Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 1, 2026.

Hetero-curious

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 20#Hetero-curious

Kuiper belt in fiction

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) 19:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

No such section at target, and Trans-Neptunian objects in fictionTrans-Neptunian objects in fiction now redirects to Fictional_planets_of_the_Solar_System#Trans-Neptunian_planets. Not sure how much that would be an appropriate target for these redirects though given the lack of mention of the terms there, as well as the fact that that article's topic is specifically fictional planets. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Iran-Israel-United States war

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 24#Iran-Israel-United States war

Dead Kings

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. Legoktm (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

"Dead Kings" could mean a lot of different things. Having not played the game, my mind jumps to this being a reference to the pharaohs of old. I think a redirect like "Assassin's Creed: Dead Kings" makes sense, but without that context, this feels confusing. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment Given titles like "king" are very often capitalised (depending on the conventions of manuals of style and opinions on grammar), this seems little different to dead kings. I think this redirect would be surprising (WP:SURPRISE) to anyone not following the franchise. On the other hand, external search results do mostly bring up results for the expansion pack, so perhaps it really is the primary topic (WP:PTOPIC)? I don't think disambiguation is possible, as the only other article I could find with "Dead Kings" in the title was The Three Dead Kings, but that's only a partial title match, and it's not like we're going to make a list of every specifically dead King. – Scyrme (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. My search results also included The Dead Kings, a poem by Francis Ledwidge, but we don't appear to have any content about that. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly fine redirect to a section with the relevant title. If more relevant content appears, this should be disambiguated. I'll clarify that I've seen various reviews of mentions of game expansions that use just CD instead of AB:CD, so it is a valid rediredct (and later a disambig title). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment (from nominator): A possible target would be something like Rephaite#Long dead ancestors, where there is a possible linguistic link to "dead kings". Other possible targets from a cursory Wikipedia search are Dead End Kings, The Three Dead Kings, King's Dead... not perfect, but worth mentioning. Maybe the AC DLC pack is the best spot, but I was WP:SURPRISED to arrive there as opposed to something ancient history-related. TNstingray (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    The redirect-specific guidance at WP:RSURPRISE is:

    Wikipedia follows the "principle of least astonishment"; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "Hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.

    Readers landing where they expected is part of this, but I read the main point as making it clear that the page they landed at is a reasonable match for the redirect. The subject heading Assassin's Creed Unity#Dead Kings makes it clear why "Dead KingsDead Kings" lands here. The real question is one of primary topic. I agree that the generic phrase dead kings would seem to refer to kings who have died or maybe one of these partial title matches. I also accept that "King" is often capitalized but there may still be a WP:DIFFCAPS argument in favor of the video game. But I'm unsure whether there really is a primary topic problem here and whether these other entries are actually attested as being referred to as "Dead Kings". FWIW, I'm not a gamer so I would need context to know what "Dead Kings" refers to, and the current target does supply this quite clearly. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I too was initially skeptical of this, but we don't seem to have a target for the general concept of dead kings (aside from the facetuous idea of retargeting ot Category:Monarchs by century which I'm sure nobody will want) or any other works that aren't PTMs, so we may as well target the video game. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Assassin's Creed: Rising Phoenix

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

After doing some digging, Rising Phoenix appears to have originated as a hoax from an AC fan community based in Chile. It had an online following, to the point of having an IGN note as a cancelled entry in the series. However, it is not listed on this article, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. Delete as unhelpful to the reader. TNstingray (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

If there is a RS for its existence as a hoax, it should be mentioned in the linked section and kept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Why? Even if a reference could be found that wouldn't mean the information it's about is relevant. A game that was never actually planned is irrelevant to the "Future games" section which is intended for announced planned games, not fan speculation about games that were never planned to begin with and will never be made in the future. – Scyrme (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
The path I followed was a Google search leading to a Reddit thread leading to an article discussing that Chilean fan community (written in Spanish, which I am not fluent in)... not really worth mentioning on the Assassin's Creed article. That's why I nominated these redirects for deletion. TNstingray (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both per TNstingray. Without a mention at the target, this redirect will not help readers find what they're looking for. If a mention is added at the article (or anywhere else), it can always be recreated. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Old English words for "True"

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This article used to have a fairly extensive section on the definition and etymology of the word "Truth"; these three Old English words were pointed towards an anchor to that etymology section. However, the section has been cut down to a single sentence as per WP:NOTDICT, as previously mentioned in the RFD for Sooth; said single sentence doesn't mention these three words in any manner. What's more, the anchor they pointed to no longer exists. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete true. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete unmentioned redirects. Consensus, apparently, has been to remove all related content. Yes, these are direct synonyms (apparently), but the purpose of these redirects was to use and explain the historical usage. These have only ever been redirects so there is no history that needs to be preserved. Whether or not to restore or re-create the definition and etymology is a discussion best left to Talk:Truth. If, at some point, the content appropriate content is returned to the article, relevant redirects can always be re-created. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Note—I'm not saying the content should or should not be restored/added and I'm not saying there should necessarily be a discussion about it. Just expressing an opinion as to where such a discussion should occur if it does. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Consensus, apparently, has been to remove all related content
"Consensus" implies a discussion. As far as I know, this was one editor's call regarding how to apply WP:NOTDICT, and they did not link to or mention a prior or ongoing discussion in their edit summaries. – Scyrme (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
There is WP:EDITCON, a weak form of consensus. I did find this edit summary which links to this discussion. I haven't dug through the whole history of this section and content. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Miś

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Legoktm (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why this currently redirects to this disambiguation page. "Miś" does mean teddy bear in Polish, though. The only thing that could be called "Miś" in this disambiguation page is Teddy Bear (1981 film). Searching at pl:Miś shows it is also a surname. Here on enwiki, we have Krystian Miś. Other searches show the word is used to do with anything with teddy bears in Polish. There is PZL.49 Miś, which I'm not sure would be referred to as just "Miś" or not. Mathguy2718 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  • This was created as a redirect to Teddy Bear (film), which at that time was the title of the 1981 film titled in Polish as Miś. The redirect was incorrectly updated by a bot to point to the disambiguation page. That said, I'm ambivalent about whether to redirect this to the film or to the MIS disambiguation page. I suppose leaning slightly towards the film with a hatnote to MIS. older ≠ wiser 19:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to MIS as {{avoided double redirect}} for Mis. The film is already listed there at MIS § Other uses. – Scyrme (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Convert into disambig. Miś is an implausible typo for Mis/MIS since only Polish people use this diacritic, and it requires two keys pressed (ALT+S). But we already have more than one target on en wiki: Teddy Bear (1981 film) and PZL.49 Miś (and there will be more, as articles like LWD Miś or bios with people with that surname will be eventually translated from pl wiki). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    Besides the film, the rest are partial title matches (WP:PTM). Disambiguation pages aren't intended to be lists of partial title matches. Also, listing variants of titles with diacritics in the same disambiguation page is very common practice. I don't see the problem with just having a single disambiguation page at MIS.
    Many English-speakers search for topics with diacritics in their correct titles without including the diacritics in their search terms for various reasons (they don't know how to type them, their keyboard layouts don't support them, they just can't be bothered to type them because native English-speaker often routinely ignore diacritics anyway). Doesn't mean they're not looking for a title with diacritics in it.
    If we separated disambiguation pages based on diacritics, a lot of readers wouldn't find what they're looking for because they're used to typing in titles without diacritics and redirects sorting it out for them. eg. PZL.49 Mis redirects to PZL.49 Miś. – Scyrme (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    Plane types and similar are often prefixed with a specific code but actually discussed using their common name, there's no reason to assume this is not the case for this one. The prospective Miś disambiguation page can be linked or transcluded with {{transclude list}} into the Mis disambiguation page, there's no issue there. --Joy (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    Are there examples of disambiguation pages that do this? {{transclude list}} is tagged as being in alpha, suggesting it isn't widely used on disambiguation pages for this purpose and probably shouldn't be until it's in a more ready state. – Scyrme (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    Of course, for example Marauder lists Martin B-26 Marauder, Raiden lists Mitsubishi J2M Raiden. With ships, this is even more common, for example Scurry lists USS Scurry (AM-304), Surprise lists HMS and USS, Enterprise#Vehicles has a lot of prefixes and suffixes, too. With helicopters there's Iroquois listing Bell UH-1 Iroquois, Sokol lists a plane, three submarines, motorcycles and a ship. Listing the Miś bomber at Miś seems entirely mundane.
    With regard to the template, I don't think that the situation is as scary as the tag implies, as the functionality seems to work reasonably well. I don't see how it would not be ready. I've used it many times, and the only thing that ever bothered me was the fact that it doesn't parse sections, which wouldn't a problem here. You can see dozens of examples in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Transclude list. Worst case, we can just not transclude it, and instead just link it. --Joy (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
    That's not what I meant. I meant "are the any examples of disambiguation pages [that transclude another disambiguation page]?" I was never disputing that there are cases like the links you provided. The nominator expressed doubt whether the PLZ-49 Miś is ever actually referred to as just Miś, so I was going with that. That said, searching externally, I've found some Polish-language forums (, ) where the participants do just refer to it as simply "Miś". So you're right, this isn't just a partial title match.
    However. you did also indirectly answer my intended question with "WhatLinksHere" (I had assumed this template would mostly be used in other contexts, but evidently not). However. all the examples I checked only ended up that way after you edited them. So far this doesn't look like there's a consensus that this is an acceptable way to handle disambiguation pages.
    Besides the issue of it being an alpha that's still in development, I have concerns that transcluding disambiguation pages inside other disambiguation pages could result in the transclusion of unintended list entries. Transcluding one into the other implies that every entry could plausibly share either title, but this isn't always the case. For example, a hypothetical lake called "Misty" might be listed at both "Misty (disambiguation)" and "Misty Lake (disambiguation)". A book titled "Misty Lake" could also be listed at "Misty Lake (disambiguation)". Transcluding "Misty Lake (disambiguation)" into "Misty (disambiguation)" would result in the book being listed where it shouldn't.
    Even setting this aside as it seems likely anything at disambiguation at Miś probably wouldn't run into this problem, my bigger concern is about consensus. This way of handling disambiguation is only done on a small number of disambiguation pages, and the approach is a big departure from how disambiguation are usually handled. Is there a consensus for making new disambiguation pages at titles with diacritics and transcluding them into pages without them, when ordinarily the entries with the diacritics would just be directly included on the page without? The seems like a case of WP:PANDORA, but for disambiguation pages rather than redirects.
    In principle, I don't disagree that if someone searches "Miś" (including diacritic) they probably don't want MIS, Mís, mis, etc. so it makes sense to provide them with a narrower list, while if someone searches "mis" they might plausibly just be omitting details like capitalisation or diacritics, so it makes sense to provide the broader list. However, in practice, there still seem to be problems and I'm not comfortable with doing this without a broader discussion about whether this is appropriate given its potential to upend the well established approach to WP:DABCOMBINE. If such a discussion has already been had, I'd appreciate a link. – Scyrme (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    Well, it's common for English readers not to use keyboard with all these various diacritics, so for the purposes of efficient navigation, we want to make every variously diacriticized topic name reasonably available to navigate from a diacriticless form. I don't think there's any lack of consensus about that, because it fits into the spirit of the WP:DABCOMBINE guideline - it says clearly that we may do so. I can't remember a time when we weren't doing so, it's probably been decades now. There is no real controversy in this regard. The only thing that may not be straightforward is the extent to which we combine lists. In the meantime, we've observed a number of variations, and in WP:DABNAME you can see how diacritics are described, I did that guideline update after the relatively recent RM discussions about Joaquin and Mana (and just noted the case of Pena). --Joy (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    That's also not what I meant. In-fact it's the opposite of what I meant. I'm not sure how you read what I wrote as questioning the consensus around that given I have literally been arguing for included articles with diacritics in a page that doesn't have them in its title. I already mentioned WP:DABCOMBINE in reference to this (ie, listing them at pages with titles without diacritics) being the established way of handling diacritics.
    The things I don't see a consensus for is:
    • Transcluding disambiguation pages into other disambiguation pages.
    • Creating new disambiguation pages at titles that have diacritics separate from the title without. (Instead of combining them and redirecting one to the other.)
    Both of these things should be discussed. If they have already been discussed, please link the discussions. Regarding the guideline update, that seems to say that the title of the diambiguation page should reflect the majority of its entries, such that if most use a diacritic then the title should too (which wouldn't be the case with Miś if diambiguated at MIS), not that it's appropriate to split disambiguation pages to make a new one which only lists the entries with diacritics. – Scyrme (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    Why do you think we need some sort of a new consensus for listing things under their most appropriate names? The WP:PRECISE and WP:SMALLDETAILS parts of the article title policy are fairly clear on this already. If there's a distinct spelling of this Polish word, and there seems to be one, there's little to disagree about in this regard. It also wouldn't make sense for anyone to try to use a disambiguation guideline to override a policy, a higher level standard. --Joy (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    Both WP:PRECISE and WP:SMALLDETAILS apply to article titles. Neither eliminates ambiguity (and IMO, too slavish an application of these can increase the ambiguity). Since disambiguation is required, the question concerns how best to address that and WP:DABCOMBINE presents a perfectly valid option for many such cases. older ≠ wiser 21:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    Everything is an option, but let's simply consider the facts of the matter at hand. There is a distinct Polish word here and at least three meanings for that. If an English reader actually manages to look up that specific word, there is zero benefit in forcing them to parse a longer list at Mis if they can just read the relevant short list. There is absolutely no way in hell that combination would lead to more efficient navigation outcomes for those readers. --Joy (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    This is not how these policies were interpreted or applied in such cases over past years (over a decade). If the guideline were so contrary to the policy, why has it been the established guideline for so long? Probably because that's not actually how we've been interpreting the policies until now. Yours is a new interpretation of how to apply these policies, and a new interpretation which has practical implications including changing/overriding well-established guidelines should be discussed because even if you're right that this is the best way to interpret and apply these policies, we need editors to be on the same page here.
    I really doubt I'm the only editor surprised to have encountered disambiguation pages which transclude others or who has doubts that we should apply WP:PRECISE and WP:SMALLDETAILS to override (or rewrite) WP:DABCOMBINE and begin creating separate disambiguation pages distinguished only by diacritics. – Scyrme (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    But there is no actual conflict between the guideline and policy. Where do you see it exactly? I keep hearing of this purported lack of consensus, but I'm not seeing a coherent explanation of what the actual problem would be. --Joy (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    But I have given a coherent explanation??? Creating "separate disambiguation pages distinguished only by diacritics" (quoting myself), on the basis of WP:PRECISE and WP:SMALLDETAILS, contradicts the advice of WP:DABCOMBINE to combine them in one page. How has this not been clear from what I said earlier?
    If there's no problem, then having a discussion about it will surely result in you getting your way, then we can update WP:DABCOMBINE to remove the advice about diacritics, because obviously we should be encouraging the opposite and the fact we haven't for over a decade now has clearly been a mistake. Is changing guidelines not something that requires consensus? – Scyrme (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    Also, to be clear, I'm happy to argue in favour of your argument. It seems entirely reasonable to me to split disambiguation pages in this way rather than combine them if there's no problem with transcluding narrower less ambiguous (but still ambiguous) lists into broader more ambiguous ones. I still think it should be discussed at via proper venue first, because WP:DABCOMBINE will have to be changed and I am not 100% certain I'm not missing anything important. Maybe you are certain, but I'm not. – Scyrme (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    Well, let me see what WP:DABCOMBINE says: A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms.
    That's may, not should (or must or has to).
    Sets of terms which are commonly so combined include: Terms that differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks. For example, the terms Oe, Ōe, OE and O.E. are disambiguated on a single page (Oe).
    Okay, so Mis and Miś seemingly differ only in diacritic marks, but then they also differ in etymology and meaning. The most relevant example there is Ōe. If we look at the Oe list, this diacritic seems to be distinctly Japanese, unlike most of the rest of that long list. So it might as well be a short list, too.
    If we look at history at Ōe, it was disambiguated to make sure people didn't only land at the Japanese surname, but that they can also reach the places.
    @Xezbeth, would you revert me if I made a short disambiguation page at Ōe in addition to the listings of those three topics at Oe? --Joy (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    I would never have noticed. My (probably outdated) view is that a second disambiguation page is unnecessary, not that it does any harm. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks. The distinction is similar to what I happened to run into just now - there's a short Robert D. Bailey list and both of its entries were included in the longer Robert Bailey list. (I just switched that to use the {{transclude list}} helper to reduce source duplication.) --Joy (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate in place, with the movie, the plane and the person, if an English reader types in or follows a link to this specific spelling, they should get a specific disambiguation list for those three topics which are all plausibly referred to as "Miś". Throwing them into the much longer Mis list can't be more efficient than that. --Joy (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    Drafted at the bottom of Miś. --Joy (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    Just adding that if we disambiguate this, we should interwiki to pl:Miś (I think I didn't link it - pl disambig has dozens of enities that we will eventually have, outside the teddy bear). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Kuiper belt and Oort cloud

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) 20:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I am doubtful that this redirect is useful for a reader. Also, TNOs include more than the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud like Sednoids. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Leaning keep as harmless, correct and potentially helpful; there is also Kuiper Belt and Oort CloudKuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Also lean keep. They're not synonymous, but they are a subset. Redirects don't have to be synonyms of the target, they can be {{r from related term}} or {{r from related topic}}. Both are mentioned at the target and the sidebar does a reasonable job of making it clear a glance that the trans-Neptunian objects include more than just the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud objects. I only lean keep because though the present target has plenty of info on the Kuiper belt, it has much less about the Oort cloud. However, at least links to more information are prominently displayed in a sidebar. – Scyrme (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:XY. Refers to both as a whole. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Iraqi wars

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 wars involving Iraq. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Iraq War? Abesca (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

UN-Iraq war

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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Abesca (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Iraq War (disambiguation)? Based on US-Iraq war. Abesca (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep The other conflicts listed didn't involve the UN and couldn't be called the "first" US-Iraq War. If anything, following the lead of US-Iraq war is backwards as it's that redirect that should be retargeted; Iraq War (disambiguation) also covers wars that didn't involve the US.
The purpose of a disambiguation page is to list articles which could plausibly share the same title (that title being the title of the disambiguation page), with some margin for minor variation in very minor differences like capitalisation or diacritics. US-Iraq war has more than just a minor difference by specifying the involvement of the US.
I would probably retarget US-Iraq war to Iraq War, as that article is already the primary even without explicitly stating the US's involvement in the title; specifying the US only makes it even more the primary topic for that title. – Scyrme (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Should that be bundled together then? @Scyrme Since we are discussing it here anyways. Abesca (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Maybe. May be better to list them separately if it seems likely the consensus will settle on different outcomes for them, but since it's already been brought up here it may just be easier to keep the discussion in one place. Up to you (or anyone else who has an opinion about this, really). I don't feel strongly either way on this. – Scyrme (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I will withdrawal this one so the other can be nominated. i agree these should be kept now. Abesca (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Symplectic form

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

Artsakh’s

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Left guide (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do here, but both shouldn't target different places. The first redirect uses a curly quote, while the other uses a straight quote. Neither redirect is linked from any article. Note that currently, there are 313 pages that end in the curly ’s and 4,777 pages that end in the straight 's. Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete both. Per MOS:POSLINK these can’t be used in articles, curly or otherwise. These possessives aren’t useful for searching and the meaning is ambiguous between the two targets presented here and any and everything that could be described as belonging to or associated with Artsakh. Possessive redirects should generally be deleted but whether to spend time discussing them has been controversial. This case presents an additional problem, with two different targets having been selected by editors. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete's per Myceteae. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: per WP:POSLINK. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Renewability

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

US-Iran talks

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 Iran–United States relations. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Iran–United States relations. Abesca (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget. 2025-26 isn't the only time Iran and the US have been in talks, and this redirect doesn't specify a year. Iran–United States relations discusses past talks/negotiations, notably the ones that led the 2015 nuclear deal but also others. – Scyrme (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Speedy retarget. This redirect is an exact synonym for the dab page. This should have been targeted without discussion —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
@Myceteae: There's a dab page? Where? I've been checking variations (including trying an endash instead of a hyphen) and they're all redlinks not disambiguations: Iran-US talks, Iran–US talks, United States–Iran talks, United States-Iran talks, Iran–United States talks, Iran-United States talks, US–Iran talks... (As an aside, if we choose to retarget rather than delete, it may be worth making some of these with the same target, given how similar they are.) – Scyrme (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Maybe he meant US-Iran war. Abesca (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
"Talks" and "war" are closer to antonyms than synonyms; the former are often entered into to either prevent or end the latter. Part of the motivation for the 2015 talks was to reduce the risk of (nuclear) war and start the process of normalising relations. – Scyrme (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Iran–United States relations. I did indeed have my wires crossed with the other thread. My bad for editing quickly while distracted. “Talks” is generic and in no way specifies the current/recent negotiations. Either generalize by targeting to “relations” or maybe delete. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Iran–United States relations because there is no year in the title. Lova Falk (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Miki mouse

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) 18:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Implausible typo. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. I agree this is an implausible typo, it is however a surprisingly common and unambiguous misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page traffic stats show that this is a surprisingly well-used redirect, averaging a least 1 use a day since mid-2015 and over 3,000 in total. Strangely, there's a large spike in uses around 2025, but even excluding results from 2025 onwards, there are over 2,000 total uses and the daily average remains at least 1 a day. External search results for "Miki+mouse" show that this spelling does occur naturally, with the results overwhelmingly being material related to Mickey Mouse. Some results are clearly intentionally misspelling it, using it as a username, etc. None of these intentional uses are likely to be notable. Some, though, seem to be genuine errors, like this eBay listing. – Scyrme (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: The mentions I could find are in Polish and Estonian. They seem to be a mix of the native language names (pl:Myszka Miki and et:Miki-Hiir) and the English name. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like a phonetic misspelling rather than a typo. 9ninety (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. As obvious of a mistake that it looks like, it might seem like the obvious to spell Mickey Mouse someone who cannot read to a sixth grade level or that simply heard of Mickey Mouse in a passing conversation. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Let's get physico

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 24#Let's get physico

Boogie worm

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned at the target, possibly a hoax, see the history there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete as unmentioned, with no prejudice against keeping if a citation is ever produced for the claim that this animal is sometimes known as a "boogie worm". According to an edit in 2023, it may be fans of some YouTube channel calling it this? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 02:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
    Since you asked, I accepted a request at WP:AFC/R to create this redirect because someone had managed to find a citation calling this a "boogie worm". This may or may not be a Brazilian aardvark situation all over again, but it appears to have some use outside of Wikipedia. Lynch44 12:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry for the lack of detail, but that was my general concern, yes (never heard of the Brazilian aardvark case, but that's right in line with this potentially). And this website seems to postdate the first addition to the article. As far as I can tell, it was originally added in 2021 (diff) and removed in 2023 (diff). The removal mentions a YT channel, but I have no idea if that was from before or after the first addition. Either way, it's a brazilian aardvark, or some novel coinage that's not widespread enough to mention/redirect from. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and MEN KISSING. Vernacular names generally require multiple high quality citations. They are subject to a lot of hoaxes as well as good-faith but ultimately unsupported additions, with WP:CITOGENESIS being a major problem. Unsubstantiated redirects and mentions in articles are harmful and should be eliminated. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Hey, I added this because I know Tubifex by that name first. I think it's likely that it was initially some sort of "Let's add this to wiki because it's funny" since I couldn't find anything prior to its 2021 addition to Wikipedia but the fact remains that in 2026 people use the name to refer to the animal, especially across social media:
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JXTY2AL0BWA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lgqKxjTpq8 (this is dated 2020, prior to the initial edit)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdR5r9vwFc8&t=191s
    From a linguistic descriptivism perspective, it doesn't really matter who coined it or how it was popularized. People (myself included) seek the article for tubifex via the common name Alphactory (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
    My two cents: not saying to keep or not, but I agree with descriptivism. When I was a child seeing a quati, I thought they were an aardvark (I never saw a real aardvark and couldn’t know the difference either). Even today for me they are, inside my mind, grouped with armadillos as well. Abesca (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Reason: informal name
Source (if applicable): colloquialism; no good source for its origin but evidence of its use is here https://elkriveralliance.ca/whirling-disease/
Alphactory (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Leave Alphactory (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Keep Alphactory (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to target. The creator's "Leave" comment may be interpreted as "Keep", which came right after it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note that "boogie worm" is also a name for certain bait worm (as in fishing bait) products. My first page of Google hits is roughly split between fishing bait e-commerce sites and unreliable sources describing Tubifex. This ambiguity provides an additional reason to delete. Readers may be searching for the actual product rather than the poorly attested vernacular name for the worm. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Sammarinese Ambassador to the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 9#Sammarinese Ambassador to the United States

Leopard skin

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

Sooth

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Disambiguate * Pppery * it has begun... 20:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The section it was pointed to has been renamed several times (it is now Truth#Definition), and the part that actually mentions this was trimmed off at the end of March 2025, so, nearly a year ago by user:Remsense as per WP:NOTDICT.

Barring the idea of reintroducing a mention of the archaic term "Sooth", I'd imagine a redirect to Soothsayer may be appropriate as it's one of the few places the archaic term survives to modern usage; if that doesn't seem appropriate due to PTM issues, deletion may be necessary. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguate between Truth (of which it's an archaic synonym) and Sooth (chutney). While the latter could be moved to Sooth as there is no other article by that title, external searches for "Sooth" overwhelmingly bring up dictionary entries for the archaic word, and I think that's the meaning most readers would expect to find when searching. That would make its meaning as Truth the primary topic (WP:PTOPIC), however the common name (WP:COMMONNAME) for that topic is Truth, so it's an awkward situation. Redirecting to Soothsayer isn't appropriate as it differs much more than just a change of capitalisation or diacritics. As a disambiguation page, Sooth could concisely describe it as an archaic synonym of "truth" while also linking to {{Wiktionary}}. This would be less surprising (WP:SURPRISE) than redirecting directly to Truth, where it's now not mentioned, or to Sooth (chutney), which I doubt most readers would be looking for when searching this. If Sooth (chutney) did not exist, I'd have suggested a soft redirect to Wiktionary; making Sooth a disambiguation page and using {{Wiktionary}} accomplishes a similar thing. – Scyrme (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I've drafted the proposed disambiguation page at Sooth under the redirect. – Scyrme (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
It may also be worth mentioning that Sooth was already previously a disambiguation page until 2010, albeit a flawed one, before becoming a redirect. – Scyrme (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Savage Man Savage Beast 2

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Savage Man Savage Beast 2

Renewables

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

United States strikes on Iran

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 United States strikes on Iran. New set index article created. (non-admin closure) I2Overcome talk 10:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Now ambiguous with 2026 United States strikes on Iran. Retarget to the general bilateral conflict article. Abesca (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment - It's also ambiguous with Operation Praying Mantis, which involved US strikes on 2 Iranian oil rigs. Arguably the 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran are now the primary topic given their scale and impact, in which case maybe that should be the target with a {{redirect}} hatnote to a disambiguation page? – Scyrme (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Dabify between all mentioned possible targets. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
@9ninety said at Talk:US-Iran War that US-Iran War should not exist. So should that be moved to United States strikes on Iran instead? Abesca (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't think so. "War" and "strikes" are different topics (though strikes may be part of a war), so the content would be different. Twelve-Day War and 2026 Iran–United States crisis wouldn't be included, except maybe as "see also" links. – Scyrme (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: US strikes on Iran, American strikes on Iran, and United States airstrikes on Iran all also redirect to United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Also, February 28, 2026 US–Israel strikes on Iran is a separate article. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Those redirects should probably be bundled with this. Regarding, February 28, 2026 US–Israel strikes on Iran, it appears to be a duplicate. I've proposed a merge into the much more developed article at 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran. – Scyrme (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Update: February 28, 2026 US–Israel strikes on Iran has since been blanked and redirected to 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran. – Scyrme (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Update: I've bundled those other redirects. (Hopefully I did it right.) – Scyrme (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
What about United_States_War_on_Iran? Abesca (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree they should be bundled. Except for the one that is specifically 2026, which is unambiguous. Abesca (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment - United States strikes on Iran page should be a disambiguation page, it would include both United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and 2026 Iran conflict.Muaza Husni (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ico (playstation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 9#Ico (playstation)

Draft:2026 CONCACAF U-20 Championship qualifying

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) 06:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect created after draft article moved to mainspace. All links are to automatically generated tracking lists, and no one is likely to search for a draft article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, since it's unnecessary and has no real incoming links. But I don't think a redirect from draftspace to mainspace is that big of a deal, as long as the redirect isn't misleading or actively harmful (which this isn't). ApexParagon (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT. J947 ‡ edits 02:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on WP:RDRAFT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 05:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Unless there's been another RfC that demonstrated a change in the consensus, there's no good reason to ignore WP:RDRAFT here. – Scyrme (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. It is noted in WP:RDRAFT and by current consensus that redirects created as a result of draft-to-namespace moves should not be deleted. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 20:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Draft:Football at the 2028 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification

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. RDRAFT may not be a policy or guideline, but it still has the consensus of an RFC behind it, and that gives it more weight than the delete arguments. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Old redirect which was replaced when draft article was moved to mainspace. The vast majority of links are to automatically generated tracking lists, and no one is likely to search for a draft article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on WP:RDRAFT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 05:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Unless there's been another RfC that demonstrated a change in the consensus, there's no good reason to ignore WP:RDRAFT here. – Scyrme (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Draft:Football at the 2028 Summer Olympics – Women's qualification

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. RDRAFT may not be a policy or guideline, but it still has the consensus of an RFC behind it, and that gives it more weight than the delete arguments. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Old redirect which was replaced when draft was moved to mainspace. There are no links to the redirect, and no one is likely to search for a draft article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. Qby (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Leave it alone in case the drafter has it bookmarked or similar. Deletion would also mess up the nom's attribution link here. J947 ‡ edits 02:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on WP:RDRAFT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 05:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Unless there's been another RfC that demonstrated a change in the consensus, there's no good reason to ignore WP:RDRAFT here. – Scyrme (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Anaclitism

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Unmentioned; this is a 2007-era BLAR victim that was unmentioned upon BLAR. The edit summary notes that the page was PRODded and then BLAR'd after user:PhilKnight moved the article to Wiktionary; the wiktionary article resulting from this is here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Also bundle Anaclitic that redirects to Hospitalism. Jay 💬 07:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Don't keep: Upon looking up anaclitism and anaclitic, I'm surprised to see this connected to paraphilic infantilism here, as well as the wikitionary definition tied to sexual gratification. The Merriam-Webster definition defines anaclitic, "of, relating to, or characterized by the direction of love toward an object (such as the mother) that satisfies nonsexual needs (such as hunger)". One study uses anaclitism without reference to sexuality, stating that survey items relating to anaclitism "are primarily externally directed and refer to a disturbance of interpersonal relationships"; this is similar to this one that connects anaclitism with being dependent on others. This one discusses in relation to anaclitic depression (Hospitalism). All in all, I couldn't find sources linking anaclitism to sexual behaviour or the desire to be a child. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
    Objectophilia or Erotic target location error? @Significa liberdade Abesca (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    Neither of these make sense to me based on the sources I found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This redirect's history functions as attribution for the Wiktionary entry, and that should be retained.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 05:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Comparative biochemistry

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. Legoktm (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned at the target. I'm inclined to delete, sort of per WP:RETURNTORED, although the edit history reveals some editors consider this a non-notable subfield. It is a real thing, has a few incoming links, and the phrase is used in other articles, including History of molecular evolution. That is not a suitable target as the terms are not synonymous and it includes a minimal description of what comparative biochemistry is. There is a DAB page Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology which includes three articles that are partial title matches. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Restore or retarget to molecular evolution. In this case I think we should see what the editing process can do for us. If restored, no predjudice against WP:AFD, though I would note deletion is not cleanup, despite WP:TNT. The stub in the history equated comparative biochemistry and molecular evolution, and while not necessarily synonymous, perhaps we do only need a single article, and not sure which title is best. But the page history should not be deleted here at Rfd. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
    If retargeting, the section Molecular evolution#History might be better since it uses the term. I find the coverage somewhat deficient but targeting to the section helps to avoid readers erroneously concluding that molecular evolution and comparative biochemistry are exactly synonymous. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Why would you prefer Molecular evolution § History instead of its main article History of molecular evolution that you mentioned in the nomination? Jay 💬 09:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. If not deleted tag as {{r with possibilities}}. Neither Molecular evolution nor History of molecular evolution actually explain what "comparative biochemistry" means or discuss it in detail, they only contain passing mentions that it contributed to the the development of molecular evolution as a field. It appears Wikipedia simply doesn't have an article or section with any substantial material about the field anywhere, so it should be redlinked. The rationale for BLAR was Redirect chronically-unsourced stub (on an apparently obsolete sub-field) to parent field, but this is simply mistaken. The revision which added the line Comparative biochemistry is used to study evolution; it was a precursor to molecular evolution before the rise of molecular biology. is similarly confused. Though it is a subfield of Biochemistry, comparative biochemistry is not a subfield or precursor of molecular evolution, but is rather a subfield of comparative biology, and it isn't obsolete (research is still being published in journals like Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology B; UC Berkeley even presently offers a PhD program for graduates to specialise in the field). Despite that, I don't think the ancient 2009 stub should be restored as it has no references. (As an aside, I might be willing to draft a start to a new article about it with references later if no-one else does it, but right now I don't have time.) – Scyrme (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as WP:RETURNTORED per Scyrme's reasoning. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator update: I agree with Scyrme's assessment and after considering this and the earlier discussion, I am more convinced that deletion is the proper outcome here. Comparative biochemistry is a real and distinct field. It is relevant to the development of molecular evolution but that is not the extent of its relevance. The passing mention in the molecular evolution articles doesn't tell readers what comparative biochemistry is and may misleadingly suggest it is merely a historical footnote in the development of another field. I agree there is little value in maintaining or restoring the revisions.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Albert Kluyver#Career which discusses this topic. It's not perfect: it only looks at comparative biochemistry from one specific angle. But deletion isn't better. If four editors couldn't find this information – the only real information about "comparative biochemistry" on enwiki – then I heavily doubt the reader sent to search results will either. As for the return-to-red issue: either this deserves its own article, in which case the best way to encourage creation of a good article is to restore the old stub from which it can be expanded, or it doesn't, in which case we shouldn't delete because that would encourage article creation. J947 ‡ edits 07:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Avanthop

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 19:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete, not mentioned in the target article and I couldn't find it mentioned in any other articles. I searched for the term but couldn't find suitable sources to add to the term to the article. Suonii180 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To bundle as suggested and avoid fragmenting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 05:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

2/28 and its kind

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 February 28 incident per WP:SNOW. If this event starts being referred to this way prominently, these redirects can be brought back to RfD once three months at minimum have elapsed. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 18:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It has only been one day. Less than a day actually. We do not know whether or not Khamenei’s assassination is/will actually be referred to as “2/28”. It becomes even more of an issue given the DMY format, it could be “28/2”, or by whatever date it was in the Iranian Islamic calendar. Therefore, I am nominating the redirect at RfD. Though I do think the date itself will become synonymous with Khamenei’s assassination, so I do think redirecting “February 28, 2026” and the like to this article is appropriate. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget back to February 28 incident, there hasn't been a valid reason to change the redirect. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Redirect back to February 28 incident. Genuinely haven't seen anyone terming the assassination event as 2/28. WinKyaw (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Wait - Should've notified me or discussed this issue on the talk page rather than proposing it for deletion. The date "2/28" as to referring to Khamenei's assassination will inevitably be more notable than the February 28 incident. NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    will inevitably be more notable than the February 28 incident.
    That is an opinion; per Wiki policy it is more about whether the preponderance of sources will refer to the incident as 2/28 or call it some variation of that. As it stands it appears there appears to be no sources referring to it as such and thus appears more like an attempt to create some undue parallel with 9/11 or 10/7 Guile's Theme (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    "thus appears more like an attempt to create some undue parallel with 9/11 or 10/7" How so? there's no real connection with them besides the MDY format. NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    I've never heard of an event like so popularly referred by discourse by just a date outside 9/11 or 10/7. Maybe the most similar is something like September 1st, 1939, or December 4th, 1941 as a short hand to the events those pertain to. Other examples include holidays like the Cinco de mayo and July 4th. Then there are things like 'October Revolution', or in this case the 'February 28th Incident' in Taiwan.
    The popularization of the term 10/7 at least on the surface was likely created as a direct parallel to 9/11 as well or at least I doubt it is coincidence. But regardless, we use those terms for those events because they are widely used in sources and public discourse as a shorthand for a specific event. Sources have not been referring to Khamenei's death as '2/28' and people are not talking about it as such either. Guile's Theme (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: People are acting too quickly to add/change a handful of similar redirects. 2-28, 28/2 (both are redirected) and 2.28 (new created) are all edited. "Feburary 28" incident is a real-usage, the killing of Khamenei has yet to be. People are speculating and may suffer from recentism. MilkyDefer 05:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
By all means, please add those to this RfD also. The same shoe fits on those. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Done. All redirects are retargeted/created by User:NeoSyria and I have notified them. MilkyDefer 05:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget same reasons as the others said, no reason, also no usage in reliable sources. the tohoku earthquake for example is called 3.11 (only in Japan really) but 3/11 doesn't redirect to it. no other page for any other assassination is called a date, and it almost seems like an attempt to make his death seen as bad as the events of 3.11, 9/11, etc, which are only really used for really significant events. ~2026-13199-27 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
but november 22 1963? SandSerpentHiss (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget, As said in the above post we do not know whether the assassination will be called 2/28, and I doubt that it will, if anything I would suggest turning it into a disambiguation page as was done with 10/7 and with other MM/DD dates Posaidonman (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to February 28 incident, the longstanding target of most of these redirects and primary topic (WP:PTOPIC), as well as an event which is primarily known by the date on which it happened as opposed to the assassination of Ali Khamenei, which is referred to in various other ways. The rationale for targeting the assassination is speculation (WP:SPECULATION) about how people in the future will refer to it, rather than based on how sources are actually referring to it. If that changes and sources do start calling it "2-28", we can bring this back to RfD then. Doing it now is premature. – Scyrme (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget all (back) to February 28 incident. I agree with the reasons stated by others. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Big Booty Judy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Big Booty Judy

Crab emoji

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

No mentions of "emoji" in the target article. Sugar Tax (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Information Note: I merged these two very similar noms with identical rationales together. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Eraser emoji. Having "crab emoji" redirect to "crab" is silly, of course. These are listed, though, at Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs, which would at least be a better target, but so are hundreds of others, and I don't think it's all that reasonable of a way to search when we don't have something specifically about these. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
why did i make these??? User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 20:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
anyway retarget to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs per Deacon Vorbis User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 20:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
and i forgot to mention this initially but if that isn't good enough i don't care if they get removed i don't even remember why i was making them User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 06:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both. The current targets don't work, as the nom noted, because there's no mention of the emojis at the target articles. Retargeting them to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs sounds like a reasonable idea at first blush, but that would put them out of sync with 🦀🦀 and 🦐🦐. The only other article that mentions either is Crab Rave, and that mention is in a reference, not in the body of the article. There's no good place to point them. - Eureka Lott 21:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
    In response to the out of sync concerns, it seems like this is essentially an emoji use–mention distinction. I don't think it's necessarily contradictory to have them have different targets (though I'm rather indifferent overall). — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete (or retarget to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs). The current target is definitely doesn't work, and per above comments I think deleting is a better option. Speedrunz (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Do not keep. I favor deletion since these were created for no demonstrable purpose and we have virtually no information about these non-notable emojis. If not deleted, Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs, Emoji#In Unicode, or List of emojis are better targets. I see no clear basis to select one of those targets over the others. Someone searching the words crab/shrimp emoji is looking for information about the emoji and not the animal, and they are probably looking for more than its Unicode coordinates. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete as non-useful and arguments above. I would be against retargeting. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Seperating Personalities

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. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Misspelled, and the target article doesn't discuss the notion of "separating personalities" either (whatever that is; google is extremely unhelpful), so I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect only exists as the result of a WP:BLAR, overwriting a very unencyclopedic article about Myers-Briggs personality types that shouldn't have been created in the first place. Retargetting as an {{avoided double redirect}} of split personality seems like a big stretch to me given the combination of misspelling and capitalisation. "Separating personality" would already be a highly unusual way to search for split personality, even without these extra problems.
    External search results for "separating+personality" brings up only partial matches in sentences like "Separating personality traits into various overarching categories..." and "By separating personality disorders from other psychiatric conditions...", so even if we were to ignore the mistakes and treat it as though it were separating personality, we'd be dealing with what's effectively an ambiguous, incomplete sentence/title. The search engine is better suited for that. – Scyrme (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Scyrme. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment seperate is an obsolete form of separate. So this could be an old term. Abesca (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Seems very unlikely. The original article was apparently a school project ("I still need to get a passing grade for my project!") and the only source it cited was dated to 1995, I doubt this is some obscure 19th century term or something. The Wiktionary entry doesn't cite any references for it ever being a formerly valid, now obsolete spelling of the verb. – Scyrme (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom, chupacabra, and Scyrme. The constellation of issues make this a bad redirect to the current target and the alternative. The pre-BLAR content is of no value to the project and can be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

2024 Games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#2024 Games

Troy aiken

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Implausible typo. cagliost (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per Cagliost. This is two characters away from the target, so I agree that it's an implausible typo. That argmument aside, this is a different name altogether, which makes the redirect confusing to readers looking for someone actually named Troy Aiken. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very common phonetic misspelling, regardless of the capitalization issue with the surname. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Steel1943, I'm a little confused by your !vote here. Aiken and Aikman are not pronounced the same way (as far as I can tell), and I'd like to know if you disagree with my second argument. A Google search shows that there are real people named "Troy Aiken" someone could be searching for, and this redirect takes them to the wrong place. I do agree that the capitalization is a non-issue, though. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC) (Underlined added 05:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: The one mention of "Troy Aiken" is at Ron St. Angelo. I'm sure it refers to Troy Aikman since the article includes both Emmitt Smith, Troy Aikman, and Michael Irvin and Emmitt Smith, Troy Aiken, and Michael Irvin. Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
    I checked the ref, and you're right; the ref uses "Aikman". The one mention is a mistake. I've now amended the article. – Scyrme (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No !votes since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Speedrunz (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. It's not mentioned at the target, so is likely to surprise (WP:SURPRISE). External search results for "Troy+Aiken" "Troy+Aikman" (together) do show that this is a mistake that has occurred naturally outside Wikipedia, however, when searching "Troy+Aiken" by itself the majority of top results are for a ceramics artist so it's plausible some readers may be looking for someone else. If kept, tag as {{r from incorrect name}}. – Scyrme (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep and tag with {{R from incorrect name}}. A very plausible typo and seems like the most likely search term (and without this redirect, the results will be far less helpful—a search for troy+aiken, shows that outside of this redirect, results are scattered and seem unrelated to any likely intended searches). This seems the most helpful option. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete as implausible, along with the lowercase. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Aiken and Aikman are worlds appart. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambiguous with Clay Aiken and surely others. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Global economy journal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Not discussed or mentionned anywhere. Should be Global Economy Journal if anything, but that doesn't even exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Speedrunz (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete - WP:RETURNTORED. Searching on Wikipedia, I was able to find many passing mentions of the journal (or uses in references) but no substantial content anywhere. – Scyrme (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Rod Blackhurst

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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Directed Dolly (2025 film), among other things . WP:RETURNTORED. Nardog (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. When an actor/director/producer/author is associated with multiple works and is mentioned in multiple articles, arbitrarily choosing one as a redirect obstructs search results. Of course there may be exceptions, for example when an individual is overwhelmingly associated with a single notable work and the corresponding Wikipedia article contains additional biographical information about the subject. That does not appear to be the case here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. There was an article at this title which was deleted at AfD in 2006. Interested editors may request restoration to create a new draft, although the article was created by a User:Rodblackhurst. Jay 💬 09:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Bryce McGuire

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Has written other films with WP articles . WP:RETURNTORED. Nardog (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. When an actor/director/producer/author is associated with multiple works and is mentioned in multiple articles, arbitrarily choosing one as a redirect obstructs search results. Of course there may be exceptions, for example when an individual is overwhelmingly associated with a single notable work and the corresponding Wikipedia article contains additional biographical information about the subject. That does not appear to be the case here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Amélie Hoeferle

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Has also been in Eddington and One Mile . WP:RETURNTORED. Nardog (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. When an actor/director/producer/author is associated with multiple works and is mentioned in multiple articles, arbitrarily choosing one as a redirect obstructs search results. Of course there may be exceptions, for example when an individual is overwhelmingly associated with a single notable work and the corresponding Wikipedia article contains additional biographical information about the subject. That does not appear to be the case here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Réis

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 Reis#Currency. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

"Réis" refers to the plural of the monetary unit "real" used not only by Brazil, but by Portugal and its colonies, so I believe that redirecting it to refer to the Brazilian unit is inappropriate. Eyesnore talk💬 00:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The word to refer to the plural form of the current currency is wikt:reais, whereas wikt:réis only refers to the former currency. Abesca (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Reis § Currency where it's already disambiguated. – Scyrme (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Scyrme. - Eureka Lott 17:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per Scyrme. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per Scyrme Toarin (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks