Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 1

implausible leftover bfg names

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 8#implausible leftover bfg names

List of members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg

Rapid microbiology

• Rapid microbiology → Microbiology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Rapid Microbiology → Microbiology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. This terminology primarily refers to "rapid" methods for detecting, characterizing, or quantifying microbes. It's a real thing that is not described here, nor anywhere else that I can find. We don't have pages or redirects for microbiology methods or microbiological methods. The capitalized version was identified for possible COI/spam concerns in 2009. The pre-BLAR content is a poorly sourced stub that can safely be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 09:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Fictional band

Biology symbols

• Biology symbols → Botany#Symbols  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as vague. There is a near endless list of "symbols", broadly defined, used in biology and its many subfields and in related disciplines such as medicine. Letters and abbreviations are often referred to as "symbols", for example amino acid symbols, blood group symbols, and others. Emojis such as 🧬🦠🧫 and all of the plant, animal, and general science/scientist emojis could be classified as "biology symbols". A web search turns up mosty hits for emoji-like icons and small images that may represent biological structures, organisms, and concepts. Diagrams and simplified representations of biological structures and processes may even be referred to as "symbols". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Good point. I think I was having trouble finding the botany symbols because I was looking at sources which considered them to belong to biology as a whole?

How about making this a disambiguation page or creating List of symbols in biology and redirecting there? I'd be happy to do a draft instead of just leaving my lazy redirect. My main concern is helping readers who have come across a symbol and are trying to figure out what it means, but it's not something they can type in on their keyboard or find with a search engine because they don't know its name or purpose. -- Beland (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not suitable for a dab page since we don't have multiple articles that could each plausibly be titled "Biology symbols". My sense is that "biology symbols" does not have a consistent, coherent meaning although the term is in use. I'm not sure a standalone list would pass WP:NLIST as the collection of symbols may not be notable as a group, although many subcategories (amino acid code, botanical symbols, even emoji) certainly are. We have Glossary of biology and separate glossaries for many fields of biology. Interestingly, this doesn't include common abbreviations like the amino acid code and also does not include Greek letters, which may be considered "symbols" in some contexts. I think it's just too vague to point anywhere but if a list is drafted I would entertain it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

we don't have multiple articles that could each plausibly be titled "Biology symbols [...] "My sense is that "biology symbols" does not have a consistent, coherent meaning although the term is in use.

Smells like WP:SIA spirit. Paradoctor (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete; vague and not very plausible. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:01, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Eli Kowaz

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9#Eli Kowaz

BucureAYti

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

Delete. This was created by Eubot because the redirect BucureÅŸti existed, but that redirect got deleted in 2014 per WP:G1. I believe that redirect was created as a mojibake. Regardless, many mojibake redirects have previously been deleted, and this one is even worse as it is a modification of a mojibake. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete as implausible, although I can confirm that this is indeed a mojibake ("ş" in UTF-8 -> "ÅŸ" in Windows-1252). Duckmather (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Strong delete a Eubot redirect -- should be a speedy delete criterion -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Restore BucureÅŸti as a clearly incorrect speedy deletion. No redirect qualifies for G1. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Undelete BucureÅŸti as an incorrect deletion per J947. Deleter User:RHaworth is no more, so another admin can do it. Jay 💬 08:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After the existence of BucureÅŸti was brought up, it seems that this should be discussed further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Casablanca 🪨^(T) 18:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, G8. The application of G1 to the former was a little questionable, but it would have qualified under R3 at some point anyway. These sorts of potential encoding errors are extremely numerous, and this one isn't special. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm going to need an explanation of how any of those speedy deletion rationales currently apply to either redirect. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  "Need" is a bit strong. But if you insist, the R3 for the original is pretty self-explanatory. And G8 applies to cases like this, where there's an avoided double redirect from a title without diacritics to a redirect with diacritics, when the redirect with diacritics has been deleted, because the former relies on the latter, and the latter has been deleted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  R3 doesn't apply to a redirect created at least 18 years ago. I don't agree with that interpretation of G8 (this redirect doesn't require the existence of that other redirect to function), but regardless it's only relevant if the G1 deletion was correct, which it wasn't. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  "At some point". G8 applies, period, and this should be speedily deleted. If you disagree with the earlier deletion, take it to DRV and waste everyone's time with pointless bureaucracy for something that will be deleted anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  What's your basis for saying no redirect qualifies for G1? At WP:GCSD, the policy states: These apply to every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, drafts, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc. WP:G1 says user pages are ineligible but makes no mention of redirects. Redirects are explicitly excluded from other general criteria or have explicit provisions for use, but not G1. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's quite straightforward. G1 is about pages that consist entirely of content that cannot be understood, not strange titles. A correctly functioning redirect cannot qualify for G1 since its correct function means it's not entirely gibberish. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I left a really poor relist comment. It practically is meaningless in its current rendering. I meant it to say along the lines of "Relisted because discussion of undeleting BucureÅŸti was brought up, this should be discussed further". Apologies on that. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 19:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete BucureAYti. This was a bot-created redirect that no human editor would have made. It serves no useful purpose and should have been deleted at the same time as its "parent" redirect. Do not undelete BucureÅŸti. This mojibake redirect serves no useful purpose and should not be resurrected. Editors disagree as to whether the speedy deletion was appropriate but no positive argument has been made that this redirect should be created. Undeleting it just so we can turn around and discuss it again is a poor use of editor time. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Undelete BucureÅŸti per above with no prejudice against listing. Neutral otherwise. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

ELעלALאל

Tonalities

Sri Lanka at the 2026 Asian Games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9#Sri Lanka at the 2026 Asian Games

UNSW FC (women)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 8#UNSW FC (women)

Nightmare House (Mod)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9#Nightmare House (Mod)

1-888-GO-BELLE

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 8#1-888-GO-BELLE

This castle is in unacceptable condition!

Kalayaan Islands

Slap Battles

• Slap Battles → List of Roblox games#Slap Battles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned; only other mention is in passing at Spilprisen. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Spilprisen#2024 and unlink there; it's hidden in search results so deletion is unhelpful. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Dabify, could also refer to Slapping_(strike)#Slapping contests or Power Slap. Carguychris (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Slapping (strike)#As a combat sport. No need to dabify, powerslap was mention in there. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's reasonable. Carguychris (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Slap battles could potentially lead there. Slap Battles should not. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:46, 22 April 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 💬 10:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Referenced

• Template:Referenced → Template:More citations needed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:References → Template:Unreferenced  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These should point to the same target link. Template:Sources is currently a redirect to Template:More citations needed, so having Template:References point there would make sense; however, Template:References does have a more significant transclusion count that the first redirect, meaning that the target links could also point there. With that being said, I'm open to other suggestions. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 05:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• This is a rather a dumb question, but would Template:References still need the template (considering the high number of transclusions)? I've never nominated a redirect this large before. If so, may an administrator or a template editor add the relevant template to the second redirect? I can't edit the redirect normally since I'm not part of one of those user groups. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 05:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. With better forward thinking from the start, these redirects might be synced, but what's done is done. Retargeting a template redirect transcluded very nearly 1,000 times is not a realistic solution. Requiring 1,000 AWB replacements and messing up the workflow of the many editors who inserted some of those 1,000 transclusions outweighs the positives. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete {{References}} looks like it should point to {{reflist}} and not {{unreferenced}} ; {{referenced}} also looks like it should point to {{refstyle}} instead of more citations needed -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per J947. The disruption caused by changes at this point strongly outweighs the benefits of retargetting, and I'm not convinced that deletion would bring any benefits at all. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Moral delete. These are unacceptably confusing, and shouldn't really continue to be available. I'm unconvinced that there would be any meaningful disruption from this if there's the will to actually do it. That said, what we do here is probably just determine if this is otherwise okay to do. The actual task of changing existing transclusions would likely have to be done at WP:BOTREQ. So at that point, it's just a matter of whether or not someone is actually willing to do the work for this. And if so, then it should be done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Who is it confusing for? J947 ‡ ^edits 23:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  New editors who might reasonably expect "references" to be synonymous with "list of references" not "needs references" due an idiosyncratic abbreviation adopted by some editors in early 2006 before {{reflist}} existed. On the face of it "references" means the opposite of "no references", so using it to tag the latter is a very confusing choice. Why would editors expect {{no references}} and {{references}} to share a function when their names are antonyms of one another? – Scyrme (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  If the editor takes that natural view you expect, wouldn't they expect {{referenced}} to be a similar-but-opposite template to {{unreferenced}}, i.e. {{more citations needed}}? J947 ‡ ^edits 03:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Bypass/correct all transclusions, delete Template:Referenced as unclear/ambiguous, retarget Template:References to Template:Reflist as a rather plausible alternative name and search term as the HTML tag <references/> provides similar results. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agree {{References}} should match the HTML tag and the usual section title where it's used for consistency and I'm surprised it doesn't do so already. – Scyrme (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

BgirL5

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9#BgirL5

Despite everything, it's still you.

The Beginning (2007 film)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9#The Beginning (2007 film)

San Simone

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9#San Simone

Spanish Chamber of Commerce

Latina Spanish

New greens

T:AD

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9#T:AD

When a man argues...

• When a man argues → When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• When a man argues... → When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These are correctly tagged as redirects from short names, but I think these are too short for the target to be the primary topic. Search results were mainly about men arguing with women in relationships, not the quote. Unless a better target is found, I think these should be deleted. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as article (but not redirect) creator. It's a bit of a strange situation because like, generally a quote doesn't have a canonical name, right? But because notable quotes tend to be short, or have a short portion that they're easily identified by, the convention for articles on quotes has become to just use the quote (or that identifiable portion) as the title. I'm not sure this is even written down anywhere, but I followed precedents like "We begin bombing in five minutes" and "Russian warship, go fuck yourself". In such a case, any distinctive portion of the quote is (presumptively) a valid redirect, which is why I created a few shorter-title redirects like "When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like thisWhen a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this" and longer-title ones like "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court. It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word.Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court. It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word." In this case, as the nominator gets at, the question is whether these shortenings are distinctive. On the one hand, this is the only article that begins this way, and in the Google results for the phrase, it's the only topic I see that is the sort of thing that would have a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, it's a common enough phrase, and the average person using this phrase probably isn't thinking of this joke. If the shortening were widely used as a way to describe this joke, that would be different, but it doesn't appear to be, so I think it's better to delete, knowing that in most cases search autocomplete will still take people to the right place if that is what they're looking for. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tamzin's research, namely: this is the only article that begins this way, and in the Google results for the phrase, it's the only topic I see that is the sort of thing that would have a Wikipedia article. What else would someone be looking for that has a Wikipedia article? For example, this seems too narrow if someone is looking for the Argument article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Tamzin. These are simply too short and non-distinctive to specify this or any other target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep both reluctantly. Wikipedia ≠ Google; Google ≠ Wikipedia. Sure, Google results produce different results of "when a man argues", but... I'm less convinced that viewers users would exactly type "when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this". Furthermore, I'm more worried about over-reliance on drop down results in lieu of especially logic, IMO. Moreover, there have been no other notable topics suitable as targets so far, so... I guess the quote is the safest so far. The listed pages might or might not meet WP:RASTONISH, but I'd rather surprise non-Wikipedians who rely a lot on Google. Furthermore, I appreciate Tazmin's research on this, but what about other registered users who decided to disable drop-down search suggestions? George Ho (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC); corrected, 19:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Tamzin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tavix and George Ho. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. When a man argues about anything else, it's not likely to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We don't typically divide articles by sex, e.g. one article for arguments by men and another for arguments by women. Although this redirect is just four words long, it's enough to be specifically related to its target. What matters is ambiguity (or the lack thereof), not length. "Himno Nacional de la República" is five words, and thus longer than this, but you wouldn't want to create it as a redirect to National anthem of Costa Rica [the song's full title is Himno Nacional de la República de Costa Rica] because that would conflict with National anthem of the Dominican Republic [full title Himno Nacional de la República Dominicana] and probably various other Spanish-language national anthems. Nyttend (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Tavix. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tavix's and Nyttend's reasonings; a solid argument against this redirect's existence can only be made if there were any other possible candidates for retargeting, which there simply aren't any. Four words is pretty distinct enough in my opinion that readers typing them would be looking for the current target 99% of the time. If the redirect was just When a man or When a man..., that's what I'd consider truly "too short and non-dinstinctive." 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 15:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. A reader might not want to type out the whole quote or they may have forgotten it. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Otepopo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9#Otepopo

Trump's War

• Trump's War → 2026 Iran war  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too ambiguous. This redirect started in 2017, and was only retargeted to the current Iran war almost a month after it started. And let's be real, not many people call this current war "Trump's War" in particular, except for Trump haters. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 21:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Just revert to the redirect to Bibliography of Donald Trump (book title). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Another Believer, per guidance at the top of WP:RFD, Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers. I've reverted your edit to the redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

My bad! No problem, I thought I was helping by going back to a less contentious version of the page. I don't really care what happens here but I think a redirect for the book title makes sense. (shrug) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae: Meant to ping you and also I've added a comment below if the context's helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

As you said @SeaHaircutSoilReplace no one is talking about the Iran war as that. We appear to have enough consensous so I will wait 30 minutes then I will retarget at ~7:30 ET Avishai11 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

And yet, are calling it that. ChuckEye (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@ChuckEye And yet, the link you put redirects a 404 error. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 18:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@SeaHaircutSoilReplace Here's the fixed link. Warudo (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@ChuckEye @Warudo That source still does not appear to be neutral. It's clearly some critic of Trump. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 00:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear I never commented on the quality of the source, I only fixed the link. I'm not familiar with this website. Also your ping to me didn't work. Adding a username to a comment after the fact does not ping. Warudo (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

"ItS jUsT tDs" - That's not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to decide which sources you like based on your perception of if the author is on 'your side' or not. We have to be neutral, the sources don't have to be, per WP:NPOV.--v/r - TP 16:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete. Considering WP:LEAST, a user clicking on a link to 'Trump's War' would probably expect to find an article about a war with that colloquial name - not a list of books about Trump (even if a book with that title is in that list). But, per nom, this term isn't currently widely used to refer to any particular wars, so I think a redlink would cause the least confusion for everyone. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

There aren't any redlink issues if this redirect gets deleted. There are 0 links to this redirect. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 23:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per HotMess's rationale Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC) Retarget to Michael Savage#Trump's War: His Battle For America with {{R from short name}}{{R from avoided double redirect}}, now that I've learned that this is actually the title of a book, which is probably PTOPIC when capitalized as a proper noun (Trump's war would go to a list of wars under Trump administrations, I think). Delete is also a fine option, to avoid WP:Astonish and also because there are no inbound links to this anyway.

Keep I don't see any problems with this at all. Let it be changed, it isn’t creating any issue. Ahammed Saad (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. "Let it be changed" BUT "keep" at the same time? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 12:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as vague per HotMess/WP:ASTONISH. This is a plausible non-neutral name for any number of conflicts Trump has been involved in. There is no primary topic—the non-notable book certainly is not it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Long-term pageviews show a spike in traffic in January 2020 following the assassination of Qasem Soleimani and in March 2026 following the outbreak of the 2026 Iran war. Otherwise traffic is stable at ≤5 views/month since the redirect's creation in June 2017. This is most consistent with readers associating the term with the latest hostility (especially against Iran) although possibly this is an artifact of links being inserted in articles and then subsequently removed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a comment that I had also created Trump's War: His Battle for America as a redirect to Bibliography of Donald Trump in 2017. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  The book's full title has a clear primary topic, unlike "Trump's War". Comparing long-term pageviews shows that these two redirect sometimes trend together but not consistently, and Trump's War: His Battle for AmericaTrump's War: His Battle for America does not see the same large spikes related to current events, nor has it been retargeted, unsurprisingly. (Off-topic but Michael Savage strikes me as a better target for Trump's War: His Battle for AmericaTrump's War: His Battle for America. That's beyond the scope here and could be retargeted per editorial discretion or nominated separately if there's disagreement. I don't feel strongly enough to take action one way or the other.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I understand. Feel free to redirect the page to the author. Makes no difference to me! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've taken the initiative on this, since it makes sense to me and isn't currently under dispute. Dingolover6969 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of wars involving the United States in the 21st century where there's a column noting the presidents involved in each war. I think this would be the least surprising target given the search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Michael Savage#Trump's War: His Battle For America per WP:DIFFCAPS but create Trump's war to target List of wars involving the United States in the 21st century per Tavix. I weakly prefer this to retargetting this redirect to Tavix's target. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguate: I think a disambiguation page or set-index article makes sense here as there are several pages this could refer to, namely the book and the wars that the US has been involved in during Trump's presidency. ScienceD90 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Clear violation of WP:RNEUTRAL. There is no WP:COMMONNAME I can currently think would be appropriate, the instability has also highlighted that this redirect is useless. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

List of Pokémon voice actors

• List of Pokémon voice actors → Pokémon (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

vague between a list of voice actors for the pokémon themselves (which doesn't exist here) and a list of voice actors for characters in pokémon (which doesn't exist be here and would itself be vague)

i would recommend seeing its afd, but it's a little on the sloppy side, and irrelevant now that the target it was redirected to there is no longer an article. there's also nothing worth preserving there, as it was cruft with barely any sources, and the few it had being unreliable consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• A merge happened (link), so attribution should be retained in some form in case that content is restored. I see a list of characters and their voice actors at the target. That suggests keeping as is. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per J947. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

looking at the nitty gritty of the merge and the pre-blar content, this might warrant a timeline

• 1:44 pm, 6 august 2008: i guess an afd for the list of voice actors happened before and was closed as delete, but i found nothing on what it was like then or who created it
• 9:21 pm, 30 april 2009: megahl90 (re)creates the list of voice actors
• 9:40 pm, 30 april 2009: in that process, megahl90 removes the listed voice actors from the list of anime characters for some reason
• 10:41 pm, 4 may 2009: dinoguy1000 nominates the list of voice actors for deletion
• 10:49 pm, 10 may 2009: megahl90 merges the list, despite consensus in the then ongoing afd that that wouldn't change things much, and removes the afd template in the process (hate when people do that). they also clean it up a little and reformat it into tables
• 11:03 am, 11 may 2009: thefarix reverts the merge, cleanup, reformat, and some stuff between them, and advises against reformatting it into tables for some reason
• 11:28 pm, 11 may 2009: the afd for the list of voice actors closes as redirect, despite rough consensus to delete (6 out of 10 votes) and with consensus that merging is le bad because wikipedia is just like that sometimes
• 00:20 am, 14 may 2009: megahl90 merges the list again lmao. i haven't found an instance of either of them actually discussing the merge, but doesn't reformat it into tables this time (bummer). the "discussion" that happened around it boiled down to complaints in the afd that megahl90 wasn't discussing their sweeping changes
• ??:?? ?m, 15 may 2009: bud tingwell gets all dead and stuff, and nothing of note for this case happens for at least two weeks (maybe more)
• 6:26 pm, 3 july 2025: that drooling moron consarn nominates the list of anime characters for deletion
• 7:34 pm, 10 july 2025: the afd for the list of anime characters closes as redirect

now, this has some... odd quirks on the level of rby counter's wording on bulbapedia, that i think mean no content needs to or should be preserved. namely...

• the content seems to have been added back. it was deliberately taken away to provide validation to the extremely crufty list
• this means that it's very likely that no merge ever actually occurred in the first place, despite megahl90 saying it was a merge
• both not merges were undiscussed, and one was actively done against consensus
• the sources on both lists at the time were either unreliable, user-generated, primary, unusable, or "trust me bro". this probably doesn't mean much in the context of attribution, but would almost definitely have had no valid rationale for keeping in afd today

i initially just wanted to leave this here to spare me from the confusion when i inevitably read this again in the future, but by now, it just left me with relative certainty that, on top of my initial rationale of this title being vague, the pre-blar content is even more not worth preserving than usual

anyway can we do this with touhou too, i want someone to go back to the early 2000s to introduce ludicrous amounts of crufty jank that will take literal decades to make heads or tails of consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

incidentally, may an admin provide a starving young lady (or me) with a report on whether the content that was deleted in the 2008 afd had anything of note to it, and if it's even still accessible? i'm willing to bet it was mostly gen 4 fancruft because it was the current one at the time and i hope y'all know how unbearably horny gen 4 anime fans are, but curiosity killed the glameow and a max revive brought it back or whatever consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the deleted version had 284 edits and the final revision had 14,509 bytes. I'll restore the history so you can go through it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

there was no need to do that, just check if there was anything of note~

but you's gone an' done it anyway, so thanks. on somewhat closer inspection, it does seem to have been partially recreated, just formatted differently and with languages that aren't english or japanese removed, and megahl90 definitely knew that since they worked on a lot of it (including reformatting some of it into tables, which i'll assume now counts as a running gag), so it could probably have been speediable as a recreation then, even if an incomplete one

i'm not actually entirely sure if any of this would be "of note" to this discussion, though, so maybe the glameow stayed fainted this time. if it is, that means the list was recreated against (admittedly flimsy) consensus and not improved in the slightest in that time, which is pretty unpog... or whatever the kids say consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

wait, no, this is of note to this, since it effectively confirms that no merge occurred, as the list of anime characters already had vas listed at the time of the first afd's closure (diff), meaning i might have been right for the wrong reasons, and wouldn't have needed to bother with the previously deleted history consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Tavix admittedly, this one is just for curiosity's sake since it'll serve no purpose, but is the first creation's log still accessible on your end? i'm pretty sure that one's actually gone lol consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I restored everything, which as far as I can tell includes the first creation. There are no other deleted revisions in this title's history. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Untitled Grand Theft Auto game

• Untitled Grand Theft Auto game → Grand Theft Auto VI  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Relisted redirect from an old placeholder title. Although the topic now has a settled official title at Grand Theft Auto VI, I am nominating to ask whether this former “Untitled …” move-created redirect still has sufficient navigational value to justify retention. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Not a draft redirect this time... Skyshiftertalk 13:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

    Good point, the correct reason to keep this redirect is WP:UFILM per Myceteae's reasoning below - lots of page views and apparently unambiguous, so clearly a useful redirect that isn't causing anywhere close to enough harm to outweigh that. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Not untitled anymore, could refer to other GTA games in the future (but none at this time). Potentially confusing redirect. Skyshiftertalk 13:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: It has been a little over two years since the game was titled, so most readers will naturally be searching for the more specific title and applicable redirects, rather than this admittedly ambiguous search term that could eventually apply to a future title. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Ugh. WP:UFILM, which has been applied to non-film media, agrees that a redirect like this is inaccurate and misleading but says not to delete them until they are no longer of use and pageviews have tapered off. Editors have debated the interpretation of this guidance and whether reliance on pageviews is even the correct approach, both here and at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#RfC: Proposed updates to WP:UFILM regarding pageviews. The RfC went stale and was inconclusive. This redirect averages 94 views/month and shows no sustained downward trend. If there's no other game this could possibly refer to, pageviews argues for keeping this but monitoring traffic as well as future developments that may cause ambiguity. These upcoming/untitled redirects are a burden to maintain, especially for popular franchises that generate constant chatter about rumored future releases. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Skyshifter and Trailblazer101. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, clearcut WP:UFILM case. I'm not a massive fan of UFILM, but the pageviews keep on chugging so there's no room to manoeuvre around it. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:27, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Far more likely to refer to some kind of unnumbered spinoff, like Vice City or San Andreas. Even in development, Grand Theft Auto VI has been the title for more than a decade. --BDD (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sight on Sound

Oru Kadhiyin Diary

• Oru Kadhiyin Diary → Oru Kaidhiyin Diary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo. No incoming links from the mainspace anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, there's some attestation of it which makes me think that it may actually be an alternative transliteration (eg: ). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  Except for Baradwaj Rangan's WordPress, none of the sources are acceptable. This appears like a case of WP:MIRROR from 2007. In fact, the wordpress too isn't acceptable in this case since it's a user comment. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm showing that the spelling is attested by other people, this isn't a notability test. The only thing required to show attestation is that it's a spelling used by a person (and not a bot/program). User comments are actaully one of the best ways to demonstrate this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  This isn't Wiktionary, and we're not obliged to make (or keep) redirects just because someone made a typo once and it got copied around a handful of times. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Wiktionary has typo redirects? -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• From Tavix's references, this does look like a slip of the finger typo, and not a misspelling (or alternative transliteration). It's not clear why the creator created this as an article at an incorrect title, just 3 minutes after creating the properly titled article with the same content. Delete, and correct the wrong of a newbie editor from 2007. Jay 💬 19:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Jay, a hyperspecific typo. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

UK house

• UK house → House of Commons of the United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Uk house → House of Commons of the United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• UK House → House music#UK: Acid house, rave culture and the Second Summer of Love  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I expected this term to refer to houses in general in the UK as they are much smaller than North American ones, and that the UK has a housing crisis despite building over 200k every year. Therefore, I think this (and the Uk house, which I will include shortly as Twinkle doesn't offer the option to do multi-noms) redirect should be deleted. JuniperChill (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. They are really vague. And 'UK House' is not shorthand for the House of Commons. Katiedevi (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have never seen the term "UK House" used to refer to the House of Commons, nor can I find an example in any verifiable source. SamWilson989 (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete most Google results don't appear to be the for the House of Commons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why are Google results compared to how they are searched within Wikipedia? George Ho (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Google search is one way to look for sources that confirm two terms are use synonymously. If a Google search for UK house returns a bunch of websites using "UK house" to mean "House of Commons of the United Kingdom", then that indicates it's a good redirect. Lack of sources using the term this way is consistent with the conclusion that these redirects make no sense. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per above. I expected this to be a subgenre of House music (c.f. UK garage) but google results suggest it is not a specific thing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Worth noting that the topic @JuniperChill was expecting is at Housing in the United Kingdom, but I don't think this is a good search term for that article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  UK House is a redirect to House music#UK: Acid house, rave culture and the Second Summer of Love. I'll bundle it here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete all. I have added UK House to the listing. I agree with the nom and the other contributors here—these are incredibly vague. "UK house" most often occurs in a sentence such as "UK house prices fall…" but it is not the name of any encyclopedic topic. There are also several entities named "UK House". Logically, the capitalized version would more likely refer to the House of Commons, but it's not actually used as a common shorthand. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  Pinging the nom @JuniperChill and other !voters to notify them that I've bundled a third variation. @Crouch, Swale @Katiedevi @SamWilson989 @Thryduulf —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't know about 'UK House' as that was a redirect to a completely different location. I support deleting that one as well. JuniperChill (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I also support deleting UK House. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: United Kingdom House exists and refers to a specific building instead of a type of music (the original target of UK house was House music), housing in the United Kingdom in general, or the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  This is a very good find. It looks as if "UK House", is a genuine and common shortening of United Kingdom House ( ), which fuels suggestions that disambiguation is possible. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• The upper case is more likely to be a proper noun like the House of Commons per WP:DIFFCAPS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  More likely, I agree, but not demonstrated to actually be in use that way, and ambiguous with United Kingdom House, and to some extent the House of Lords, and other topics. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate, so users can chose properly between Housing in the United Kingdom, House of Commons of the United Kingdom (or House of Lords of the United Kingdom, this might need a courtesy link to Parliament of the United Kingdom as the user might not be familiar with the distinction between the two), United Kingdom House, House music#UK: Acid house, rave culture and the Second Summer of Love, as well as House of Windsor (as the Royal House of the UK, with possibly a courtesy link to Lists of monarchs in the British Isles in case they are not looking for the current royal house). Shazback (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: any more comments on United Kingdom House or the DAB proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguate per Shazback, though I'd only link House of Commons and House of Lords in the "see also" section as I tend to agree with the arguments that they're not a very plausible target for "UK House", and are closer to partial title matches. If not disambiguated, I would prefer redirecting to United Kingdom House as {{R from abbreviation}} to delation. – Scyrme (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with disambiguating only if we link those two in see also. Otherwise delete. SamWilson989 (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Retarget UK House to United Kingdom House. Delete the others. Katiedevi (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Katiedevi: Why delete rather than disambiguate? This is a discussion, not a vote, so your reasoning would be appreciated. (WP:NOTVOTE) – Scyrme (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Usually I am for keeping redirects because they're cheap but here I think all the other options are quite a stretch to warrant a disambiguation. As I have mentioned before, 'UK House' is not shorthand for the House of Commons, or the House of Lords, or any UK government body for that matter. 'UK House' is also not a shorthand for the monarchy, and if someone was looking for the monarchy I would presume they (eventually) would use the word 'Royal' in their search, in which case this redirect would be not be needed. As for House music, I would presume the word 'music' would be used in their search too. Wikipedia:D2D suggests disambiguating when there are multiple pages that a word is expected to lead to, I am just not convinced that the phrase 'UK House' is expected to lead to all of this pages.

  If we're pushing it, I see a case being made for the House (music) page, in which case I think I'd just prefer a hatnote on the United Kingdom House page for that section on the House (music) page. Katiedevi (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:REDIRECTPURPOSE. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC) — PoliticalPoint (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts (talk · contribs). consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  @PoliticalPoint: Which part? How does this address any of the multiple issues raised in this discussion, such as the targets not matching, plausible ambiguity with other topics, or even just the fact that the House of Commons isn't ever just referred to as the "UK house"? – Scyrme (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Please stop spamming RfDs with Keep per WP:REDIRECTPURPOSE without any attempt to engage with the discussion. It's vague and makes consensus less clear as a result, making it completely counterproductive. – Scyrme (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, dab, or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak retarget UK House to United Kingdom House, delete the rest per nom. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I thought only the US House is a WP:COMMONNAME but not UK House. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M: Why not retarget to United Kingdom House or disambiguate between that, house music in the UK, and the royal house of the UK? – Scyrme (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

That would be appropriate considering that "UK" is a common initialism for "United Kingdom" and that would make searching for that building far easier. I did not mention that because I don't know if there is a common name for that building. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Searching online, there are many examples of United Kingdom House being abbreviated in this way. eg. , – Scyrme (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M: For clarity, now that I've demonstrated that the building is abbreviated in this way, would you support retargeting rather than deletion? (Or do you still prefer deletion? If so, why?) – Scyrme (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think retargeting the redirect to the building is a sensible option pondering that it is a common initialism for United Kingdom. Thank you for bringing this information to my attention. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate "UK House" to United Kingdom House, British House of Commons and British house music; and repoint the other two to that new dab page -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Seoul.

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

WP:UNNATURAL, unnecessary dot A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. UNNATURAL is based on the idea that redirects ending in a full stop are very unlikely search terms, so their maintenance burden outweighs their helpfulness. Given the popularity of its target, this redirect receives 50 views a year, which is perfectly normal for a redirect. So this one should be kept. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:UNNATURAL. J947's reasoning is incorrect. We have over 7 million articles, every one of which could have a redirect like this (a lot more when you consider that redirects could themselves have the period-augmented version). 50 views of the redirect in a year for an article this popular is background noise. Any article with high view counts is going to see sporadic usage of redirects to it, simply by them existing, and those 50 could easily have come from editors and not readers. If I search for "toronto.", surprise surprise, the very first hit from the search results is Toronto, taking me where I likely wanted to go from such a search. Keeping millions of such redirects really is a maintenance burden, especially when it's just not needed.
  This was a WP:BLAR from way the hell back in 2003 that lasted for all of 3 whole minutes from someone trying to "set the record straight". It was never even intended as a useful redirect, but just as a shortcut to deleting an obviously bad article. Now that we're here, let's just get this over with and do what should have been done 23 years ago. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  Any article with high view counts is going to see sporadic usage of redirects to it, simply by them existing: yes, that's precisely why {{R from modification}}s that would be a burden to most articles are helpful to high-viewed ones. I think you know that. The logical conclusion of the unlikely idea that the viewers are editors is that 50 editors have viewed this redirect in the last 23 years but only the 1150th one decides to send it to RfD. That's more than a touch unlikely (or demonstrative that the vast majority of editors think this redirect helpful). J947 ‡ ^edits 02:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  Copy-edited 21:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC).

• Delete no useful history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Regardless of whether you think people should be using this search time, the evidence is that a significant number of people do. There is no justification for making it harder for people to find the content they are looking for when, like here, doing so will result is absolutely zero benefit to the project. I also agree with J947. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I wouldn't go around creating Animal. or Canada., but this redirect in particular is getting used, and is unambiguously going to the right target. (Maybe not, per Mathguy2718.) That makes it useful, if only to ~50 people a year (and I really doubt that those are all just editors going through "What links here"). It would be harmful to delete this, and I don't see any benefit that outweighs that harm. WP:UNNATURAL is part of Wikipedia:Redirects are costly. I'd like to remind editors that sending redirects to RFD is costly, too. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC) (Edited at 17:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC))

  But if you made "Animal." or "Canada.", those would surely get comparable view counts. You say it's useful, but that's highly questionable, since as I noted, the search engine will already point users to the correct article if they accidentally append a period. Moreover, having redirects like this makes it harder to spot link errors, where the period is accidentally enclosed in the link, since it shows up blue instead of red. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  those would surely get comparable view counts – Maybe they should be made, then (I'm not trying to be pointy). I think we should be more lenient for redirects with mistakes in them if the target is popular; they're going to be searched for more often, so readers are going to make more mistakes while typing the title.
  the search engine will already point users to the correct article if they accidentally append a period – But you have to make another click to reach it. This redirect is useful by saving readers the effort. Also, we can't guarantee that they reached this through our search engine. They could be using methods that don't correct for this kind of thing. The page views indicate that it's being used for some reason or another.
  having redirects like this makes it harder to spot link errors – Okay, that's a benefit to deleting it that I didn't think of when I made my !vote. You could make that argument for even the most plausible typos, though. This doesn't have any mainspace links, so I don't think this is a problem for this particular redirect. Chess enjoyer (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Forcing the user to make an extra click for an obvious error is not a great burden, especially when it's such a rare error. As a user, I'd expect errors like this to not work, and I'd be glad that the search results gave me the result I wanted as the top suggestion instead. And I don't think just keeping these for popular articles flies, either. What's the cutoff? In the aggregate, having such redirects for 100 articles that only get 1% of the page views would still be "helping" the same number of users. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Maintaining one redirect is ~100 times simpler than maintaining 100. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Harmless at worst, helpful at best by saving the user an extra click. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Deacon Vorbis. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per Deacon Vorbis. Note that this redirect in particular was created for the purpose of bypassing the main article and was written in an anti-encyclopedic way. It does not help with searching, but it provides a page that anyone could misuse like it was in 2003. It would almost certainly be deleted if restored and sent to AfD in accordance with many parts of WP:NOT.
  Deletion would be beneficial in that there does not exist a song, film, etc. that is stylized as "Seoul." or something similar. It would also result in the redirect seoul.co.kr to Seoul Shinmun becoming the first item shown when typing "Seoul.", which looks like the one plausible way someone would need to add a period after "Seoul". Someone who adds a period to this search is most likely not looking for the city. Periods do not have affinity to cities, and there is no evidence that the city has been stylized with a period at the end. On the other hand, keeping an unnatural redirect is confusing for readers because they will see "(redirected from Seoul.)" and then see "↳ Seoul". This does not clarify why the redirect exists, and without an explanation, readers may incorrectly assume that city names are sometimes known with a period at the end.
  Also, the idea that the usefulness of a redirect is based on view count does not make sense; whether this redirect gets thousands of views per year or only a few doesn't affect the fact that the redirect has a period at the end, which is not something that happens on accident. Saving clicks is of insignificant use; implying that a period at the end is a valid modification (when it really isn't) may have a more significant impact on readers on top of editor maintenance. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  A lot of my keep !vote was based on the idea that Seoul is the only article a reader searching this could be looking for. Now that you've found another, I'm not so sure. I don't know if it means anything, but Seoul. got slightly more pageviews than seoul.co.kr over a one year period. I will say that a reader could end up searching this if they copy-pasted "Seoul." from the end of a sentence in a search bar and missed that they left the period in. I'm basically treating this as a typo redirect, and your argument about confusing readers who got redirected could apply to all typo redirects (ex. are readers who got redirected from Soeul likely to think that's a valid way to spell it? I don't think so). Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• delete as usual. regardless of the pre-blar content being poop from a butt and speediable if it was still up, there's plenty of precedent to delete redirects with unnecessary punctuation and just let search results do their thing. also per above, it could slightly confuse the few readers that don't realize their mistake but also see that they got redirected, but i wouldn't put too many baskets in that egg, since that's probably like 5 people consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I do agree with you and Mathguy2718 that the pre-BLAR content is not worth restoring. Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:REDIRECTPURPOSE. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC) — PoliticalPoint (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts (talk · contribs). consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per above delete rationales. WP:UNNATURAL literally lists this type of redirect as an example ("e.g. ... having a period at the end"). I disagree with a lot of the keep rationales. This redirect is, as previously stated, unnatural, and "saving readers from clicking one more time" is real silly reasoning to me! It's just not a useful redirect for the purposes of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (also with the ambiguity of terms, I believe?). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. This simple misspelling is not harmful, in fact it can help people find the main article more easily if they misspell the word. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. Lots of precedence exists for deleting such redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

St.Eustatius

• St.Eustatius → Sint Eustatius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Edmund → Edmund the Martyr  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Eric → Saint Erik  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Eunan's GAA → St Eunan's GAA  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Eric dynasty → House of Erik  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Elias → Saint Elias  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Edward Parish (Chicago) → St. Edward's Parish (Chicago)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Neots → St Neots  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Niklaus → St. Niklaus, Switzerland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Dunstan → Dunstan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Croix → Saint Croix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Bede's prep school → Bede's School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Bees School → St Bees School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Brais → Saint-Brais  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Blaise, Neuchatel → Saint-Blaise, Switzerland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Bridget of Sweden → Bridget of Sweden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Boniface → Saint Boniface  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.bernadette → Bernadette Soubirous  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St.Patrick → Saint Patrick  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typo (missing space) 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 22:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Bis-Serjetà? psst, don't tell this to anyone, but you can nom multiple redirects at once with massxfd consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 22:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Consarn, thanks. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 22:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and bundled all the nominations consisting of the same rationale. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. There are lots of redirects of this form, created by lots of different people, since missing the space isn't a typo. It's an alternative spelling. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep all the St.<name> redirects. Either they are alternative spellings per J947 or highly plausible typos/misspellings given the number of them that have been created by different people, apparently independently. At least one of them dates to 2004 and none of them show any evidence of causing any problems in that time. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep the redirects that consist solely of a missing space following "St/St./Ste/Sint/Santa/Saint". Delete the ones that include a second typo, such as a misspelling, rare variant spelling, or uncapitalized name, in addition to the missing space, since these are unlikely search targets. Certain errors and variants are commonplace and redirects from them useful; combining them makes them extremely unlikely to be useful. P Aculeius (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that there are so many of these created at different times by different people is a pretty good indicator that this is in fact not an unlikely typo. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 19; and Delete 3, 5, 7, 12, 15, and 18. This is per P Aculeius, I've just actually specified which is which (hopefully). Bit of an issue with large bundles, they should really be numbered lists and not regular bullet points. Tessaract2 (hello) 02:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:REDIRECTPURPOSE. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC) — PoliticalPoint (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts (talk · contribs). consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete ALL per Nom. Typo. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  We keep unambiguous, plausible typos (see {{R from typo}}) so being a typo is not, in and of itself, a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete at least "St.bernadette", two typos in one redirect: apart from the missing space it is Bernadette, not bernadette.--Medusahead (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete all as unnatural or delete some based on Tessaract2 and P Aculeius's rationale. This is more of a kinder misspelling, but still uncommon enough for me to wish death deletion for some. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The only problem is that they aren't uncommon. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Just picking one at random, which got ~11 views in the past year. Is that common to you, or is there another way to measure that? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

11 views in a year for a typo redirect is actually quite common (some unambiguously good redirects get half that), but there are other ways to determine this as well. One piece of evidence already mentioned multiple times is that multiple redirects of this form have been created independently by multiple users (and very few people who make typos create redirects for them). Another is to look for prevalence in sources, unfortunately this is very tricky for this sort of redirect because Google treats e.g. "St.Dunstan", "St. Dunstan", "St Dunstan" and "Saint Dunstan" as identical, with "verbatim" mode only excluding the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The Needler

Centrorhynchus species

BD9

• BD9 → BD postcode area  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Bd9 → Blu-ray  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Bd-9 → Blu-ray#BD9 and BD5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I believe these should have the same target. I believe this isn't WP:DIFFCAPS since in both places, the capital version is used. Even if having different targets is justified, there are currently no hatnotes to help with navigation between related titles. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget all to Blu-ray#BD9 and BD5, with option to add hatnote there pointing to the postcode area. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 07:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Synchronise, mark two of them as avoided double redirects of the other and add hatnotes between the targets per above. I have no preference regarding which target is best nor which redirect should be chosen as primary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Blu-ray#BD9 and BD5 with hatnote, the more likely topic IMO that we have more information on. Incidentally, "Bd-9" appears to only refer to the disc type, not the postcode. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Global Christian Relief

• Global Christian Relief → Open Doors  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, and a search of ""global christian relief" site:opendoors.org" gave no results, they seem to be two different organizations. KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment @KyleSirTalksAlot Hey, just to let you know, you are posting duplicate redirects for discussion. 3 times for both the bureau redirect and this one. BlaqWiedow (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why! Thanks, I'll delete the others now KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - no info about this organisation at the target or anywhere else. Jay 💬 08:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

African grey parrot

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 8#African grey parrot

Bvreav of Cvstoms

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 8#Bvreav of Cvstoms

National Bureau of Investagation

Obama (planarian genus) species