Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 25

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Nintendo Switch (Arcade Archives) → Arcade Archives  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Speedrunz (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unilandofma^Talk 17:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Could not understand the nomination. Why is it an implausible redirect? Jay 💬 13:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Jay. Nomination is unclear since the redirect is not implausible. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Usually, these sorts of page/redirect names have the form game/franchise name (platform) - not platform (game/franchise name). This inversion of the standard is somewhat bewildering, to say the least. Even then, the platform specifier here is a bit redundant anyway (multiplatform release; there is no page specifically about Arcade Archives for the Nintendo Switch in particular), but I've taken the liberty of creating Arcade Archives (Nintendo Switch) in order to preserve the redundant platform-specific redirect but without the implausibility, so it'll be safe to delete this redirect. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 02:11, 26 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 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Authorship attributionAuthorship attribution → Stylometry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Also could refer to Attribution (copyright)? Not sure which is the primary topic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Attribution (a dab page), as the copyright and journalism meanings and the see also to credits are all relevant and the current target could be added to the page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
• I think stylometry (the current target) is the traditional meaning for this term, for example, "Authorship attribution is the task of identifying the author of a given document by assigning a text of unknown authorship to one of a set of candidate authors for whom samples of written text are available" and "authorship attribution of online messages". However I see that Google also finds an alternate meaning, namely where, for example, a PhD student declares that they are the sole author of their dissertation. Authorship analysisAuthorship analysis also redirects to stylometry. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  For wikihistorians, I created this redirect in June 2013 in the middle of a battle regarding Shakespeare authorship question (Arbcom case WP:ARBSAQ). "Authorship attribution" was well known at the time as referring to the idea that it was possible to determine how likely it was that person X wrote work Y. That sense may not be prominent now? Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Stylometry is the correct redirect. So keep. Authorship attribution refers of determining authorship of a document, not general attribution like say to a newspaper or magazine. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  It can be used for both. While stylometry is the technical meaning (although note the top hit on google is Author profiling) in non-specialist contexts it can also be used to refer to more general topics. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Certainly. But I think that authorship attribution is quite particular and is a specific type of attribution. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Ramos1990: I agree that there is a specific type of attribution, stylometry, that is sometime called "authorship attribution". Stylometry is however not the only thing that people are looking for using the search term "authorship attribution". The question is whether stylometry is the primary topic for the search term, and based on the evidence I've seen the answer to that is "no" (in other words while stylometry is authorship attribution, authorship attribution is not necessarily stylometry). Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 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).

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 Jake Lang. wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Draft:Jake LangDraft:Jake Lang → Pardon of January 6 United States Capitol attack defendants#Jake Lang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Remove redirect from draftspace; there is now a "Jake Lang" article, so this redirect to a different article is misleading and unnecessary. NapoliRoma (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• FWIW, I noticed that there have been a few previous RfDs for similar redirects by the same editor, who hasn't edited since last August (at least, under this name; their user page mentions the existence of other accounts). A quick search shows there are 100+ similar redirects they've added over time.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Jake Lang per WP:SRE (I know it doesn't directly apply but I think it makes sense). voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to close out this log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 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).

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. Other than the nominator there has been no strong desire to delete this redirect. Primefac (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:PALTemplate:PAL → Template:PSE  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wrong and misleading object while existing  Mandatory Palestine ( {{fb|Palestine, British Mandate}} ) able to work on presenting correct historical party; "PAL" short form per UNDP was only seen at doc names or filing system. Even their such official excel workbook uses "<recipient-country code="PS">" (i.e. ISO 2-digit code for "PSE") in its default coding structure. It is supposed to be orphaned by Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template cleanup work. Gzyeah (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Gzyeah: Template redirects don't come by RfD very often, so the regular participants here might not be very well versed in best practices for what to do with them. "PAL" as short for Palestine (even if mistakenly) seems reasonable enough to me, and it's unclear if you're proposing that something else is a more appropriate target. Would you care to elaborate your nominator rationale a bit further? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  But "PAL" is technically not in used as exact "country code" by recent notable organisations searchable online, and the current redirection pointed to modern sovereign (Palestinian Authority) is giving wrong info on equating it with "PSE", rather than simple geographical meanings. Gzyeah (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  The "PAL" is fine to be mentioned its functions in disambiguate page, however we should not encourage to continue holding it for a country template without historical and logical senses unless we had any reliable source to prove such misuse. Gzyeah (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a better place to retarget, or do you prefer a disambiguation instead? And would you use a bot to replace the current transclusions? Or its own new template? Abesca (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

there is already an existing PAL (disambiguation) as mentioned with content updated, while it may have no better place to retarget since it was created initially as an individual template compared to Template:PSE before the last redirection made. Gzyeah (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep primary topic PER WP:PT1 and WP:PT2 Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 22:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I will note that PTOPIC does not apply to templates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

indeed, WP:PT only applies on articles and is unrelated to this matter. Gzyeah (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The reason to delete is totally unconvincing. Deleting this will create a cleanup need with no benefit. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  the cleanup can be executed by a Bot with replacing "Template:PAL" into "Template:PSE" that improve the right use of correct wiki sources on benefit of data accuracy. Gzyeah (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion sounds like a net loss. With deletion, there are many effects including:

1. Since {{PAL}} would no longer redirect anywhere, someone who thinks that PAL is the three-letter code will not know what the correct code is, leading to an unnecessary waste of time.
2. Any deletion of a template redirect that is used does create a cleanup need that wouldn't be needed without the deletion.
3. Even if a bot replaces the transclusions, which isn't necessary if the template redirect is kept, old revisions would still be broken.

By not deleting, none of the above problems would happen, and also, {{PAL}}:

1. is intuitive to think as the three-letter country code. Compare neighboring Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Their codes are {{ISR}}, {{JOR}}, and {{EGY}}. It is perfectly reasonable to think that the actual template is {{PAL}}, given it is the first three letters of the country.
2. is mostly used correctly (for {{PSE}}) already. There seems to be no incorrect usages, so there is no issue on usage of the template redirect.
3. is not necessarily incorrect. PAL is, as stated at PAL (disambiguation), the UNDP short-name in file title and the document code for Palestine. PAL does not seem to represent another country in any system, not even Palau.

Even if using {{PAL}} is considered incorrect, the solution would be to add {{R from incorrect name}} to the redirect, not delete it. This already happens on some templates such as {{MLY}} to {{MYS}} for Malaysia and {{MOR}} to {{MAR}} for Morocco. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:37, 4 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).

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 Puzzle (disambiguation)#Games per WP:BARTENDER. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Puzzle (video game)Puzzle (video game) → Puzzle video game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Usually, "Foo (video game)" is for a specific game, not genre. The current target is about a genre, and while it mentions a single specific game (a redirect to American_Video_Entertainment#Puzzle), this is also not ideal. That game may be notable (MobyGames has 2 reviews: , which makes it borderline notable), but in addition, there were many other games named just "Puzzle" . At least one other has a review in MG, and MG is far from a complete database (I found a review of another game called "Puzzle" in a non-indexed Polish magazine, for example). Anyway, right now choices are: 1) keep (which I don't like due to reasons explained) 2) retarget to American_Video_Entertainment#Puzzle (the only article that mentions a specific game called "Puzzle") 3) turn into a disambig using data from MobyGames (problem is we cannot be sure these other games are notable). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Ultimately, no result for a video game simply named "puzzle" is going to be notable enough to outweigh the WP:SURPRISE of landing anywhere other than Puzzle video game. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:02, 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) 02:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• I would expect the title to redirect to the element of puzzles in video games, not the genre as a whole. Delete unless a stronger argument is shown. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as misleading. I don't think there's a Wikipedia page on any video game just titled "puzzle". ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Do not keep; this isn't how disambiguation works on Wikipedia. Not only could this refer to a specific video game called "Puzzle", but my initial thought was that it was about puzzles as elements of video games, not as a type/genre of game, which is rather different. It wouldn't be unreasonable to retarget back to its original, which does have a listing of a game simply called "Puzzle", but given both the obscurity of the title and genericness of the name, I doubt how helpful that would be. If there are any other titles actually called "Puzzle" that are currently listed, a dab wouldn't be totally unreasonable either, but I'm not sure if that's the case or not. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This has no primary topic and does not seem to be a good candidate for disambiguation. Edit: New vote below based on Mathguy2718's entry.NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to American Video Entertainment#Puzzle, the only content we have, on Wikipedia, that accurately matches this title. If other games with the title also get mentioned, this should be retargeted to Puzzle (disambiguation) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Deleting this is not justifiable given that we do have content this title accurately describes. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to American Video Entertainment#Puzzle. It's a game, named Puzzle. It just makes sense to retarget here. Sixaxis^Yes 16:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The current target is much more plausible than American Video Entertainment#Puzzle. 162 etc. (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per Elli and Sixaxis. The disambiguator "(video game)" is used consistently on Wikipedia for individual games. Consistency in how disambiguators are used should be maintained so that they remain easily predictable, as this helps with navigation and finding the right link to add to a mention in an article. For the genre, something like "(video games)", with the plural, might be more appropriate. It can be renominated or replaced with a disambiguation page if later substantial content is added elsehwere about other games with the name "Puzzle". Until then, this is the only viable target. Deleting a redirect because of possible ambiguity with topics that aren't covered on Wikipedia isn't helpful. Deleting would force users to use the search engine, where American Video Entertainment § Puzzle isn't among the top results, so anyone searching for it that way wouldn't find it; this situation is exactly what redirects exist to deal with. (Edit: Other targets have evidently been found by Mathguy2718 below.) – Scyrme (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  American Video Entertainment#Puzzle is nowhere near a primary topic.

  The current redirect can be seen as an exception to the usual convention, but it is not unprecedented. See Snake (video game) / Snake (1998 video game) and related RM. 162 etc. (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  It doesn't need to be the primary topic for there to a be redirect to it. It's currently the only individual game with that title discussed on Wikipedia. The point is to help readers navigate the content that already exists on Wikipedia, not to navigate content that doesn't exist yet (and may never exist if no-one volunteers to add it).

  Looking at the RM, I don't see anything relevant. The year was added because there are older and newer games which share the same title. Since these are mentioned at the genre page (in the "History" section), I'm fine with that. Your proposal to redirect the title directly to the genre page didn't have consensus, it was disambiguated instead. I'd object less to disambiguation at Puzzle (disambiguation) here, however Puzzle video game doesn't mention any games that simply have the title "Puzzle" so I don't think the situation is comparable to Snake and disambiguation is premature. – Scyrme (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  Redirecting to American Video Entertainment#Puzzle indeed makes it a primary topic. See WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.

  
  

  > "The point is to help readers navigate the content that already exists on Wikipedia"

  No, the point is to direct readers to where they want to go, and in this case, that's Puzzle video game. 162 etc. (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  ??? WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is relevant when the title of a primary topic differs from the actual article title due to differing naming conventions, etc. It doesn't imply that any redirect from an ambiguous term to an article implies that the article is about a primary topic. – Scyrme (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  the point is to direct readers to where they want to go; sure, but readers want to go to content which actually exists. If a reader is looking for content that doesn't exist, then they're not going to get it either way. If the reader wants another game with the title "Puzzle", unfortunately we can't help them. We can help the readers looking for this specific game.

  in this case, that's Puzzle video game; not if the reader is looking for an individual game with the title, which is plausibly the case since the disambiguator is usually used that way. The appropriate disambiguator for the genre would be the plural "(video games)" or the explicit "(video game genre)". – Scyrme (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  > "It doesn't imply that any redirect from an ambiguous term to an article implies that the article is about a primary topic"

  Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "If no primary topic exists, then the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)." If we were to retarget Puzzle (video game) not to a disambiguation page, but to American Video Entertainment#Puzzle, the latter would in fact become the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's not talking about redirects. It's reiterating WP:NOPRIMARY, which is what to do when there are multiple articles that could share a base title and there's no strong case for putting one of them at that base title over any other, with the recommendation being to make the base title a disambiguation page. That's not the case here. This is an RfD not an RM. We're not talking about putting anything at this title. The guideline is irrelevant.

  You're stretching the interpretation of the guidelines you're citing. The most relevant guideline here is WP:RPURPOSE, which lists:

  Subtopics or other topics that are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)

  A video game called "Puzzle" is listed and described in a wider article, American Video Entertainment. – Scyrme (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  I urge you to reread the guidelines above, as you appear to seriously misunderstand what a primary topic is (or isn't). 162 etc. (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  A primary topic is a topic which is especially likely to be what a reader is looking for when searching a particular title, more so than all other topics sharing the title combined, as determined on the grounds of either clear long-term significance or overwhelming usage. If a primary topic exists for a title, it should be the title of the article for the topic or a redirect to the primary topic. If not and the title is ambiguous for more multiple topics discussed in different articles, the title should be a disambiguation page. If there's only 1 article, no disambiguation is necessary. Am I wrong? If so, how? If not, why is any of this relevant? Why does it override WP:RPURPOSE in this case? – Scyrme (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  Update: Mathguy2718 has found other possible targets, so I'm now fine with disambiguating. I assume this resolves our dispute at least in this case, unless you want to argue that the genre is the primary topic (which I would object to since a genre categorically isn't a "video game", singular, and my views about how the disambiguator should be used still stand). – Scyrme (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Puzzle (disambiguation) and add any video games called Puzzle there. Puzzle by American Video Entertainment is probably not the primary topic for Puzzle (video game) since there is a video game of the same name from 1984 mentioned at Through the Looking Glass (video game), Windows 1.0, List of games included with Windows, and Computer mouse most likely referring to a digital version of 15 puzzle. It's very possible that someone looking for 15 puzzle would search using Puzzle (video game), given "15 puzzle" is the type of puzzle used in the 1984 video game Puzzle.^[1] This computer game is quite widespread. I will note that Puzzle by American Video Entertainment (released by Idea-Tek, mentioned in Micro Genius) has a similar concept, but it's still a different video game. However, there are other games called Puzzle including: a 1987 video game (aka الأحاجي) in List of MSX games and a 1982 video game published by LOG in List of ZX81 games. With other games called Puzzle and confusion with Puzzle video game, I'm therefore proposing a retarget to the disambiguation page. Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  Retarget per Mathguy2718. Seems there are other individual games scattered around in various places. I'm happy to retarget to Puzzle (disambiguation) (perhaps directly to Puzzle (disambiguation) § Games) if some of these are added there. – Scyrme (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Puzzle (disambiguation) per Mathguy2718, which would include all of the discussed topics (the video game genre and any video games with this name that are added). NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:54, 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).

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Body massBody mass → Human body weight  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Clear case of RETURNTORED; this concept is not specific to humans and most incoming links appear to not be human-focused. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'm confused by the idea that an article should be created at this title. What would it look like? Let alone body mass, it's difficult to generalise the concept of a body between all organisms – body (biology) only became an article in 2021; perhaps it could have a few sentences on body mass? The state of the incoming links is interesting, given that there's one article on an organism's body mass, but an entire sidebar on {{Human body weight}}. But I suppose there's a lot more biology articles on animals than humans.
  Disambiguate, probably. Chuck in links to the current target, Horse body mass, and see also Body mass index. And a link to Mass; after all, its first sentence is "Mass is an intrinsic property of a body." If an article is justified, it should probably be at Body mass (biology) / Body weight (biology) or Animal body mass / Animal body weight anyway. Should the disambiguation page be titled Body mass or Body weight? It doesn't really matter. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  I could get behind DABifying. Whether there is indeed an article to be written is perhaps less clear than I initially assumed. Either way, most of the incoming links should probably just be removed as this should fall under everyday words that don't generally need to be linked. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• I was thinkinh in Muscle mass> Abesca (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This is too vague. "Body mass" in "Body mass index" doesn't mean body weight. There are a number of other problems surrounding this, not least of which is that the lead of Human body weight "Human body weight is a person's mass or weight" is just wrong scientifically, and similarly "...body weight is the measurement of mass..." is wrong too. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:01, 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) 06:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep at Human body weight with a hatnote - External search results for "body+mass" are overwhelmingly for Body mass index, however these results are misled by the partial title match. When searching "body+mass" -index results are overwhelmingly related to human body weight, indicating it's the primary topic (WP:PTOPIC) for the base title.

While Shhhnotsoloud is right in the abstract, in that scientifically-speaking weight is a measure of force not mass, in practice people discuss their weight in units of mass, and if someone asked you how much you weigh and you answered with a measure in Newtons they'd be baffled. They'd expect you to state your mass as read by a scale. Similarly, "body mass" in Body mass index actually does mean "body weight" in the sense it is used by Human body weight, which is why the article for BMI defines BMI as a value derived from the mass (weight) and height of a person, using weight and mass synonymously. It's also why there's a whole article for Mass versus weight which begins with In common usage, the mass of an object is often referred to as its weight.... Given this, it'd make sense for body weight and body mass to share a target.

Though "body" in isolation is ambiguous between body (biology) and physical body, in the whole expression "body mass" is much less ambiguous as in physics you wouldn't need to use that expression, you'd just use "mass"; if something has mass then it is a body, likewise if something is a body it has mass. This is why I don't think the broader, more fundamental meaning in physics has primacy. The full expression "body mass" suggests biology, not physics, which concurs with the search results.

The hatnote I'd suggest would be:

"Body mass" redirects here. For the mass of a physical body, see mass. For the measure derived from body mass and height, see body mass index.

If someone wanted horse body mass, they'd almost certainly include the word "horse" in their search, so I don't think that partial title match (WP:PTM) warrants mention. – Scyrme (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Agree with Scyrme - Human body weight seems to be the primary topic for body mass and suggested hatnote would help navigation to other meanings. Asteramellus (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and add hatnote per Scyrme. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Shhhnotsoloud Body mass and body weigth especially human body weight don't have the same meaning Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Guitarjunkie22: What is the difference? If someone asked you for your body weight, how would your answer differ from if they asked for your body mass? – Scyrme (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate or delete/create new article. There are a few reasons that googling "body mass" gives mostly results about human body weight, and it's not that the topic is called just "body mass". If referring to a person's body mass or weight, something like "my body weight" or "your body weight" would be used since using "your human body weight" is uncommon; however, a standalone "body mass" is ambiguous in itself (since "its body mass" could refer to something else). Also, the results involved "lean body mass" and "muscle body mass", but usually not "body mass" by itself. But most crucially, googling has a strong bias towards humans; for example, searching "nose" gives mostly results about human noses, even though other animals have noses; searching for "height", which could literally be used for almost anything, gives mostly results about human height.
  Also, look at the links to "Body mass" and the links to "Body weight". For body mass, most links refer to body masses of organisms–mostly animals–in general, but a few do refer to human body mass. It would be weird for an article like Woodland jumping mouse to indirectly link to human body weight through body mass, as that was not the intent. The reverse is true for body weight; the links that do not refer to human body weight include but are not limited to in Primate and in List of poisonous plants. (Note: corrected 00:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)) Disambiguating will let editors know that they should link something more specific when linking to "Body mass" as to avoid linking to ambiguous terms. It is possible that an article that talks about body mass in organisms–including humans–is needed, which would help with the ambiguity problem in links. Keeping and hatnoting would not help resolve the ambiguity in links, as there are no reminders given when linking to redirects to articles and the proposed hatnote does not mention body masses of organisms.
  There's also confusion between mass and weight. In addition, there's body force, which may fit in a possible disambiguation page on body mass. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: A few thoughts. A dab page doesn't solve the incoming links issue User:Mathguy2718 identified. A dab page that lists Human body weight, Mass, Horse body mass, and Body mass index doesn't much help readers clicking through from Woodland jumping mouse, nor are any of those suitable pages to update the wikilinks in articles. Whether dab'd or kept, there will need to be a lot of review and, ultimately, removal of wikilinks. "Body mass" almost always refers to the mass of an animal body, so I don't think the definition of mass as applied to a physical body really aligns. Body weight redirects to Human body weight and lead states Human body weight is a person's mass or weight with a helpful link to the distinction between mass and weight, so this aligns with lay usage of "mass" and avoids perpetuating any misunderstandings among the general public. Deletion may be the least worst option here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  I feel like it wouldn't be a bad idea to have an article (probably would be short for now) on Body mass about the mass of animal bodies and then list other uses either through a hatnote or disambiguation at Body mass (disambiguation). Some more information here: as we have an article on Brain–body mass ratio, surely there is enough information to create an article at "Body mass". Also, Center of body mass redirects to Center of mass, but the word "center" makes the term more physics related. The lead on Mass states that Mass is an intrinsic property of a body. There are definitely multiple meanings of "body mass", but I do believe that the biological meaning is probably the primary topic. An article related to body mass of animals would seem logical here. Mathguy2718 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to the idea. If there's enough content, which there may well be, a brief article would be a better target for the incoming links than a dab page consisting of the current articles that have been suggested. I'm pretty sure the biological usage—specifically in zoology and human biology/medicine—is the primary meaning of "body mass". I searched Google Scholar for "body mass" -index and every single result on the first 5 pages referred to animals (including humans). There are over 1.4 million hits so that is obviously not comprehensive! I also searched ArXiv.org and the first 24 results are about biology (including body mass index), and the 25th hit was a false positive referring to "two-body mass measurements". Again, I didn't look at everything, but if "body mass" had were prominently used in physics, I'd expect it to pop up more often there. (BTW, Lean body mass is another article that could be mentioned on a DAB or set index article, and could provide fodder for a standalone Body mass article.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:55, 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).

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. (non-admin closure) thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• AutopedophiliaAutopedophilia → Paraphilic infantilism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Anatomic autopedophiliaAnatomic autopedophilia → Paraphilic infantilism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unmentioned; history dive was a little interesting. The longer "Anatomic autopedophilia" and the shorter "Autopedophilia" were created on the same day by the same user, who also edited the target article that same day. Despite this, Anatomic autopedophilia started out as a redirect to Autopedophilia (and required retargeting by bot to paraphilic infantilism). In addition, just like with Mollycoddle fetishism before, this was unmentioned when the redirects were created-- DESPITE there being a same-day edit from the same user. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll note that MassXFD declined to notify user:James Cantor (redirect creator) of this discussion, and upon investigation, it turns out that he got himself blocked for socking. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The article mentions autonepiophilia multiple times; nepiophilia redirects to pedophilia. Abesca (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

That's still not something explained in the article itself-- in order for someone who searched this to figure out why they got sent here, they would need to:
-Read the entire article, in order to
-Find Paraphilic infantilism#Historical terminology and definitions at the bottom of the article, where it's explained where the at-first-blush-unrelated term "Autonepiophilia" came from, as well as the link between it and the term "Nepiophilia"
-Decide to look up what "Nepiophilia" means, which will FINALLY lead them to Pedophilia#Etymology and definitions, and the revelation that it's a subtype of pedophilia
-THEN AND ONLY THEN will they have the "ohhh" moment of "oh okay now it makes sense"

On top of that, I also have two MORE issues-- the first is the "anatomic" thing, which even with the "autonepiophilia" connection still makes little to no sense; the second is the worry that this specific formulation runs into WP:NEO / WP:RFD#D8 issues. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not so hard cause both have the same prefix and suffix to guess. The anatomic part seems to apply to desiring to be physically a baby, but that’s what I’m guessing since I didn’t search it yet Abesca (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure Paraphilic infantilism is the correct target, but it feels like the best target at present, which makes me lean toward "Add mention", perhaps under "Sexuality". I found a few academic sources that discuss the concept of autopedophilia, including "Autopedophilia: Erotic-Target Identity Inversions in Men Sexually Attracted to Children" (2017), "Erotic Target Identity Inversions Among Men and Women in an Internet Sample" (2020), and "Psychometric Evidence That Paraphilia Is a Natural Kind" (2025). Given these, I feel like NEO doesn't apply. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Erotic target location error, which is the concept that is hypothesised to explain autopedophilia. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another target has been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 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).

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:35, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Symplectic form → Symplectic vector space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Most backlinks to this seem to be referring to the 2-form on a symplectic manifold. Should this be retargeted or disambiguated? (cc Chatul per Talk:Symplectic form#Redirect or disambiguation?.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:44, 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) 20:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect seems fine to me. Anyone looking for symplectic form or symplectic vector space will be looking for the same information, to be found on this redirected page. Ebony Jackson (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  The above comment was moved here from below the relisting notice on the 1 March page by Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, I changed my mind. I think I agree with 1234qwer1234qwer4 that symplectic form is more often the 2-form on a symplectic manifold, so disambiguation might be better. Ebony Jackson (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• I would recommend having this type of discussion at Symplectic vector space or Symplectic manifold (rather than here or the talk page for the redirect title), but anyway, either target seems fine as long as there's a hatnote pointing at the other one. –jacobolus (t) 02:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. All else being equal, I would probably change the redirect to symplectic manifold. But all else is not equal, and editors (and the automated tools that support them) should flag this particular link as needing disambiguqtion. This will have the added benefit of forcing an audit of all existing links to be sure they point to the correct target. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. There's no primary topic here, it could reasonably refer to a symplectic form on either a vector space or a manifold. Streded (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested (done). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• @J947: Disambiguation page drafted. Streded (talk) 08:12, 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).

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 mostly retarget, with one disambiguation.

• Disambiguate Leopard skin
• Retarget Elephant skin to Elephant#Skin
• Retarget Lizard skin to Lizard#Anatomy (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• Leopard skin → Onchocerciasis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Elephant skinElephant skin → Onchocerciasis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Lizard skinLizard skin → Onchocerciasis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This disease is certainly not the primary target. Redirect to one of the following options (or some other that I haven't thought of): "Leopard skin" should point to Leopard skin (clothing in Ancient Egypt), Animal print, or Leopard#Characteristics. "Elephant skin" should point to Elephant#Skin or Elephantiasis. "Lizard skin" should point to Lizard#Anatomy, or possibly somewhere at Moulting to describe the shedding of skin.TNstingray (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget per nom with following specifications:

Elephant skin to Elephant#Skin

Lizard skin to Lizard#Anatomy

For Leopard skin, I tend to think retarget to Leopard skin (clothing in Ancient Egypt) is the way to go with potentially the addition of a hatnote to Animal print and Leopard#Characteristics but could also be convinced otherwise (or convinced to dabify) NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget elephant skin to elephant#Skin, retarget lizard skin to lizard#Anatomy, and disambiguate leopard skin. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment Elephant skin can also refer to matgrounds. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What should we do with Leopard skin?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget Lizard skin and Elephant skin, with a hotnote to Matground, and disambiguate Leopard skin per above. मल्ल (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Based on the consensus, changing my vote from retarget to disambiguate for Leopard skin, as I didn't have a strong opinion between them. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested (done). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguation drafted at Leopard skin! NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 13:55, 2 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).

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. We're split 50/50 between deletion and retargeting. I'll bartender retarget to Erotica as the most supported alternative to deletion. I do hope that someone is emboldened enough to create an article on the subject, which I think we can all agree would be the ultimate solution. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Gay eroticaGay erotica → Gay pornography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure what to do with this one. Pornography and erotica are related but not synonymous. Category:LGBTQ erotica and the subcategory Category:Gay male erotica don't list a suitable, synonymous broad coverage target. The word "gay" appears only twice in Erotica, once in a link to the current target. Delete per WP:RETURNTORED? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Homoeroticism is a better target. Abesca (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. Homoeroticism is sexual attraction between members of the same sex whereas erotica refers to literature or other art forms of a sexual nature. Homoeroticism exists and is experienced in real life, although it is of course also a subject of art. Erotica, gay or otherwise, is explicitly an art form. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Although Homoeroticism gives that definition, it clearly depicts arts as if the concept of homoerotica is more about aesthetics rather than erotic attraction. Abesca (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to erotica Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to erotica. Its conventional definition (cf. erotica at the Encyclopædia Britannica) includes neither the number nor sex of people whose amorous activities or thoughts are being depicted, so this generic article is a good fit until a specialized article is written. --Викидим (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

That may be true of the generic term but when someone specified gay erotica they surely are expecting the narrower subtopic to be described, well, specifically. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Anyone navigating to erotica to learn about erotica will be disappointed as all they can learn about specifically gay erotica there is that it exists as a subgenre. —BrechtBro (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per BrechtBro. Surprised we don't have an article. Jay 💬 05:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: The RfD tag was unilaterally removed by User:AimanAbir18plus on March 16. I didn't notice this until today. I will revert the changes. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to gay pulp fiction, which is considered an early form of "gay erotica". @Abesca, Myceteae, Headbomb, BrechtBro, Jay, and Викидим: Would that do? George Ho (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  No, literature is a subset of erotica. And fiction still smaller, and pulp fiction much still smaller. Jay 💬 05:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:RETURNTORED. All other proposed targets will not cover the expected material and this is a good candidate for an article. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Erotica. Following a look for sources, although admittedly not a deep dive, I'm not seeing anything that indicates scope for an article specifically devoted to gay erotica as distinct from erotica more generally. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per BrechtBro. I also note the presence of a full article at Lesbian erotica; IMO with "Gay erotica" we have a clear gap, deserving of a red link. (FWIW, I was going to close this WP:NCRETto Erotica, realized I didn't like that outcome, and decided to vote instead.) --BDD (talk) 15:36, 6 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).

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 Theta angle to Theta vacuum and keep Theta-angle. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Theta angleTheta angle → Angle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Theta-angleTheta-angle → Theta vacuum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Both redirects need the same target. There is no mention of theta at Angle. Though an angle θ is mentioned in Theta vacuum, most people (me included) are not looking for this. I was looking for the history of how θ became a common symbol for an angle, which neither target discusses. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The original target was Theta vacuum (actually, that page was originally titled "Theta angle", and then moved to "Theta vacuum"), but after a brief RFD in 2022 by two random Wikipedians without input from any experts in physics, it was retargeted to angle on the grounds that the symbol ⁠${\displaystyle \theta }$⁠ is commonly used for angles in many contexts. I think that was poor reasoning and the retarget was harmful to readers. Judging from a search of academic literature, "theta angle" is a physics jargon phrase with thousands of papers using it with a commonly understood meaning, but is rarely used as a phrase in other contexts. This should be retargeted back to Theta vacuum. The appropriate place to add information about the history of the use of the symbol ⁠${\displaystyle \theta }$⁠ to represent angles is in Theta § Mathematics and science or somewhere in Angle; feel free to research that topic and expand our coverage. –jacobolus (t) 16:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Target both to Theta vacuum with hatnote if needed (see below) or disambiguate. Searching externally "Theta+angle" provides a mix of results relating to geometry/topology and physics, though by my estimation leaning more so towards the latter. I was initially sceptical, but it does seem it's more often used in a physics context than a mathematical one. I think this is a case of small differences (WP:SMALLDIFF), where theta angle pertains to physics, while angle theta pertains to mathematics. As an aside, I was surprised angle theta doesn't already exist; it's a common expression. I would suggest creating it and redirecting to Angle, assuming others here agree that the order of the words makes a big difference to the most pertinent topic. – Scyrme (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's any value in having angle theta as a page/redirect title, so please don't create one. There are many angles which are labeled with the symbol ⁠${\displaystyle \theta }$⁠ (theta), but the phrase "angle theta" is not commonly used as a unit. There are likewise many angles labeled with ⁠${\displaystyle \varphi }$⁠ or ⁠${\displaystyle \phi }$⁠ (phi), ⁠${\displaystyle \psi }$⁠ (psi), ⁠${\displaystyle \alpha }$⁠ (alpha), ⁠${\displaystyle a}$⁠, ⁠${\displaystyle b}$⁠, ⁠${\displaystyle A}$⁠, ⁠${\displaystyle B}$⁠, etc., but it would be ridiculous to try to make redirects out of every such title (angle alpha, angle C, etc.). –jacobolus (t) 20:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I know it's not a unit. It's a conventional name for a variable. Given how especially frequently it's used across levels of education I don't agree that's it's no different from any arbitrary symbol. There also would be value in it, as it's plausible a confused student might look it up when they're not yet familiar with the nomenclature and conventions of mathematics. Searching online gives plenty of results aimed exactly at students explicitly referring to "angle theta" (how to "find" it, what it means, etc.).

I think a stronger argument against my own suggestion is that Angle actually doesn't mention "theta" at all, surprisingly (which is also all the more reason for theta angle to not redirect there as well), it only uses the Greek letter, so wouldn't be super helpful to a hypothetical confused student looking this up on Wikipedia. Search around I wasn't able to find a particularly suitable target, so I now agree that it shouldn't be made. – Scyrme (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not the purpose of redirects. We also don't have redirects from the titles t time (time t is something specific, redirected based on the data type time_t), i index or index i, n number or number n, r radius or radius r, etc. Instead, people can find those uses under t (disambiguation), n (disambiguation), i (disambiguation), r (disambiguation), or more generically at Variable (mathematics) § Conventional variable names. –jacobolus (t) 00:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of redirects is to assist readers in finding what they're looking for (if it exists and belongs on Wikipedia to begin with). I don't agree that these are comparable, but it does't matter; I already retracted the suggestion. – Scyrme (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget both to Theta#Mathematics and science, where it's usage as angle variable is noted. Failing that, second best option is delete per WP:XY (ie. do you want to know about theta, or about angles?) BugGhost 🦗👻 22:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The name "theta angle" is a specific jargon term in physics. You can find thousands of papers using this as a jargon term (with such titles as "Instantons, renormalons and the theta angle in integrable sigma models", "Discrete theta angles, symmetries and anomalies", "A Solution to the Strong CP Problem Transforming the Theta Angle to the KM Cp-Violating Phase", "Theta angle versus CP violation in the leptonic sector", "Theta angle in holographic QCD", or "On unconstrained SU(2) gluodynamics with theta angle"), and it's highly plausible that someone learning about physics and encountering this term would look it up at Wikipedia; it's also plausible that authors of physics related Wikipedia articles would use a wikilink to theta angle to point interested readers at background information about it. Deletion would be harmful; the situation is entirely unrelated to WP:XY. The current situation is an inappropriate target that was improperly switched by people who didn't understand the context and made a bad decision. Switching to Theta#Mathematics and science would replace one bad decision by a different approximately equally bad one. –jacobolus (t) 00:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

In it's current state Theta vacuum does not mention "theta angles", it mentions "theta vacuums" and "vaccuum angles". It refers to angles using θ, but so do hundreds of other articles. If the article were to define theta angle then it would be a good target. At the moment though, I think Theta#Mathematics and science is a better tatget, as it explains the usage of theta as an angle in several different topics, which is a far more plausible target than a uncommon term for a very niche topic. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome to add a sentence or two to the article explaining that the specific keyword "theta angle" is often used. Redirecting to Theta#Mathematics and science basically leaves the intended audience who would plausibly search for "theta angle" after encountering it in some physics paper high and dry, while not really helping anyone. –jacobolus (t) 02:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

You are also welcome to add those sentences. I don't know why I would go about doing that, because I am stating here that it is an unhelpful place for the redirect to target, and it seems to be accepted that it is not the common term for this concept. Also - yes, retargetting a redirect will always leave some hypothetical audience "high and dry", but my point is that catering for a hypothetical audience who may or may not be looking for an article that doesn't even mention the term we are discussing is not a good thing to be optimising for. I would bet a large sum that the majority of people who search "theta angle" are trying to read about how/why theta is used to represent angles (how it is used worldwide in most geometry classes) - they aren't looking to read about the semi-classical vacuum state of non-abelian Yang–Mills theories specified by the vacuum angle θ that arises when the state is written as a superposition of an infinite set of topologically distinct vacuum states. I wouldn't object to a hatnote to theta vacuum, but it's not the primary topic. — BugGhost 🦗👻 16:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how deletion is preferable to redirecting to an article that discusses the topic and was located at Theta angle until 2022. We could just add a {{redirect}} hatnote to Theta vacuum if we agree it's plausible that at least some readers would expect something about other scientific or mathematical nomenclature.

Maybe the following hatnote:

"Theta angle" redirects here. For notation representing angles in geometry, see Angle § Notation and measurement. For other uses in science and mathematics, see Theta § Mathematics and science.

That seems like it'd work fine, and cover everything some might plausibly be looking for. – Scyrme (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

. –jacobolus (t) 02:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Target Theta vacuum with hatnote to Theta#Mathematics and science. I think that each meaning will be the desired topic of a good amount of readers, but it's fair that the specific scientific term should be prioritised over a search term ("Theta angle" referring to usage of theta to denote angles is not very coherent). Besides, our information on the former is more developed than the latter. I don't think a hatnote to Angle#Notation and measurement would be helpful given it only mentions theta as a passing list entry. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Theta vacuum with hatnote to Theta#Mathematics and science per jacobolus and J947. Streded (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Theta vacuum with hatnote per Scyrme. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 22:29, 3 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).

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Streets of TorontoStreets of Toronto → Exhibition Place#Race course  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirects to the street circuit in Exhibition Place that is used for racing. I don't believe that this is the appropriate target for this redirect and I think it should be a disambiguation page or redirect to a different target. Previously, many pages that mentioned the Exhibition Place street circuit linked to this redirect, but I bypassed them. Cyrobyte (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that technically those bypasses were done out of process. Keep - "Streets of Toronto" as a proper noun is commonly used in the racing press, community, and vernacular to refer to the street course used for the Molson Indy Toronto (and referring to it by that name probably dates me!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note that Streets in TorontoStreets in Toronto redirects to the disambiguation page Lists of roads in Toronto. Left guide (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lists of roads in Toronto. I've attended the Molson Indy and this phrase is far too generic for the circuit to be the primary topic. pburka (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Bushranger but add a hatnote for Lists of roads in Toronto. There's only one topic with the specific name "Streets of Toronto" and I lean towards rewarding those using this exact term to not need another clickthrough to get to the topic of this exact name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 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).

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Matria → Matria (2023 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Dab with Matria (2014 film), revert move, or simply hatnote? This word also refer to motherland in some languages (see patria/pátria and matriotism/matriarchy). LIrala (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguate There is also Matria Hospital. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:46, 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).

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 Criticism of Israel. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Anti-Israel lobbyAnti-Israel lobby → Anti-Israel lobby in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Criticism of Israel, based on the redirect Anti-Israel. See also Israel lobby, a dab. LIrala (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget Not country-specific. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:47, 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).

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• St Laurenz Basilica, Kempten → St. Lorenz Basilica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn't seem to be referred to specifically as the Saint Laurenz Basilica with that exact spelling, at least according to google. Maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• This was created in 2012. The creator is still active but we haven't hear from him. Pageviews have been dying down. Sure, go with Delete. Jay 💬 20:08, 3 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).

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 💬 19:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:RBT → Wikipedia:Bots  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused, pointless redirect, from an obscure variant of the one that actually makes sense, WP:ROBOT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. No other non-RfD-related links except for WP:Shortcut table/uppercase, and the only other plausible target is Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/rbt.com.ua, which doesn't seem like a plausible target to me. Duckmather (talk) 22:01, 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).

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 💬 19:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:B0ts → Wikipedia:Bots  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Purposefully idiotic spelling of bots. Unused, pointless redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. It's leetspeak, which has affinity due to a trope that it looks like bot-speech. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes it's leetspeak. And it hasn't been used in 17 years of existence. This is not a useful redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  So you have pageview data for the last 17 years and it's showing zero hits all time? If it's not useful to you, then simply ignore it. You're not required to use it. Otherwise, do you know of any harm that the redirect is causing? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Wikipedia:B0ts 30 whole pageviews since July 2015 ^{wow!} 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 02:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Worthless, implausible, clutter (I could go on). Narky Blert (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Because of the font of Wikipedia titles, this title looks nearly identical to the target. Compare Wikipedia:B0ts and Wikipedia:Bots. Could you tell which is which? The existence of this redirect is harmful because anyone can edit the redirect and it would be hard to notice that the title is different. Also, for whatever reason, no matter implausible, any redirect somehow gets some pageviews, and I couldn't explain why; but 30 pageviews in over 10 years isn't considered much, and no pages (that are unrelated to Redirects for Discussion) link to the redirect. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per above. Leetspeak doesn't have an direct affinity to specifically bots on Wikipedia, and link isn't used. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:UNHELPFUL. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:59, 26 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 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) 21:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Joseph Saul Marshall → Somerton Man  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Dennis C. Abrams intended to nominate this for RfD for the following reason: "This redirect points to an article which does not mention anybody named "Marshall." It is unclear why this redirect exists." Rand Freeman (talk to me) 16:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This appears to be the name of a man whose death has similarities to the Somerton Man. I suppose that he may have been mentioned at one point due to the similarities, as he is mentioned on some external websites discussing this case. Without a mention, this redirect should be deleted. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, the section on Marshall was removed in 2022 by Adpete per WP:OR per Talk:Somerton Man/Archive 1 § Deleting "Marshall Case". Delete. Jay 💬 19:25, 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).

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 💬 19:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Saddest city in Austria → Graz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neologism not mentioned in article and seems to be entirely made up by the redirect creator. Epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Kill it with fire. WTAF? Narky Blert (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: This is a non-neutral redirect, so it shouldn't exist unless sources describe Graz as the saddest city in Australia. A quick search found none, and I'm going to assume none exist unless proven otherwise. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd suspect that the Austrian citizens of Graz might be surprised to find their city transplanted to Australia, though whether this would make them sadder is perhaps open to question. Either way, without a decent source, delete. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The editor who created it was permanently blocked for disruptive editing including misuse of AI. Many of their contributions were deleted/speedily deleted. It's plausible their only source for this was some hallucination by Google Gemini, since an external search reveals no results outside Wikipedia. – Scyrme (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per G10. Invented by Otis the Texan (talk · contribs) based on an LLM that overrepresented the significance of the 2025 Graz school shooting. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, non-neutral, and not a valid use of redirects to begin with; only if “Saddest city in Austria” was a nickname for Graz, used on its own in the manner of “Windy City” or “The Big Apple”, would it be an appropriate redirect. Otherwise, if reliable sources claimed Graz was Austria’s Saddest City, that should go in the article and people searching for the saddest city in Austria would therefore find it via the search function. Passengerpigeon (talk) 03:59, 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).

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 💬 19:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Newtown of Austria → Graz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neologism not mentioned in article and seems to be entirely made up by the redirect creator. Epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MADEUP. Narky Blert (talk) 20:36, 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).

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 💬 05:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Totally an adjective, IMO. There are also a sleeveless sweater and a waistcoat. I could convert the page to a dabpage, but that would go against WP:PARTIAL, right? If so, and if there's no other way, then the page should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep but add information on other types of sleeveless tops to sleeveless shirt. Alternatively, information on sleeveless tops can be added to sleeve. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: It could also refer to a song called "Sleeveless" from the album Declaration of Conformity (Wellwater Conspiracy album). This is probably not what someone inputting "sleeveless" would be looking for, though, but it wouldn't be a partial title match. Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Yes, this is an adjective; it could also be any one of a variety of sleeveless dresses which are well out of scope from the shirt article, the idea of a sleaveless errand, the actual adjective itself... GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. It being an adjective isn't really an argument against it. We have a lot of redirects which are {{r from adjective}}. The problem here is that it's not an adjective which is strongly associated with a single topic, making it ambiguous. With ambiguous adjectives, disambiguation is usually not viable since an adjective by itself is rarely the title of a topic or article, and adjectives lend themselves to listing partial title matches rather than an articles which can plausibly share a full title.
  The most relevant articles on Wikipedia would be Sleeveless shirt, Sweater vest ("sleeveless sweater", etc.), and Waistcoat ("sleeveless coat"); these are all PTMs. Sleeveless dress doesn't seem to have an article, but would also be a PTM. The adjective "sleeveless" itself is irrelevant; it's unlikely to ever have an article (WP:NOTDICT). The one actual full title match Wikipedia has is the song, but it's just a single mention with no substantial content about the song; it's just listed as being on the album and nothing more. A title in a track list doesn't warrant a redirect (except maybe if it were a case of {{r with possibilities}}).
  Since disambiguation doesn't seem viable here, it's best to let the search engine handle it. – Scyrme (talk) 05:47, 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).

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 Honorific nicknames in popular music. Jay 💬 05:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Queen of Alternative popQueen of Alternative pop → Melanie Martinez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Judging from searches, it appears this nickname has been applied to at least Lana Del Rey and Billie Eilish. Possibly others as well. Even without knowing the details the current target is clearly untenable. So what should we do here, convert to nickname set index, retarget, or delete? ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This is very subject term and clearly violates WP:PUFFERY. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete Might be valid to redirect to honorific nicknames in popular music if multiple people have the nickname, but the name currently isn't mentioned there, and it appears to be pure WP:PUFFERY. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Honorific nicknames in popular music. The 'honorific' is ambiguous and this is the target for similar redirects such as Queen of Country MusicQueen of Country Music and Princess of PopPrincess of Pop. A Google search confirms this is often applied to Lana Del Rey and Billie Eilish and has been used with other artists including Lorde. Lorde is already listed as the "Queen of Alternative" at Honorific nicknames in popular music and it would be reasonable to add Billie Eilish, since at least one reliable source uses "Queen of Alternative Pop" to describe her. Lana Del Rey, Melanie Martinez, and other artists could be added with appropriate sourcing. Honorific nicknames in popular music includes many instances where the same or very similar titles are used for multiple artists. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Note: The WP:SELCRIT for inclusion at Honorific nicknames in popular music is at least three reliable sources. Lorde apparently meets that for "Queen of Alternative". I've not found enough reliable sources for the other candidates but I still find this ambiguous given that only a few RS use this for Lorde and many wiki-unreliable sources use this moniker for other artists. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget per Myceteae. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 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).

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) thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 20:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Help:Using archive.todayHelp:Using archive.today → Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm starting a discussion about what to do with this help page redirect because it's been changed from a long-standing help guide to a historical page and then to a redirect to 'Wikipedia:archive.today guidance' in less than a week on the 20th of February.

We have five options here:

• Option 1: Restore the long-standing help guide but mark it as historical, and without the links to archive.today or its mirrors or associated TLDs .fo, .is, .li, .md, .ph, and .vn,
• Option 2: Restore the historical page but with most of the information removed from it,
• Option 3: History merge it with Wikipedia:archive.today guidance per WP:ATTREQ, or
• Option 4: Do nothing; leave it as it is. PK2 (talk; contributions) 04:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option 5: Delete. -- PK2 (talk; contributions) 04:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Keep (Option 4). Keeping the redirect ensures that old links still work, but take editors to the current guidance which informs them of why they shouldn't be "using archive.today" on Wikipedia. I don't like the idea of keeping it up while marking it as historical given the reasons it was deprecated. It's better to minimise live links to archive.today if possible. I don't see the point of restoring it with most information removed.

  In the discussions around the RfC which changed the policy on archive.today some editors expressed the view that they thought that the outcome would eventually be reversed, noting that it's happened before. I don't know how likely that actually is, and I'd rather it weren't reversed, but if it does happen it would be good if the guide were retained in some form so it could be restored if needed. (So I'm opposed to deleting, though that hasn't been suggested.) History merging would make the process of restoring it later more complicated than it needs to be. If the policy is reversed later, that could be years from now so editors may not even remember that the guide is buried in old revisions of a differently titled guide. Leaving the relevant revisions at the old title is more straightforward.

  I'm not sure WP:ATTREQ is relevant. Was anything copied over? I thought it was written from scratch? (If it was, {{Copied}} could be added to the Talk page for attribution. A history merge isn't necessarily needed.) – Scyrme (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Option 4: Keep per @Scyrme Dw31415 (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Option 4. Also, I don't think that WP:ATTREQ is required or even acceptable in this situation (AFAIK nothing was copied over, and the history would be confusing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Option 4. This RfC presumes something needs to be done. It doesn't. If a Wikipedia archaeologist wants to examine the progress "from a long-standing help guide to a historical page and then to a redirect" the page's history is there to be used. CapnZapp (talk) 00:10, 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).

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 Vinegar#Rape vinegar. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Rape-vinegarRape-vinegar → Vinegar#Wine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Probably meant grape vinegar but not even mentioned Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep Read Preserved_lemon#History. I don't usually hang around these parts, but couldn't looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Rape-vinegar have prevented this confusion? 03:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Reading the source, it is indeed "rape-vinegar". I understand it as rapeseed vinegar. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 03:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure where I land on what to do (since the article doesn't actually reference rape-vinegar, which as far as I can tell is just an outdated term for wine vinegar?), but firmly on do not keep since there is no section Wine in the article Vinegar so we should at minimum retarget elsewhere in the article (to either the article as a whole or a different section). NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll be real with you, I'm pretty annoyed you didn't acknowledge my comment. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 01:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

My comment didn't seem related to yours? Mine was primarily about the fact that we shouldn't have a redirect pointing to a non-existent section of an article. And I did read the context from where it is linked at Preserved lemon#History, but that doesn't change any of what I was adding NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". Redirects should not be deleted if the connection to the subject is obvious to most people, or if the redirect is correct but not appropriate for inclusion in the article, such as {{R from brand name}}. . The absence of a section ==Wine== may be a reason to hit the [Edit] button, but not a reason to delete a redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Refine to Vinegar#Spirits per NerdyEpiscopalian and Oxford Reference: "Rape vinegar: An antique term for wine vinegar made from the stalks, skins, and pips left over after the grapes have been pressed." I₂Overcome ^talk 01:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Refine to Vinegar#Rape vinegar per below. I₂Overcome ^talk 09:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on refining to Vinegar#Spirits?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 01:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Refine. I've added a mention referencing the Oxford Reference entry. I've also added a visible anchor, so it can be refined to link directly to the relevant part of the section. – Scyrme (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Repoint to Vinegar#Spirits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Refine to the anchor added by Scyrme (Vinegar#rape vinegar) as {{R to anchor}}. With this added info in the section, I think this is sufficient to link there, and I always favor linking most directly to the mention of the topic. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

That makes it seem like rape vinegar is a synonym for wine vinegar, when it in fact is a special kind made with the parts of the grape that (I assume) would normally be discarded. The statement Wine vinegar (or rape vinegar) is made from red or white wine is not accurate. I think this needs a full explanation, or perhaps it should be left unmentioned if it's too cumbersome to include. I₂Overcome ^talk 09:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Changed to Rape vinegar is an obsolete name for wine vinegar made from the pomace of the grapes (the rape). Added source for the definition of rape in this context (which is the pomace). I₂Overcome ^talk 09:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I changed "obsolete" to "historic" as I don't think "antique" (per the reference) necessarily implies that it's no longer used or should not be used, it only implies that it's old/dated. Dated terms sometimes still get used in some contexts. Like it might be appropriate if you're recreating a historic recipe or something. It's not like there's some standards agency which revised some official nomenclature for types of vinegar and deprecated the use of the older term. I don't think we should imply the use of the term is now discouraged by labelling it "oboslete". Besides that, I'm happy the change. Thanks for the added detail/clarification! – Scyrme (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@NerdyEpiscopalian: Scyrme's anchor requires a capital R: Vinegar#Rape vinegar. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@CapnZapp The anchor link was changed to be capitalized with the edits discussed in the thread above after my initial comment. Agreed that we should target the capitalized anchor link NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The Wine section was removed by User:Zefr in a 17:04, 2 March 2018 edit. At that time, the Wine section did not mention vinegar made out of rape-seed. CapnZapp (talk) 08:51, 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).

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 Glossary of 2020s slang#L+Ratio. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• L+RatioL+Ratio → Glossary of 2020s slang#R  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• L + RatioL + Ratio → L#Other uses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

unmentioned in both targets, wiktionary, and twitter usage, but i guess mentioned at jidion, not that any of those would necessarily be good targets consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Link both to Glossary article, most fitting target, with a bit added in either the #R or #L section, under the ratio or L section about its usage. — Knightoftheswords 14:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

i don't think so, honestly. if a proper mention is added, i'm not entirely sure this would be a good place for it, as it's more of a sentence composed of slang than just slang consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Listed the previous RfD that eventually resulted in the retarget to the glossary. The L+Ratio section was removed as duplicate .. since Ratio is already listed, which is the first entry at #R. Keep or create anchor at Ratio and refine. Jay 💬 11:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 07:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 00:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Either delete as there's no substantial content anywhere, or restore the entry using the content from the previous revision. I prefer deletion, since the only reference was dictionary.com; a dictionary entry isn't enough to establish notability and Wikipedia's isn't a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). However, the rationale for the content being deleted was flawed, since it's not a synonym/duplicate of "ratio" and the entry for "Ratio" doesn't mention it being paired with "L" in the expression "L+ratio" ("loss and ratio"). – Scyrme (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I restored the entry. Jay 💬 05:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget both to Glossary of 2020s slang#L (optionally, create an anchor instead) per Jay. Now that the entry's restored, this is unambiguously the correct target. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:52, 3 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).