Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 30, 2026.

Infobox planet

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 04:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect from mainspace to template space for a specific infobox. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:XNR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirecting from mainspace to templatespace is just confusing; it doesn't even work properly. Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. No valid reason for this to exist. Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some main to template redirects are good, but I can't think of any reason why a redirect to an infobox template (which by their nature are not useful for readers without being filled in) from the mainspace would ever be good. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per the reasons to delete cross-namespace redirects, and recently created. Mathguy2718 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the nom and the other delete reasons stated. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Google does mainly return WP results and I don't see how this isn't WP specific but the consensus seems to be that such new redirects shouldn't exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:38, 1 July 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).

Freeride mountain-biking films

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. Rusalkii (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Content no longer exists at target. List of films about bicycles and cycling has one entry mentioning "freeride". 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:45, 30 June 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).

Presedent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 8#Presedent

Alfred Smith (supercentenarian)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 14#Alfred Smith (supercentenarian)

Rotgut

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 14#Rotgut

Non-existent World Cup groups

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 11#Non-existent World Cup groups

Sea beard

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 14#Sea beard

SMTS

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 14#SMTS

New Zealand fern

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 native New Zealand ferns. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything that uses "New Zealand fern" as a common name for Dicksonia squarrosa. My inclination is to delete.

The most iconic fern of New Zealand is Alsophila dealbata (silver fern), and there is List of native New Zealand ferns, which could be potential targets if this is kept as a redirect, or which could entries if this is turned into a disambiguation page. Plantdrew (talk) 16:54, 30 June 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).

Acanthocephaloides species

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. This RfD cited arguments from another. The WP:RETURNTORED arguments cited in that other RfD, supported by the majority of !voters, are more convincing. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think these should be deleted for the same reasons as one of my nominations below. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as per below. Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of these species to genus redirects have received opposition to deletion, so I'm giving them all a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:24, 30 June 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).

Chrysoarctus species

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think these should be deleted for the same reasons as one of my nominations below. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of these species to genus redirects have received opposition to deletion, so I'm giving them all a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:24, 30 June 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).

Angursa species

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think these should be deleted for the same reasons as my nomination below. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of these species to genus redirects have received opposition to deletion, so I'm giving them all a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 30 June 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).

Parastygarctus species

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. While there was some opposition to the deletion of these redirects, there was a more convincing argument that WP:RETURNTORED should apply. Ironically, it is because these redirects are for possibly notable subjects that it is more worthwhile to delete them - in part to encourage article creation and in part to not deceive readers into thinking that substantive pages on the topics already exist.

An article has been created for Parastygarctus mediterranicus, and the nominator has removed that page from the nomination, so I will not be deleting that page. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

These are redirects from a species to its genus. Accepted species are presumed to be notable per WP:NSPECIES, so I think these should be deleted to return them to red. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Oppose. A presumption is a presumption, an editor looking into the topic may come to a different conclusion. That aside, noting that these appear to be tagged as R with possibilities. Absent that possibility being realised, this redirect in the meantime helps readers by directing them to somewhere that has relevant information to the species (ideally more than the two sentences present, but you can at least piece together a chronology of description). CMD (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    The article doesn't contain any information on the individual species aside from their names and the authority. Red links encourage article creation, and articles about these species will always be kept at AFD. Chess enjoyer (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    A standalone redlink creation point is an argument to delete everything within Category:Redirects with possibilities. Given that category exists and is widely populated, that suggests the community finds value in helping readers now. The genus article being bad is true, but as you say the bad articles do get kept. CMD (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
    A standalone redlink creation point is an argument to delete everything within Category:Redirects with possibilities – not necessarily. It's possible that a given redirect could be expanded to a full article, but currently points to a well-developed section that discusses the subject. In that situation, deletion might not be as helpful. My rationale cites WP:RETURNTORED, which allows deletion for notable subjects that don't have much coverage at the target. I consider the coverage at Parastygarctus to be virtually no information for our purposes, and so have other editors in similar RFDs. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
    Parastygarctus tells the reader the species is a tardigrade. That alone is hugely helpful to the reader. CMD (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Many of these have one or even a fraction of one paper on them and that's the entirety of human written knowledge. No point in having a redlink, might as well redirect to genus. If there is one with more than one paper on them by all means create an individual species page. Until then, redirect is the smartest move. Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Category:Redirects from species to genus has over 4000 members; the redirects from this and similar nominations should be added there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of these species to genus redirects have received opposition to deletion, so I'm giving them all a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals, too. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Chess enjoyer and the precedents cited. WP:RETURNTORED has been generally accepted practice for species, in my experience (many of the redirects in the category above are to monotypic genera, where an article on the species would duplicate that of the genus). Redirects make it more difficult to see at a glance which species still need work, and it's very easy to figure out where the genus article is if a species is redlinked. I've drafted up a proper article at Parastygarctus mediterranicus because that had an easily accessible protolog. I have no background in tardigrades; there's no reason to believe they couldn't all see similar expansion, rather than being perma-redirects. Choess (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    Nice article, Choess. I'm going to withdraw Parastygarctus mediterranicus from my nomination. Obviously returning a redirect to red is worse than actually turning it into an article. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with the points made by Chess enjoyer and Choess but will also add that, in my experience as a Wikipedia reader (prior to learning how to edit), these kinds of redirects from species to genus without meaningful coverage of the species in the genus article is more confusing for readers than a redlink. Unless the target article actually provides information about the species beyond the most basic taxonomic placement, readers are left wondering why they were redirected to such an unhelpful page or even if the taxon is valid. I am just as disappointed to find a redirect like this as I am to find no article at all. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete, for all the reasons given above. The redirect serves no purpose. Some one looking for a species at the binomial already knows the genus. The redlink serves a purpose, flagging potential articles, otherwise redlinks wouldn't exist.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:31, 1 July 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).

Shep Unplugged

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. Rusalkii (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This was previously an article on a non-notable halftime show, and was redirected to the host in lieu of deletion. I am still unable to find reliable sources confirming this show even existed and it is not mentioned at the target. The sources used to prove that it existed were mostly fansites and personal blogs that are not on Wayback and didn't even mention it by name anyway. (This is a point I was way too WP:TEND about in the AFD, and I regret having done so.) With less than one view a day in the more than four years since the AFD closed, I think it's finally time to put this one out of its misery. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 13:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete unless a mention is added to the target. The previous RFD notwithstanding, I don't think the current situation is acceptable. Readers searching for this term are most likely looking for information on the show, not general information on Messing. They will not find that information here, so this will not help them. Readers who don't know anything about the show will be surprised to be lead here, and may end up thinking this is some kind of nickname for Messing. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Incorrect to say blogs are not on Wayback. The washingtonpost piece, mentioned at the AfD and the RfD, is here. The unplugged part is in quotes though, probably indicating it was not the real title, and is from a commenter of the post. It was from 2007. The reason for the AfD and the prior RfD keep votes was to give time to find sources, and if so, use the pre-redirect content to merge to the target. Content, if and when found, may be directly added to the target. There is no reason to rely on the pre-redirect content for that, which per the AfD close, needn't be retained. The redirect may also be recreated in such a future scenario. Delete for now, per Chess. Jay 06:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete unless content on this subject is added to the article. As of now, if I were to be seeking specific information on "Shep Unplugged" I would not be able to find it at the place I was redirected to, which is problematic. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 13 July 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).

Shin Tao

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 7#Shin Tao

Маріуполь

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. It's snowing! (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Recently created redirects from the name of the city written in Cyrillic letters. There is a snowball-in-hell possibility that somebody will use a Cyrillic keyboard to search the English WP. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 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).

Herbal wine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 7#Herbal wine

Infobox musical composition

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 04:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect, no pseudo-shortcut through T:, etc. ScalarFactor (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per the reasons to delete cross-namespace redirects, and probably also nominate and delete all of these very recently created cross-namespace redirects by the same user as well: Starbox begin, Starbox image, and Infobox planet. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - Inappropriate cross namespace redirect as above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Main → Template redirects are only useful if the target template is something that is reader-facing in the form presented on the template page (e.g. a navbox), which is not the case here (or any other infobox I'm aware of). Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: per CSD R2. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 12:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
    Mainspace-to-templatespace redirects are exempt from R2. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete unneeded XNR. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. No valid reason for this to exist. Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete for the same reason as planet. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:39, 1 July 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).

Correlation does not

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 7#Correlation does not

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks