Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 9, 2026.

Mob justice

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27#Mob justice

Fraternal and service organisations

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|🤷) 11:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Fraternal and service organisations → Fraternity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Similar redirects with the 'z' spelling were deleted at their RfD last month. The rationale was WP:XY: Service organization is a redirect that targets Service club. While I had identified similar 'z' titles with variations of singular and capitalization, I had missed this 's' spelled variation. Delete, similarly.

I'm bringing this to RfD instead of a WP:G8 because of the page history. It was unsourced and seems to be a duplicate of what we have at List of general fraternities. The page was BLARd and needn't be retained. Jay 💬 21:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom and outcome of the related RfD. This spelling variant could have been bundled with the others and there is no reason to suspect the outcome would have been different. I agree with the characterization of the WP:XY problems for this and the near-identical redirects that were recently deleted. I agree with the nom that the pre-BLAR content can safely be deleted. It is unsourced and duplicative of content already published elsewhere. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redirect I missed nominating in the previous discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 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).

Nd Street

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 03:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Nd Street → Street#Street numbering (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

this is a bit of a wild guesstimation, but from extensive research, i've found results that imply the existence of numbers other than 2

...also, the more common version for such placeholders would be "nth", and results imply that this is referring to miscellaneous cases where this is an incomplete search (where the character immediately preceding this text string was unicode character u+0032), which would then make this vague anyway, as i've heard that there can be multiple numbers that end in 2 consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 18:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Implausible search term with no utility as a link either. The total traffic since 2015 is about what you would expect from negligible background traffic that redirects collect just by existing. This might hypothetically have been useful if 22nd Street worked the way some other link+text combinations like [[fish]]es (fishes) do, but that's not the case and, as far as I know, never has been.
If not deleted it should be retargeted, though I don't know where to since the current target is the most logical place, but that target doesn't actually cover the topic of streets with ordinal numbers as names; the most it says is that some streets get at least a number if not a name. Without a suitable target there's nothing to retarget to. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Scyrme. This would seem to count as a neologism or coinage for a placeholder that is not actually in use. As noted, The hypothetical usage is not described at the target. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above. We do actually have content about streets with ordinal numbers as names, at Numbered street, and maybe Nth Street should redirect there (and Street#Street numbering, Street name and Numbered street should all link to each other better (Street number redirects to House numbering, but I'm thinking disambiguation might be better?)). However this is not a plausible search term per above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

GOD'S COUNTRY

The result of the discussion was retarget to God's Country (Travis Scott song). @Godsy: Personally I'd love to see MOS:TITLECAPS switch to a common-name approach rather than forcing title case, but so long as it exists in its current form and is incorporated by reference at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) § Capitalization, I'm afraid it precludes implementing your !vote (which I would have otherwise relisted this for further discussion of). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

GOD'S COUNTRYGOD'S COUNTRY → God's Country (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Originally targeted one specific entry on the dab page -- I don't know why, perhaps the all caps was a stylization, but it's not alluded to at the original target. It was then changed to the dab page, which this differs from by capitalization only. Delete as an otherwise odd all-caps version, which are generally harmful unless there's some specific linking need. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to God's Country (Travis Scott song) (the original target). Both my web searches and sources cited in the article show that the title of this song is usually written in all-caps. I've added the all-caps version to the lede with citations. I can't find any evidence that any of the other entries at the DAB page are usually stylized in all-caps, but please ping me if sources are found to suggest otherwise. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to God's Country (Travis Scott song) per Presidentman and per the original destination. All caps stylization is common in media and has been especially trendy in music since the 2010's or so. Fans may be especially likely to search using all caps. Consider adding a hatnote back to the God's Country dab page on the off chance readers use this to search for one of the other titles. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Weak retarget appears to be the only usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Weak retarget to God's Country (Travis Scott song) with hatnote on that page to God's Country as per Myceteae's suggestion, relying on WP:DIFFCAPS to identify the song as the primary topic. Weak because I'm not sure how consistent the allcaps stylization is (both for the Travis Scott song and for other media). Shazback (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep since I do not agree with deleting and I don't necessarily agree with retargeting to God's Country (Travis Scott song) since a WP:RSURPRISE could occur for those who do not realize their CAPS LOCK is on. Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Retarget to God's Country (Travis Scott song) with a mandatory hatnote to the disambiguation page. This appears to be the primary topic per WP:DIFFCAPS as it is listed this way on Spotify and presumably the official track listing. However, when considering imagery it becomes murkier, e.g. the Shelton song is presented that way in pictures etc. Hence, hatnote is needed for this somewhat edge case. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If this is retargeted as above, moving the [Travis Scott song] song to this title over the redirect would likely be appropriate since the caps version seems to be the common name. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Utopia (Travis Scott album)#Track listing notes that All songs are stylized in uppercase. Upon further thought, I am convinced this is the way. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

29 Av

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 24#29 Av

Template:PD-automated

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27#Template:PD-automated

Wikipedia:List of salted pages

The result of the discussion was keep and convert to soft redirect. I figure I might as well add links to Wikipedia:Protected titles/Historical list of titles and Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection, as is practiceable with soft redirects, but anyone may revert if they disagree. (non-admin closure) J 947 ‡ ^edits 23:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of salted pages → Special:ProtectedTitles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I boldly retargetted this to Wikipedia:Protected titles/Historical list of titles following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#Redirects to special pages but was reverted by Tavix. Redirects to special pages function as soft redirects, so there is almost always a better target for them. In this case that better target is in my opinion the the historical list which includes a prominent link to the special page (and thus making it as easily accessible as it is post-revert), while also making it easy to access the historical logs, so I suggest retarget back to that page. The alternative would be to convert it into an explicit soft redirect (using {{soft redirect}}) or making it an information page with links to the special page and the historical logs - but I really don't see how that offers any sort of advantage over just retargetting to the historical log directly given that the special page is linked from there? Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep as is which provides those looking for a list of salted pages to the page that provides an up to date list of salted pages. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
The retarget provides a link to the up to date list in the large, prominent box at the top of the page with added context and a link to the historical lists. It's one click either way. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Maybe disambiguate between the two? But don't leave as-is; it's not a soft redirect as claimed in the reversion summary, it's a broken one. —Cryptic 15:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was a soft redirect, I said it functions as one. If it needs to formally be a soft redirect then it'd be easy enough to convert it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

But what is the benefit to making it an explicit soft redirect over retargetting to a page that provides a prominent link to the same page and more? Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You're badgering again so I'm disengaging. I've already given my rationale. Thanks. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

this is a bit confusing, huh... it's best to make this a list

don't retarget per nom. the attempted target is very, very surprising and outdated, even with the hatnote around, and the discussion not linked (the s in "special" should've been capital~) doesn't seem to imply any consensus to do so. if another target is presented that could be more plausible without also being a literal archive of something that hasn't been used since 2007 and also requires detective work to specifically find salted titles, it may be worth considering, but this one ain't it
if the redirect does indeed function as a soft redirect (which it seems like it shouldn't), convert into a proper soft redirect per nom, with mild opposition to hatnoting
if not, just keep it lmao. maybe add a space in the funny redirect markup thingy, that should fix things, right?

it shouldn't be this confusing, honestly consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 18:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand most of what you've written to be honest, but I definitely don't understand the opposition to targetting a page that links to old and new logs with explanation and context over a link without either that points only to the new log?

As for if the redirect does indeed function as a soft redirect (which it seems like it shouldn't), redirects to special pages do not work, they effectively function as soft redirects but without any useful explanation, context, etc. See e.g. User:Thryduulf/R to special. I can't tell you why they function like this, but it's a software-level thing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

think of it as if wikipedia was a soft redirect to nost:wikipedia with a hatnote to the article. there's no real point in leaving someone with a surprising target whose supersession is old enough to consent and ignoring the then-inevitable "what am i doing here!?" reaction (you know, the exact reason wp:rastonish exists) in favor of "there's a link somewhere in there that tells them that they're in the wrong place, they can just find it", instead of just redirecting (or soft redirecting) to a target that reflects current data

as for the second part, that just means converting it into a soft redirect would make things less janky consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Why would someone be astonished to end up at a page that explains in a big, prominent box at the very top of the page why they are where they are and provides an annotated link to the current list, followed by a list of everything else they might be looking for? Why is an explained link to only one of those targets better? Surely it's more surprising to end up at a page that is not a list of salted pages and contains nothing but an unexplained link to a page that also does not have "list" in the title? These are not rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely not understanding why you think the current situation has any benefits over the alternative? For redirects in mainspace and projectspace we very nearly always prefer a target with context, content and explanations over one that has none of those, yet that's exactly what you are arguing for here? Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

this all only works under the assumption that a reader (editor or otherwise in this case) will look for the hatnote first... and also under the assumption that they won't be too busy being surprised to end up on a list that's been superseded ages ago to notice the hatnote. regardless of how suboptimal you think the current target is, the proposed one is worse on multiple levels, as its context is for, as of writing this, just under 20 years ago

i guess i could also mention people having been familiarized with wp:salt, where the category is explicitly described as a list, but that sounds like too much effort to skirt around the obvious consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you think someone looking for a list of salted pages would be surprised to arrive at a list of lists of salted pages, were the most prominent thing on the page is link to the current special page? Nor why you believe a bare link to something that is not called a list and doesn't contain any form of the word "salt" would not be more surprising? Nothing in your comments addresses these at all, you just assume that an old list is inherently surprising with no thought about the actual content of either page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

for the same reason that someone would be surprised to land on a page that leads to the article on wikipedia, but whose main purpose is to lead them to a version of that article that's been outdated for ages by now, with the target they want not being the center point. it can be assumed from the title that a reader looking for it will at the very least have some idea of what salting is (potentially to the point of not knowing the formal term, but that's besides the point), so i'm not sure where the surprise would come in

to make your suggestion work, we'd need a list (or list of lists) that's still being updated, and that doesn't outright tell the reader that they're in the wrong place for current info

...as for the question of whether or not leading people to a special page would be more surprising, wp:salt and your proposed target both support the idea that it wouldn't consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 15:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

A link without any context to a page that contains none of the words in the search term other than "pages" is very different to page that has, as its most prominent element a link, with explanation and context to the new title as well as, with lesser prominence, a list of pages that match the searched term. I'm not simply disagreeing with your view, I'm completely failing to understand how your view correlates with either reality or the words you are using to explain your view. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

and i'm failing to understand why you think a superceded page explicitly only kept around for historical purposes would be the ideal target for a term related to current info, and why you think that a link to it somewhere around the top would help matters more than just (soft) redirecting them to that page. it's a weird kind of middle-man insertion, like asking that matters related to current-day italy first go through severus alexander. that said, this seems to be where the back-and-forth will stagnate, so it's probably not worth going at it for long enough to warrant outdenting consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 01:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Because redirects to special pages do not work there has to be an intermediate page. The choices are between an intermediate page that provides no context for a single link to a page that bears almost no relation to the search term, or a page that provides links to everything the searcher could be looking for, with context for all of them, including most prominently the current list. To use an analogy that is actually relevant, it's the difference between someone searching for "List of leaders of Rome" being taken to a page containing only a bare link to "Special:ItalianPresidents" vs a link to a page with a big prominent box the the top saying "There used to be multiple manual lists of Roman leaders, listed below. For the current, dynamic list see special:ItalianPresidents". It's one click either way, but one is superior to the other in every objective way. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

the problem is more accurate than the proposed solution, then, because taking readers to a superseded list of lists of roman leaders when they're looking for a list of italian presidents would be especially surprising, seeing as the roman empire hasn't been a thing for a good couple weeks now. it's a little like taking readers to a historic archive of a list of lists that's so grossly outdated that a good portion of the titles listed there aren't even salted anymore, under the rationale that there's a link they can find to where they actually want to go (which, again, would work as an admission that the target is surprising, and that it knows this janky workaround isn't what they want)

a way easier solution, as i mentioned at the very start here, would be to just make this a formal soft redirect consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Which brings me back to another unanswered question - what is the advantage in a formal soft redirect to one page (that still bears little resemblance to the search term) over a page that has more links, all with context, with the current list being the most prominent in both? Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

having more links isn't exactly an advantage here, especially when all but one of those are deliberately only kept around for archiving purposes, don't account for any titles having been unsalted since 2007, are tucked in a list of lists of all titles that have been created and deleted multiple times (with further salted titles tucked in some of the other lists as well, hagger my beloved), and where the only links that don't have a note explicitly describing them as deprecated are the right one and the ones where people seem to have forgotten to add it. so... why not just take readers to that one link? there's no need for this flowchart spaghetti when the alternative is just having the one link they'd actually want consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 13:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of that doesn't actually make any sense at all, but the bits that do assume that nobody ever wants something other than the current list (we'd delete the archive if that were true) and that there is some sort of harm in having multiple links to uncommonly wanted pages (obviously incorrect since dab pages list all topics, even obscure ones). If the present list were a regular page then yes we'd redirect to it with a hatnote to the list of all logs including old and current (primary topic+hatnote to dab) however that is not possible here so the only logical answer is primary disambig. We could have a separate page with the current link most prominent and the others below that, but that's exactly what the historical log page is so it would duplicate it for no actual benefit that anybody has articulated. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

the term "most prominent" is doing a lot of legwork here, but i don't think it can exactly hold up to its supersession only barely not being old enough to legally have a kid, and i'm really not seeing what would make the current target inherently worse than a regular page to the point where this hack would be preferable consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 16:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

What other link on the page is more prominent than the one in the big box at the very top of the page that is clearly described as leading to the current list?

What makes the current target any worse than the suggested one? Nothing, other than all the reasons I've given (multiple times) explicitly explaining why it's worse (if you've not read or not understood then there is no point repeating myself). The proposed target is not a "hack" any more than a disambiguation page is a hack. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

oops, thought this was sent yesterday

this is where it comes around to the "reader will be busy being surprised" part, and none of this even implies that the proposed target doesn't trample the idea of wp:hispages (why take a reader to a deliberately outdated, obsolete target just to tell them that the one they actually want is right there?) consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 17:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I've responded to everything here previously, some of it multiple times. It's clear you are simply not listening so further comment is pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

if you think it's like that, i can say the same thing. none of this discussion exactly supports the idea that you know what historical pages are for, or why bringing someone who wants current info to a target with the caveat that the correct one is right there if they look at the box that says they're in the wrong place would just be taking 8 lefts to make a forward consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep as Wikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation (a redirect previously discussed over 10 years ago and no opposition since) also targets the same special page, and I don't see a difference between "salted pages" and "pages protected against re-creation", I also don't see a reason to have inconsistency with pages with basically the same meaning. Mathguy2718 (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Mathguy2718, can you clarify? It sounds like you are saying, keep it and retarget it to Wikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation, is that right? But that page is currently a soft redirect to Special:ProtectedTitles so wouldn't that be a double redirect? (In spirit, anyway; maybe more like a one-and-a-half redirect.) Or are you saying, retarget this to also point to Special:ProtectedTitles? Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
What I mean is something like "keep the redirect to Special:ProtectedTitles as opposed to retargeting since the redirect Wikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation also targets the same special page". Currently, Wikipedia:List of salted pages is a soft redirect to Special:ProtectedTitles, and I support keeping the soft redirect for consistency with a similar redirect Wikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation that was previously discussed (there was consensus that a redirect to a special page is allowed). No retargeting would be involved for this option. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation, but I agree that it should have the same target as the list of salted pages, and that target should be the historical log page which has the prominent link to the special page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Don't leave as is. Leaving it as is is the worst choice, and every other solution mentioned so far would be better even if not ideal. Not sure what my preference is yet, and will likely refine my !vote later as discussion progresses. Mathglot (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Yep, that's what the target is. In addition, any redirects to the "Special:" name space are forced to be soft redirects anyways, so the likelihood of being misdirected or surprised by the current target is incredibly low. Steel1943 (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Steel1943: We should bring back (one of my personal favorites) the non-mainspace double soft redirect-template to use here

. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

HD44780 Character LCD

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#HD44780 Character LCD

Bulldogs team songs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27#Bulldogs team songs

Shekel sack

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. WP:G7, author is deleting. wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Shekel sack → Money bag (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Though mentioned in a hatnote in the target article, the redirect is not mentioned elsewhere in the target article. The redirect is not mentioned at Shekel either. May be best to just delete this thing unless a more precise target is found. Steel1943 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

My bad. I created that redirect @16:26, 23 November 2014 in response to this 09:05, 23 November 2014 drive-by edit by 76.11.115.183 – wow, I've been on that patrol for over eleven years now! I've long-since learned to not try to be helpful to such editors; I should have just reverted them. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Red Hot Hornets

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. WP:G7, author requested deletion. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce M (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Red Hot Hornets → 2025–26 Charlotte Hornets season (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per MPGuy2824, he said it wasn't mentioned in target page Bryce M (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

..."keep"? Steel1943 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

maybe he clicked the "quickclose" button that comes with xfdcloser, which automatically closes a discussion as keep. no idea why it's there, really consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 13:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Ade, Ade, Ade

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Ade, Ade, Ade

Androgynos

The result of the discussion was retarget to Androgyny (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) LazyLune (talk • edits) 04:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

AndrogynosAndrogynos → Androgynos (Judaism) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Dabbify with Androgynos (mythology), retarget to Androgyny (disambiguation) per WP:DABCOMBINE, or hatnote with move revert? Dudzcar (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Androgyny (disambiguation) per WP:DABCOMBINE. No need to have separate disams about largely related topics. You've already added them to the disam anyways, and it works. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Androgyny (disambiguation). In addition to the points made by the nominator Androgynos could also be a misspelling for Androgynous (which redirects to Androgyny as primary topic), or of the Greek epithet (e.g., Dionysus#Epithets: Dionysus Androgynus), which can be addressed if relevant more clearly on the DAB page (through 'see also'). Shazback (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Probably a minor point, but it would actually be a correct transliteration of the Greek epithet (Ἀνδρόγυνος), not a misspelling. "Androgynus" is borrowed into English via Latin. The "Epithets" section linked lists the Latinised variants, not the direct transliterations from Greek. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Ah! Today I learned something! Thanks Shazback (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Androgyny (disambiguation) per Red Shogun412 and Shazback. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Human habitation

The result of the discussion was retarget to Habitation. (non-admin closure) LazyLune (talk • edits) 04:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Human habitationHuman habitation → Housing (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect ambiguous. The phrasing could also vaguely refer to the subjects at Human settlement and Dwelling. I'm not sure which option should take priority. Steel1943 (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguate. Housing, Human settlement, and Dwelling could all be called Human habitation, though housing is a type of dwelling so it may not need to be listed. Note, Habitation is a disambiguation page, suggesting there's no primary topic between Human settlement and Dwelling. – Scyrme (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to the existing Habitation dab page, which already covers the main options (and does not include non-human habitation!). Housing could probably be usefully added to that dab. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Habitation. The existing dab page exclusively covers human habitation and includes the pages that might be included on a separate dab page, which would make it entirely redundant. Housing can be added to Habitation although this is already covered by Dwelling. Either way, we don't need a separate page for this but it is plausible someone would search for or link the phrase human habitation. Tag as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} or another suitable Rcat. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment. For clarity, when I said "disambiguate" earlier, that wasn't strictly a call for a separate new disambiguation page. If retargeting to an existing page appropriately accomplishes disambiguation, then I'm fine with that. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Prophet of Scientology

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27#Prophet of Scientology

Zefs

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 19:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

ZefsZefs → Zeus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not a reasonable typo; would have initially posted here if i had realized it was too old for CSD Chloe (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - It is the modern greek pronunciation of the god Silendzag (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Withdraw - I feel dumb now. It was categorized as a misspelling, and I didn't see anything about the modern pronunciation on the actual article. My bad. Chloe (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Mass hallucination

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Mass hallucination → List of mass panic cases (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The term is likely notable for a stand alone article, and it is not mentioned in the target article (list). Further, it's not a list, so Mass panic would be better, but again, the term is not mentioned there (even hallucination, without qualifier mass, isn't). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Mass psychogenic illness which talks about illusions. Oblivy (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete. As far as I can tell this is not a confirmed "organic" phenomenon although the phrase is used, for example as a purported explanation for religious experiences and as a fictional plot device. Mass "hysteria" or psychogenic illness typically does not involve hallucinations. Other usage found online appears to be hyperbolic, deliberately or otherwise, or is simply conflating hallucination with "delusion" or "false belief". Anyone searching this is presumably looking for a coherent discussion of the topic, which we don't have. Redirecting a disputed phenomenon to something similar with which it is easily conflated, without explanation, is misleading. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I searched Wiki for any possible article that would be a good fit for a redirect but there just isn't any at present. Two fiction-related articles use the phrase "group hallucination": Better Than Life, You and the Night but not so either is worthy of a redirect or disambiguation. Hallucination is not included in the List of psychic abilities. I say delete until such time that there is an acceptably sourced "doesn't exist" mention in the main hallucination article and then anyone can recreate the redirect to there if they want. 5Q5|^✉ 12:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Should Mass vision and Mass delusion, redirects to the same target, also be discussed / deleted? Jay 💬 04:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Discussed, probably. Bundled, no. Without having looked in any detail to see whether it actually is the case, "mass vision" could not implausibly be used for things like television broadcasts or actually observed optical phenomena while "mass delusion" could relate to non-visual things, possibly including mass panics. Thryduulf (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Fayroll

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Fayroll → Payroll (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is an improbable misspelling for Payroll. P and F are far apart on they keyboard and it seems there seems to be no reason people would search this term if they meant Payroll.

I think this would qualify under CSD R3, but I mistakenly tagged this with CSD G4 and was told that prior deletion was an article, so I'm bringing this as an XfD Oblivy (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete also per WP:IAR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete ~~or weak retarget to Pharaoh (as a phonetic misspelling)~~. Steel1943 (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Never mind on that. Turns out that per third-party search engines, there is a (un)notable book series named "Fayroll", leaving this redirect ambiguous anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as implausible per nom. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fayroll can inform on notability of the Fayroll book series (2025 AFD).Shazback (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep as redirect creator. "F" and "P" are very close to each other on the Dvorak Keyboard (perhaps the second most common keyboard after Qwerty), and since the book series is unnotable this is not an ambiguous redirect. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Ambiguity has already been established (current target, book series, Pharaoh [my struck comment]), meaning there is not an expectation that readers are looking for this target when typing the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I still think that Payroll is the best target- it's much more likely that someone typing with either the Dvorak or Colemak keyboard would accidentally type "fayroll" when looking for "payroll", than it is that someone's text to speech software would read someone saying "pharaoh" as them saying "fayroll". Also, if the book series is notable enough to have a page, it should be brought to Wikipedia:DELREV, until then it is not a plausible target. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment - on Dvorak P and F are not neighbouring keys. They are close, but not to such an extent that "Fayroll" would be more plausible as a typo on Dvorak than "Oayroll" or "Layroll" on a QWERTY keyboard. Also, typically practice on a Dvorak keyboard is to use different hands to type the letters "F" and "P" (). Shazback (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per Steel and Shazback. Jay 13:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Comitia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27#Comitia