Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 8

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 United States invasion of Venezuela to Invasion of Venezuela and retarget others there and rescope accordingly -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Invasion of Venezuela → United States invasion of Venezuela  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Venezuelan invasionVenezuelan invasion → Proposed United States invasion of Venezuela  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Venezuela invasionVenezuela invasion → Proposed United States invasion of Venezuela  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The January RfD had closed as Keep as unambiguous. "Intervention" was seen as different from "invasion", and a hatnote was seen as sufficient. Since then, one of the nominated redirects, United States invasion of Venezuela was boldly converted into a disambig page of invasion and intervention, and some of the other nominated redirects were retargeted.

There are multiple points of discussion. An editor who did not participate in the January RfD, or was not aware of it, making a change to treat an intervention on same terms of an invasion. Different editors changing the targets of different redirects, but not all, and making it generally inconsistent.

And something that didn't come up in the previous RfD, and which I'm now seeing - should the non-US / non-American redirects still have the US invasion/intervention as the primary? The Admirable Campaign of 1813 for example, is seen as an invasion of Venezuela per the History of Venezuela article. And Operation Gideon (2020) has been seen as an "invasion attempt". Jay 💬 22:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget all to United States invasion of Venezuela Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Move the current disambiguation page United States invasion of Venezuela to Invasion of Venezuela, add Admirable Campaign, and retarget others there. (Also, List of wars involving Venezuela would be a good see-also entry.) I agree with the fundamental idea that the phrase is ambiguous, but it's also not limited to the US, and there's no need to have separate disambiguation pages. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm fine with moving as well. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:37, 19 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).

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 Forza Horizon 6#Bowie knife99. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Bowie knife 99Bowie knife 99 → Forza Horizon 6  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I was just about to put this here but you beat me to it OMGer2 (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I’ve added information regarding bowie knife99 to the article as I believe there’s a decent amount of coverage in RS to warrant inclusion. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Forza Horizon 6#Release where it's mentioned. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Per S0091, The title you suggested seems like an unlikely search term. Could you provide a source showing that it is a commonly used alternative name or related topic? OMGer2 (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

nah, i think that would've been a refine consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Forza_Horizon_6#bowie_knife99, an anchor I've just made in the Release section, since I think the retarget is a fairly good idea and hopefully this will be less brittle to any potential future page reorganization. Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per above. OceanHok (talk) 11:52, 10 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).

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) 21:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• False prophet of Scientology → L. Ron Hubbard  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Made 3 weeks ago. Isn't used within Wikipedia mainspace or any other namespace I checked. It is unlikely to be useful as a search term. Maybe delete as R3 or G3 or G10.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I guess this redirect was created alongside Prophet of Scientology with the hope that the non-neutrality of the two redirects would cancel out. I don't think that's how it works. "False prophet of Scientology" is not a fixed phrase used outside of Wikipedia, comes across as more non-neutral, and doesn't improve searches. Jruderman (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh no, not another one! I nominated that one for deletion, too: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 9#Prophet of Scientology.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Prophet of scientology appears to barely ever be used, at least in reliable sources, so feels very WP:R#DELETE 8. (and 3. as 'False prophet' would require more than marginal mentions to justify a redirect in my opinion). Similar rationale posted to the discussion for Prophet of Scientology. Shazback (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep both as creator; none of the arguments given in the nominations are relevant or backed by evidence. It may also be more efficient to bundle these redirects into one nomination, so if/until that is done, I will give and address arguments for and against both of them here.

1. Isn't used within Wikipedia mainspace or any other namespace Redirects do not need to be mentioned anywhere on WP to justify their existence (e.g. numerous redirects containing misspellings/spelling variants/archaic terms, or for an example of another non-neutral redirect, Cackling Kamala). That being said, in Scientology and religious groups, there is a quotation that states, "Martin denounced Hubbard as being a false prophet. [emphasis mine]" Surely this counts as a usage, even if not a verbatim one?

2. unlikely to be useful as a search term Why? Off the top of my head, I can imagine someone forgetting the name of LRH but remembering his most important role: being the creator, or metaphorically, the (real or false) "prophet" of Scientology (cf. how Muhammed is often called "the Islamic prophet" by secular scholars despite not being the only one according to Islam). Granted, these redirects have had a total of 9 page views (6 for "fake prophet", 3 for "prophet") since their creation, but it has also just been 3 weeks so give them a chance. I'd say these are pretty "high" numbers for relatively brand new redirects.

3. Made 3 weeks ago I'm not sure if this was meant to be an argument for deletion, or just a justification for speedy deletion, but just in case it was the former: the redirects being 3-weeks-old do not justify their deletion. Good, decent, and half-decent redirects get created "later" than you would think all the time.

(Now I will address the arguments given in the other nomination):

4. is non-neutral There is an entire category of redirects that are non-neutral, this is a non-argument; non-neutral redirects are allowed to exist since they are not articles having to follow WP:NPOV, assuming other factors don't disallow them from existing.

5. not a phrase used in reliable sources This is incorrect: here are some RS, including from JSTOR and PBS, which mention either of the redirects (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, see here for more results).

6. not a plausible search term Besides the aforesaid sources I gave, let's think about how these terms could be used more abstractly. Most people on Earth are not Scientologists; most people who are aware of Scientology are against it, in particular non- and anti-Scientologist religious people, who would be familiar with religious terms such as "prophet" and "false prophet". Is it really implausible that some readers would use these religious terms for another religion/cult/belief system, even if they are not officially used in Scientology?

With all that being said, @Grorp, I am not opposed to the false-prophet redirect being retargeted to a more specific article, such as the aforesaid Scientology and religious groups where that POV is mentioned. I am also not opposed to retargeting both of these to David Miscavige or whatever the redirect for his leadership position is, since I did find a few sources using "prophet" to refer to him, such as a blog by Mike Rinder. But I sincerely believe that no matter what, deleting either or both of these redirects will be unhelpful for readers who have typed and will type them in the future. Sorry for all the write-up, I just want to have all my bases covered. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: If anyone ever did forget Hubbard's name, typing "prophet of scientology" still wouldn't justify a redirect. If a reader can remember 'Scientology', they can go to the Scientology article—or almost any article title starting with "Scientology"—and will encounter a link to L. Ron Hubbard in the lead, usually in the first sentence. That is already a reliable navigation path.
  As for Bis-Serjetà's sample sources offered: they do not verify the phrase. Result #1 is about Mormonism and does not mention Hubbard at all. Results #2, #3, #5, and #6 (a duplicate of #3) are film and book reviews of critical works, where "prophet" is used as a rhetorical jab, not as a descriptive or scholarly term relating to Scientology. Result #4 is an aside remark, and is also not evidence of an established phrase.
  If these are the strongest examples available, they do not demonstrate that "prophet of Scientology" or "false prophet of Scientology" is a commonly used or even marginally attested phrase. Per WP:R#DELETE criteria 3 and 8, redirects should reflect actual usage or plausible search behavior. These do neither.
  The mention of the newness of the redirects was simply to note that WP:R#HARMFUL point #2 ("reasonably old") doesn't apply, whereas speedy deletion under WP:R3 (for "recently created implausible misnomer") might well apply.
  I can think of hundreds of adjectives that have been casually applied to Hubbard that could be turned into redirects, but there's no real purpose doing that; hence my nomination to delete these two.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding your first point, the main purpose of redirects is to aid navigation; they are intended to make sure they don't have to make readers play a brief match of the Wikipedia Game to find the article they wish to find. A redirect that can be used similarly in this way to these redirects include 2nd pope, which redirects to Saint Linus; someone may truly not remember the name of the first pope after Saint Peter, but they may very well remember that he was a pope, and the second one, so the redirect exists in part to help readers who forget the name, but not the position. Again, it's not an exactly analagous redirect because "prophet" isn't an official title in Scientology but I'll refer back to points 2 and 6 in my above reply.

  Mea culpa on the Mormonism source; regarding the "strongest examples available", they'd most likely be found in books, not on the internet and alas, I have no books of my own to potentially quote from. Searching for "prophet" "ron hubbard" on Google Search got me this, calling Hubbard a "millionaire prophet" and on Bare-faced Messiah, I found an offline source about Hubbard by The Mail on Sunday titled, "The True Story of a False Prophet". Again, neither of these are verbatim "Prophet of Scientology" or "False prophet of Scientology", but the redirects have to be naturally disambiguated.

  I don't understand why the terms being sometimes used in a rhetorical way justifies deletion; RDELETE does not mention rhetorical usage at all, and doesn't state that redirects have to be scholarly terms. Last time I checked, Fictional Armenian genocide, Serbian War against Bosnian Muslims and Epstein Ballroom aren't used in any scholarly manner (just see the search results for the latter, for example), and aren't mentioned at their targets, yet they're still kept because people do actually search these terms and it would inconvenience them if they were deleted, their rhetoricalness notwithstanding.

  Regarding WP:R#DELETE 3, this would not justify deletion of False prophet of Scientology, rather a retarget to Scientology and religious groups since false prophet is indeed at least mentioned there, and would satisfactorily give the reader information about how Scientology is viewed by other religions who are implicitly said to believe in that article that LRH indeed was a false prophet, as a reader searching the term could be searching for that information per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Ditto for RDELETE 8 since it justifies deletion based on not [being] mentioned in the target. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 12:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete not used anywhere and an unlikely search term. Requires some rather tortured steps to get from there to here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I may or may not weigh in on the other redirect, but this one is a clear delete for me. From a Christian perspective, such an epithet is redundant; Scientology is considered a false teaching, so there wouldn't be a "true" prophet of it anyway. This did make me wonder whether there are "non-Hubbardian" Scientologists, who consider themselves Scientologists while indeed considering Hubbard a false prophet. Quick googling didn't yield anything. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep, per the many words above Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Although maybe it would make sense to retarget that false prophet one to the mention of that guy calling him a false prophet. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per those above. Does not pass muster on many fronts. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I've !voted to keep the other, but in that case, "prophet" isn't inconsistent with how he saw himself, whereas "false prophet" is a POV claim that no one is mentioned as making in the article, and per BDD would be more associated with a claim by a rival religious sect than a characterization of someone as simply not a prophet. (Most people, after all, believe that most people who claim to be prophets are not prophets.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:55, 24 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).

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) — In solidarity, Penn65 talk 15:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• One poundOne pound → Pound#Units  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Confusing since the target is a disambiguation page that is not an exact title match for the redirect per WP:PTM. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, makes sense to me change as discussed immediately below. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to List of £1 banknotes and coins and add a link to the dab page in the see also. Someone using this search term is most likely looking for a thing called a "one pound" and that is almost certainly a coin or note with that value. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, great pick for a retarget. I change my above !vote to support this instead. Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, as a good DAB page and most relevant target. 'One pound' can be someone looking to understand the weight of something just as much as the currency, so I don't see why a redirect to only a list of currencies would be preferable. I'm not really sure how WP:PTM is applicable here since it is describing how not all partial title matches should be included in the disambiguation page (i.e., that Alfrick Pound shouldn't be listed in the disambiguation page for Pound only on the basis of it having "Pound" in the title), and doesn't say anything about what should link to the disambiguation page. Shazback (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Someone wanting to understand the weight of something would more likely search for "pound" rather than "one pound", but a hatnote from the currency list to the dab page would resolve matters for the minority who are looking for something not called "one pound". I stand by my recommendation. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Americans would read this as a weight, Brits would read this as a currency. Pound is a disambiguation page, and rightfully so. Also note that one is a synonym for unit, so I disagree with the WP:PTM argument. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:23, 26 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).

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. Various other suggestions were thrown out, but none gained traction. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Traction Company → Tram  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: one possible target would be Rail transport company, in that there are quite a few former railway and tram operators named "XYZ Traction Company", but I remain to be convinced that this would be better than deletion. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Has been added to the target entry. Why would we delete a link that help readers understand terminology instead of clarifying it? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, looks like that edit was reverted by Fram: Steel1943 (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I readded it. Fram objected to where the indormation was added but couldn't be bothered to include it where he thought it should go. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It has been removed again; I tend to agree that it adds nothing useful to the Tram article. We need a better solution for this redirect. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the Tram article is the wrong place because (per my comment below) it is not exclusive to trams. Transportation company or Transport company would be a logical place, except they are redirects to Transport industry and Transport respectively which are much too high a level (they shouldn't have separate targets, I'll be nominating them separately when I've finished writing this comment). Transportation authority is the right level, but that is about public sector providers whereas all the examples of "Traction Company" I'm aware of are/were private sector organisations. Bus company redirects to Bus, Tram company and tram operator are redlinks, Bus operator redirects to Bus driver, Public Transport Operator redirects to Public transport and none of those targets are correct either. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment "Traction Company" is not exclusive to tramways, e.g. British Electric Traction#Transport, Beaumont, Sour Lake and Port Arthur Traction Company, New York and North Shore Traction Company, Scottish Motor Traction, Aldershot & District Traction Company Limited, Metropolitan District Electric Traction Company, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 09:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• delete. there's not much to do with such a vague term. a redirect would be misleading, a dab (or would it be a set index here?) would just be ptms scattered to the wind, and i haven't been able to find much info on traction companies in general because, as mentioned too many words ago, the term is really vague, to the point where companies that offer to enshittify mrbeastify youtube channels were worrisomely common (i got more than zero results referring to those) consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 12:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  A possibility would a be page, probably a set index, that said something like:

  "Traction Company" is an element used in the names of companies that operate public transport, particularly buses and trams, and companies that offer services to startups looking to grow.

  With lists of companies we have articles about, organised by industry (although the first two pages of intitle results are all public transport operators) with a link to wikt:traction somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Targeting tram does seem wrong, the topic of the original term is the company. Looking further afield from the examples mentioned above, IT company redirects to Technology company but Computer company redirects to Information technology. Fashion company redirects to Fashion#Fashion industry, rather than Clothing industry (Clothing company is a redlink, yet is used as a disambiguator for a few articles). Car company redirects to Automotive industry. Publishing company redirects to Publishing. If there is a pattern, it seems to be that redirects are made to a particular industry rather than to a particular product. With that in mind, we do have the terrible stub Transport industry, which may serve. CMD (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no good target. Transport industry doesn't mention "traction" either. Jay 14:06, 21 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).

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 without prejudice against recreation should a suitable mention be added somewhere -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Spanish onion → Onion#Spanish Onions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Spainish onion → Red onion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  ( bundled. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC))

An ancient redirect which points to a section which no longer exists. The word "Spanish" appears only once in the current revision of the article and doesn't describe anything about onions actually cultivated in/from Spain. Delete. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of content. A Spanish onion is a variety of yellow/brown onion that is larger (sometimes significantly larger), sweeter and (slightly) less pungent than the main varieties. It is possible that this is a UK-specific term although I'm not certain of that. Ideally we'd have some content about this, but all we have that I've found are a couple of passing mentions of the vegetable, and a mention that the UK press once characterised Graham Taylor as a Spanish onion - nothing suitable for anchoring a redirect though. There was apparently a 1935 film called An Old Spanish Onion but the only content we have about that are list entries at Ruth Etting#Filmography and Forman Brown#Filmography. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom and per above. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Spainish onion was created by creator at the same time as this. Both were redirects to Red onion, until one was boldly retargeted. Bundle? Jay 💬 14:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Only bundle if you want to relist this discussion imo, it's 8 days old already, otherwise just nominate it separately after this is closed. Spainish onion is a plausible error for Spanish onion (more common than I expected tbh) but if we're deleting the correct spelling it doesn't make sense to keep the misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I was also looking for someone to comment on Red onion. The usual discussion that happens when redirect variants target different articles. Jay 💬 15:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I felt my comment above also addressed that - there is no mention of "Spanish" (or "Spainish") at red onion and my results indicate that a Spanish onion is a yellow/brown onion not a red onion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I had read your comment and didn't think it addressed red onion. In any case, you have now addressed it in your latest comment. I'm good with a WP:G6 for Spainish if there is a Delete outcome. Jay 💬 17:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  G6 maybe iffy, but G8 would definitely be OK. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - 'Plant Breeding Reviews, Volume 20' gives some great insight into "Spanish" onions (c. page 91; took me a while to track that down). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to bundle Spainish onion as suggested
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:44, 8 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).

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 Undercut (hairstyle)#Revival. Rusalkii (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Macklemore haircutMacklemore haircut → Curtained hair  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Macklemore previously had an Undercut (hairstyle) around 2016, but has long since denounced it. No longer a useful redirect. मल्ल (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Undercut (hairstyle)#Revival where a photograph of Macklemore is prominently featured and he is discussed, with references, in the article text. The term "Macklemore haircut" has appeared in reliable sources and he continues to be references as an example of this haircut in unreliable sources in the present day (ex: ). —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Undercut (hairstyle)#Revival as per Myceteae. Wiki isn't concerned with Macklemore's current haircut, or what he thinks of his own haircut, but what is published in reliable sources - references a 'Macklemore haircut' seem to be overwhelmingly to describe the undercut, even in the article provided by the nominator illustrating that he no longer has one. Shazback (talk) 21:16, 9 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).

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 R3. This is in the gray-area range for recentness, but I'm comfortable treating it as such given the circumstances (low-visibility page, since-blocked creator, RfD around the 6-week mark that only failed for procedural reasons) and because it's about as textbook an implausible misspelling as you'll ever find. Will do the same for Spunche bop, Sponche bob, and Spunch bop. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Spaunchje barp → SpongeBob SquarePants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Extremely implausible typo. No non-Wikipedia results. In addition, Google suggests that I mean "sponge bar" when searching this up without quotes. Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:42, 8 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).

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) 18:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• If man → Justin Herbert  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a common nickname for the target, not covered in the target article, and not an unambiguous one either, as some RS have used it in connection with Leander Starr Jameson. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 03:49, 17 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).

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) Chess enjoyer (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• The word sexThe word sex → Sex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'd probably be okay with this redirect if we had an article Sex (word), but we don't. We have a few articles on things called sex, but none are about the word. And a redirect to Wiktionary would not be justifiable for this (else it would be justifiable for every other word with a Wiktionary entry). There was briefly an article here, but it would be speedyable as G3 or A10. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not an implausible search term for "-sex" (Saxons) and "sex-" (6) included in the other uses section which are not on the first two pages of my internal search results using this title. The dab page contains a prominent link to Wiktionary for those who are looking for that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I would not have created this redirect, and I don' think it's a very good one, but the Sex dab page lists multiple uses of the word sex and includes a Wiktionary link. It covers what the encyclopedia can reasonably cover for this search term. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep per the above arguments. And also: if you search "the word sex" and you get a dab with senses of the word "sex", you've gotten what you most likely wanted! Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:26, 12 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).

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 💬 04:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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

This term appears to have been used by a few different people to mean a few related things, none of them notably and none in a way that gives an obvious redirect target. Unusually, there have been two articles at this title. One in 2025 was stealth-marketing, and even if its promotional parts were removed would be "something someone made up one day", so speedyable under G11 and A11. An earlier one in 2006 wasn't speedyable at the time but would also meet A11 if restored today. So I don't think either article attempt in the history prevents deletion here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:38, 8 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).

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 💬 04:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Non-notable joke spelling, too obscure to be on Wiktionary or in UrbanDictionary. Gets a decent number of Google hits but they're all just pulling it as an alias because it redirects to so visible a Wikipedia article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

D'elite purr nawm. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:40, 14 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).

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 Duck family (Disney)#Andold "Wild Duck" Temerary. Rusalkii (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Andold TemeraryAndold Temerary → List of Donald Duck universe characters#Andold "Wild Duck" Temerary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer listed in article. Minor character who is an ancestor of Donald Duck and I don't think it's notable enough to readd to the list. I couldn't find the name mentioned on another article. Suonii180 (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The character is currently listed at Duck family (Disney)#Andold "Wild Duck" Temerary, so the redirect should be changed to point there. --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Duck family (Disney)#Andold "Wild Duck" Temerary per Newblackwhite. Katzrockso (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment, agree that it should be retargeted to Duck family (Disney)#Andold "Wild Duck" Temerary, missed this article when I was searching! Suonii180 (talk) 23:18, 8 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).

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• 1993 CART World Series Season/Temp → 1993 PPG Indy Car World Series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1998 CART World Series Season/Temp → 1998 CART FedEx Championship Series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1999 CART World Series Season/Temp → 1999 CART FedEx Championship Series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2003 CART World Series Season/Temp → 2003 Champ Car World Series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Old /Temp redirects, created per this discussion, which I've gotten undeleted. I've made sure all the significant history has been moved over to the redirect targets. Graham87 (talk) 08:40, 8 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).

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 💬 14:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Flop-hit → Frank Rich#Flop-hit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete An article at this title was deleted in 2016 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flop-hit, although the closure explicitly allowed the creation of a redirect. Content was removed from the target article in 2017 by user:5678MoveOn with their sole contribution to Wikipedia. Their stated rationale was that the term was "incorrectly attributed to Mr Rich". The only content I've found we have about this is at Sunset Boulevard (musical)#Original Broadway production but redirecting a general term to one example of it is rarely the best plan and I don't see it being a good one here either. It feels like the sort of concept that should be notable, but finding sources is going to be tricky given the sheer number of collocations of the two words in search results. Thryduulf (talk) 08:22, 8 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).

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 💬 14:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Drill into it and drain every last drop of fluid → Danny Gonzalez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently created as a redirect to Danny Gonzalez. The phrase does not appear on the redirected page and is apparently a reference to something said in an online video Oblivy (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete While Danny Gonzalez has said this in a video, even in the context of the video he is directly quoting "Plan Bee" a film for which we do not have (and are incredibly unlikely to ever have) an article on. We do not even have an article on the production company nor the creator, so this is best being deleted. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 19:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. – GnocchiFan (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete, while this meme is an inside joke/notable within GREG, it's not notable by Wikipedia's standards tbh, In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment this is the editor who created the redirect Oblivy (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment we should probably RfD GREG. Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 13#GREG Oblivy (talk) 02:31, 13 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).

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) Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Taking a crapTaking a crap → Defecation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Taking a shitTaking a shit → Defecation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nominating for the same reason as Taking a poop below. 1033Forest (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. These are straightforward and unambiguous, yet crude, ways to refer to defecation. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Myceteae. These are a perfectly plausible ways for someone to find the target article if they don't know (or can't remember) the technical term. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as clear & relevant non-technical terms. Shazback (talk) 21:05, 9 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).

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) Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Taking a poopTaking a poop → Defecation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While that's what the redirect title literally is, it's a recreation of a redirect deleted under criterion G3 and R3 back when I bulk created a bunch of redirects in 2017-2019. I have learned to not create bulk redirects in the years since, so I'll say delete on this one. 1033Forest (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. As the nom states, that's what the redirect title literally is. This is a straightforward, if informal, way to refer to the topic. Defecation is a reasonable title for the article but it's a somewhat inaccessible word and we should have redirects that help everyday readers find the topic. PoopingPooping redirects to the same target and is an alternative grammatical approach to saying the exact same thing. I don't see how this could have been WP:R3 eligible as it is neither a typo nor a misnomer and there is nothing implausible about this. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Myceteae. This is a perfectly plausible way for someone to find the target article if they don't know (or can't remember) the technical term. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as clear & relevant non-technical terms. Shazback (talk) 21:05, 9 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).

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 💬 14:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Source+Control+Management → Version control  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• ING+New+York+City+Marathon → New York City Marathon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Launch+Pad+39-B → Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39B  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Launch+Pad+39-A → Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Imam+Feisal+Abdul+Rauf → Feisal Abdul Rauf  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible; correct versions exist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Why are these implausible? In RFC 1866, space characters are replaced by '+' so these types of titles are quite common by people copying URLs around. Whether it would be practical to create these for every title with spaces is another issue; maybe a MediaWiki patch is due to auto-redirect pages of this form or suggest the correct titles. --Habst (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

So if you put something like this in the search bar, it should usually work out fine. See Special:Search/United+States for instance; top result is "United States". If you put it directly into a URL, then it'll take you to a redlink that gives you a link to the search button, e.g. United+States, but won't give you any suggestions or anything. Wiktionary does have something like that for miscapitalized words—see e.g. wikt:Example—using wikt:Template:didyoumean, and enwiki could do the same with something like {{#ifexist:{{#invoke:String|replace|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|+| }}|Did you mean [[{{#invoke:String|replace|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|+| }}]]?}} (example: Did you mean United States?). But that's a discussion for Template talk:No article text, or WP:VPT if you can't get enough feedback there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably more like Template talk:New page DYM. Also noting that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United+States does directly link to United States. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per precedence ... that I cannot find right now, but I have nominated similar redirects in the past. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 31#Nahuatl+languages+language? 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as not necessary to facilitate using the Search function and not plausible other than copied from urls (and if we do want to support that behaviour it should be done through a wiki-wide software configuration or as part of the template text on all new pages). Shazback (talk) 20:36, 9 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).

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 💬 14:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Smk+jalan+arang → Jalan Arang National Secondary School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Alberta+Hail+Project → Alberta Hail Project  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Article erroneously created at this location and moved to the correct name minutes later. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete, but is this not eligible for G6 ({{Db-error}})? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 15:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

By the letter of the criterion yes, but often it's worth having the weeklong discussion when an error is this old, because occasionally someone makes a compelling argument on pageviews or some off-site backlink or something. (Also it could be argued that, at least for the first one, the reverted retarget in 2017 implies that someone thinks the redirect should exist, which would kill G6.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as these pages have already been moved and as per discussion for Source+Control+Management above not necessary to facilitate using the Search function and not plausible other than copied from urls (and if we do want to support that behaviour it should be done through a wiki-wide software configuration or as part of the template text on all new pages).: Shazback (talk) 20:38, 9 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).