Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 20, 2026.

Homosexual necrophilia in animals

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 28#Homosexual necrophilia in animals

Rape flight

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 Mallard#Breeding. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 04:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned or defined at the target. There is a passing mention ducks and geese combining sexual intercourse with violence at Animal sexual behavior § Sexual coercion but the term "rape flight" is not used here nor at Sexual coercion among animals. The term is used at Mallard#Breeding and Necrophilia#Other animals. The Mallard coverage gives the most general description of the behavior but targeting here might suggest the behavior is exclusive to mallards. I suggest deletion unless a suitable, general description is added somewhere. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Maybe the behavior is exclusive to mallards. Also as per this AfD - WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 6#Rape flight from two decades back, unless more bird species have caught on! Jay 💬 07:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Mallard#Breeding. Searching for "rape flight" -wikipedia -mallard -"flight attendant" -"flight school" finds almost exclusively irrelevant colocations. Of the unique hits on the first few pages that are possibly relevant, all but one was actually explicitly about mallards. The sole outlier was in a paper about morning doves but the single relevant paragraph (PDF page 6) makes it clear that "rape flight" is behaviour observed in "ducks" but not doves. Although the prose is not more specific than that, the paper it refers to is titled "Ecological aspects of defensive behavior in breeding Mallards and Black Ducks." (the American black duck the paper refers to "interbreeds regularly and extensively with the mallard, to which it is closely related."). All together it seems that this actually is exclusive to mallards. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 30 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).

Outline of ethology

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 Ethology. Left guide (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The target is not actually an outline of ethology but is instead the list entry for Ethology under Outline of biology § Branches. Delete or maybe retarget to Ethology. This gets about 2 pageviews/month—some months more, other months zero—despite no incoming links from articles. I'm not sure what readers expect when they search for this. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers are likely unfamiliar with WP:Outlines —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Ethology, which isn't much more than an outline anyway. J947 ‡ edits 23:21, 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).

DZTG

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 Radio Philippines Network#Early years (1960–1972). voorts (talk/contributions) 15:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

No longer mention of DZTG at target after tagged for unmentioned since August 2025. Update: DZTG is mentioned at several other page including Template:Tuguegarao Radio. Delete per WP:REDYES as encourage article creation ~2026-15650-77 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: By 1967, it had expanded to seven radio stations nationwide, including DZRR and DZAX in Manila, DZBS in Baguio, DZTG in Tuguegarao, It's mentioned once in the article. UnilandofmaTalk 17:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:18, 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).

Phal

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. Left guide (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:DABCOMBINE with FAL or Pahl? Check also Phall, Pal, Palh, and Phalli. Abesca (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep unless there's something else actually referred to as "Phal". Those are similar titles, which might be worth a {{distinguish}} hatnote, but they don't challenge Phalaenopsis's primarytopicness. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep, or possibly disambiguate between Phalaenopsis and Phall. I don't see any other topics at nearly the same level of notability on a cursory google search. Duckmather (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Search results are overwhelmingly for Phalaenopsis. There's already a hatnote in place pointing to Phall and it may be reasonable to add a {{distinguish}} hatnote for other articles with similar spellings or pronunciation although I don't know how likely readers are to mix up some of the example pages listed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:51, 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).

Church lands

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 4#Church lands

ScanScope Virtual Slide

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 2#ScanScope Virtual Slide

THE ANNOYING ORANGE

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 19:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete as unnecessary and redundant; the redirect The Annoying Orange already exists. This redirect was recently created, and, when searching for The Annoying Orange from a Wikipedia page on the legacy Vector skin, it overrides its properly-capitalized counterpart on the autocomplete menu. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Probably could've been R3'd as an implausible misnomer. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:59, 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).

BBC Radio Sessions

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 28#BBC Radio Sessions

List of channel 7 TV stations in the United States

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 Channel 7#United States per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

This page redirects to a completely different Channel 7 article, so it should be deleted. Chuterix (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Channel 7#United States where there are a few lists on the topic. -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Channel 7#United States. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Channel 7#United States Looks like we ended up with a double bot borking that wasn't caught for eleven years, so that might be among the longest rectifications we're ever dealt with here. Nathannah • 📮 02:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  • retarget per above --Lenticel (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget this obvious error. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Channel 7#United States: You can't actually entirely blame the bots for this one: it looks like someone using DisamAssist made a misclick in 2015 and retargeted this redirect to an article that is a specific channel 7 in Indonesia, which is obviously not a list, much less of US channel 7 stations. (Even in the best circumstances DisamAssist isn't really the most ideal tool for fixing unintentional redirects to disambiguation pages–and I get the impression that, at least in 2026, this should be an intentional redirect to one–as this task is better handled in redirect-related tools.) I don't know how it took 11 years for anyone to notice! WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 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).

Some redirects

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... 23:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Not a part of their respective national teams, erroneous redirects. Previous similar nominations of this user's redirects resulted in delete. zglph•talk• 15:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Zglph, Lim Zhi Shin is specifically mentioned as part of the Malaysia team at that target. Tharun Mannepalli is also mentioned at the target. How do you know that these redirects are erroneous? J947 ‡ edits 23:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    It just enlists players who are or were at top 100, not necessarily part of the core team. zglph•talk• 03:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    Right, so you don't. J947 ‡ edits 11:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    I don't understand? zglph•talk• 11:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    Shan Zi Oo as well. If they are not part of their national teams, their entries should be removed from there. Having redirects to their entries doesn't make them erroneous redirects. Jay 💬 11:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Noted the disagreements, so I'm providing a new rationale for deletion. Per RETURNTORED and searching for these players is likely to give more information on the subjects than these redirect targets. I request someone to relist this discussion. zglph•talk• 20:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, zglph•talk• 06:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting myself since no one bothers to. Should be the final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, zglph•talk• 13:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The target articles contain virtually no information about these players, who are mentioned in several other articles. WP:RETURNTORED applies if any of these athletes are potentially notable. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Myceteae. @Zglph: Note that you are not allowed to relist nominations that you are part of. Reasons such as ...since no one bothers to. do not count! Jay 💬 06:36, 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).

2026–27 Indian Super League

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... 19:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

No relevant information at the target about the specific season, making it misleading for anybody who searches for the term and expects to find relevant information about the season. • Quinn (talk) 10:08, 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).

Business First

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) J947 ‡ edits 04:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Per this log, it seems that the contents of this title were merged into its now disambiguated title, Business First of Louisville, which is itself currently a redirect to this target indicated, maybe/possibly out of notability concerns. What is mentioned at the target is instead "Louisville Business First", as to whether they are related or not, you the WP community are to judge whether this should be retained as is or retargeted! Intrisit (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  • @Intrisit: maybe we should restore this version, since you've not noticed even one of the five listed items with this name. An editor, now blocked for disruptive editing, retargeted to the list. As to the idea that these are all non-notable journals, tell that to the random editors who link to these titles, or to simply Business FirstBusiness First without disambiguation, when citing them as reliable sources. – wbm1058 (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, I don't see it because per the page history, I only saw "merged" edit from SilkTork at the bottom of that page rather than the content that is/was merged. And yeah, The Banner, blocked for a DE tireless banter with another editor without any compromise; I just saw it per your statement! Well, if it's restored, then this and the bottom one can be snow closed because as at now, it's not the current revision! Also, aren't so.e or all of these/those entries renamed/rebranded already?! Intrisit (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)


  • Intrisit, I'm not sure what you're asking for here. It looks like you're asking for the redirect to be moved to its existing target. Is that what you intended? If so, given that it is what already happens, perhaps it would save time to just withdraw this request. SilkTork (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    The answer to this is at the last two lines of my statement above, if only you're seeing it at face value without the digging! I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Not from you, as you aren't an admin! You were pinged due to your name appearing at the bottom of the page history page as its earliest editor with the edit summary, "Merged", but you didn't actually HM! It looks like you're asking for the redirect to be moved to its existing target, which to me sounds impossible to do as I like you am not an admin! Or should I state that it's not mentioned anywhere at the target apart from the Louisville one, hence my reason for nominating these two! Is that what you intended? If that was my intention, I won't have listed these two here from the start, so no! So now you know! Intrisit (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The history of the redirect is more confusing than it looks. There was an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Business Review), in which Business First is one of those listed. There was no consensus to delete, though there was a vague consensus to merge. It looks like my edit was the first edit, that is because it was moved to Business First of Louisville (which was later redirected to The Business Review). The contents of the original page can be seen here: . It was nominated (by me) for merging: , when there was no objections, I did the merge the next month. I'm still not clear what it is you want, but no worries. I am an admin by the way. I resigned as an 'Crat, and gave back all my other advanced positions when I left ArbCom. But I kept the admin tools, though I don't use them much these days, and may resign them this year. SilkTork (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)


  • wbm1058, I can see that you changed this from a direct redirect into a run-around redirect, in which people typing in "Business First" are not sent directly to American City Business Journals#List of publications, but to a disamb page of five different redirects all of which go to the same place: American City Business Journals#List of publications. What is the thinking here? In both cases people end up at the same place with the same information; but going via the disamb page distracts and takes up time, and also disappoints as it looks like there is going to be individual information on those titles. I can image the frustration of someone clicking on one of those links, ending up at American City Business Journals#List of publications, going back and clicking another link, ending up at the same place, thinking they made a mistake, going back and trying again, and so on. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but that might happen. SilkTork (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @SilkTork: This is kind of like an American version of Your Local Guardian, so maybe a page like that would be better than a redirect to a list. This isn't the easiest thing to deal with. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Intrisit: the reason I history-merged Business First into Business First of LouisvilleBusiness First of Louisville is that the article started out as an overly-specific version about the Louisville paper, rather than about the generic title, and then the title was natuarally disambiguated via copy-paste. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    Which then brings me back to my nomination rationales for the two; are they for the legal attribution requirements that they are left as is as redirects to internally-undesirable targets or that the WP community couldn't find anything notable about them to make articles of them? Either way, the title as at now goes to no DAB page, to which I find laughable with the TA editor removing the G14 tag from the bottom entry, which started all of this as I saw it! I've already pinged that TA to account for the CSD reversal; if the response had come, that would have solved this conundrum already! Intrisit (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @SilkTork: I created the disambiguation after User:Jmg38 declared this generic title to be an {{R from incorrect title}} rather than simply a valid {{R from short title}}. This required that the incorrect title Business First be changed to the correct title, e.g. Columbus Business First, so I created the disambiguation to assist my correction of the incorrect titles. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    Ha, this whole thing is a confused mess. I can see it was created as "Business First", then the editor realised it should be called "Business First of Louisville", but didn't change the page name: . Looking at the current target I'm not seeing a significant or notable difference between the newspapers in the group which are termed "XXX Business First" and those termed "XXX Business Journal". There is also "XXX Business News" and "XXX Business Review". The choice of title may be determined by if there is already a newspaper in XXX which is called "Business Journal" so "Business First" is chosen instead. Anyway, diverting though this has been for a quiet Friday afternoon, I don't think I can intelligently add anything more to this discussion other than a gentle bemusement that this redirect has had such an interesting history, and is now up for discussion to remain as it is (I think!). SilkTork (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I may have misinterpreted application of Incorrect name versus Incomplete name, was trying to figure out how a list of multiple different products, as seen in this log, would simply be a single Incomplete rather than a complete mess that spills into Incorrect territory. Not being a smartalec, truly thought that multiples kind of went beyond a reasonable test of only a single Incomplete. Look forward to seeing how the community warks this out, as I was clearly already stumped three years ago when adding the Rcat. (slightly unrelated – I do thank wbm1058 with a good catch of my Louisville vs St. Louis on one of the individual pages for one of the multiple"s" redirects) Jmg38 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've not attempted to understand the history here, but as it stands this is a redirect from an ambiguous title to a list of all the publications with that (partial) title we have information about. That strikes me as more helpful than either search results or an intermediary disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:18, 31 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).

Business First (disambiguation)

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. I created this redirect a couple years ago, so I guess I can delete it as the author. This will remove it from User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation redirects/001 and User:Certes/Reports/Redirects to dab where target is not a dab. Since the target page is a broad-concept article, I guess it's up to me to edit the target article to actually give it broad-concept content about "Business First", similar to the broad-concept article Your Local Guardian, since the editors who changed my disambiguation to a broad-concept didn't bother to do that. wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Nominated this here on behalf of Shhhnotsoloud, who requested a G14 that was undone by the TA ~2026-14944-70. The rationale for this is almost the same as above with one exception; this has the "(disambiguation)" disambiguator, which apart from the aforementioned "Louisville Business First", has no "Business First" title mentioned! The TA's rationale of Lists are an explicit example of pages performing "disambiguation-like functions"; that does not mean this must remain, only that WP:G14 is inappropriate is laughable considering the revelation I just gave and that that one "list" there, apart from the Louisville one, mentions nothing called "Business First". I have no opinion on this; just listing it here for you the WP community to judge whether this should be retained as is or retargeted! Intrisit (talk) 06:09, 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).

X bomb

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 💬 06:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

"X bomb" is unmentioned and was created from a disputed page move. Search results gave an item in Super Smash Bros. and then some bombs and safety gear, but nothing related to Twitter. Adding Twitter to the search gave mostly random posts. "X bomb" could also refer to an episode of Astro Boy (1963 TV series). It might also possibly refer to Fritz X Bomb, which was the actual bomb that came from googling "X bomb". I propose deletion as I couldn't find reliable sources that called "Twitter bomb" an "X bomb", and even then, that wouldn't be the primary meaning. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Nowhere good (I would say) to retarget to, and not a good article name either. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per the above. I also tried getting rid of on X: bomb (which was the most common kind of false positive on the google SERP) and still got very random looking results. I agree the most notable-looking topic "X Bomb" could refer to is probably a type of fictional bomb in Super Smash Bros., but even then I can't imagine this getting more coverage on enwiki than as a list item. Duckmather (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with the nom and other commenters. This is an {{R from move}} where the move should have been completed without leaving a redirect. The term "X bomb" has a variety of uses, so someone might search for it, but these aren't covered anywhere. It is not in use as a synonym for Twitter bomb. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:21, 22 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).

Sexual abuse perpetrated by children

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 27#Sexual abuse perpetrated by children

Eth0

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 27#Eth0

Hetero-curious

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 30#Hetero-curious

All caps country names (A-C)

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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

All implausible. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems a few you get used no? - was there some sort of investigation? - Are we sure cap locks is implausible? Moxy🍁 01:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • My thoughts below, based on checking disambiguations:
More information AFGHANISTAN–CZECH REPUBLIC ...
Close
The use of caps lock could be plausible if they are looking for something that is stylized in all caps. Note that these thoughts were solely based on checking disambiguation pages and seeing if an all-caps stylization is used, so the ideal situation for these redirects may not match what is provided. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The use of caps lock is plausible, but it's also something automatically handled by the software. Search an article title in all caps and unless there is an article at that link (eg. WASP) then the search will convert it to sentence case. CMD (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
That doesn't work if you search via URL. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LATVIA does not take you to Latvia. -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Not sure that can be called a "search". CMD (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Why not? It's an act of looking for an article with that title. -- Tavix (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
It is trying a specific url, not searching. The articles don't have those titles. CMD (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
The operative word you're using is 'trying'. There may or may not be success at locating a title given this 'try', which means that someone is searching for something that may have that title. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
The operative word is search. A search looks through multiple options trying to find something. If I type in a url it is not a search, at most it is a test. If in the extremis we wanted to cater to all caps url inputs then we would make it global rather than picking a small number of all caps urls that work for some unknown and unarticulated reason (that someone might be testing without knowing how redirects work). CMD (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  • If we move away from primary redirects to the lowercase meaning, we should at best retarget to the generic disambiguation page. We should not short-circuit en masse to any topics other than the most obvious one, especially not to relatively niche entertainment topics. If there are actual cases where it's plausible that there's another primary topic, each such discussion should be held separately and notifications should be made accordingly. --Joy (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as {{R from miscapitalization}}. It's useful for those searching in all caps, but otherwise harmless. I reject the claim that these are implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Tavix. We have many all-caps redirects for higher traffic pages. No one would be helped by deleting them. I don't think targeting disambiguation pages would be helpful, in general, if per WP:SMALLDETAILS another article is more notable in all caps than the country, then WP:RM. I very much doubt that any other topic not in all caps would be primary for all caps over these countries. Skynxnex (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget to any of Mathguy's suggestions. I don't buy the idea that stylized all-caps on movie posters or album covers makes any of those primary topic by usage, and certainly not by long-term significance, for any of these country names. Weak keep all, I guess. I would classify these as redirects we don't really need but that are ultimately harmless and unambiguous. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:24, 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).

Hjsakldfhl

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 per WP:IAR. In only about a day, a consensus has already formed, with 6 keep !votes including the nominator and NO delete votes. (non-admin closure) PokémonPerson 15:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Unclear, possibly WP:RSURPRISE. The redirect is the title of an upcoming episode, which is itself a keyboard smash. Maybe move to Hjsakldfhl (The Amazing Digital Circus) without leaving a redirect? Also could reasonably be a keep, and I could understand that... 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep: Keyboard smashes are random. This leads me to believe that if a reader types (or copy-pastes) this exact string of characters, the target must be what they want, as that's more likely than typing this by chance. No other pages are titled "Hjsakldfhl", so moving it would just be unnecessary disambiguation. I would not be against making an anchor at the table item and refining to that. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    I would agree (unless (of course) another argument is stronger). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    If you agree, then would you like to withdraw this? It wouldn't stop an editor from renominating with a new rationale. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'd like to see where the discussion goes, first. Definitely will withdraw if I think it needs to be. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although yes, the title is unusual and is a keyboard-smash like title. It still leads to the actual episode. It would be no different if it was an actual notable song name or such. There is no need for parenthetical disambiguation as there is no other "hjsakldfhl" we know as of yet.
KrispyBlueJays (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is the name of the episode. There's a pretty slim chance for someone to type this randomly. Compare to Xpcveaoqfoxso. Since the episode comes out today, I hope this discussion can be closed quickly so that the redirect works properly. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 13:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep unless somehow it isn't released and is removed from the target article. Most episode titles could be "surprising" under this definition since there's rarely any inherent connection between them and the show. Skynxnex (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deletion would inconvenience readers looking for information on this episode. And, as the nominator says, we don't want to inconvenience readers... -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 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).

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks