Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 15

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

Identitarian Christianity

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * in solidarity 02:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Christian Identity is a very specific and peculiar Christian movement which propounds that white people are the true Hebrews and serpent seed doctrine, among other things. It is not called Christian Identitarianism. Searching the phrase "Identititarian Christianity", the results are entirely unrelated to the subject of this article, and are about the intersection of Christianity with modern nationalist movements and the identitarian movement, not Christian Identity. I cannot find any instance of a source using this phrase to refer to this target. The single link to it, that I removed, was using the phrase in a context totally unrelated to Christian Identity; this redirect is just confusing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Perhaps retarget to Christian nationalism where the phrase "identitarian Christian" is used exactly once in the United States section, otherwise delete as vague and unhelpful for readers searching the term and being redirected to a place where the term isn't mentioned and/or explained. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete entirely. If it's a completely different concept than Christian Identity (the movement) then readers and searchers may be misdirected into entering this Christian Identity article. Another possibility is that Identitarian Christianity could be refering to a different ideology or movement - I would argue it's vague enough to contain this possibility. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
delete as unclear (what even is an identitarianism, really? Is it just Christian identity?), not used much on target pages, and definitely not supposed to go to Christian Identity (as the nom says) Dingolover6969 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 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).

Crustaceous Cheapskate

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) 21:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a joke redirect, not mentioned in target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment; SpongeBob calls him this exact term in a random episode (I can't find which one exactly though.) 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 10:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
    • "Can You Spare a Dime?", S03E07. No article on the episode and the term isn't mentioned in the Mr Krabs article, so I'm Neutral on the redirect. Tevildo (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Completely useless redirect page that shouldn't exist. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 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).

Sátanas

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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Both seem to be non-English spellings of "Satan" except neither appear as an actual word in any language as far as I can find. Both have negligible all-time page views (fewer than 500 and 100 respectively; easily constitutes WP:BACKGROUNDNOISE considering how old they are). Delete both per WP:RLOTE or WP:RTYPO, whatever sticks. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 21:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Sounds like misspellings. Satanas redirects to Satan (disambiguation). wikt:Satanas says it's an archaic English spelling of Satan. They could be forms of transliteration or etymology I guess, see Ancient Greek Satanâs, Biblical Hebrew śāṭān, Spanish Satanás, and Proto-Germanic forms of god (word). Dudzcar (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Dudzcar, how likely would someone take the trouble of "misspelling" with these diacritical letters on English WP, which uses an alphabet devoid of diacritics? Clearly very few or even no people considering the very low all-time page views for both redirects of a page which gets over a million views in a single year. If Satanas already exists, then there's no need for either of these redirects. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 10:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:RLOTE comes to mind immediately. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:27, 17 May 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).

OMGWTF

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 22#OMGWTF

Abstention (video game)

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 💬 20:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The game is no longer listed in this article. Not sure if there is a suitable alternative to retarget as I wasn't able to find an article which discussed this video game. Suonii180 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 02:35, 16 May 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).

Shah Alam Line 2

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 move over Shah Alam LineShah Alam Line without leaving a redirect. Thanks to Steel1943 for doing the hard part; the 2 title no longer has any substantial history, and there's agreement that it's an unsuitable title. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe that this was created in error when @Wlsrudals seemingly attempted to move Shah Alam line to Shah Alam Line but probably couldn't due to technical reasons (see redirect edit history and moves of similar pages Kajang Line and Putrajaya Line). However, another user @~2026-14944-70 opposed an apparent attempt at deletion (diff) by Wlsrudals. Edit history of Shah Alam Line might also be useful for context. No mention of a "2" anywhere in the article as an alternative name for the target. Fork99 (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

"Shah Alam Line 2" is not used in any article to link it to the actual Shah Alam line article. I think having that redirect is unnecessary because a "Shah Alam Line 2" does not exist. I support deleting it. For the sake of conformity with the other articles for the railway lines in the Klang Valley Integrated Transit System, I do wish that the move from "Shah Alam line" to "Shah Alam Line" (with the capital L) is allowed and done. Draco97 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment for Template:Db-error to be applicable the creation itself must be in error, this follows from the fact that CSD must apply to every revision in the history. I have no idea what if anything User:Wlsrudals was attempting to do, though the are very few reasons to contravene WP:MOVEREDIRECT. Regardless, User:AventraSJ330's creation was not obviously erroneous . RFD is thus the correct venue for deletion. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Nobody will be ever searching for this because of the 2, and keeping the redirect is just implausible. Plus, it seems that nothing except this page links to Shah Alam Line 2, so delete. - SimpleObjects-9ei 🌸/🌻/🌞 21:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I can see why anon opposed the speedy. Wlsrudals made a mistake while trying something (we don't know what). The mistake (page move) wasn't rectified, and Wlsrudals tried to get one of the pages deleted. Revert the page move (so it at least has AventraSJ330's page move log in the history), and delete Shah Alam Line 2. Jay 💬 21:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Move back without redirect per Jay. J947 ‡ edits 04:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: @Fork99, Draco97, SimpleObjects-9ei, Jay, and J947: I have swapped Shah Alam Line and Shah Alam Line 2 since I noticed the edit history concern ... but then realized that I cannot per policy delete the current contents of Shah Alam Line 2 since there's no way to not leave an artifact page behind (as a page mover) since neither page can be overwritten and I'm not an administrator. In other words, Shah Alam Line 2 no longer has any edit history that needs to be retained, and votes in this discussion may need to be adjusted accordingly. Steel1943 (talk) 06:13, 1 June 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).

Eastern Orthodoxy in Asia

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 💬 21:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED; Eastern Orthodoxy in Europe is its own article, and Asia is sporadically mentioned yet not extensively detailed in the current target. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Eastern Orthodoxy by country should be a good target in theory, but it's not organized by continent. Is it good enough anyway? I lean towards no. --BDD (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:09, 15 May 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).

Polker

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 31#Polker

beat stuff

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 31#beat stuff

Le Quai Malaquais et l'Institut

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 31#Le Quai Malaquais et l'Institut

Car clubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Per below. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This redirect currently points to Carsharing, which includes the UK synonym "car clubs". However, when I found this redirect (Car clubs) while editing an article, I expected it to go to Car club. Car club has a hatnote with a link to Carsharing, but Carsharing does not have a hatnote with a link to Car club. I think we could reasonably retarget this redirect to Car club. If somebody lands there on accident, the hatnote can catch them and help them get to Carsharing. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  • WP:JUSTDOIT (Retarget to Car club). @Dreamyshade: IMO, I would have just done the redirection without initiating a discussion as most likely uncontroversial due to the {{R from plural}} association. In addition, the only edit on this redirect, besides tagging it for RFD was to create the redirect, which occurred 11 years ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks! I wasn't sure if there'd be some concern due to the different varieties of English, but happy to just go ahead, so I'll do it. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:21, 15 May 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).

Coiffe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 22#Coiffe

King Krabbs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 30#King Krabbs

1926 Roscommon by-election

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 💬 21:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There was no by-election in Roscommon in 1926. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom, it was created in error. Spleodrach (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 17 May 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).

Roscommon by-election, 1926

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 💬 22:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There was no by-election in Roscommon in 1926. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom, it was created in error. Spleodrach (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Al Shami (singer)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 23#Al Shami (singer)

Posetal category

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 23#Posetal category

Wikipedia:SEASONS

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 the first; keep the second. A rough consensus will have to do, as relisting was unfruitful. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 04:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps might refer to the current target for now, but then I looked at other pages linking this redirect page. Turns out to be referring to tropical seasons also. Thought about dab-ifying the page, but then I thought discussion may come first before doing something else to it. Also, dunno which other entries when dab-ifying. The titling of the redirect as-is still is so vague, making me wonder whether it means a specific soccer/football task force anymore. George Ho (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

a brief look through the links suggests:
  1. the current target (task force within WP:FOOTY)
  2. Mistyping of WP:SEASON / MOS:SEASON
  3. mistyping of WP:NSEASONS
Straw poll would suggest all 3 have been used on multiple occasions, so maybe a dab of all 3 is correct. If it is dabbed, then a new explicit shortcut to the task force should be created. Spike 'em (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Drafted a disambiguation page just now. George Ho (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I think this might be re-targeted to Season (disambiguation) as fans of music may also be confused as to why that page is targeted to the season article task force. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose making DABs for shortcuts. That beats the purpose of shortcuts. The status quo seems fine but if strong arguments for retargeting either of the two links emerge, that's okay too. Joe vom Titan (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    Is this a new vote or a reply to Iggy the Swan? Newest votes should be at the very bottom. George Ho (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose linking to disambiguation page - Not entire clear what you want but it seems that you want it to link to a disambiguation page. I live in Australia and get real tired of northerners writing that something happened in summer 2026. Your summer or my summer? So I replace it with something more universal and mention "WP:SEASON" in the edit summary. If the northerner reads my comment and follows the link, they then have to figure out where to go next. If they are new enough to not know about northern and southern hemisphere seasons then they are probably going to have trouble figuring out that next step to get to the actual policy that I am using. These links should be direct.  Stepho  talk  03:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

    Not entire clear what you want but it seems that you want it to link to a disambiguation page.

    Not entirely true. Sorry for being less clear. I just drafted a disambiguation page hours ago (revision here). Hopefully, I'm clearer now about favoring dab-ification of the page. I'm thinking that "WP:SEASON" should be redirected to the dab-ified "WP:SEASONS".
    I started this discussion because I wasn't sure which entries besides WP:NSEASONS and an associated football (soccer) season. Didn't realize (until I listed it) that WP:SEASON redirects to one of MOS guidelines.

    These links should be direct.

    The two redirects above "WP:SEASON(S)" have been inconsistent, leading to various meanings when wikilinking either. Why making direct targets? George Ho (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    Let me phrase it another way. If a new editor is confused enough to be making mistakes, then is it helpful to send them to a dab page where they have to play a guessing game about which policy I really meant? I want to link directly to a policy so that there is the least amount of guessing/confusion possible.
    Also note that articles with links to dab pages soon get converted into links to the actual intended target. There are even bots that inform editors that they have added links to dab pages. If it is considered bad for article links then why would it be considered good in edit summaries and talk page discussions?  Stepho  talk  02:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    Re: Your summer or my summer?, naturally, the answer to that will be "depends on which hemisphere the event took place in". But I will also note, for summer and winter, "summer 2026" can only be correct in the northern hemisphere and "winter 2026" can only be correct in the southern. Your summers require 2 calendar years to be listed, as do our winters. ~2026-28403-75 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    Not quite. If an article said that a new car was released world-wide in Spring 2020, then it is not clear which hemisphere that Spring is in. The reader has to chase back to the reference and find out which hemisphere the source came from. Sometimes it's even harder when, say, an Australian reference is quoting verbatim something that was said in a Northern context (eg, reporting on a quote said at a US trade show about a global release of a new car). Even when the source is explicitly mentioned in the article (eg "released in the US in Spring 2020"), us poor second class citizens in the south now have to do stuff in our heads to translate north-speak into south-speak (ah yes, that "Spring 2020" event is really an autumn 2020 event which is really March-May 2020). When it's just so much easier to mention the month directly in the article or at least approximate it as the second quarter.  Stepho  talk  23:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I agree the plural should be a DAB page given that in mainspace the time of year and not the sport meaning is primary but changing it to the MOS page to match the singular would break many links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 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).

Star Fox (2015 video game)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 23#Star Fox (2015 video game)

Cantonese 廣東話 Numbers

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 💬 14:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Implausible redirect. The part in the middle means "Cantonese" in Chinese, which makes the redirect redundant. In addition, Cantonese numbers doesn't exist. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 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 Italy Republic

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 23#The Italy Republic

Pakistán

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 28#Pakistán

The El

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 24#The El

Taiwab

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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Uncommon typo, very unlikely to be used A1Cafel (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep; in the 2 months of this redirect's existence, it has received ~ 10 views, which is a relatively decent amount of views for a typo in that short amount of time. Furthermore, I was able to find slightly fewer than 10,000 Google Search results for "Taiwab" (such as this, this and even one on another Wiki.) If even Wiki editors in another language can make this typo, then so can our readers. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, random typo, no more deserving of a redirect than the billions of other such analogous ones. Anyone making the typo should expect it not to work, and would immediately know why. Moreover, the top search result will already get them to the right article anyway; cf a search for "Taiwam", a similar typo. 5 views per month for such a highly viewed article is background noise. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    Anyone making the typo should expect it not to work, and would immediately know why. I do not think this is always true; people can type fast, and especially since this typo is at the very end of the word, fast typers would have already pressed the enter button before they could even see their typo, let alone correct it. The purpose of these misspelled redirects is to aid readers making such typos (see WP:RKEEP#K2); since this is a one-letter typo common to QWERTY and QWERTZ keyboards, the two most common ones in the world, it only convinces me this is a plausible typo.
    no more deserving of a redirect than the billions of other such analogous ones. This is just an appeal that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the merits of this redirect should be judged by itself, not on the basis of possible future ones.
    (N.B. whilst I was typing the last sentence before this one, I initially spelled "not" as "bot", which I find hilariously coincidental.) 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 08:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    Also in fact Taiwam has a lot more search results on Google Search (~107,000) and similar redirects swapping N's for M's have been discussed and kept before (e.g. Ukraime and its discussion). See also WP:RTYPO which states that 1-letter typos should be assumed as plausible unless proven otherwise, which hasn't happened so far. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 12:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    For the record, I strongly disagree with RTYPO, but either way, this is part of a "common outcomes" listing, which tends to just document common outcomes, and shouldn't be treated as guidance in order to avoid a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Common practices can and do change over time. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:20, 10 May 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) 07:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Totally arbitrary typo that does not deserve its own redirect page. By this logic, any almost-infinite number of typos for any number of articles would exist as redirect pages. An alternative possibility is that those readers who stumble across this misspelling are looking for any entirely different concept, not the country of Taiwan. Best to get rid of this. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
It is not a reason for creating new redirects, its merely a reason for not deleting existing ones. -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Except that Taiwab seems to universally be a misspelling of Taiwan per Google Search results (see my reply above). 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 10:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep clearly an obvious typo. [n] is next to [b] on standard English-language QWERTY keyboards -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per RHARMFUL. No evidence of harm given. Not deleting a page isn't the same as sanctioning its creation. J947 ‡ edits 05:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete uncommon typo. We'd have to create Chinq for China and countless other redirects. And I do think that not deleting this is the same as sanctioning it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. About everyone knows it is a typo. But what effect does this redirect have? It makes the search bar less efficient. Unsurprisingly, Taiwan isn't the only article that contains "Taiwan". There are 500+ articles ending in "Taiwan" (and more as redirects and/or with "Taiwan" not at the end), and considering someone makes a typo (like "Geography of Taiwab" or "Elections in Taiwab"), if "Taiwab" is deleted, they will automatically be shown the correct result; but if "Taiwab" is kept, then most likely, they will be inconvenienced with only a result of the article "Taiwan" and not what they wanted (compare example: "Taiwab" vs "Taiwam"). Internal search can automatically identify typos, but a typo redirect defeats that purpose. Also, the redirect was only created a few months ago and has minimal history, so there's really nothing to keep. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I don't particularly care for the OTHERSTUFF arguments being brought here, but a quick search shows that "Taiwab" is at least moderately common as a name, apparently one of West African origin. My vote is only weak because there are also a good number of results where it clearly is a misspelling of Taiwan, but I think there is enough ambiguity that a typo shouldn't be assumed to b the primary topic. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Deacon Vorbis. * Pppery * in solidarity 02:27, 27 May 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).

Zoii River

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 23#Zoii River

Zero-width characters

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. This is something of a procedural close. Participants agreed that these shouldn't be discussed all at once like this, and there is no prejudice against speedily renominating them separately. A couple redirects have already been deleted; they need not be restored. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Pppery (talk · contribs) found these titles while we were drafting a title blacklist entry for zero-width characters (technically the Unicode class cf) in otherwise all-ASCII titles. Most of these are soft hyphens, but a few include the characters U+2068 ⁨ FIRST STRONG ISOLATE and U+2069 ⁩ POP DIRECTIONAL ISOLATE used for bidirectional text. The only standouts are the article titles Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu and Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­karabo­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon, which use soft hyphens to break up extremely long words while displaying. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I added three more that contain a zero-width character, ASCII, and en dashes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
I created the Chargoggagogg­man­chaugg­agogg­chaubun­agungamauggChargoggagogg­man­chaugg­agogg­chaubun­agungamaugg redirect without soft hyphens. QEnigma (talk · contribs) subsequently moved the page to use the soft hyphen characters, perhaps by mistake from copying the name directly from the article. asex twintalk · contribs. 05:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm going to go ahead and be bold and just delete the two "Eisenhower-Jackson Memorial Tunnel". There is no reason for those redirects to exist. There is no tunnel by that name, along I-70 or anywhere else. This is almost surely someone who misremembered the name of the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel (which has its own article) and just assumed others had the same false memory. That's the only thing I can think of. No opinion on the others. Dave (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. Pppery has identified several items that really should be kept, thanks to longstanding page histories. Keep everything procedurally, and then come back and nominate them in smaller groups. Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep all without prejudice to smaller nominations that reflect Pppery's comments per Nyttend. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep all without prejudice (except the two already deleted), per Nyttend and Thryduulf. On the face of it, titles like "Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeokranioleipsano­drimhypo­trimmato­silphiokarabomelitokatakechymenokichl­epikossyphophattoperisteralektryon­optekephalliokigklopeleiolagoio­siraiobaphe­traganopterygon" and "Chargoggagogg­man­chaugg­agogg­chaubun­agungamaugg" aren't quite unsuitable, given that they are rather long words and would literally overflow some screens without the soft hyphen characters. The others should be discussed separately; for example, "El Horria⁩ (newspaper)" would be a delete if nominated in isolation (or with other similarly short titles). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 22 May 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).

Species of five tardigrade genera

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. Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

These are redirects from a species to its genus. Accepted species are presumed to be notable per WP:NSPECIES, so I think these should be deleted to return them to red. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:19, 15 May 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).

Cheema (person)

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 to delete, hence retarget to Cheema (surname) * Pppery * in solidarity 02:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

"Person" is not a plausible disambiguation for a clan name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak Delete - This is a tricky one. The concept of a clan and person are obviously different, on this basis one could argue that the redirect page is unwarranted because those readers not looking for the Cheema clan would see this as their only option. On the flip side, somebody searching for a person with the name Cheema might find it useful to look at the clan page for surrounding information. Tough one, I'll go with delete but leave it up to the majority. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note that nom had also made a move request at the same time to move Cheema (clan) to Cheema (surname), which was accepted, and Cheema (person) now redirects to Cheema (surname). @LaundryPizza03: does this change your rationale? Jay 💬 14:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
    No. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
    Then your rationale will have to say why "Person" is not a plausible disambiguation for a clan/surname. I thought your concern was with a clan name titled target, which would have been resolved by the page move. Jay 💬 20:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Cheema (surname), where someone looking for a person with this name will find the article they want. The only other plausible thing for this search term to refer to is a type of person known as a Cheema but if there is such a thing we appear not to have any content about it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
    I have struck off the part where I mistook that this target change has already happened as part of the page move. Jay 💬 20:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • There are many person parenthesized title redirects to disambiguation pages, and I have picked out some. Depending on how this discussion goes, we may need to consider them.
    Ford (person) > Ford (surname)
    Hart (person) > Hart (surname)
    Hertz (person) > Hertz (name)
    Gad (person) > Gad (name)
    Winter (person) > Winter (disambiguation)
    Tsugumi (person) > Tsugumi
  • Jay 💬 20:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Person" is not a plausible disambiguation for a surname. -- Tavix (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    Why? The person is clearly searching for an article about a person, the surname article contains a list of people that they could be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 26 May 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).

六十九

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * in solidarity 02:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:FORRED. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 08:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, no special connection between the language(s) and the subject. Toadspike [Talk] 11:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • No one here knows about the chinese/japanese numerals? bruh SixaxisYes 15:17, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's listed in the infobox. -- Tavix (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. J947 ‡ edits 00:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it's in the infobox. Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, being listed in the infobox is irrelevant (there's no particular reason why it should be...68 isn't). It's just a standard transcription of a number in a different language, and so fails FORRED. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    In the eyes of WP:R#DELETE, FORRED does not apply where there's a mention. FORRED is only mentioned as part of D8, and D8 only applies to redirects not mentioned at the target. Additionally, most of the rationale at FORRED doesn't apply where there's a mention. Editors might get confused about this redirect – no more than any other, since it's mentioned at the target. Readers might be confused by arbitrary non-English redirects – this isn't arbitrary, since it's mentioned. And so on. J947 ‡ edits 23:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    [M]ost of the rationale at FORRED doesn't apply where there's a mention. Most is doing a lot in that sentence. FORRED says: "The presence of non-English language redirects creates the false impression that you can navigate the English Wikipedia in another language. If, for example, we had a redirect from Bodem (Dutch) to soil, a Dutch speaker might get the impression that our articles generally have Dutch redirects." This concern applies whether the redirect is mentioned at the target or not. You could argue that it's D8 that's defective here and not FORRED. Warudo (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    That rationale is already a bit of a non-argument – it's not specific to non-English redirects; with a bit of modification, it could apply to any class of redirect or indeed any class of article that is part of a group which is currently mostly red – but it's less strong still if the term is mentioned. If "bodem" were mentioned at soil, the reader would be much less likely to think that they can navigate enwiki in another language – just with those terms that are mentioned. The impression that terms that are mentioned warrant redirects is not a false one. J947 ‡ edits 23:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    it's not specific to non-English redirects; with a bit of modification, it could apply to any class of redirect That's fair I guess. After all, an equally valid solution to the problem in this case would be to simply create the redirects for the rest of the numbers in Chinese numerals. Redirects from foreign numeral systems are already common practice (e.g. redirects to "2") but no one has complained about navigation issues so far. And as I've said below, I do think this is a valid redirect. I'll change my !vote to keep with retarget as a second preference. Warudo (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    there's no particular reason why it should be. It is helpful to our readers who might want to learn the different ways a number can be represented. I added the Chinese numeral representation to 68 (number) but if you ask me most number pages should have infoboxes like the one in 2. Warudo (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; there's nothing particularly Chinese or Japanese about this number (or any natural number, for that matter), despite the name being listed in the infobox. It would be like redirecting soixante-neuf (which isn't red, because it redirects to the sex position article instead!), sesenta y nueve, or sessenta y nove to 69 (number). Duckmather (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    To me redirecting soixante-neuf to 69 (number) feels very different to redirecting 六十九 to it. The former is only the name of the number written in French. The latter, yes, is the name of the number in Chinese, Japanese and Korean but, because the characters are ideographic (like all numerals according to the lead of ideogram) it is also a direct representation of the number the same way 69, LXIX or ΞΘ´ are. I would accept this argument a lot easier if the nominated redirect was e.g. ろくじゅうきゅう or liùshíjiǔ. Warudo (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • My second preference is to Retarget to Chinese numerals (possibly with a hatnote to Japanese numerals) as an WP:ATD. This option does not fail FORRED because the target is obviously connected to the Chinese language and it helps readers because the page gives them enough information to decipher the numeral even with zero prior knowledge. Warudo (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC) edited at 23:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    That's asking quite a lot of the reader, including much crossreferencing between what they've copied and the examples given. Giving them the answer is much more helpful. J947 ‡ edits 22:33, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's also improper and unwarranted to have a whole page just to have a Chinese number redirect page going to the English version. I would also argue WP:RFOREIGN is suitable in this instance, in agreement with the nominator - as far as I can tell, numbers are not covered as exceptions to this rule. In general, applying a "reasonable person test" (very lawyer-y of me), I simply don't see any how anyone could be convinced to dedicate an entire redirect page just to a number. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    We've got many articles on numbers, which are quite a bit more difficult to maintain than a redirect. J947 ‡ edits 07:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    I simply don't see any how anyone could be convinced to dedicate an entire redirect page just to a number. As of writing this, there are 57 redirects to 2. A bunch of them are from foreign number systems. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. Warudo (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete; I don't see any benefit to having Chinese/Japanese numeral redirects for all numbers, and I don't see any reason that 69 should have a redirect if we're not open to having them for all numbers. Note that the infobox has a special custom parameter for Chinese/Japanese here; it's not a "core part" of the number's identity in English, unlike the other forms given here. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 16 May 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).

Chalk river unidentified deposits

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 Chalk River Laboratories#CRUD. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 03:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

There are no "unidentified deposits" referenced in the article it redirects to, and this redirect seems irrelevant and unneccesary. I propose it be deleted. SuperCode111 (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Clarification: I mean the redirect be deleted, not the article it redirects to. SuperCode111 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete: according to https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml2018/ml20182a653.pdf, CRUD is a known folk-backronym for "crud", some kind of nuclear waste substance ("corrosion particles that become radioactive"). If we had an article on that it might cover the substance, it could redirect there. CRUD could also get covered on the Chalk River Laboratories page, as a historical tidbit, and then this redirect could link there, that would also be fine I think. Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Refine per Dingo, now that there is mention. Jay 💬 18:37, 30 May 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).

Bvreav of Cvstoms

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. A slight majority is in favor of keeping this, but it's weak enough That I don't feel comfortable closing with that result. There is definitely no consensus to delete this redirect. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense as the photos in the article show it spelled in its seal and its building without the Roman V/U thing KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete as... uh, WP:RFD#DELETE #8? Yeah. Really uncommon variation (using Leetspeak, I guess) that isn't mentioned in the article. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment at least some buildings do use this format, see , , . The photos in the article seem to show only the Port of Manila building whereas the news articles show what I presume to be the head office. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    Oh, interesting. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    Upgrading my comment to a Keep per the further discussion below. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep {{R from stylization}} per photographic evidence of Thryduulf -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 10:37, 3 May 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) 01:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, since I guess they do sometimes spell it that way. Ideally this should be on the page somewhere (especially if it is their head office). I wonder if an old revision did. Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    It's unusual for stylisation choices to be mentioned in article prose as it's rarely significant. An illustration would be the normal way of showing it, but none of the photos in Commons:Category:Bureau of Customs (Philippines) show this stylisation. There might be freely licensed photos elsewhere online (I've not looked) or a request could be made (see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the Philippines). Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    Right, I was thinking a picture, too. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The photo is also in all caps and includes interpuncts. Regardless, it stretches credulity to think that someone is going to find a picture of this (or the actual building), and search for it in this exact form, all the while not realizing that it's just a different writing style for the normally spelled version. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not convinced the use of this format on a few buildings is evidence that this is a commonly used alternative name for the target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. If that's how they write it on the actual building, it becomes a plausible redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    But that's not how it's written; it's written "·BVREAV·OF·CVSTOMS·". Nor is it clear why anyone would actually search for it as written on the building when it's clear what the normal name is. We need to exercise a little common sense here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    No one would type the ·. I could see how someone not knowing the standards for roman/latin type could read it and not understand the Vs are meant to be U, however. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    Especially a non-native speaker from a part of the world not especially influenced by the Roman empire, such as for example the Philippines. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    "No one would type the ·". No one's going to type the Vs either, because no one's going to type in the inscription from a building they already know the name of. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, agreeing with PARAKANYAA. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Completely random and unproductive redirect page. The stylized spelling, or misspelling, is totally arbitrary and it doesn't warrant its own entire redirect page as a result. For this specific term, Bureau of Customs, I don't think this is even a commonly recognized stylized spelling. It's just taking up space. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
It isn't totally arbitrary though. It is a form of stylization that is found in Europe for words that use "u" where it is replaced by "v"; and there is also the complementary stylization for replacing "j" with "i". It originates with sourcing the original Latin alphabet from which all latin alphabets descend. The affectation is supposed to be a "learned" affectation. -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
HarvardJock, it's not at all arbitrary, just an older spelling convention. See the table of contents for Of Domesticall Duties (1622) by William Gouge — one frequently encounters spellings such as "vpon", "wiues", "seruants", and "vnder". Of course this building long postdates that period, but it's reflecting older usage, not being random or arbitrary. It's reasonable to consider it implausible (although I disagree with that assessment), but calling it arbitrary or a misspelling is inaccurate. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
I see, I was not aware of this. Chalk that up to my ignorance then. In consideration of this, I will switch to Keep - perhaps it's a stylizing that is still used by some readers or searchers. An argument could be made that people could more commonly stumble upon that page as compared to other spelling varieties. I discard my "arbitrariness" argument. Thanks for the tag and the info! @Nyttend @~2026-25149-07 HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
HarvardJock, no worries. (Years ago I transcribed a good deal of Gouge and used a read-aloud feature to proofread it; it was hilarious, given the frequent appearances of "veepon", "weeoos", "sare-oo-wants", etc. in the automated pronunciation.) Thanks for considering what I said; I was concerned that it would come across as harsh. Nyttend (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per PARAKANYAA. It's not at all arbitrary, as explained above, but an artefact of usage (both in English and other languages) for hundreds of years. And the interpuncts are largely irrelevant: you can't easily type them on a Latin-script keyboard, and the spaces on two of the photo links makes it clear that they're separate words, so you'd naturally be inclined to skip the interpuncts and just use spaces. (Also, one of the photos shows that one of these buildings just uses spaces, without interpuncts.) And per Thryduulf, you might not know that this means "Bureau of Customs". You might be inclined to look for this term to find out what kind of entity occupies the building you're looking at. Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah... come to think of it, I think it would also be fine to have redirects for ·BVREAV·OF·CVSTOMS·, BVREAV·OF·CVSTOMS, BVREAV OF CVSTOMS, etc, on the same principle (again, I think ideally there would be a picture of the office that has these words on it on the page). I'm not going to bother creating them, but I don't think it's a bridge too far or disproves the idea that we should have Bvreav of Cvstoms. Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:53, 18 May 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).

African grey parrot

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 Grey parrot. I find the arguments to retarget to Psittacus are superior. But since there's no suggestion that the redirects should target different places and/or the status quo be maintained, Psittacus would need to garner much more support to beat out Grey parrot. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 02:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This and African Gray Parrot are redirects with essentially the same title but leading to different articles. Given that the name used to refer the specific species of parrot, I would recommend retargeting the sentence case one to Grey parrot, but I would like opinions from other editors before proceeding. BlaqWiedow (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Grey parrot as alternative name/synonym and to be consistent with African Gray Parrot. I don't believe there's any ambiguity between targeting Grey parrot or Timneh parrot, as the Timneh parrot has a whole extra adjective. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Grey parrot as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Basically, I don't think the genus target is needed as the redirect is not ambiguous between the two species in the genus. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note I've added multiple other variations to this nomination. I haven't nominated Congo African Grey Parrott, Cameroon African Grey Parrot, Ghana African Grey Parrot and their variations, nor all the variants without the word "parrot" but anyone is free to add them here or nominate them separate (I've just run out of time right now). Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
    Why was this bundled? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
    Probably so these variations can be made consistent with the outcome of this RFD. I didn't realize there were so many ways of writing the name of a bird. BlaqWiedow (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    They were bundled because they should all have the same target, regardless of which one that is. Tagging and listing them all reduces the chances of any of them getting missed and maximises the chances of those using the redirects finding the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you, and whoops on my part. When I made that comment the nominations were different (at least to me at a glance, so whoops again). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Psittacus. The Timneh parrot was formerly treated as a subspecies of the grey parrot. Most of the references in both the Psitaccus and the grey parrot articles are using the older species concept. Plantdrew (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the new target suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Grey parrot. A big problem we have with all biology articles is that the common name of a plant or insect will retarget to the family article, requiring the reader to search through a long list of genera to find the thing they're looking for. Retargeting to the genus would be another example of this. Most people who type this will be looking for Psittacus erithacus, even though the term is techinally ambiguous. Tevildo (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Grey parrot per above comments. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Grey parrot per comments above. Psittacus is too broad and this will also give consistency across different spelling redirects. Asteramellus (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to the genus. The grey parrot article says "Psittacus erithacus was previously also known as the African grey parrot until the Timneh parrot (Psittacus timneh), previously treated as a subspecies, was elevated to a full species". Sounds like it's outright wrong to call just this species the African grey parrot. And the genus article begins "Psittacus (African grey parrots) is..." Both species are African grey parrots; it's not too broad at all. Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 16 May 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).

overly niche vomit synonyms(?)

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 all except Toss cookies, on which there is no consensus * Pppery * in solidarity 02:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

all unmentioned in the target and wiktionary, with extremely few results, most being lucky to have one slang dictionary old enough to be my parent mention them in passing and refuse to elaborate on where said slang is from consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment, leaning keep wikt:Toss one's cookies is a well established American idiom and is attestable in the infinite "toss cookies" form too, however as is not uncommon with very informal slang terms that are more often spoken than written finding usage in reliable sources is tricky. If we had a soft redirect at Toss one's cookies or similar I'd argue to point this there and wouldn't oppose either creating that or directly soft redirecting directly. "Technicolor yodel" feels like a plausible variant of Technicolor yawn (an Australian term that also redirects to vomiting). Overall I'm minded to keep all those that have clearly attested widespread use (not just mentions) as nobody using these terms is going to be surprised by the target as they're either looking for that article or they're looking to find the meaning of the term and the target perfectly answers that question. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep I'm convinced by "they're either looking for that article or they're looking to find the meaning of the term and the target perfectly answers that question"; there's no real risk of confusion here. Also, the "toss cookies" one being established. But I have to be honest: I think it's likely against the guidelines to keep these, but they made me laugh hard enough that I want to keep them anyway. Luckily, the guidelines are very hedgey ("You might want to delete a redirect if...", emphasis mine) so I think I'm still technically licit. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - I completely fail to see the relationship between the given terms and vomiting. Perhaps there is a reference I'm lacking or slang I don't understanding, but even with that being the case, I don't think it's common at all for people to be searching these terms to mean "vomiting". They seem like useless redirect pages with no real use or purpose. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
HarvardJock, at least the cookies one is a slang term you're unfamiliar with. I've never heard any of the others. The technicolour one makes sense if you vomit soon after eating, and the negative chug makes vomiting analogous to wiktionary:chug#Verb point #4. This webpage lists the voorheaves and Cheektowaga; I can't understand them, but apparently they're slang too. (Voorheave is red, Voorhees doesn't have anything related, and Cheektowaga, New York doesn't seem to talk about anything even remotely related.) The cookies is a common enough slang term that I want to keep it, but otherwise I'm leaning toward delete, because I too think they're overly niche, but at least I can understand all of them being used. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
i should probably mention that the redirect here is not "technicolor yawn" (which is mentioned on wiktionary), but "technicolor yodel", which has extremely few results consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 21:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete all except "Toss cookies" - The others make absolutely no sense to be a realistic search term, and no one will use these overly niche idioms to find vomiting. MAYBE the toss cookies one, but that's it. KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks