Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 9, 2026.

Cleveland (NFL)

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 the first redirect; retarget the second redirect to Sports in Buffalo. (non-admin closure) J 947 ‡ ^edits 02:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Cleveland (NFL)Cleveland (NFL) → List of sports teams in Cleveland#Football (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Buffalo (NFL)Buffalo (NFL) → Buffalo team (NFL) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The Cleveland Browns are the primary topic as they are the only NFL team in Cleveland, and there have been no other teams in Cleveland recently (the last previous team, the Cleveland Rams, left in 1945). Similar reasoning for Buffalo (NFL). 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

How are the Baltimore Ravens not listed in List of sports teams in Cleveland#Defunct/relocated? Yes, there are certain complex legal arrangements but it's unhelpful to our readers to not treat the Ravens as a former Cleveland team since it de facto is. (So oppose that retarget for now.) Skynxnex (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I have WP:BOLDly added the Ravens to List of sports teams in Cleveland#Football, indeed very surprising that it wasn't mentioned - we will see if there is consensus to keep this change or revert. Shazback (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep Cleveland (NFL) per Skynxnex. In the same vein, retarget Buffalo (NFL) to Sports in Buffalo, where all of the current and former NFL teams based in Buffalo are listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep Cleveland (NFL) to List of sports teams in Cleveland#Football and retarget Buffalo (NFL) to Sports in Buffalo (with anchor on the Bills if desirable). I feel there is sufficient ambiguity around the goal of a search for "City (NFL)" that the person is equally likely to be looking for the current team, past teams, or an overview of the city's teams in this competition/sport as a whole. Editors could also be using this as a shorthand when editing personnell pages as a shorthand for "whichever NFL team was in City at the time", so a redirect to the broader topic is more cautious to avoid misleading readers. Shazback (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep and Retarget per Shazback's convincing comments. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 19 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).

St.Eustatius

The result of the discussion was no consensus for most, but delete St.bernadette. Bundled nominations can be very helpful, or they can end up WP:TRAINWRECKs. Here we are. I see marked disagreement on most of these, except reasonably clear consensus to delete the one that combines a clear miscapitalization with the missing space. It was not obvious to me that any of the others necessarily had additional errors. St. Eric redirects to Saint Erik, and it seems a stretch to call "Eric" a misspelling, given that it's the more common anglicized version and this is the English Wikipedia.

I will officially declare no prejudice against renomination of any of these where a nominator wants to argue there is a second error, but would recomend against including the others. Give it some time. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

St.EustatiusSt.Eustatius → Sint Eustatius (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.EdmundSt.Edmund → Edmund the Martyr (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.EricSt.Eric → Saint Erik (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.Eunan's GAASt.Eunan's GAA → St Eunan's GAA (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.Eric dynastySt.Eric dynasty → House of Erik (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.EliasSt.Elias → Saint Elias (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.Edward Parish (Chicago)St.Edward Parish (Chicago) → St. Edward's Parish (Chicago) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.NeotsSt.Neots → St Neots (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.NiklausSt.Niklaus → St. Niklaus, Switzerland (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.DunstanSt.Dunstan → Dunstan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.CroixSt.Croix → Saint Croix (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.Bede's prep schoolSt.Bede's prep school → Bede's School (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.Bees SchoolSt.Bees School → St Bees School (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.BraisSt.Brais → Saint-Brais (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.Blaise, NeuchatelSt.Blaise, Neuchatel → Saint-Blaise, Switzerland (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.Bridget of SwedenSt.Bridget of Sweden → Bridget of Sweden (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.BonifaceSt.Boniface → Saint Boniface (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.bernadette → Bernadette Soubirous (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
St.PatrickSt.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. J 947 ‡ ^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 is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I came here after a notification for St.Elias, so I checked what would happen if we were to delete it, like this, and it's actually worse, as the readers would then have to scroll quite a bit to get to Saint Elias. I don't see a good reason to delete those. --Joy (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Frank Ancona

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 20#Frank Ancona

Jordan Road

The result of the discussion was move Jordan Road, Hong Kong over redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Jordan Road → How to Train Your Dragon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned on the target page. I suggest moving Jordan Road, Hong Kong to this title, or alternatively, disambiguating between Jordan Road, Hong Kong, Canyon Creek, Washington, and Somers Point Public Schools. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Move Jordan Road, Hong Kong here per nom. If there are only two others, they can be covered with hatnotes. Toadspike [Talk] 10:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Just notified of this discussion at Move Jordan Road, Hong Kong. Jay 💬 10:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Rcat

The result of the discussion was retarget to Template:Redirect category shell. I've started Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 20 § Template:RCAT. (non-admin closure) J 947 ‡ ^edits 02:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:RcatTemplate:Rcat → Template:Redirect template (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessarily confusing and not useful. The only legitimate usage of this redirect is in {{R from RFC}}. Every single other instance of this template redirect being used is because some editor confused it with {{rcat shell}}. This ramped up recently because an editor added incorrect instructions to WP:PROMERGE (since fixed) that said to use this redirect instead of rcat shell, but the problem existed beforehand and is not limited to {{R from merge}} redirects. I propose that we bypass the redirect in {{R from RFC}} and then retarget to {{Redirect category shell}} with deletion as a second preference. Warudo (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that if this closes as keep, someone will have to go through ~~Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Rcat~~ https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=47017871 and fix all the incorrect uses of the redirect. Warudo (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Done, there were about 30 of them: . FaviFake (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Retarget as the editor who added the incorrect advice to WP:PROMERGE, the name is just too similar to {{rcat shell}}. FaviFake (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate between {{rcat}} and {{rcat shell}}, or delete as a second choice. Retargeting would be very confusing for anyone looking through past edit history (since they would see {{rcat shell}} instead of {{rcat}} as they're expecting). Duckmather (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
First of all, it's not clear what you mean by Disambiguate between {{rcat}} and {{rcat shell}}. Rcat is the redirect under discussion. We can't say "{{rcat}} may refer to {{rcat}}". Also, you say that retargeting would confuse people looking through past edit history but it would literally do the opposite. Retargeting would actually fix edit histories such as Special:Permalink/1162996455, Special:Permalink/1353065537 and so on. Warudo (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I think they meant "disambiguate between {{redirect template}} and {{rcat shell}}". RainbowtheDragonCat (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
If you ask me, such a dab page should also include {{redirect category}}. After all, that's what rcat stands for in the first place. Warudo (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: As the creator of the redirect, I'm not opposed to retargeting or deletion. It was created before Template:Redirect category shell existed. A disambiguation page would probably be my preferred option. Mclay1 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: While I respect the opinions of my fellow editors, I need to point out that disambiguating the page would not solve the problem I'm trying to solve with this RfD. Editors are typing {{rcat}} when what they want is {{rcat shell}}. It is also clear by the fact that ~30 pages were left broken, some of them for several years that those editors did not preview their edits. I don't see how they will stop doing that if TM:Rcat becomes a disambiguation page. The only way to solve the problem without changing the redirect that I can think of is to create an edit filter which I feel would be overkill when simply retargeting would fix the issue. Consider also that {{redirect category shell}} seems to be the primary topic with respect to usage. Warudo (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment - It would seem logical to point both Template:RcatTemplate:Rcat and Template:RCATTemplate:RCAT to Template:Redirect category. Sure — it likely will not be transcluded, but it is superior for navigation. Mistaking it for the shell template seems fairly uncommon and the shell itself is not an rcat (and rcats function fine without {{redirect category shell}}). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Examples of editors using {{rcat}} as short for {{rcat shell}} (ie. {{Redirect category shell}}) have been provided. Are there any examples of editors attempting to use it as shortcut for {{rcat header}} (ie. {{redirect category}}) instead? While I agree that it makes intuitive sense to abbreviate {{redirect category}} to {{rcat}}, if editors don't actually use it that way it's not an especially helpful shortcut even if it is very logically sound. Practically, the addition of new redirect category tags and a redirect category shell to a redirect happens much more frequently than the creation of a new redirect category itself, so it makes sense that editors mistakenly abbreviate {{rcat shell}} to {{rcat}} much more frequently as well. – Scyrme (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Navigation as in e.g. the internal search bar or an external search engine (which would not be countable). The examples provided are indeed poignant; however, they are a drop in the bucket given how many pages that {{redirect category shell}} is present on today (hence my comment about the known frequency). Knowing how many editors attempted to use the redirect in question in the exemplified manner but caught the error (playing the devil's advocate a slight bit here I suppose) is also unknowable. Still, conflation of the shell with an actual redirect category is problematic in its own right. One might criticize this as prioritizing form over function if looking at it on a pure surface level. However, I still stand by my statement given the possibility of technical confusion and with the knowledge that redirects serve many functions (not just hard-use cases). Moreover, I would rather this not ever be used as a hard-use (i.e. transcluded) shortcut (if retargeted as has been suggested) without 'shell' as a clarifier regarding its purpose (given the oft-forgotten fact that the shell is entirely optional when adding redirect categories to a page). Hence, ideologically, deletion would arguably be my preference over retargeting it to Template:Redirect category shell. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per nomination. I think FaviFake bypassed all the existing misuses of {{rcat}} for {{rcat shell}} already, so it's only old revisions which are broken. However, simply cleaning up the mistaken uses that have accumulated so far doesn't stop editors making the same mistake in the future. Retargeting the redirect saves editors a maintenance task in the future. Given that categorising redirects happens much more often than the creation of new categories, many more editors would benefit from abbreviating {{rcat shell}} to {{rcat}} than would benefit from retaining the current target or retargeting to either {{rcat header}} or a disambiguation page. Navigation can be assisted using hatnotes instead of a disambiguation page, similar to the one Warudo added to the documentation of {{redirect template}} (which will need to be amended if this is retargeted). – Scyrme (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Sneakers o toole

The result of the discussion was Closed as a fork of the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 12#Sneakers O' Toole. I've moved the !vote to that discussion. wbm1058 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Sneakers o toole → Boys Do Cry (Family Guy) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Article name references a character from a 17 second gag, not notable enough. TheVectoriser 17:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Nintendo 2

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 16#Nintendo 2

Sun Tzyy

The result of the discussion was Deleted. As G7. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Sun Tzyy → Sun Tzu (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Gwoyeu Romatzyh spelling of 孫子. I don't speak Chinese so there may be other possible meanings for this. I just wanted to check that this is the most rational meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EFOSERVETY (talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. This is not a common system of romanisation, which limits the contexts in which this is likely to appear. Searching online (Google, Google Books), "Tzyy" overwhelming occurs in romanisations of names. Since Sun Tzu is the primary topic for the name Sun Tzu, it's reasonable to assume he would also be the primary topic for this less common romanisation of the same name. Hypothetically, it's possible that the romanisation (or a homophone spelled the same way but written differently in hanzi) has a different primary topic, but in searching "Sun+Tzyy" including quotes to search for that exact sequence, Google Books yielded no results and Google yielded partial matches in lists of names; I saw no evidence of anyone else being a more likely target for this specific spelling. – Scyrme (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that the correctly spelled terms "Suen+Tzyy" and "Suentzyy" both get hits on google books. However, those results include at least one case where Suentzyy was used to refer to The Art of War instead of its writer . This is consistent with wikt:孫子#Etymology 3 which says that 孫子 also means "The Art of War". Warudo (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Historically, Chinese books are often referred to by the name of their author (eg. Liezi) so that makes sense. – Scyrme (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The redirect is misspelled. It should be Suen Tzyy/Suentzyy (which I've now created). This is the spelling given in the Sun Tzu article itself (in the infobox if you expand the transcriptions) and can be verified to be correct by looking at the table at Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh#Finals. Warudo (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Change my view to delete. Per my previous search results, there were no matches to this exact title suggesting it's not a common mistake. – Scyrme (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

delete per Warudo --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Family (biology)

The result of the discussion was retarget to Family (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Family (biology)Family (biology) → Family (disambiguation)#Science (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Family (Biology)Family (Biology) → Family (disambiguation)#Science (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Families (biology)Families (biology) → Family (disambiguation)#Science (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Family (biology) was created after a requested move which moved the page to Family (taxonomy). The redirect was retargeted by the closer as two participants, namely myself and Myceteae, argued that it should share the same target as Biological family. (Strictly speaking, the closer went further and refined the target to the section "Science", which we had not suggested.) However, recently Chiswick Chap retargeted the redirect to Family (taxonomy) with the edit summary redir to (overwhelmingly likely) target, it's the usual meaning. I reverted this as it's contrary to what was argued at the RM, so isn't uncontroversial. I've nominated the redirect in light of this disagreement, so we can establish a clearer consensus on the target.

I do not agree with Chiswick Chap's rationale for retargeting. Even if the taxonomic rank is "overwhelmingly" more likely than its other uses in science, it is not "overwhelmingly" more likely than biological kin as opposed to legal, foster, adoptive, or found family. If Biological family has no primary topic, then neither does Family (biology). The two should share the same target, as one is just the naturally disambiguated equivalent to the parenthetical disambiguation. – Scyrme (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae and Chiswick Chap: Pinging to notify you, as you were mentioned and previously expressed an opinion on the target. – Scyrme (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Additional notices placed at Talk:Family (taxonomy) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme: any objection to bundling Family (Biology)Family (Biology) and Families (biology)Families (biology) with this? There are a number of other redirects to "Family (disambiguation)" that I think could be boldly retargeted or nominated separately but the capitalization variant should definitely have the same target most likely the plural should, too. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
No objection from me. – Scyrme (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Done —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I'm not certain I agree that Family (biology) and Biological family should have the same target. I would expect the former to be about a topic related to science of biology, probably the taxonomic meaning but the latter I would expect to target something related to the contrast between family members related by blood and family members related by marriage/adoption/etc. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
I suppose it's possible one has a primary topic and the other doesn't, or that the primary topics are different, but I would hesitate to reach that conclusion. If anything Biological familyBiological family is likelier the one with the narrower meaning. The question for Family (biology)Family (biology) is whether the narrow taxonomic meaning is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. The parenthetical disambiguation makes this an unlikely search term except for readers familiar with our conventions searching for a topic related to science of biology, which would include three of the five entries at Family (disambiguation)#Science as well as Consanguinity (aka "biological kin"), which is a subtopic of the primary topic Family. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I think it could plausibly go either way. "Family (biology)" could be interpreted as either "in the field of biology" or "as related by biology". Even if the first sense is more likely, the latter remains relevant as it's common for wildlife biologists and ecologists to study the family groups of other species. There are other species besides humans that spend much of their lives living alongside their blood relatives (see, eg., these papers discussing family in elephants, orca, some birds, among others). – Scyrme (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm surprised we don't have an article on these non-human families listed on the dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It's also probably worth noting that parenthetical disambiguators tend to be nouns. If you wanted to disambiguate the topic of Biological family with parentheses, Family (biology) is how you would do it. Compare Taxonomic family and Family (taxonomy). Given the ambiguity of "(biology)" I think it's preferable to maintain consistency between the adjective and the parenthetical as even if the two lean towards different interpretations, they can't be fully disentangled and neither is overwhelmingly more likely in my opinion. – Scyrme (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Target all → Family (disambiguation). At the just-closed RM, while Scyrme and I were the only editors to explicitly state what to do with the redirect, the basis for the nomination was a clearer and more precise disambiguator is needed to avoid confusion with Gene family and Protein family. RM participants were unanimous in supporting the move on the basis that '(biology)' is imprecise. Consensus can change but there should be a high bar for overturning RM consensus that closed yesterday having considered these exact issues. 'Family' in biology—both the word and the concept—includes the primary topic Family; subtopics of Family such as Consanguinity (aka "biological kin", "blood relative", "genetic relative") and Kinship (and related/subtopics "descent group" and "lineage group"); and three of the five entries at Family (disambiguation)#Science—Protein family, Gene family, and Family (taxonomy). Other Family-related topics could reasonably be added to the dab page section. There is no primary topic; Family (biology) is incomplete disambiguation. By usage, (WP:PT1), I suspect the general public is somewhat more likely to be looking for something related to blood relatives and descent groups, but no topic is overwhelmingly more likely than all other topics combined to be the intended meaning. By long-term significance (WP:PT2), the meaning of family as a social unit or household often—but not always—understood to be related by "blood" is the basis for taxonomic rank. Note: There are >64,000 incoming links to Family (biology)Family (biology), which was until yesterday the title of the Family (taxonomy) article. This is a significant consideration. Perhaps a script or bot could be developed to correct these. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Blindlynx, Ortizesp, Crouch, Swale, Sharktube2000, Pinchme123, and 1isall: Pinging the other RM participants as well as the closer. The RM nominator ~2026-26369-25 (talk · contribs) was a temp account that has not posted since. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Neutral on this. 1isall (talk | contribs) 17:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy target DAB per the RM and the race RM there seems to be consensus that these titles are ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Target family (disambiguation) I don't think "family (biology)" is a very likely search term for the taxonomic concept for anybody who wasn't already aware that Wikipedia had titled the article about the taxonomic concept that way for the last 20 years. I don't think the taxonomic concept is the primary topic of "biological family" (the consanguinity concept has a better claim to primary topic). Wikipedia made a poor choice of titles many years ago, and there are many incoming links to "family (biology)", but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards implementing a better choice of title. Plantdrew (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
At the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFF, see also Domain (biology), Kingdom (biology), Class (biology), Order (biology) and Tribe (biology). Certes (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
But see also: Division (taxonomy), Segregate (taxonomy), Synonym (taxonomy), Informal group (taxonomy), Legion (taxonomy), Alliance (taxonomy), and Oligotyping (taxonomy) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There are two issues at play here. The primary argument for retargeting Family (biology)Family (biology) is ambiguity—there likely is no primary topic and several editors have suggested it is more likely closer to consanguinity or a subtopic of family. The other issue is consistency, which I have raised at: Talk:Kingdom (biology)#Requested move 10 May 2026. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Target all to DAB per others, this is clearly too vague to point to any one place. It can mean family units or the biological classification. Incoming links should be corrected, probably by a bot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment If Family (biology) is to be retargeted to the dab, please recognise that this is part of a significant change which requires careful management. Most of these longstanding links are actually in the articles themselves, rather than in some template where they can all be changed with one edit. Ideally, we would break with precedent and be informed that the change is going to be imposed, rather than waking up one morning to find 64,000 broken taxonomy articles. Certes (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Oops – I just realised that we already have woken up to 64,000 broken taxonomy articles. A discussion on how to clean up the resulting mess has started at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Family (biology) -> Family (taxonomy). Certes (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for highlighting that discussion. Fixing incoming links is a problem we need to solve but ultimately not a reason to not correct an ambiguous title or redirect. The large number of links was raised at RM and participants there were unanimously in agreement that '(biology)' is ambiguous here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it bigger than a breadbox?

The result of the discussion was retarget to What's My Line?#Breadbox without prejudice against retargetting if the extent of the relevant content changes. (non-admin closure) J 947 ‡ ^edits 02:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it bigger than a breadbox?Is it bigger than a breadbox? → What's My Line?#Standard rounds (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think this a confusing redirect. I saw it on the Twenty questions article and was confused as to why it linked there. The article claimed What's My Line? popularized it but I never knew it was popularized by that show and I don't think it is common knowledge that it is. If someone searches "Is it bigger than a breadbox?", I think they will be confused as to why it redirects to What's My Line?. I think this redirect should be deleted. IzzySwag (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Refine to What's My Line?#Breadbox where I have added a visible anchor. This is a great use of a redirect from a phrase, idiom, or quote. I didn't know the origin, either, but we have an article that explains it and the redirect capability that allows us to take readers right to the explanation. I agree that just landing at What's My Line?#Standard rounds is less than ideal. The {{visible anchor}} helps readers by addressing the WP:RSURPRISE issue. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
This seems like a good changing of target, good idea. :) IzzySwag (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is actually explained at the target, but it's towards the end of that section so I can understand the confusion. I think the best way forward would be to unlink this phrase in the Twenty questions article and instead say something like "(a question popularised by the panel game show What's My Line)". After doing that the redirect could be retargeted to Twenty questions giving a bit more context for searches and giving a clear link to those who are looking for the origin. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
The phrase is described in two articles. Either refine per Myceteae or redirect to Breadbox#As a saying. Readers will find relevant content in either place and can easily reach the other article. - Eureka Lott 01:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Good find. The Breadbox#As a saying target is "cleaner", in a sense, because it doesn't rely on a visible anchor in the middle of a paragraph. I see these more or less equivalent. I will note that often when a subject is mentioned on multiple pages and none is clearly the more appropriate place to expand coverage, that is seen as a reason to delete. The difference here is that the exact same information, essentially, is covered on two pages and it is equally appropriate at both targets. I see this as pretty much a coin toss. If this closes one way or the other, and content moves around in the future, I think this could be retargeted from one to the other in the future as a matter of editorial discretion without repeat discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Tactical chunder

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 16#Tactical chunder

Draft:Typhoon Cock ooh BIrd

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Typhoon Cock ooh BIrd → Yellow-billed cuckoo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too old to meet WP:R3 criteria but this is a redirect from an implausible typo created by a TA, that also engaged in vandalism. This would have met R3 if created within the last 3 weeks, in my humble opinion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jay 💬 03:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Sri Lanka at the 2026 Asian Games

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Sri Lanka at the 2026 Asian Games → 2026 Asian Games#Participation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too early for this. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 2 § Bhutan at the 2026 Asian Games. How is sending a redirect to RfD only for it to be recreated in four months an appropriate use of editor time? J 947 ‡ ^edits 05:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - no information at the target, except for a self-redirect entry. No reason to inconvenience or mislead readers for four months. Jay 💬 11:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Hurricane Kuku BIrd

The result of the discussion was delete. Left guide (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Hurricane Kuku BIrd → Yellow-billed cuckoo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too old to meet WP:R3 criteria but this is a redirect from an implausible typo created by a vandalism-only TA. This would have met R3 if created within the last 3 weeks, in my humble opinion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete, this is a redirect from a title at WP:DAFT (which was originally deleted in 2012). Clearly a joke. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, recreated WP:DAFT title of no usefulness. Xeroctic (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Nightmare House 2

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Nightmare House 2 → List of Source mods (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Nightmare House (Mod) → List of Source mods (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is not mentioned in the target article, which leads to readers being surprised. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, I guess this name must have been previously listed on the article but the redirect was never deleted. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This was previously mentioned on the article, but it was removed three months before the redirect was created, which is very unusual. Courtesy ping to MPGuy2824 who indicated the lack of mention on the target article when reviewing the creation. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
The pre-BLAR version of Nightmare House 2 has information on the original mod, so if restored back as article, it can be a suitable target. Otherwise Nightmare House 2 may also be bundled here. Jay 💬 13:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling with Nightmare House 2, as suggested by Jay.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The Beginning (2007 film)

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The Beginning (2007 film) → Birdhouse Skateboards#Videos (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No longer mentioned at target. Was merged following Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Beginning_(2007_film) in 2020. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Did a merge occur?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ‡ ^edits 08:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll answer my own question. Looks like the date of release was copied from the old article in this edit, despite the redirecter saying there was nothing to merge. J 947 ‡ ^edits 05:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on J947's observation above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

And 3 minutes later, the redirecter removed it in a purge of all the videos as nonnotable, just promo-type videos. Delete this remnant. Jay 💬 03:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

San Simone

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

San Simone → Simon the Zealot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Similarly to San matteo and San Petro (see entries below), this is an Italian-language redirect which has little affinity with the target article and it can confuse readers searching for any number of notable Italian things named after Simon. Preferably delete, or disambiguate if possible. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 17:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC) — PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ‡ ^edits 07:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on creating a dab at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete, nothing related to "San Simone" on Wikipedia other than a brief mention of a "San Simone Church" in Stroncone, and multiple churches called Santi Simone e Giuda (Saints Simon and Jude) which would be considered a partial title match and thus not suitable for disambiguation here. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
@Bis-Serjetà?: Why do you say there is no affinity considering he was from the Roman Empire. On ambiguity, St. Simon also redirects to the same target even though there is a Saint-Simon disambig page (which has a San Simón too). Jay 💬 09:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
@Jay, I have a few points to respond to that:

1. The Roman Empire didn't speak Italian, but rather Latin (Sanctus Simon would be the Latin version, and I can see some affinity for that.)

2. As far as anyone knows, Saint Simon was never in what is now Italy.

3. Saying he has affinity because he lived in an empire which also contained Italy is like saying William Shakespeare should have a redirect spelled Uilliam Shakespeare because that's how his name is spelled in Modern Irish and Ireland was being colonised by England when he was alive.

4. If San Simone is retargeted to Saint-Simon or San Simón, and they do not have any actual entries with the exact term "San Simone", then it's useless as a redirect per WP:SMALLDETAILS as readers would necessarily expect to see entries in Italian, not in French or Spanish.

All the best (and sorry if I came off as argumentative), 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 10:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep this in mind for future Italian language — Roman Empire redirects. In the nomination you said "..it can confuse readers searching for any number of notable Italian things named after Simon.", and the reason I brought out the redirect St. Simon, is because it's seen as the primary topic of the current target, even though a disambig page exists. So it was more of a question of, what do you think — should St. Simon also be considered ambiguous and retargeted to the disambig? Jay 💬 11:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Any arguments for affinity are a stretch too far; they don't make a persuasive case for why an English-speaker reader would search for Simon the Zealot by his Italian name with the expectation of arriving at an English-language article about him. Wikipedia has no articles with San Simone in the title, however search results bring up a number of mentions of topics bearing San Simone as part of their name, including a frazione of Italy, Piazza San Simone, a church of San Simone in Spoleto, etc. These results are obscured from readers by the existence of the redirect. The search results are more helpful to readers than this redirect would be. If the frazione is notable (which is plausible, as there articles for many of them), then WP:RETURNTORED is also relevant. – Scyrme (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

T:AD

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

T:AD → Template:Admin dashboard (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29 § T: – SNOW keep
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 12 § T:AD and Template:AD – no consensus

T: pseudo-space redirects have been deprecated. This one only has a handful of incoming links (and many of those are merely mention that this is a pseudo-space redirect). I think this one is particularly bad because it doesn't target the actual Template:AD. I support deleting. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I haven't been an admin for well over a decade, and have no opinion on whether this should remain. I will note that when I did use it, I would use it in the search bar to quickly go to the admin dashboard, rather than ever using it in a webpage. No clue if anyone else is ever using it that way, but if someone could check for those sorts of usages that would be informative. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Three people have visited the redirect in the last month, so I feel safe in the assumption that no admins regularly use it. (And if any admin is using this redirect, I suspect they'll comment here when attempting to use the redirect brings them to this RFD page rather than {{admin dashboard}}.) Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Non-mainspace shortcuts are regularly ambiguous. While it is true that pseudo-namespace is deprecated, this has existed almost 20 years (since 2009). If it were relatively new, axing it would make sense. I also find Jclemens former use of it to show some tangential value. At the end of the day, this is not harmful. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete, once and for all, to stop this from wasting my time and annoying me. This just popped up in my patrol of Category:Pages with incorrectly transcluded templates. Previously at User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 13#On the matter of T: titles. This just simply won't go away, until it goes away. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
@Utopes: would surely want to vote on this, but they haven't edited since the first week of the year. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. My stance has always been to delete these and similar redirects, now that the TM: alias works as a fully consistent shortcut. After the debacle of these two that both closed as keep in August of last year, I have avoided being the one to reignite the subject, and have stayed away from T: space with a t:en foot pole. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per recent discussion and Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Create shortcut namespace aliases for various namespaces. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Godsy. A longstanding redirect that is harmless in practice (regardless of what theory says) and useful to some, so no benefit to deletion.Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Template:AD if not deleting. Jay 💬 12:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Sending it to that dab would serve much less of a navigational purpose and break the historical continuity its existence hangs on (it would be better to delete it than do that). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete, ambiguous and not really in use. Cutting down on deprecated pseudo-namespaces is always a good thing, especially since we already have TM: instead. Regarding the search bar thing – you can type "TM:AD" and the dashboard shows up in the menu. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:PNS, T: is not defined as a pseudo-namespace. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
@Tavix: Wanted to say for the record, but WP:PNS is not a complete list. Three examples are given on WP:PNS as a shortlist of common situations, and a longer list is given at Wikipedia:Shortcut § List of prefixes. The longer list is more encompassing, and mentions the "MP:" prefix, and used to include prefixes such as "Wikiproject:" and "WikiProject:". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Not only is it not a complete list, it is explicitly just a list of examples and does not, nor is it intended to, define the only acceptable pseudo-namespace shortcuts. If you wish to delete the redirect, provide counter arguments to the evidence presented of utility rather than pointing to a policy that doesn't exist. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It was listed there, until the beginning of last year. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete, or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Sigh, this has been relisted twice by two non-admins who can't close this as delete (without help), despite, by my count, a !vote of 6–2–2 (75% supporting deletion) which is usually sufficiently above the discretionary zone to merit a consensus close. Neither relisting editor has analyzed the discussion to date or explained why they've given extra weight to the two minority opinions. The redirect's creator used to use this redirect, but hasn't used it in years, and doesn't object to deletion. We have a claim that this is "useful to some" and "evidence (has been) presented of utility" – what evidence?! – despite the evidence that virtually nobody visited (actually used) the redirect in the month before this discussion opened. This redirect is not currently harmless in practice. It is triggering false-positives in two (ONE, TWO) of my patrols and this discussion has caused it to become the first item listed in the search box when searching for T:, crowding out other titles beginning with T: that others might be searching for. It's tying up editor time that could better be spent elsewhere. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Relisting discussions where there's a clear consensus is counterproductive at the best of times, but especially when WP:RfD is suffering severe page-size issues. J 947 ‡ ^edits 23:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Removing the redirect categories (which are of nominal value on a case-by-case basis) would relieve its presence in the error maintenance categories that you patrol, correct? I would have no qualm with that, and I doubt anyone else would object either. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, then. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. We've depreciated the namespace. That's kinda the last word. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Otepopo

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Unsatisfying, perhaps, but no-consensus closes usually are. FWIW, I typically try to avoid such a close if the outcome seems obviously wrong to me, instead voting myself in such situations. In this case, I noticed searching the term shows a few articles that explicitly do claim Otepopo is Herbert, so if that's not correct, there's more to do than just address this redirect. Also, given WP:NPLACE, if Otepopo is indeed a separate place, any editor could create the stubbiest of stubs on it and it would likely stand. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Otepopo → Herbert, New Zealand (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

According to the New Zealand Gazetteer Otepopo is a separate locality to Herbert. The entry for Herbert does not mention Otepopo as an alternate name. This document https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/oaaplra187640v1876n78551/ suggests that Otepopo is separate to Herbert and there are maps of Otepopo that show Herbert separately https://natlib.govt.nz/records/21707419 One source writes that Otepopo and Herbert are separate townships within the wider Otepopo district ^[1]

The claim that Otepopo is a former name of Herbert appears to originate on Wikipedia, with the only other sources to state as such being clearly circular. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment Otepopo is the area centred on the surveyed Town of Herbert. In the absence of an article about Otepopo, Herbert is the most appropriate target (and is certainly more appropriate a redirect than Waianakarua to Herbert, which isn't even the same place, even though there is a paragraph about Waianakarua in the Herbert article.) The Otepopo Athenaeum and Public Library Reserve Act 1876 you have linked to in fact specifies "in the District of Otepopo, in the Township of Herbert, in the Province of Otago" which does not mean that Otepopo is a separate township - Otepopo is, as in your other link, the name used for the Survey District but is in fact an ancient name for the area (Dorothy McKenzie in her history of Otepopo - which I don't have immediately to hand, but have read thoroughly a number of times - suggests that the name could be a reference to Double Hill - which is situated within the Town of Herbert - being reminiscient of a woman carrying a child on her back). Daveosaurus (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

so... what of that info would a reader get from the article in its current state, and do you have usable sources to add said info to it? from traumnovelle's findings, it seems herbert is instead an area centered in the surveyed town of otepopo, even though the implication is that otepopo isn't a town here consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The only content about Otepopo in the article prior to an edit of mine was a claim that was it the former name of Herbert, which is an unsourced claim that dates back to an IP edit and just a dictionary definition of Otepopo, that is not useful information for a reader and will far more likely lead them to believe Otepopo is another name for Herbert, which does not appear to be the case. I am not familiar with Waianakarua and if it should be in that article.

It being a name for the much wider area does not mean it is a name of the town. The archaeological report I referenced is probably the most detailed and reliable source on this matter. The Otepopo district is much larger including Maheno, New Zealand, Hampden, New Zealand, and Kakanui. This report also refers to the 'township of Otepopo' (cf. https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/34535)

Herbert is north of Mount Charles and an early 1863 map of the 'Otepopo settlement' shows it south of Mount Charles. There is some overlap in the naming of things like the local church using the name Otepopo but these are likely in reference to the wider area being known as Otepopo and is common elsewhere in New Zealand where names of the wider area are used for specific buildings such as churches and schools. For example Raetihi has the Waimarino museum and Waimarino A&P show, with the name being derived from the Waimarino County.

I've looked at quite a few sources and cannot find any stating that Herbert was ever known as Otepopo, the closest is that the area Herbert is on (which is a much wider area than Hebert) is known as Otepopo. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Mt. Charles is within the Town of Herbert - it is the summit shown as "Trig A" within the Cemetery Reserve on https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_016/jpg/NZMS016_Herbert_1870.jpg The other summit of Double Hill (Mt. Charles No. 2) not shown on the original town plan is situated on Section 9 of Block 29 of the Town of Herbert.

You are welcome to your opinion on Waimarino and Raetihi, as that is not an area I am familiar with from personal experience, but I do know Herbert well from my own personal experience and would strongly advise you to "breathe through your nose" while people familiar with the area explain matters to you. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The centre of the town is north of the mountain, but that isn't the point here. Otepopo is well outside that boundary you show there with this map highlighting parts of the Otepopo settlement, all of which fall well outside that boundary. This is in addition to all the text provided by the source that treat Otepopo and Herbert as distinct entities. I have yet to see a single source that is not obviously circular that treat Otepopo and Herbert as the same entity. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

delete for... well, let's just make a list

per nom, otepopo itself isn't mentioned in the target, only places that have "otepopo" in the name
also per nom, there seem to be multiple places within the same general area with equal claim to the title of primary topic, though what those places actually are is vague
also also per nom, none of those places seem to actually be notable in the slightest (and i couldn't get the first document to load, but that's besides the point)
partially per nom, but mostly per my own findings, some of those otepopos... might not actually exist!? i've found weather forecasts and travel guides, but those are suspiciously stingy with actually saying what an otepopo is, so i can't even be sure they're referring to any given one

this whole thing is confusing and gave me early morning head ouchies, so returning to red would be an overly optimistic way to interpret this mess consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Weather forecasting sites frequently scrape location information from Wikipedia, I would not regard any of them as a reliable source for a place's existence or location (well, I would trust at least some national meteorological offices, but I can't think of why we'd need to). Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

to probably be unfair, the info on that site was as follows

what the weather might be for the week
why i should play fortune tiger

eyed people will notice that that exhaustive list does not include any locations, so i'm not entirely sure if it would have info to scrape from wikipedia if it said anything about the place it's forecasting the weather of in the first place. it took me like 5 tries to not accidentally write "foreskinning" consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

All those weather forecasts and travel guides just scrape the NZGB for place names, similar to the GNIS scraping for non-existent places. Although the NZ places typically do exist, just as really remote rural localities with little online information. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete; opening up search results for the various enwiki mentions of "Otepopo" and redlinking in a navbox to encourage article creation appears preferable to the current situation. J 947 ‡ ^edits 02:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep. According to The Reed Dictionary of New Zealand Place Names (2010), page 198, Otepopo is the Māori name for Herbert. Paora (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
per above, that's not something a reader will know from getting there, and sources (reliable or otherwise) can't make up their minds about whether otepopo is herbert or something near or in it, so even having the name mentioned and defined there wouldn't go over how problematic this redirect is consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

What exactly does Reed (2010) say? Reed (1979) gives Otepopo a stand alone entry and does not mention Herbert. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Reed (1987), an atlas, labels Herbert and Otepopo as separate places. J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

[1]
The Oamaru to Hampden Water Pipeline

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Responding to the question from @Traumnovelle, Reed (2010) says "Maori name for Herbert: Otepopo: lit. o: place of; te: the; popo: decayed wood." There is no stand-alone entry for Otepopo in Reed (2010). Paora (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I see. I still believe deletion is the best outcome as people are more likely to be searching for the district or settlement than the Maori name of Herbert. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Tiberillus

The result of the discussion was delete. Qualifies as G7 per creator's comment, and no-one is advocating for any other specific outcome. Left guide (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Tiberillus → Tiberius (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I came across this redirect as a link from Julia the Younger, where it stated that "Tiberillus" (='little Tiberius') was a nickname given to Tiberius's son, who died in infancy. The claim was uncited and I cannot find it in any good RS ~~It seems likely to have been an invention of a Wikipedian, in my view~~ (edit: the name does appear in Robert Graves's supplementary material -- a family tree -- to Claudius the God, but I'm not sure it has any genuine ancient pedigree.) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete I made this many many years ago, and I don't recal exactly the circumstances around it. It used to be much much more common on Wikipedia to see information presented as fact that actually came from novels (mainly Graves and Colleen McCullough's books) when I started out. I think this might be a case of a nickname Graves inveted making its way into Wikipedia text and me making a redirect based on that, which is my bad in that case. It's not impossible that it's a nickname used by old academics (maybe during the 19th-century) that Graves picked up and used, but it doesn't seem to be from ancient sources.★Trekker (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
What is remaining of that sentence is also unsourced, and may be removed, although I have only added a {{citation needed}} for now. Jay 💬 11:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Oldest people

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator. I see a WP:SNOW close building, and there is no appetite for changing the target - no need to drag out the discussion. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Oldest peopleOldest people → List of oldest people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I disagree that this should redirect to List of oldest people. It should either be a primary redirect to Maximum life span#In humans or just be a disambiguation page of some kind that includes the lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep Why do you think the current target is wrong? If I search "oldest people" I'm likely looking for a list of the oldest people in the same way that largest countries, fastest cars and longest rivers take me to lists of the relevant superlatives. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Thryduulf. If someone were looking for information about the maximum human lifespan they would search something like "human lifespan" not "oldest people". The current target links to List of the verified oldest people and List of oldest living people in a hatnote as well as summarising them in respective sections where they're linked as {{main}}. Retargeting would also break incoming links (WP:RKEEP#4) which expect the present target. – Scyrme (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Note: This redirect was created as a result of Talk:List of oldest people#Requested move 30 April 2026. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Both are plausible but overall I agree with Thryduulf and Scyrme and I find the current target to be best. A link to Maximum life span#In humans could be added to lead of the target to help direct readers to additional information on the topic. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Strong Keep. The page is fine just the way it is. I can think of no good reason to change it. — Internet Esquire (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:V&

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:V& → Federal Bureau of Investigation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too old to meet WP:R3 criteria but this is a redirect from an implausible typo created on a spree where they created several such silly redirects in about 10 minutes. This would have met R3 if created within the last 3 weeks, in my humble opinion. See also 4 previous deletions under this title in mainspace and also this discussion, where there was clear consensus to delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This directly created as a redirect from draft space to mainspace so WP:RDRAFT isn't relevant, the linked 2008 RfD explains why this isn't a useful title in mainspace, and it isn't one in draftspace either. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Seems like nonsense. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per the 2008 discussion but even if it should exist in mainspace there doesn't seem a reason to keep this redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, this redirect is part of a series of implausible, recreated WP:DAFT titles. Xeroctic (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:WDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWD

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:WDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWD → WD40 repeat (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too old to meet WP:R3 criteria but this is a redirect from an implausible typo created on a spree where they created several such silly redirects in about 10 minutes. This would have met R3 if created within the last 3 weeks, in my humble opinion. There was clear consensus to delete in the previous RfD. I can't see anything that has happened in the last 6 years that may result in a different outcome. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If we still have lists of deleted bad jokes then this would merit an entry there, but that's it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This is just pure gibberish. 1isall (talk | contribs) 18:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete as overdone joke redirect. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Seems like nonsense. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, title was previously deleted and sent to WP:DAFT outside of draftspace for the same reason. Xeroctic (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:HOW CONSTITUTE A COMPANY IN HONDURAS?

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:HOW CONSTITUTE A COMPANY IN HONDURAS? → List of companies of Honduras (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too old to meet WP:R3 criteria but this is a redirect from an implausible typo created on a spree where they created several such silly redirects in about 10 minutes. This would have met R3 if created within the last 3 weeks, in my humble opinion. See also this previous discussion, where there was clear consensus to delete as an implausible search term. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete Seems like nonsense. Bad English. Not mentioned in target. All caps. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
DELETE per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, this title was previously deleted and sent to WP:DAFT outside of draft space. Xeroctic (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Hybrid what?

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Hybrid what? → Plug-in hybrid (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

See also previous discussion, where there was clear consensus to delete. I can't see why this would be any different a few months later. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - In the search box, typing 'hybrid' comes up with 'hybrid vehicle' in the suggestion list, which takes you to hybrid vehicle. 'Hybrid car' also comes up with a little more typing and takes you to the same place. This 'hybrid what?' redirect doesn't seem to add much value. Stepho talk 10:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per previous discussion in December 2025 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above. Seems like nonsense. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete for the same reason as V&. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, and this TA has recreated several other WP:DAFT titles in draftspace. Xeroctic (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

First Adhikari ministry

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 16#First Adhikari ministry

"Cites" redirects

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Prefecture-level cites of the People's Republic of China → Prefecture-level city (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Cites of Indonesia → List of regencies and cities in Indonesia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Cites of russia → List of cities and towns in Russia by population (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These are redirects that use "cites" that mean "cities". However, since "cites" can also be confused with "sites" (like World Heritage Sites), these redirects may be confusing, so they should be deleted. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Targets are not lists of works that have been cited. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete as vague. Could be a misspelling of cities or sites, or refer to citations relevant to each location (for example, bibliographies). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above. These are almost never used anyway, 10-18 hits all last year. Station1 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep as a common typo and misspelling that doesn't appear to significantly obstruct search. Anecdotally speaking, I have a Dickens book on my shelf whose spine reads "A Tale of Two Cites". That's an exceptionally unlikely place to find any sort of typo. It's not alone: A Tale of Two Cities (1935 film) references a similarly misspelt NYT article title. Furthermore, this particular typo has permeated academia as well ( ). All in all, "a tale of two cites" finds 5,900 Google results. That's just one example of this pervasive typo.
As for the claims of ambiguity, the correctly spelt Prefecture-level sites of the People's Republic of China, Sites of Indonesia, and Sites of russia would first have to exist like their "cities" counterparts in order for that idea to be entertained. "Cites" means "cities" much more often than it means "sites" – and for these search terms, that distinction is exaggerated manyfold. I would prefer if people wouldn't spuriously argue that actually, people searching up "Prefecture-level cites of the People's Republic of China" might mean "cites" or "sites", not "cities". And even if you do believe the other two redirects are slightly ambiguous, so what? The reader searching for Indonesian World Heritage Sites isn't going to care whether they're redirected to List of regencies and cities in Indonesia or staring at unhelpful search results. Indeed, the former makes it more likely they realise their misspelling. J 947 ‡ ^edits 05:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the Keep argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete, random typos are bad enough, but random typos in long titles are especially unlikely to be helpful. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete The search engine detects such typos and offers the correct result. We do not need to create redirects for such typos. Type "cite of san francisco" in the search box and "City of San Francisco" comes up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
It does so inconsistently at best. Creating redirects from typos shouldn't be encouraged in the vast majority of cases, but once that act is done the redirect is helpful, saving clicks. J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Deacon. Jay 💬 11:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

chameleon (fluorescent protein)

The result of the discussion was retarget to Cameleon (protein) and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Chameleon (fluorescent protein)Chameleon (fluorescent protein) → Chameleon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Chameleon (fluorecent protein) → Chameleon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

this is a strange one, even for my standards, so... buckle up, i guess
per the pre-blar content of the properly-spelled redirect, this is indeed a real green fluorescent protein. however, per the not many sources i've been able to find, that's the closest it comes to being correct about anything. i've found nothing actually tying its engineering to roger tsien, it can't have been made from bfp, calmodulin, m13, and egfp (think of it as a cement mixture made from concrete) because sources were torn between it being an alternative or former name for calmodulin itself and a descriptor for fluorescent proteins in general, and details on what the protein actually does are inconsistent

results not directly referring to calmodulin were mostly about fluorescent proteins that change color (that is, fluorescent proteins in general) being described as "chameleon-like", and from what i've seen, it's very important to separate gfps from fps in general, which this title fails to do. additionally, no articles mention terms that would be relevant to actually justifying this redirect

what does this come down to? uh... delete as vague? it's actually a little hard to pin down a main reason when there are so many issues here, so i hope i'm just extremely wrong about everything, but this wouldn't be the right target anyway consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Redirection should be removed and Chameleon (fluorecent protein) page should be deleted. Mashin6 (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Restore and AfD. It's clear that redirection to the present target is wrong, but the pre-BLAR content is not remotely close to being speedy deleteable so the article content needs discussion at an article content discussion venue. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
i'm not actually entirely sure this would apply even if it wasn't wrong. on top of the above issues, the one source in the pre-blar content supported some amount of the claims in the lead, but said source reports a slightly different composition, refers to substances like it in general as "cameleons" (no h), and doesn't seem to directly describe them as fluorescent proteins of any kind (instead, using the term "fluorescent indicator"), with the rest of the pre-blar content seemingly getting the rest of the source (or what i could access of it, why isn't it available via twl~?)
...which keen eyes will notice actually proves that i really was extremely wrong about everything, as cameleon (protein) is an article that exists and refers to those indicators, including actually properly establishing them as proteins and fluorescent!! this means my vote will change to "retarget the first one to that, delete the second as an implausible tyo" consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
i'll also leave some notes here, which are relevant to the discussion of the protein but not to this rfd, just for funsies
the answer to whether the term "cameleon" refers to one specific protein or a category of them is "yes", with sources supporting both the specific term (already found there), and the broad one (here's an example)

although the article says the name is a bad pun, i couldn't actually find which sources support that claim, or sources in general that would work for it (to be fair, i could just be bad at looking)

the article is sorely outdated. if newer sources were introduced, there would be a good few variants of it to handle, like "cameleon-nanos"

apparently, this bad pun thing got trendy and snowballed into bad portmanteaus. the horror!
there's no real point to this one, though. the article is outdated and seems to have original research, but that's something someone more familiar with cameleons can probably easily handle, and rfd has no need to dabble in (which i should clarify does not mean "no ability or right") consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
When you are analysing the sources for anything other than existence/non-existence of a term, and especially if you are discussing whether notability is demonstrated and/or it contains original research, you are firmly and unambiguously in AfD territory. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
this one warrants three important questions
where did you get the idea of afd here? i said the article had original research and dating issues, but not notability, and per the findings above, it's a duplicate anyway

what supports the idea that article content can't be analyzed in this context in rfd? this is something i haven't seen guidelines and policies even suggesting the possibility of, and if previous discussions and the current states of wp:blar and wp:xfd are to be treated as a valid metric, is more likely than not outright wrong

if something of this nature actually exists (and isn't just a suggestion), why would it apply to something i've made clear is irrelevant to this rfd and mentioned "just for funsies"?

if you're referring to the pre-blar content instead of the existing article about the topic (in which case, it's weird that you'd make it a reply to the comment about the latter), then you haven't bothered to make an argument about it except "it isn't speediable" (in which case, you're only right in that it would survive an a10 by being old), so do you have any actual stance on whether or not it would need to be restored by non-procedural means that also aren't verifiably incorrect in two separate regards?

yes, that was three, shh consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete unless or until anyone is able to make a plausible case for notability. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget the redirect with correctly spelled disambiguator to Cameleon (protein) and delete the misspelled disambiguator per Consarn's findings. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget Chameleon (fluorescent protein) to Cameleon (protein). Weak delete the misspelling. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Consarn @Thryduulf, is there any objection to retargeting this (Chameleon (fluorescent protein), at least) to Cameleon (protein)? These are straightforwardly the same thing, the "chameleon" spelling has been used for it in the literature, and '(fluorescent protein)' could be considered an anticipated disambiguation. I see no cause to delete the correctly spelled version now that we've found the right target. Restoring would create a duplicate article. If anyone feels Cameleon (protein) is non-notable, take that article to AfD. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

My objection is to deletion of the article content at RfD not AfD. If there is no longer a desire to delete that content at all then that's fine by me. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I understood that to be your position. I assume the only reason this was re-listed was because of your remaining 'Restore and AfD' !vote and the back-and-forth between you and the nom that did not address the proposed ATD. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

i mentioned in the initial comment that retargeting would've been the best bet consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 22:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I confess I didn't actually re-read the thread above when I saw the relist. So it looks like there is unanimous agreement to retarget Chameleon (fluorescent protein) to Cameleon (protein) and perhaps some ambiguity about what to do with Chameleon (fluorecent protein). I'm fine with retargeting both or deleting Chameleon (fluorecent protein). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Eli Kowaz

The result of the discussion was delete. I've added the note as BDD suggested. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Eli Kowaz → Israel Policy Forum (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 26 § Eli Kowaz – Keep

This individual no longer works for this organization and is not mentioned in the article about the organization. There is no reason for this redirect to remain. Aneirinn (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Disclosing that I'm the subject of this redirect. For what it's worth, there's a standalone article at this title that predates the redirect — you can see it in the page history. Given that, the redirect to IPF seems redundant. I also no longer work there. TelAvivDesk (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify my preference — I would support restoration of the pre-redirect article rather than simple deletion of the redirect. I’m happy to provide sourcing for updates to reflect my current work. TelAvivDesk (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Just tagged the redirect as a {{R from merge}} although User:Keizers had not provided the copy attribution. Jay 💬 15:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ‡ ^edits 05:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete Not mentioned on target. Subject has his own web page if someone wants to know about him. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
This can't be deleted without violating copyright due to the merge. J 947 ‡ ^edits 02:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
It's not that inflexible, fortunately. An easy way of dealing with it would be a note at Talk:Israel Policy Forum: "Eli Kowaz redirected here from START to END after being merged in DIFF. The redirect was subsequently deleted after the relevant content was removed. Contributors to the Eli Kowaz article were LIST." What do you think? --BDD (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Sure. J 947 ‡ ^edits 22:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

BgirL5

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

BgirL5 → Philip DeFranco (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is nothing in the article to determine why this redirects here or what it means. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. मल्ल (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment YLA (group) was formerly known as The Beach Girl5. "BgirL5" is not mentioned, though. Paradoctor (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ‡ ^edits 05:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete Unused alternate name. It could be construed as a contraction of The Beach Girl5, but I searched and do not find anyone using it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Business organisation

The result of the discussion was retarget to Business organization (thus, keep the first). This got confusing, especially with the concurrent AfD, but I see agreement that these are all variations on "Business organization" and should follow it. If that page ends up deleted, fine, these will be too via WP:G6, and if it's eventually recreated, any of these can be as well, as needed. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Business organisationBusiness organisation → Business organization (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Business organisationsBusiness organisations → Corporate law (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Business OrganisationsBusiness Organisations → Corporate law (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Business OrganisationBusiness Organisation → Corporate law (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Business organizations → List of legal entity types by country (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Business OrganizationBusiness Organization → List of legal entity types by country (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I don't believe these redirects should go to different places. I would have initially retargeted all to Business organization, but that page is a disambiguation page that doesn't mention either Corporate law or List of legal entity types by country. In addition, I think that disambiguation page may better function as a redirect instead, considering that there is a combined total of 14 links in mainspace for the 6 nominated redirects, mostly to Business organizations. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Retarget all to Category:business organizations. (There is also {{business organizations}}.) "Business organization" has at most a WP:DICDEF. I'm not aware of any idiomatic definition of the term, and none of the current targets define the term, they're just using it. Which leaves us with delete, soft redirect to Wiktionary, or retargeting to the category. Paradoctor (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Retarget all to business organization per J947, given that the most likely outcome for the AfD is a brand-spanking new article. Paradoctor (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Note I AfDed the dab page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business organization. Paradoctor (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Restore this version of the article on "Business organizations" as a field distinct from any particular subset of organizations. I can see where there was discussion of merging this, but can't see where there was a consensus in that discussion. BD2412 T 12:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete These should all redirect to Business organization, but the search engine detects such typos and offers the correct result. We do not need to create redirects for such typos. There is a delete discussion for this target, but it is unlikely to be deleted. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
What typos? These seem to just be variations in spelling (not misspellings) or variations in capitalisation. – Scyrme (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Business organization, whether it's a dab page or article. This isn't complicated. In normal circumstances, plurals, different spellings, and different capitalisations go where the base name goes. There's no reason that shouldn't apply here. J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Huh. Actually missed that z/s thing. Paradoctor (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per J947. These are minor variations which should be combined in the same disambiguation page. (WP:DABCOMBINE). – Scyrme (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
There is not going to be a dab page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business organization. Paradoctor (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
If an article gets restored at AfD, that's fine too. These are still minor variations of the same title. The only problem would be if there's were something named Business Organi(s/z)ation(s) like a book or something, as the variations with capitalisation may suggest a search for proper noun, but that doesn't seem to be the case so it's safe to just treat them as stylistic variation (title case). If that changes then the capitalised versions can be renominated later. – Scyrme (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Railcar mover

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 20#Railcar mover

Latino Spanish

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Latino SpanishLatino Spanish → Spanish language in the Americas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_1#Latina_Spanish. wikt:Latino#Adjective typically refers to people, not to things. The correct is Latin Spanish. Dudzcar (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Toolforge shows only 2 pageviews in the past year so it's barely useful. Also potentially ambiguous, considering how Latino often refers to Latin Americans in the US. Erinius (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The page was only created in April. Schestos (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue any comment? Dudzcar (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The current target encompasses Spanish as spoken in the United States so is also suitable if this is interpreted more narrowly as "Spanish as spoken by Latin Americans". – Scyrme (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: not everyone knows that "Latino" only refers to people. People could search for this. Schestos (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This is a predictable phrase people might use to search for this, whether or not it reflects official or proper usage. As for Latino typically refers to people, Latino Spanish can be understood to mean Spanish as spoken by Latinos. We have similar constructs like Chicano English. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Myceteae. Seems like a plausible way to search for "Spanish as spoken by Latinos", ie. Latin American Spanish. – Scyrme (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ I nominated Latina Spanish for deletion but marked this one as reviewed because in my view this is something someone might search. It is absolutely true that Latino usually refers to people not things, but grammatically we can put a singular noun relating to people in front of another noun to create a phrase meaning "relating to this group". For example "Jew hatred", "Gypsy music", "priest hole". Redirects are not authorising a phrase as correct, merely helping users track down the information they need.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Having read the reasoning of Dudzcar more carefully, it is possible that we might be better making this into a disambiguation page featuring Spanish language in the Americas and Spanish language in the United States? It is very plausible somebody might search for this to find details on the latter topic.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

As I noted earlier, the former encompasses the latter. The section Spanish language in the Americas § Local variations provides a list which links to Spanish language in the United States in its subsection for North America. Anyone looking for the latter would find it at the former. – Scyrme (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Spanish language in the United States is a subtopic of Spanish language in the Americas and is covered in the parent article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Scyrme and Myceteae. This is a plausible search term, and as pointed out by others, the broader sense of the Americas encompasses the United States, so the ambiguity is not an issue. Mclay1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)