't find evidence that his person is referred to as "Znak". --Joy (talk) 11:42, 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 and keep.

• Retarget 😸 to Smile
• Keep 😹
• Retarget 😺 to Smile
• Retarget 😻 to Hearts in Unicode#Smiling face with heart-shaped eyes
• Keep 😼
• Keep 😽
• Keep 😾
• Keep 😿
• Retarget 🙀 to Screaming (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• 😸😸 → Cat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 😹😹 → Face with Tears of Joy emoji  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 😺😺 → Cat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 😻😻 → Emoji  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 😼😼 → Smirk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 😽😽 → Kiss  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 😾😾 → Anger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 😿😿 → Crying  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 🙀🙀 → Cat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think it would make sense to have all of these just target cat. Otherwise, I can nominate some of these separately to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK, which would be very bad for the cats. I₂Overcome ^talk 11:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, the tears of joy and heart eyes cat faces are not found at the current targets. I₂Overcome ^talk 11:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

😹 add mention to article; 😻 redirect to Hearts in Unicode; 😽 is a valid target. I'd argue that these should target the same page as the non-cat version, so for example 😾is "Pouting Cat Face" and the non-cat version is 😡. Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• List of emoticons has an entry (or two) that includes the cat emoji. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Either retarget to an article about the emoji or a list containing it. If I want to learn about cats I'm going to type in 'cat' not an emoji. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: As Traumnovelle said, I don't think anyone will use the cat face emojis to find the article for cat (🐈), so these should probably have the same targets as their corresponding standard face emojis: 😸=😄, 😹=😂, 😺=😀, 😻=😍, 😼=😏, 😽=😚, 😾=😠, 😿=😢, 🙀=😱. Enix150 (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Not another emoji redirects discussion—I think I actually agree with Enix on this one. The cat emojis are feline-themed variants of the emotion emojis; in fact, we could even treat them as {{r from avoided double redirect}}. So Keep 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8; retarget 1, 3, 4, and 9 to match their cousins. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Do what Cremastra suggests. In the absence of an article or section specifically about cat emoji (which I'm surprised doesn't exist) these seem like the best targets. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 6 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. Rusalkii (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

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

okay, this one got a chuckle out of me. unmentioned meme, implausible as a search term to anyone who doesn't already know what a breast, boob, mammary, bonkhonagahoog, or tit is. was deleted 4 times as vandalism before, and the creator was blocked for socking 7 years later, but that's probably not important consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 00:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Katiedevi (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Dewlewte per nom EasternShah (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, {{R from slang}}. This is an appropriate time to bring up WP:POPE, right? -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC) edited: 15:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Demt1298 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tavix. मल्ल (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see the problem. There are plenty of readers who search this up, presumably wanting either (a) to learn what "bewbs" means or (b) the article on Breast. This redirect successfully accomplishes both things. It's plausible and helpful. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as R from slang/colloquial as per Tavix. This is really just an alternate spelling of "boobs" that I've literally typed hundreds of times in Discord messages with my friends. I can very easily see someone less familiar with the English language not knowing what "bewbs" means, just like I can see the same reasoning for the redirects/dab pages for boob, tits, knockers, ect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tavix, J947 and Lunamann. Very clearly plausible search term (used 53 times last year for example) that is unambiguously pointing to the correct location. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Delete (strong preference) unexplained, undefined slang that perhaps a bit more than obscure but is not so common as boobs or tits. Lunamann states I can very easily see someone less familiar with the English language not knowing what "bewbs" means and Tavix appeals to WP:POPE. But these readers are not really helped by this redirect. or Weak soft redirect to wikt:bewbs (2nd choice). This would actually help people who don't know what bewb(s) means although they'll need a second click to get to wikt:bewb. Repeated re-creation isn't one of the explicit criteria at WP:SOFTSP or Template:Wiktionary redirect but we've sometimes invoked this as a way to placate editors who insist on having a redirect from slang and internet usage while also providing a definition for readers who genuinely don't know what a word means. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  The reader searches up "bewbs", as a term they don't understand, and gets redirected to Breast. Other than synonymity, what other conclusion would they draw? "Huh, that's odd, why did Wikipedia do that?" J947 ‡ ^edits 23:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  I suspect there are three main types of readers. It's difficult to know the relative size of each. The first group is searching "bewbs" essentially as a gag. I suspect this is the largest group. They'll get a chuckle, which I suppose is harmless. The second group also knows what "bewbs" means but is searching for some sort of explanation of the term. They will find none. The third group genuinely has no idea what it means. All of these readers will be served equally well or better by a Wiktionary redirect. If we delete, those that want an explanation will at least know that we don't actually cover this word here. I suspect that virtually nobody who actually wants to learn about breasts does so by searching "bewbs". I assume that most readers are intentional with their searches and actually want to read about the thing they searched for. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not a big fan of Wiktionary redirects. They have their uses, but they make the reader do another click and take them to a different website. It sort of seems like advertising. The reader searches an encyclopaedia and is met with "try a dictionary instead". Otherwise, the main contention I have with that breakdown is that your first group is a bit more diverse than you give it credit. There'll be a few whose sole motivation is to see what comes up. I think there'll be more who want to access Breast or a related topic, if perhaps without virtuous intentions, and decide to search it with a bit of flair. A stony-faced redirection seems appropriate. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair, we are WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and Wiktionary is one of our sister sites in Wikimedia.

  I'll support a soft redirect to Wiktionary. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate your approach but I just can't find my way to agreeing with it. We can't know the size or diversity of that first group but I don't see any significant harm to that group by confirming that the word means what they think it does. The other two groups straightforwardly get more benefit from a Wiktionary redirect, with a definition, pronunciation guide, and insight into other 'sensational spellings' like kewl. Truth is, I'm also not a huge fan of Wiktionary redirects but I see this as a reasonable use case, with a repeatedly re-created redirect from slang that's too obscure to cover directly and whose meaning isn't likely to be understood by the average reader. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  That the reader searched an encyclopaedia rather than a dictionary is indicative they want encyclopaedic content, not dictionary content. If they want encyclopaedic content and get dictionary content, they will be surprised and annoyed. Even if they do want dictionary content and get encyclopaedic content, they might be a bit miffed but they shouldn't be surprised. Not least because this redirect tells the reader the most important thing a dictionary can – the word's definition, without requiring the reader to make another click. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with your assessment of the issues here. We have no encyclopedic content on bewbs, a rather uncommon slang term. Some readers may make the connection when they land and Breast but I don't think it is so obvious. And again, readers actually interested in an explanation of the word and those who can't parse the meaning are not served by the current target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  What encyclopaedic content on bewbs could the reader possibly be looking for? The history of the term? Even if that's what they are looking for, there is none, as all of the options – keeping as is, deletion, and soft redirection – imply to the reader. There's none on bewbs, but there's plenty on bewbs. Keeping as is directs the reader to that information, while the other two options don't.

  I disagree that readers will not realise "bewbs" means "boobs" as the redirect implies they mean the same thing. But if that is an issue for you, then that's an argument not for deletion but for retargetting to Boob, which would doubtless enlighten the reader as to this word's meaning. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  ...Honestly, that's not a bad option. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, encyclopedic content might include something about the history and usage, like lulz and countless other slang terms that have articles or redirects to such coverage. Of course, there is no such coverage of bewbs, hence my proposals. And, no, it should not be retargeted to Boob, which lists a bunch of topics that bewbs is not synonymous with. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OHCOMEONALREADY. This is not plausibly helpful to anyone for finding whatever information they're looking for. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tavix. Enix150 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it is a plausible search term (in the language of the kids), and as Thryduulf pointed out, it has been used somewhat often. I can't think of any similar words popular enough that someone might get confused. If it is not causing issues, I don't see why action needs to be taken. Ajheindel (talk) 02:48, 5 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) 14:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Sankara Narayanaamy Temple, Sankarankovil → Sankarankovil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The page was created as an article with a mistake in the title (Narayanaamy instead of Narayanasamy) by a now-blocked user. The creator abandoned the page within 20 minutes and started another page at the correct title Sankara Narayanasamy Temple, Sankarankovil. Delete as implausible typo. Jay 💬 09:21, 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 delete. There appears to be consensus to delete Temujinia. The other redirect can be nominated and discussed separately if necessary. Rusalkii (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Delete per reason 10 (...could plausibly be expanded into an article...). The target page does not discuss the redirect beyond a simple mention. Per WP:NSPECIES, all species (and the genera containing them) are considered notable. It is certainly not common practice to redirect genus/species to their parent taxa, as this discourages their creation (WP:RED; there is currently no indication that the page in question needs to be created). -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete Per nomination. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Should Temujiniidae be bundled? Is it a valid family name? Same target but there is no mention. Jay 💬 10:10, 11 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 Diary of a Wimpy Kid (book). (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Cheese touchCheese touch → Diary of a Wimpy Kid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cheese TouchCheese Touch → Diary of a Wimpy Kid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; delete? 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: I’ve bundled Cheese TouchCheese Touch Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't believe this isn't mentioned. Delete per nom as unmentioned, with no other pages mentioning it either. Kind of shocking, though. Retarget to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (book) per I2Overcome (whoops). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This is the article for the series; it is mentioned in the article for the first book, Diary of a Wimpy Kid (book), and the film, Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010 film). Retarget to the book as it came first. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow, either my search is really awful or I somehow missed all of that. I'll update my !vote. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Retarget per I2Overcome //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget. Agree with I2Overcome. Ajheindel (talk) 02:50, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Japanese sodaJapanese soda → Ramune  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While Ramune is perhaps the most well-known soda, redirecting "Japanese soda" to it is like redirecting American soda to Coca-cola. Like I'm almost dead certain that it's nowhere near the only Japanese soda brand in existence and thus cannot be primary topic here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This is far from all encompassing, for instance not covering beverages such as Mitsuya Cider. It is best deleted as there is nowhere to target it. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 01:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to List of soft drinks by country#Japan, which has good information on the subject. - Eureka Lott 02:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The reason this is here is because "Ramune" has become a generic name for Japanese soda sold Codd-neck bottles in English speaking markets and when someone can only remember they had a "Japanese Soda" they should get directed to the proper term. When you go on Google and search for "Japanese soda", "Ramune" is delivered at the top of the AI summary ("Japanese soda primarily refers to Ramune...") and the delivered web results. It's kinda important that Wikipedia be at least as helpful as an AI summary. I should also remind people that "Coke" is literally the term for all soft drinks in the southern third of the United States so if the Japanese language version of Wikipedia wanted to redirect "American Soda" to "Coke" it would not be entirely wrong.Sturmovik (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: Are you sure the AI isn't just... taking from Wikipedia? It sees that "Japanese soda" redirects to "Ramune" and relays that, maybe. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as WP:RPRIMARY; it's not a brand name, but the type of beverage thst is most likely to be called "Japanese soda" in the English-speaking world. Failing that, redirect per Eureka. Do not delete per WP:R#KEEP point #5 as someone who knew this as Japanese soda but did not remember the actual name. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Its true that there are plenty of other Japanese sodas out there, but among English speakers, there are no types that come anywhere near the level of recognition as ramune. If you google Japanese soda, you will see hundreds of pictures of ramune before anything else, mostly from online retailers (should be independent of wikipedia influence). Eureka Lott's solution of retargeting would solve the issue of specifying a preference, but I agree with I2Overcome that someone who doesn't remember the name ramune would probably look up "Japanese soda" (what else would you look up?). Ajheindel (talk) 03:02, 5 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).