Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 15, 2026.

Central Asian Commonwealth

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 Central Asian Cooperation Organization. I moved that article back out of draft space. wbm1058 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

"Central Asian Commonwealth" isn't mentioned at the target. There is a mention at Commonwealth of Independent States: if that were to be the target then the circular wikilink would need to be removed. I'm listing for discussion here because these organisations are often translated differently and there may be a reason for the current target that I'm missing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

(creator) 10 years ago...hmm...looking at 2016 history still not clear. The mention at Commonwealth of Independent States#Organisation of Central Asian Cooperation has a cn but looks promising, with the selflink then needing removing (and for what it's worth Gemini says "A Short-Lived Historical Proposal (1991)...superseded by CIS". Central Asian Union seems afterwards per that timeline. This source says "...became Central Asian Economic Community". Widefox; talk 17:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Just several minutes before you created this redirect, you made this edit to CAC (§ Politics and religion, Central Asian Commonwealth, an organization later renamed to Organization of Central Asian CooperationOrganization of Central Asian Cooperation) – wbm1058 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Central Asian Commonwealth added to the disambiguation by this 21 September 2008 edit by User:Yzb – wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I removed the mention at CIS as unsourced / unverified. Jay 💬 12:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Before we remove the line item from the disambiguation, we should consider restoring the content it targeted. See my comments below. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:38, 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).

Hatnote group redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 1#Hatnote group redirects

Renewables

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 at Renewable. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete as these could refer to many different things. Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguate at Renewables. The plural and singular should point to the same place, but both "...energy" and "...resource" are equally likely targets and Renewable fuels are also referred to as "renewables" in some contexts. A disambiguation page could also include a "See also" section with {{in title}} links to cover the myriad partial title matches. I favour disambiguating at the plural, as "renewable" isn't often used as a noun by itself. I oppose deleting them; they're well-used redirects, based on traffic. – Scyrme (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. No strong preference between the singular and the plural. I agree that the dab page could include in-title searches and perhaps a Wiktionary link. I agree with the nom that the adjective renewable could refer to just about anything. But the noun renewable—and especially the plural—has a more restricted use related to renewal resources, energy, etc. I spot-checked several uses of both redirects in article and a dab page is consistent with the way these are used. It could be written more as a set index article as opposed to a dab page depending on content, framing, format, etc. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I think it should be at the singular, as renewable can also be an adjective. Interestingly, Renewability redirects to Motion (parliamentary procedure)#Renewal of motions. Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, "renewable" can also be an adjective, but an adjective by itself isn't the title of a topic, it's just a partial title match. A disambiguation page should be located at a standalone title, not a partial match for other titles.
    Regarding Renewability, "renewal" and "renewability" mean very different things, and the latter isn't even in the article it redirects to. The only link that redirect has from an article is from Nanotechnology which clearly does not intend to link to renewal of motions. I'm going to list it for RfD without bundling it as I don't think it's similar enough to warrant pointing the same disambiguation page. (Edit: it's listed now.) – Scyrme (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate (or set indexify) at Renewable or Renewables?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 11:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where should the disambiguation page be? At present, there isn't one drafted at either one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, rather obviously. My preference would be for the page to be at Renewable, given that there are things that are renewable, but not necessarily called renewables. BD2412 T 23:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    That would encourage listing partial title matches, which is contrary to what a disambiguation page is for. How many articles could plausibly share the title of just "Renewable" by itself? – Scyrme (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    Per WP:DABNAME, which is a guideline, when naming the disambiguation page, "Singulars are preferred to plurals." If anything, naming it by the plural is more likely to encourage partial title matches than the singular, since there are many articles like EDF Renewables, SSE Renewables, and Celtic Renewables with "Renewables" and only one other word, but most titles containing "renewable" have at least two additional words, which makes it less likely for someone to add a partial title match. In addition, most titles containing "renewable" have a word like "Energy" or "Power" after it, and it's not "Renewable Energy" or "Renewable Power" that is being disambiguated, which makes it even less likely for someone to add something like Innergex Renewable Energy to "Renewable" compared to adding one of the three examples that contain "Renewables" into a disambiguation page at "Renewables". Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'd argue that "renewables" is like Mathematics (disambiguation), in that the plural suffix is actually used for nominalisation to make a collective noun rather than a plural of another noun; "renewable" and "mathematic" are adjectives, "renewables" and "mathematics" are nouns. There are no articles which could just have the title "renewable" by itself because it would inherently be an incomplete title. – Scyrme (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    While it is usually used in plural, technically renewable is a noun and is listed as such in the OED. Mclay1 (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: I have drafted both a disambiguation page and a set index article, as either may work. Since every entry refers to anything that can be renewed, it may be more suitable for a set index article. That being said, links to "Renewable" mostly refer to the description of being renewable (similarly to Zero emission), while links to "Renewables" mostly refer to renewable resources. Also, renewable energy seems to be a subset of renewable resources, so "renewable resource" would be reasonable target if disambiguation doesn't work. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    Both drafts work, but I prefer the disambiguation page. Making it a disambiguation page would encourage editors to replace links to the specific article intended when making internal links to renewable or renewables. It's also easier to navigate to the intended article if someone searches for these terms and ends up at the disambiguation page. A set index would work better if we focused in one one of these, like making a set index for renewable fuels. – Scyrme (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate at Renewable I prefer the singular form over the plural form for the purposes of clearer disambiguation and to avoid partial title matches, and I prefer the structuring of a disambiguation page over that of a set index article. "Renewable" is always going to be an incomplete title, but is a lot simpler to articulate which articles it could be referring to, such as for energy, resources, etc., rather than "renewables", which can refer to energy or fuels, but is also used in various company names, which I don't think we're intending to disambiguate here. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate at Renewable: Titles should be in singular where possible. Plus, as mentioned above, the shorter name which is also an adjective is going to capture more potential uses. Mclay1 (talk) 00:35, 23 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).

Al-Qaida military training camp

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 24#Al-Qaida military training camp

Oppression and depression

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, refine to Depression (mood)#Historical legacy. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 08:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Target doesn't talk about oppression. Nor does the disambig Depression. We have an article on Oppression which doesn't talk about depression. Delete as an WP:XY. Jay 💬 11:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Refine to Depression (mood)#Historical legacy, where the content of the article at Dispossession, oppression, and depression was merged into Depression (mood). Alternatively, we could retarget to Historical trauma, where this information is also covered and then some, but I think simply adding a hatnote directing there would suffice. I'll also go ahead and refine the target at the old title to match if this path is accepted. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete source of this redirect, possibly along with Dispossession, oppression, and depression. I would support the existence of those redirects if either phrase was commonly used, if it was the name of a particular sociological or psychological concept, or the name of a book—but as far as I can tell it is none of those. I think it's pretty unlikely that somebody would be searching for this phrase. I will note that the old content of Dispossession, oppression, and depression seems to be mirrored at a lot of wikipedia-mirroring sites, so maybe we keep that one. (I also think a hatnote linking Depression (mood)#Historical legacy to Historical trauma is helpful, per Red Shogun412's suggestion). -- - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 19:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note that while nominating, I deliberately didn't bundle Dispossession, oppression, and depression, as I didn't think XY would be applicable there. Jay 💬 05:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Even if XY did apply, I think it would be wrong of us to delete "Dispossession, oppression, and depression" as it's a redirect with history that needs to be retained for attribution purposes since content from there was merged into the Depression article. That, to me, is something that can't be disregarded so easily, so I genuinely think you made the right call here. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 24 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).

MNC News

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. No prejudice against retargetting. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 23:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

See, if there's any newer advert out there for the top 3 WP guidelines for article quality, it's this title! Having just arrived here via a routine scrutiny of G6 taggings, I looked through the page history and saw that it was subjected to AFD, which concluded as a merge to this target you see, but the current revision of the target shows next to nothing of this! Post-AFD, one IP attempted and failed 5 times to restore the content without going through AFC. Sdrqaz, an admin, declined an empty G6 tag by an IPv6, suggesting instead to go for RMTR the previous month. Today, I undid another empty G6 tag from a TA this time and rather brought it over here for discussion. Apologies if this rationale was too long for comfort, but what do you think? Worth still keeping this?! Intrisit (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been no !votes since the last two relists, so let's give this one more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
MNCTV does mention it, but in context it's just to say that a particular anchor also works/ed on another channel, namely, Sindonews TV. According to Google's summary, it seems MNC News was rebranded as Sindonews TV in 2023. This is a distinct channel from Sindo TV, which rebranded to iNews in 2015. So iNews doesn't work as a target either.
The rationale for deleting the merged content as unsourced is sound, however, a few (not necessarily good) references were added to the attempted restorations of the article. In principle, the merged content could be restored and these references included. However, looking at MNCTV, I'm not sure devoting so much of the article to Sindonews TV/MNC News is due (WP:UNDUE).
I'd suggest restoring an old revision of the article with the few references it had and moving it to draft space for AfC, but the editor (RuddyKurniawan11 (talk · contribs) who was interested in that has been blocked so it'd probably be stuck in draft space limbo forever.
Searching on Wikipedia I wasn't able to find any substantial content anywhere, so I think despite the AfD's decision to merge the article has de facto been deleted anyway. Since the merged content was deleted from both Media Nusantara Citra and MNC Vision, I'm not sure the history needs to be preserved. If it does, due to the past revisions which contain that content, perhaps we need an admin to do something like a history merge (WP:HM).
If it wasn't for the history, I'd say delete as WP:RETURNTORED and WP:TNT. – Scyrme (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
@Scyrme: How about Koran Sindo as a target, to which Sindo News also redirects? Jay 💬 22:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Doesn't seem relevant. Koran Sindo is related to Sindo TV (now iNews), not Sindonews TV (formerly MNC News). I'm not sure Sindo News even should redirect to Koran Sindo. It's tagged as R from English to Indonesian, but koran seems to mean specifically "newspaper", from Dutch krant which also specifically means "newspaper" (cognate with French courant and English 'current', as in 'current affairs'). This would make sense, since Koran Sindo is a newspaper, not a news channel. The article itself translates it as "Sindo Paper". Sindo News should probably also be deleted as WP:RETURNTORED for Sindonews TV. Searching on Google, the results I see for "Sindo+News" are for Sindonews TV, not Koran Sindo. – Scyrme (talk) 23:06, 28 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).

U(1)

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 first, retarget second to Orthogonal group. Stretching to find a consensus here rather than ossifying the status quo, I've interpreted jacobolus's and Charles Matthews's comments as not realising there's significant content on SO(2) at orthogonal group. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 01:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Either both should target circle group or both should target the relevant families of Lie groups. There seems to have been quite a bit of disagreement in that regard in the past looking at the page histories. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The current one seems fine, and the proposed change would be worse given the current state of these articles. These are two different things that happen to be isomorphic, but someone navigating to the former name is probably better served by landing on Unitary group and reading a few sentences then clicking over to the appropriate spot.
As an alternative you could add a new section to the article Circle group explaining the isomorphism in more detail, and then pointing the redirect at that section. –jacobolus (t) 10:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Keep: if special orthogonal group was an article rather than a redirect, there would be a case for that as a target. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Why can't it point to Orthogonal group? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Circle group, which explains why both groups are isomorphic to a circle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been no !votes since the last two relists, so let's give this one more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep U(1) and tag as {{r from subtopic}}.
Retarget SO(2) to Orthogonal group as {{avoided double redirect}} for Special orthogonal group. Special orthogonal group is tagged as {{r with possibilities}}, so the avoided double redirect ensures it will be updated if that becomes an article.
"Isomorphic" doesn't mean "identical" or "synonymous". The redirects should point to the main topic, not a different topic with which they share some properties. – Scyrme (talk) 23:31, 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).

Acii

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 Oliver Acii * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Unclear primary target. Could arguably stay here to Assassin's Creed II, but could also refer to Oliver Acii(which this rd previously pointed to), or a reasonable misspelling of Acai (or a lesser possibility of Acid). Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Oliver Acii as a {{r from surname}}. It appears to be the only usage of this capitalization in the encyclopedia. ACII (currently a redirect to Assassin's Creed II) appears to have several meanings, so it may make sense to convert that to a disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 18:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per Eureka Lott and WP:DIFFCAPS. I also agree that ASCII seems like it could do with disambiguation, though after two relists it's probably best to list it separately rather than bundle. – Scyrme (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Also a possible misspelling of ASCII. — W.andrea (talk) 21:11, 16 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).

Operation Epic Fury

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 2026 Iran war#Hostilities. The !votes didn't mention the section directly, but they didn't oppose it and a few were per nominator. I'm going to assume that they're okay with this. I'll tag Epic fury as the avoided double redirect. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Should both have the same target; I suggest 2026 Iran war#Hostilities where the boldface mention lies. I2Overcome talk 22:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget per nominator. 2026 Iran war was the original target of both. One of them was changed to the list by an unregistered editor, but the list provides comparatively less information. It hasn't been that long since the war began, so the sources that refer to it by this name aren't that old and any incoming links would still expect 2026 Iran war as the target. Narrowing the target to the main section makes sense in the long term as the scope of the war exceeds the initial operations that started it. – Scyrme (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Concur! --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget – per nom. The proposed destination is the most appropriate place. Bravelake (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Agree, redirect them both to the same target as suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep "Operation Epic Fury" as a redirect to 2026 Iran war and retarget "Epic Fury" to 2026 Iran war. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget both per nom. Enix150 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Target both to 2026 Iran war and tag one of these as {{Avoided double redirect}} to the other. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:23, 23 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).

Edgar, Yancowinna County

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 24#Edgar, Yancowinna County

Picton Parish (Yancowinna County)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 24#Picton Parish (Yancowinna County)

Sarah (Suikoden)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 26#Sarah (Suikoden)

Côco

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... 23:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

It can also refer to Coconut production in Brazil. Abesca (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

good catch, that's a small pile of articles to take to afd and infoboxes to take to... that'd be tfd, right? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Creator comment this redirect was created because the word with diacritical appears in The New Grove. I've no objection to a disambig being placed here. Chubbles (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 07:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean delete. I don't have access to the full text of The New Grove but search reveals an excerpt that does not use the circumflex. As far as I can tell, côco with circumflex is not standard Portuguese, but coco does mean coconut. pt:Côco is a redirect to pt:Coqueiro#Fruto but the rendering with the circumflex does not appear in the article. If this is an uncommon variant spelling in Portuguese then *maybe* this should redirect to Coco, which is a dab page. I'm surprised that Coconut is not listed there given that this is the primary definition listed in dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster. This redirect gets a surprising amount of traffic but it's not at all clear to me that readers find what they are looking for. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Myceteae. Jay 💬 23:16, 27 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).

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Art

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 trainwreck. A different type of trainwreck to normal. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 01:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

We have a bunch of redirects here that I'm not sure what to do with. I would suggest either retargeting or deleting. Interstellarity (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Given the above nomination, it's odd that Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Also, none of these redirects are tagged, and I can't do it or do it quickly at the moment since it's a different day UTC ... requires additional, time-consuming steps. Steel1943 (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
All are now tagged, and about to relist for procedural reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist since all of these redirects were just tagged today, as well as their creator and target being informed via their respective talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3. These were used for a time, so their history should be preserved, and that should clearly be the target. Melozone crissalis (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: As of today, once again, none of these are tagged for RfD. They all also have new targets and are tagged as {{R from move}} following the conclusion of the RM at: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Requested_move_11_March_2026. The new titles are tagged but the links don't work because the name of the redirect doesn't match the section heading (see Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level 3/ArtWikipedia:Vital articles/Level 3/Art for example). I haven't looked into these enough to form an opinion as to what else should be done with these redirects. This whole thing is a bit of a mess. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Close as moot. Do not re-list. These have all been retargeted as a result of the RM that was initiated by the nom during the course of this discussion. Someone needs to untag all of the new redirects that were created as a result of the move. If there's really a problem with these redirects or the new set of redirects that were created by the move, they can be re-nominated. If re-nominating, please take care to tag everything correctly and perhaps wait until the dust settles and we really understand the impact of the page moves. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:16, 21 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).

America United

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 1#America United

US invasions

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 26#US invasions

Deep throat fetish

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'. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. No mention of fetish anywhere in the article. The target section contains a brief, straightforward description of the practice. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The word fetish is mentioned in templates. And since the target page is heavily associated with sex practices, it's totally plausible they have fetish versions of them. Readers might use the term fetish to refer to the general practice, instead of just thinking of it specifically as a fetishistic-only thing. Abesca (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand the reasoning here. I used ⌘+F to search the page and could not find the word fetish anywhere in the article until I expanded the {{Sex}} template the bottom of the article. This is the only mention of fetish, in the titles of other articles about different fetishes that are part of the broad suite of human sexuality articles. There may be an occasional reader who thinks fetish just refers to a sexual act but it is far more likely readers taking the time to search deep-throat fetish are looking for information on the specific fetish, not a generic description of the acts and readers certainly are not expecting to have to hunt around to find titles of articles about other fetishes when they search for this very specific fetish. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep redirects are cheap, and this seems reasonable enough to me. What do we gain by losing this, User:Myceteae? I don't see that people will be using this to find the Mark Felt article or the famous X-Files episode. Nfitz (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
    Redirects should take people to a page that actually describes the topic they have searched for or clicked on. WP:RSURPRISE calls for prominently mentioning inbound redirects. If a topic is not mentioned or discussed at all the redirect is inappropriate. What is gained is that we don’t waste readers’ time with dead end redirects. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    Are you saying @Myceteae, that the insertion of a penis that deep into a throat isn't a fetish? Nfitz (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    It is a sex act that some may glorify or find particularly arousing. A sexual fetish is often defined as a sexual attraction to or "fixation" with things that are not considered sexual by the general public. By that definition, a sex act cannot be a fetish. Broader, informal usage might include having such a heightened interest in a particular sex act or sex organ that is above and beyond the norm. People are quite interested in sex, sex acts, and fetishes and we have detailed articles on things like foot fetishism and BDSM so it's not absurd to think someone would search deep throat fetish expecting an description of the fetish rather than a description of the mere act. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Ah ... looking at the dictionary definition and usage of the word fetish, in a sexual manner, it requires something to be unusual (as opposed to the general usage - such as a fetish with always being puncutal). I'd failed to appreciate that differentiation before. Still - perhaps in some societies this isn't considered normal? Or perhaps we have a redirection from a predictable error? Nfitz (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    perhaps in some societies this isn't considered normal? Perhaps. If that's the case, we'd need sources to back that up, to describe it as a fetish, and to show that this deserves due weight in the article and is not just a label one or two people have used. Or perhaps we have a redirection from a predictable error? I assume readers are deliberate in their searches and that most people expect to read about the thing they have searched for. When we don't cover it, we shouldn't redirect. With millions of readers, there will always be people who are simply mistaken. We must take care not to inadvertently confirm such errors or misnomers by using redirects that treat something as synonymous when it is in fact distinct. I suspect there are two groups of readers here. The larger group is familiar with deep throating and wants to read something about a purported fetish involving the familiar act. Those readers will be frustrated when they don't find that content here and will wonder why they landed somewhere that doesn't cover the topic. The second group is under the misapprehension that the mere act of deep throating somehow constitutes a sexual fetish. The redirect risks misleading these readers by confirming this erroneous understanding of fetishes. Misleading readers is something we should actively avoid! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Sources to back up a redirect, @Myceteae? Do you have a link to that policy? Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Sources to back up content. We have zero coverage whatsoever of "deep throat fetish". You've speculated that this practice might be considered abnormal in some societies.. I took the implication to be that it might therefore be described as a fetish in these societies and that the article might be expanded to cover this explicitly, which might then justify the redirect. In order to add such content, it would need to be verifiable in reliable sources, preferably with inline citations. There would also need to be enough coverage in reliable sources to establish due weight relative to the topic of Fellatio, to establish that this is not a fringe view and that there is a consistent definition/description of the fetish specifically. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Whether a fetish or not (and as I pointed out, it appears not), a redirect from an error is common enough. So where's the policy that must exist if we "need" sources for errors. Gosh, I looked at the target for the first time ... there may be other unusual fetishes involved with that page! Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    At this point, we're just talking past each other. I've thoroughly explained why this should be deleted. It's fine that you disagree. Repeating myself is unlikely to be helpful, as is going on off on tangents. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
    No. At this point you are just dodging the questions @Myceteae. Perhaps because you say thing that aren't backed up by policy? That's rhetorical BTW, so no nee to bludgeon, if you can't point to the policy! Nfitz (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
    I've not dodged your questions. Redirects should not mislead, confuse, or misinform readers. I've said this repeatedly, in several different ways. Such redirects are at odds with the project and don't conform to any of the purposes of redirects. This is straightforward and aligns with the most basic Wikipedia principles, even if we don't have a redirect-specific policy that states this. You yourself have acknowledged that you didn't understand the meaning of sexual fetish and your initial support rested on this misunderstanding. This is not a redirect from an error in the way that {{R from misspelling}} or {{R from incorrect name}} are. This is a redirect from a topic that is not discussed at all at the target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator is insisting on too specific a use of "fetish". Our article also says, "In common language, fetish is also used for a sexual interest in specific activities". I agree the search term should be interpreted like "Deep throat (sexual practice)". --BDD (talk) 02:47, 1 April 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).

Suck and blow

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 27#Suck and blow

Christina Aguilera doll

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 Celebrity doll. Left guide (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. No mention of a doll in the article. Google search confirms that a series of Barbie-esque Christina Aguilera dolls did exist but these appear non-notable. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Her doll is mentioned at Celebrity doll. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Celebrity doll. The doll is apparently notable in its own right for its sales revenue, as mentioned in that article, but probably not worth a separate article. Tevildo (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
I went ahead and added sources in the history of Christina Aguilera doll to Celebrity doll. That should be enough WP:WEIGHT for at least a mention there, and redirecting to that article instead looks good to me. Siawase (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Nominator comment: I'm fine with retargeting to Celebrity doll. I considered adding an anchor to the list entry but the Christina Aguilera doll is also mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead and the sales information is not repeated later in the list. So, targeting readers to the top of Celebrity doll provides the full scope of coverage though it's not ideal, especially for readers who don't know how to use Ctrl/Cmd+F. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:46, 20 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).

The Hollow (Christina Aguilera album)

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) 01:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Not mentioned at the current target nor at Christina Aguilera discography or List of songs recorded by Christina Aguilera. A Google search turns up mostly false positives—articles about Christina Aguilera that happen to use the word hollow. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:45, 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).

Occupation of Venezuela

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... 18:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Procedural nom. @Theodore Christopher: blanked redirect with the edit summary "Venezuela is not currently under military occupation". ~ A412 talk! 20:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Squatting in Venezuela (pt:Ocupações na Venezuela), Colonial Venezuela, or History_of Venezuela#Spanish_rule. Abesca (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
These all seem like a stretch to me. If it were Occupation in Venezuela, then I could see Squatting in Venezuela being possibly plausible, but with "of", not "in", it takes a very different primary meaning in English. Colonisation isn't really synonymous with military occupation, since colonisation is a process of conquest whereas occupation doesn't imply annexation. Even if you think that colonisation is effectively a form of occupation, in this scenario the Spanish colony of Venezuela would be the occupying power with the indigenous first nations of the region being under occuptation, not Venezuela.
I'm not sure that Venezuela itself has even been under direct military occupation. Some commentators speculated that the recent American intervention would escalate to occupation, but that hasn't happened yet. I'm leaning delete unless someone knows of a period in history where Venezuela has unambiguously been under foreign occupation.– Scyrme (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
@NerdyEpiscopalian or Venezuelan coups d'état? Abesca (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Still seems like a stretch to me, I still think deletion is the better move in this case. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi A412 and Scyrme, I blanked this not entirely understanding that it wouldn't just delete the page. I think it should be deleted, Venezuela has never been occupied since gaining independence. But obviously it's not up to me to decide. Theodore Christopher (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
That's fine, first time for everything. And it's partially up to you to decide! RfD is the correct place to weigh in on the suitability of a redirect. ~ A412 talk! 07:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. No mention of occupationat the target. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. No suitable content or target anywhere. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:16, 25 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).

HO41

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) 22:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. H041 (with zero instead of the letter 'O') is a real strain that is mentioned at Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Antibiotic resistance in gonorrhea, but not at the current target. Note that H041 does not exist. Swapping 'O' and '0' is a plausible and common mixup, but on-wiki search reveals that HO41 is part of the provisional name of several minor planets. External search for HO41 almost exclusively returns results for "HO 41 Tail" ski gloves. Alternatively, delete HO41 and retarget the others Neisseria gonorrhoeae#Antibiotic resistance or Antibiotic resistance in gonorrhea#Cephalosporins and tag as {{R from misspelling}} or {{R from modification}} or some other appropriate Rcat. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:48, 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).

Renewability

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 the dab page Renewable * Pppery * it has begun... 18:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

"Renewal" and "renewability" mean very different things, and the latter isn't used once the article it redirects to. The only link that redirect has from an article is from Nanotechnology which clearly does not intend to link to renewal of motions. I suggest retarget to Natural resource § Renewability/exhaustibility, though I'm open to arguments for other targets, such as Renewable resource. – Scyrme (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate, given the breadth of things to which this could refer. BD2412 T 21:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    What articles would be included? How many articles could plausibly share the title "Renewability"? The only one I can think of is Sustainability, but I'm not entirely convinced they're synonymous. Renewability seems more like one aspect of sustainability. – Scyrme (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Natural resource#Renewability/exhaustibility - agree with nom. Current target is unrelated. Asteramellus (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • My first preference is to retarget to Renewable(s) (whichever the title may be at) if it is repurposed as a disambiguation page (awaiting the outcome of this discussion). If not, then my second preference would be to retarget to renewable resource. I don't think a retarget to natural resource is in good order, especially if the primary rationale is the "Renewability/exhaustibility" section header, as most users redirected there will likely click on either the renewable resources link to find more detailed information on the topic. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    "Renewable(s)" and "Renewability" are both different concepts and different titles; WP:DABCOMBINE isn't appropriate here. Renewable resource has a single passing mention, "A life cycle assessment provides a systematic means of evaluating renewability", with no further elaboration. It doesn't attempt to explain renewability itself is by describing what makes a resource renewable, unlike Natural resource § Renewability/exhaustibility. If they do click through, there is no "more detailed information on the topic" specifically about renewability to find there. If you're right and readers would just ignore the page they've arrived at and click through immediately, that's no worse than your first preference of targeting a disambiguation page where they would have no alternative but to do that. – Scyrme (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    "Renewable(s)" and "Renewability" are both different concepts and different titles. Renewability is simply the property of being renewable. Your suggested target, Natural resource#Renewability/exhaustibility, prominently discusses and links Renewable resource, which was the alternative target you suggested. I'm having trouble reconciling your preferred targets with the assertion that the concepts are so different. Although this specific example isn't listed at WP:DABCOMBINE, it is reasonable to combine closely related words and word forms on a single dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Renewable(s) if that is converted to a dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    Renewable is now a dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:51, 24 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).

List of municipalities in Hanoi

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) 22:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Misleading term used by the previous editor. Wards and communes are neighborhoods, rather than municipalities (which refers to cities and towns), see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Category:Municipalities in Hanoi. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 18:27, 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).

Muntaber

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... 18:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Indonesian-language term for topic. Gastroenteritis has no relation to Indonesia or Indonesian. Delete per WP:R#DELETE, criterion 8. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 and WP:RLOTE. K3 doesn't apply here. Criterion 8 is part of RHARMFUL, so I'm not sure why it was cited as an argument to not delete. – Scyrme (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    Distinguishing itself from RLOTE, which wasn't pointed out by the nom so I didn't touch on it, D8 avoids stating that this sort of foreign-language redirect is harmful, merely that they're unlikely to be useful and should generally not be created. And how does K3 not apply here? J947 ‡ edits 23:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    Foreign-language redirects for terms with no affinity to the topic do not aid searches. They are not mentioned at the target (resulting in WP:RSURPRISE rather than being helpful), and, per WP:RLOTE they produce the false impression that you can navigate the English Wikipedia in another language, resulting in fruitless searches. Additionally, a reader searching in another language may reasonably expect results in that language; having these terms redirect to English pages can hinder finding results in the intended language when using third party search engines as they may deliver the English article instead of the intended article (this is also mentioned at WP:RLOTE). Even ignoring third party search engines, if the intent is to find content in the language used, these redirects don't help (and cannot help as that content will never exist here). In order to aid searches for such cases, we'd need something like a soft redirect, though instead of it being to another project like Wiktionary, it'd be to another language's version of Wikipedia.
    K3 is intended for cases where Wikipedia has content, but that content isn't easy to find via the search engine (for example, due to a large number of partial title matches). It's not intended to justify arbitrary non-English redirects. – Scyrme (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    If anything, K3 means this shouldn't be on Enligsh Wikipedia, since someone searching for an Indonesian-language term which rarely comes up in English would likely want the Indonesian Wikipedia article. — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 and WP:RLOTE. I agree with the reasoning described at WP:RLOTE and with Scyrme's application of RLOTE described above. This redirect has no demonstrated utility and is unlikely to be helpful. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:00, 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).

Accra International Airport (AIA)

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. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Incorrectly created before another editor moved it to the correct title. Odds of anyone typing this title are extremely low, and only 4 maitenance pages link to it. Electricmemory (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete implausible as a search term and arguably incorrect and/or confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 1 April 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).

2026 A-League Men finals series

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) 22:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target page. Qby (talk) 09:42, 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).

2026 A-League Women grand final

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) 22:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target page. Qby (talk) 09:42, 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).

Operation Epstein Fury

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Operation Epstein Fury

Wanggiya (surname)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Wanggiya (surname)

New York, New York

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 New York City. Per WP:SNOW, and this probably could have been reverted to the status quo without an RfD. Hatnote is already present. Will request full protection. (non-admin closure) I2Overcome talk 19:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

This term can refer both to the postal code of Manhattan (New York, NY) and to New York City (which is sometimes shortened to "New York" and is located in the state of New York). This can cause confusion, and has been the subject of edit-warring in the past, so I propose retargeting to New York, New York (disambiguation) (or moving the dab page to this title). Epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to New York City, and preferably quickly since this redirect gets more than 50 views every day. Almost 5,000 articles link to the redirect, so moving the disambiguation is a bad idea. For most of the redirect's history (including all but a few minutes from the past decade before 14 March 2026), the target was New York City, and any retargets usually got reverted, so I think this redirect should maintain the redirect to New York City. If necessary, a hatnote could be added, but any change affecting thousands of links should generally be avoided. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    I have no problem with returning to the status quo (since most uses of "New York, New York" on-wiki already refer to the city), but wanted to propose disambiguation in case there was a valid reason to use the term in reference to Manhattan. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    You mean moving New York, New York (disambiguation) to New York, New York? Abesca (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    I meant New York, New York either being retargeted to the dab page, or the dab page being moved to New York, New York. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    If "New York, New York" should become a disambiguation page, this would require a move from "New York, New York (disambiguation)" to "New York, New York", since having "New York, New York" redirect to "New York, New York (disambiguation)" is undesired per that being a malplaced page. Also, any proposals for moving a page should be made at the talk page. For this example, it would be at Talk:New York, New York (disambiguation), which also contains a 2006 requested move discussion that was unsuccessful. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    That's fair, but given the situation I didn't want to open an RM, hence why I came here. (There were three possible targets, only one of which would require an RM.) The sole reason I opened this RfD was because I noticed that there was a dispute over where to target this redirect, which should have been handled at RfD rather than through edit-warring. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    Fair point. I now see the logic in sending this redirect to RfD. I will add that if the result is to disambiguate (which I think would be unideal since thousands of articles link to the redirect), every link would need to be checked and disambiguated. Otherwise, if maintained a redirect, New York, New York should be protected (probably fully) to prevent further edit wars as any further changes should not be made without consensus, given this redirect gets thousands of views every month and is linked thousands of times. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to New York City, with DAB hatnote to the DAB page. The city is the more common vernacular usage; the postal shorthand is closer to trivia; but since it does exist and evidently can cause confusion, it seems reasonable to clarify for someone looking for Manhattan (or for the song generally identified with Sinatra) who's ended up where they didn't intend. -- Avocado (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to New York City with no need to DAB hatnote. Manhattan's already prominently linked and any use of 'NY, NY' to exclusively mean Manhattan is so minor as to make a hatnote wp:undue. Possibly mention it on a disambiguation page. Nevermind. Yeah, New York, New York (disambiguation) should already be in a hatnote on New York City. If it isn't, add it back. — LlywelynII 13:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to New York City and lock the page to deter future shenanigans. BD2412 T 15:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to New York City. Any change should be made by consensus through RM. (Though, I should point out that Manhattan was New York, New York a lot longer than it has been Manhattan, New York!) --RegentsPark (comment) 18:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget the city isn't just shortened to "New York" that appears to be it's name unlike Oklahoma City per AP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 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).

Syrian Civil War, November 2012 – March 2013

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Syrian Civil War, November 2012 – March 2013

Israel (Bible)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 22#Israel (Bible)

Jianghe Railway Rtation

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) 01:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Implausible and unnecessary misspelling redirect, especially since "S" and "R" are not adjacent on a QWERTY keyboard. The correct redirect Jianghe Railway Station already exists and targets the same place. Also, googling gives zero results. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. This is not a plausible typo. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it's not likely to be a common typo. I will note, however, that though R and S aren't adjacent on QWERTY or AZERTY keyboards, they are adjacent on Colemak. – Scyrme (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete unlikely typo. Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 21 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).

Israeli Sald

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) 01:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete this typo and different caps, was page title for seven minutes. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

the machine transliteration says it's spelled "slt". Thinking Hebrew typically omits vowels, this could be plausible, but i'm not sure. Abesca (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete - The typo combined with the capitalisation makes this implausible. "Sald" is unlikely to be a transliteration from Hebrew, since the two As in salat use the same niqqud, so omitting only one is strange (even before considering whether T→D is plausible). This is probably just a one off mistake by the editor who made it before it was moved. – Scyrme (talk) 18:40, 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).

Vegetable salad

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 Salad. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Judging by what links to it, this is definitely not the right target so suggest delete. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Salad, or even Salad#Green salad. Term is used several times there and would align with other redirects that include Tossed salad, Green salad, Garden salad, Composed salad, Wedge salad.—BrechtBro (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Do not keep. This is not a narrowly defined term. It can be synonymous with "green salad" or can refer to salads where primarily non-green vegetables are the base or are prominently featured. This list even includes salads with meat and fish. Salad is a reasonable target but I would not refine to Salad#Green salad. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    Retarget to Salad upon further consideration. See my reply to Scyrme below for additional thoughts. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Salad as {{r from subtopic}}. Seems uncontroversial to me. This redirect gets plenty of traffic, so I'm surprised it hasn't been retargeted sooner. – Scyrme (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    Regarding "What Links Here", there are only two articles which probably explains why no-one noticed sooner. These are Rijsttafel and Schnitzel. The link from Rijsttafel definitely doesn't intend for this target. The link from Schnitzel is at a section about Israeli Schnitzel, so that one is probably intended, though honestly it could go either way. – Scyrme (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    I agree that the link from Schnitzel may or may not be intentional. Either way, this doesn't reflect standard usage so it would be better to specify Israeli salad in the text if that is the intended meaning. The phrase "vegetable salad" is used, but not linked, earlier in the article at Schnitzel § Netherlands and Belgium. I'm no expert in Dutch and Belgian cuisine but I'd be surprised if Israeli salad is the intended meaning there. On-wiki search reveals that "vegetable salad" is used to describe numerous dishes from around the world. "Vegetable" is a somewhat generic descriptor that usually needs no further definition or is, in fact, part of the definition of a specific dish. I'm not sure how helpful this redirect really is but Salad essentially covers the topic of vegetable salad. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Salad, seems to make the most sense here. Vegetable salad is basically just another name for salad. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 19:11, 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).

Keyicin

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) 01:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete unmentioned redirect. Keyicin is a random, seemingly non-notable antibiotic that is not mentioned at the target nor anywhere on Wikipedia. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:15, 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).

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI