Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For the reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.
XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 0 126 157 283
TfD 0 1 0 14 15
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 3 5 27 35
RfD 0 0 7 68 75
AfD 0 0 0 17 17

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When to delete a redirect for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Current and past redirects for discussion (RfD) discussions

[edit]

Current discussions

[edit]

Redirects that have been nominated for discussion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

Old discussions

[edit]

After 7 days, RfDs nominations that have finished their discussion period are eligible to be closed following the deletion process.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD

[edit]
Shortcut
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When to delete a redirect

[edit]

Shortcuts

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such as links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting

[edit]
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Banana". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
  11. If the redirect ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page or a page performing a disambiguation-like function (such as a set index of articles). Speedy deletion criterion G14 may apply.

Reasons for not deleting

[edit]
Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be retained in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Please tag these with {{R from old history}}. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

[edit]
Shortcut

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumorBarack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "AttorneygateAttorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes

[edit]
Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

[edit]
Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If it is an inline template, use |showontransclusion=tiny instead.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list

[edit]
Shortcuts

March 17

[edit]

Black mirrors

[edit]

Black Mirrors for the plural one (or hatnote) and probably Black Mirror (disambiguation) for the singular one? (or even move dab to that title) Abesca (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2004 election in progress

[edit]

This redirect is not named in a clear manner. You can see that the title is irrelevant to now because the election is over, whereas this title implies that the election is still going and that is obvious from the date this redirect was created. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

[edit]

American Drum Horse

[edit]

This redirect should instead point to Glossary of equestrian terms#American Drum Horse, which contains actual explanatory content, and not to a blank line in a table of a WP:CATALOG article.

Background: In WikiProject Equine, we have many old articles that are uncited, fail notability for standalone articles, or rely solely on primary and self-published sources. Articles about organizations that "register" horses that are not actual breeds, and that function as minor vanity registries ("my horse has papers"), fall into a group of articles that are routinely handled by blank-and-redirect as failing GNG. Even articles titled as "breed names" originating from these niche registries fall into the same category; for example, American Drum Horse and Baroque Pinto. If the concept is close enough to the parent- or source-breed, and there's a standalone article, then relevant content could be merged there (such as, Pinto Horse Association of America). But when the "new breed" is too much of an offshoot/variant/outcross, the parent-breed article is an inappropriate target. In those cases, the Glossary of equestrian terms is the best place for a brief mention, and it should be the target of the redirect.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support in part, oppose in part these minor “breeds” don’t need standalone articles, but the Glossary of equestrian terms is a carefully curated list of “horse words” not a catchall for cruft. I think a redirect to List of North American horse breeds is best, because that is the “parking lot” for the things that need to have redirected (so that the same vanity article isn’t just recreated again). Montanabw(talk) 01:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trace map

[edit]

The more widely known Trace (linear algebra) is also a map. There is also a the notion at Sheaf_of_modules#Operations (which generalises the case of modules). The most general notion is probably Categorical trace. Specific maps called "trace maps" also occur in the context of Serre duality/the dualizing sheaf (though the latter article calls it trace morphism, which should probably redirect somewhere as well) and in algebraic K-theory (though there is not a lot of information on it in that article). 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian strikes on Cyrpus

[edit]

deletion, there is a typo Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 15:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect attracted thousand 1,277 pageviews. And Cyrpus is a redirect, so I guess this is a common misspelling for some reason. Abesca (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would've been a speedy delete (WP:R3) if it had been nominated earlier. This is a simple one-off mistake. The pageviews noted by Abesca are misleading and are due to what Mathguy2718 pointed out already. Those views are a blip that lasted for 1 day, and dropped off immediately afterwards. The few residual views are likely due to people checking its history, etc. from this RfD. – Scyrme (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of artificial intelligence

[edit]

The criticism of AI is not limited to ethical issue, also include copyright and other issues A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The target article "Ethics of artificial intelligence" isn't ideal. Perhaps "Artificial intelligence controversies" would be better, although it's more about specific events than general criticism. Alenoach (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from all of that, the redirects are fine as is. Returning it to red might not be ideal, because we should be encouraging a content split, not a completely fresh article. Keep. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy of artificial intelligence is the broader topic Abesca (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

College fest

[edit]

Broken redirect, not even mentioned in target page Kailash29792 (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Would this be worth disambiguating? with entries for CollegeFest, Cultural festival (India), and any other relevant articles NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Subjugate

[edit]

Slavery is only one specific form of subjugation, and the words are usually used to talk about other things. In particular, I checked about half of the incoming links from mainspace articles and none referred to literal slavery. All the links I checked were unnecessary and can safely be removed. Making this a red link would discourage unnecessary linking in future. Alternatively, the three redirects could be redirected to their respective Wiktionary entries using Template:Wiktionary redirect, but I think it's better to discourage linking these words using red links. Un assiolo (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ico (playstation)

[edit]

Ambiguous redirect, both two PlayStation versions existed. Absolutiva 05:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutiva: The present target, Ico, appears to cover both the PS2 and PS3 releases, so I'm unsure what you mean. Is there another article this redirect could plausibly point to? I was only able to find Ico and The Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection, but the latter is a compilation so isn't an appropriate target for a redirect which refers to only one of the games included in that compilation. The compilation is also linked to in the lead section of Ico, so if that was what a reader was looking for they'd still likely find it. – Scyrme (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

God's Beads

[edit]

Recently created redirect after this was moved to draftspace without leaving a redirect per this discussion. It is mentioned at target, but this should be get deleted and become a WP:REDLINK to encourage editors to work on the draft page at Draft:God's Beads. This might also meet criteria for WP:SD, although I don't think it does as this is a redirect, unlike the deleted content which was an article. Still, I think it is best to Delete and WP:RETURNTORED and link where it is mentioned to encourage work on the page in draft space. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just saw the note that the draft is mentioned at redirect note, but I honestly still think it is best to delete, because it is not guaranteed everyone will just click on the redirected from note. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Valid redirect to a section where the series is listed and mentioned. The title is a plausible search term and the redirect helps readers locate the existing information and prevents the creation of duplicate articles. The {{R with possibilities}} also guides editors to the draft where improvements can continue until it meets notability guidelines. At that point, a robin-swap can be performed. Deleting the redirect to force a redlink is unnecessary and may instead lead to repeated recreation or duplicate drafts rather than improving the existing draft. Do note that this series isn't expected to premiere till December 2026. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Green leafhopper

[edit]

Several species in the genus Nephotettix are also called green leafhoppers. Rather than redirecting only to C. viridis, perhaps this page could be turned into a disambiguation page? Uffda608 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate, delete, or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per nom. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trials of the Nazis

[edit]

Ambiguous; cf. Category:Nazi war crimes trials. Not sure if there is any good target discussing this more generally (The Holocaust#Criminal trials is rather specific, and does not have as much information). This gets around 2 pageviews a month so it might be best to just delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LENS

[edit]

Originally a redirect to European Laboratory for Non-Linear Spectroscopy. Lens (disambiguation) also mentions Laser engineered net shaping (though the article only uses the initialism in a link). Probably retarget to the dab page (per WP:DIFFCAPS)? 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to European Laboratory for Non-Linear Spectroscopy with a {{Redirect}} hatnote to the disambiguation page for other uses. Laser Engineered Net Shaping seems unlikely to be the primary topic for the acronym when it's not even the common name for the topic it refers to. – Scyrme (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Lens (disambiguation). The redirect points to Lens because that used to be the location of the dab page. When the dab page was moved to allow the article to use that title the redirect was mistakenly not updated. --Srleffler (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address the question whether it should point at the disambiguation page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus of which target yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to European.... There are only two acronyms at the dab page -- this or laser metal shaping. That gets a good sight more page views, but it's very unlikely that people are getting there are associating "LENS" with it, which as noted, seems to be a little-used trade name. A hatnote to either it or the dab page would suffice to catch anything else. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nazzi

[edit]

While this is not an implausible mispelling of "Nazi", most hits are for other topics, including Faggin–Nazzi alphabet, a Stefano Nazzi, and several other people with "Nazzi" as a given or surname. I would prefer deletion to let search work properly, but a dab page would also be preferable to this redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the redirect Nazzism exists. Abesca (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nazzism is much more unambiguous. I dunno that I'd call it a useful redirect but I don't think it's likely to attract people searching for something other than the fascist ideology. Rusalkii (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep as a plausible misspelling, i searched for pages to see if there were any on individuals with the surname 'nazzi' but none seem to exist. perhaps if some did exist we could have a surname dab page with a hatnote to redirect readers who misspelled their search term, but currently there doesn't seem to be any need caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 10:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per nom. This is a plausible misspelling/typo. However, as the nominator pointed out, there are other similar titles. A disambiguation would definitely be appropriate. Said dab page should also contain a see also pointing to either Nazism or Nazi (disambiguation) or both. The see also would solve the typo problem hopefully. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am also okay with keeping the redirect as an alternative. If a dab page turns out to be inappropriate. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete, but don't disambiguate. RfD has started churning out low-quality, unhelpful DAB pages. It's not clear what there is to disambiguate that actually has a Wikipedia article. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not agree that this is a plausible misspelling. External search results (for "Nazzi", including quotes to search for this exact spelling) simply don't provide any evidence for that. They instead provide results for people whose surname is Nazzi, some of whom apparently have been mentioned in news articles so might be notable. The aforementioned Stefano Nazzi [it] has an article on the Italian Wikipedia, which also suggests that at least he is notable even if the others aren't. It's not implausible in the future someone might translate that article over here, or write a new article about him. Disambiguation (or a set index of people named Nazzi) is not viable as there are no articles on the English Wikipedia that would share that title and misspellings don't warrant disambiguation.
    Even if I'm wrong about this being an implausible misspelling, if someone were to use the search engine they'd still see a result for Nazism due to the redirect from Nazzism so, hypothetically, they'd still find what they were looking for.
    Best to vacate it and return to red so it's available if anyone decides to make articles about the various possibly notable people named Nazzi. – Scyrme (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scyrme. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Y2K7

[edit]

Redirects all target a section that does not exist. In addition, there is no information at the target or anywhere else about "Y2K7". The first two redirects do have a lot of history, though. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Restore revision 327444784. The topic itself, though not named as such, is briefly still touched on at the target at Daylight saving time § Computing:

Changes to DST rules cause problems in existing computer installations. For example, the 2007 change to DST rules in North America required that many computer systems be upgraded, with the greatest onus on e-mail and calendar programs. The upgrades required a significant effort by corporate information technologists.

The reference for that paragraph does describe it as "mini-Y2K". However, this doesn't really provide much information, and it wouldn't be due to add more.
The original article had references before it was blanked, suggesting this is a notable topic, like Year 2011 problem, etc. A link to be added at the current target, so the restored article wouldn't be an orphan.
It was blanked with the rationale Redirecting this to a section in the main DST article that already covers the complexities of DST changes without a recentist bent. However, I don't see much of a "recentist bent" in that revision, which discusses the topic in past tense, and it was blanked in 2010, 3 years after the problem would have been relevant, so it's a bit odd to complain of recentism. Maybe the blanking and redirecting was warranted at the time, if the target had more information, but it no longer looks warranted now. – Scyrme (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Clans Decide

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 08:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added a small mention of it due to the fact that basic publication history of Warriors media is something that ought to be kept in the article. Blubewwy (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After Sunset: We Need to Talk

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 08:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added a small mention of it due to the fact that basic publication history of Warriors media is something that ought to be kept in the article. Blubewwy (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anti isomer

[edit]

One of Diastereomer#Syn_/_anti or Descriptor_(chemistry)#syn,_anti would seem to be a more accurate target. After this RfD, syn isomer should probably be created with the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 07:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bidentate

[edit]

I suppose these should have the same targets. 1234qwer1234qwer4 07:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TrioBe

[edit]

Delete. TrioBe is a proprietary combination of three B vitamins. It does not contain the other 5 main B vitamins nor any of the other compounds listed in the article. TrioBe is not discussed in the article nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. These redirects don't help readers who are looking for information about this specific product and may mislead readers into thinking the term is synonymous with B vitamins generally. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Farsee

[edit]

An AFCRD request, and while this isn't totally off the wall, it does stretch the plausibility line quite a bit. Simple web searches overwhelmingly come back with dictionary results about "farsee", an actual English word about...well, seeing far. Secondary results are all sorts of other mixed stuff, like names, software, other random stuff, but I couldn't find any actual misspellings of Farsi in the bunch, which by the way, refers to the language specifically. I recommend a delete to let the search engine take care of this one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian war (2011–2013)

[edit]

Clearly incorrect, the war was not ended in 2013 A1Cafel (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 16th

[edit]

This is an outlier of sorts, as no other construction of "The Xth" points to a specific century, and 16th by itself is obviously ambiguous in ways that are in some cases likely applicable to the phrase "The 16th" (e.g., 16th of the month, constitutional amendments, and the numerous kinds of military units). I would retarget this to the disambiguation page, 16th. BD2412 T 02:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nominator. I definitely don't think the century is the primary topic for this. Could delete this, but retargeting to the existing disambiguation page seems harmless. It seems to be a leftover from an attempt to make an article at this title about the century which was later blanked and redirected.
As a note, of the possible similarly formatted "The [ordinal]" titles from 1st-21st, the ones which exist are The 1st, The 2nd, The 3rd, The 4th (for transparency, I just made this one), The 5th, The 7th, The 8th, The 11th, The 12th. The 13th. The 15th. The 17th. The 19th. The 21st. None go to centuries. Most go to a primary topic or disambiguation pages. Of the ones that go to disambiguation pages, some go to pages which include "the", while others are combined with the ordinal without "the". – Scyrme (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Scyrme: I've been working on the ordinals quite a bit lately. I think that they could all incorporate the "The Xth" topics. BD2412 T 02:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've gone ahead and made The 4th, The 6th, The 9th, and The 10th as covering at least all the numbers from 1-10 seemed reasonable. – Scyrme (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Central Estonia

[edit]

Not mentioned in the section it targets, though it has Northern Estonia, Southern Estonia, Western Estonia, and Eastern Estonia. It may be related to et:Kesk-Eesti and et:Kesk-Eesti lavamaa. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow of the Amerian Mathematical Society

[edit]

Misspelling redirect that was created in error; not plausible for such a long phrase. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would've been eligible for a speedy deletion (WP:R3) if it had been caught earlier. It only exists due to an oversight. – Scyrme (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I agree that the misspelling is a bit unlikely, and that it isn't doing very much good. I note that it isn't on our WP:Lists of common misspellings. On the other hand, it's also not completely implausible (it may do a tiny bit of good), and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroretorting

[edit]

Not explained at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Hytort process. Fairly sure "hytort" is an abbreviation of hydroretorting, and the two are synonymous. Though, "Hytort" could be a proprietary name for the generic process. – Scyrme (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Man Savage Beast 2

[edit]

There's no such title as "Savage Man Savage Beast 2", it is unsourced and no original research. Absolutiva 09:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - External search results for "Savage+Man+Savage+Beast+2" do yield results that refer to it as an alternative title. Among them I found an eBay listing for a 1976 poster that shows that it was at least marketed as "Savage Man Savage Beast Part II"/"Savage Man Savage Beast Part 2" in some places. Savana violenta also mentions that it's the second instalment of a trilogy, so perhaps it wouldn't be too surprising (WP:SURPRISE) even if it doesn't mention this exact title in the article. – Scyrme (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

[edit]

Central Asian Commonwealth

[edit]

"Central Asian Commonwealth" isn't mentioned at the target. There is a mention at Commonwealth of Independent States: if that were to be the target then the circular wikilink would need to be removed. I'm listing for discussion here because these organisations are often translated differently and there may be a reason for the current target that I'm missing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(creator) 10 years ago...hmm...looking at 2016 history still not clear. The mention at Commonwealth of Independent States#Organisation of Central Asian Cooperation has a cn but looks promising, with the selflink then needing removing (and for what it's worth Gemini says "A Short-Lived Historical Proposal (1991)...superseded by CIS". Central Asian Union seems afterwards per that timeline. This source [1] says "...became Central Asian Economic Community". Widefox; talk 17:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just several minutes before you created this redirect, you made this edit to CAC (§ Politics and religion, Central Asian Commonwealth, an organization later renamed to Organization of Central Asian CooperationOrganization of Central Asian Cooperation) – wbm1058 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Central Asian Commonwealth added to the disambiguation by this 21 September 2008 edit by User:Yzb – wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mention at CIS as unsourced / unverified. Jay 💬 12:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Before we remove the line item from the disambiguation, we should consider restoring the content it targeted. See my comments below. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote group redirects

[edit]

A number of redirects to {{hatnote group}} have recently been created, and it seems unproductive to me, because a whole pile of them have been created quite recently and aren't actually in use:

Redirect use overview
Redirect Use count Creator Creation date
Template:Hatnote shell 9 EchidnaLives 2022-11-21
Template:Hatnote holder 1 EchidnaLives 2022-11-21
Template:Hatgrp 126 CrafterNova 2023-05-21
Template:Multihat 2 Remsense 2025-07-27
Template:Hatnotegroup 0 ZNático 2026-02-09
Template:Hatgroup 0 ZNático 2026-02-13
Template:Grouphat 0 ZNático 2026-02-13
Template:Htgrp 5 Abesca 2026-02-16
Template:Hatgp 0 Abesca 2026-03-13
Template:Htgp 3 Abesca 2026-02-16
Template:Hngp 0 Abesca 2026-03-13
Template:Hgp 0 Abesca 2026-03-13
Template:Hng 0 Abesca 2026-03-13
Template:Htg 0 Abesca 2026-03-13
Template:Hg 1 Abesca 2026-03-13
Template:HG 0 Abesca 2026-03-13

I'm not entirely opposed to template redirects existing, but I'm not fond of opaque names, and this set of frequently-opaque names is clearly bigger than it needs to be, especially concerning the March 13 additions, which seem quite needless to me (no offense, Abesca). While redirects are cheap, they do incur a small amount of maintenance load, and additionally for template redirects there's both some cognitive load for editors to remember template names and a risk of vandalism on redirects that are both unprotected and widely-used.

I think that at least the redirects with very few links should probably be deleted and any uses retargeted to the main template. I included "Hatgrp" despite its 126 uses for the sake of a complete list for discussion; I imagine that editors will prefer to keep that one, at least. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 23:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a shorter shortcut than hatgrp. grp is a weird way to abbreviate group, especially considering the prefix hat makes it unambiguous/precise. I'm not opposed of deleting all the others if we can decide one that isn't harder to remember. However many of these are also plausible, but since template redirects have a different balance of costiness, I agree they can go. Abesca (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Renewables

[edit]

Delete as these could refer to many different things. Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate at Renewables. The plural and singular should point to the same place, but both "...energy" and "...resource" are equally likely targets and Renewable fuels are also referred to as "renewables" in some contexts. A disambiguation page could also include a "See also" section with {{in title}} links to cover the myriad partial title matches. I favour disambiguating at the plural, as "renewable" isn't often used as a noun by itself. I oppose deleting them; they're well-used redirects, based on traffic. – Scyrme (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. No strong preference between the singular and the plural. I agree that the dab page could include in-title searches and perhaps a Wiktionary link. I agree with the nom that the adjective renewable could refer to just about anything. But the noun renewable—and especially the plural—has a more restricted use related to renewal resources, energy, etc. I spot-checked several uses of both redirects in article and a dab page is consistent with the way these are used. It could be written more as a set index article as opposed to a dab page depending on content, framing, format, etc. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I think it should be at the singular, as renewable can also be an adjective. Interestingly, Renewability redirects to Motion (parliamentary procedure)#Renewal of motions. Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "renewable" can also be an adjective, but an adjective by itself isn't the title of a topic, it's just a partial title match. A disambiguation page should be located at a standalone title, not a partial match for other titles.
    Regarding Renewability, "renewal" and "renewability" mean very different things, and the latter isn't even in the article it redirects to. The only link that redirect has from an article is from Nanotechnology which clearly does not intend to link to renewal of motions. I'm going to list it for RfD without bundling it as I don't think it's similar enough to warrant pointing the same disambiguation page. (Edit: it's listed now.) – Scyrme (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate (or set indexify) at Renewable or Renewables?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 11:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where should the disambiguation page be? At present, there isn't one drafted at either one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, rather obviously. My preference would be for the page to be at Renewable, given that there are things that are renewable, but not necessarily called renewables. BD2412 T 23:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That would encourage listing partial title matches, which is contrary to what a disambiguation page is for. How many articles could plausibly share the title of just "Renewable" by itself? – Scyrme (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:DABNAME, which is a guideline, when naming the disambiguation page, "Singulars are preferred to plurals." If anything, naming it by the plural is more likely to encourage partial title matches than the singular, since there are many articles like EDF Renewables, SSE Renewables, and Celtic Renewables with "Renewables" and only one other word, but most titles containing "renewable" have at least two additional words, which makes it less likely for someone to add a partial title match. In addition, most titles containing "renewable" have a word like "Energy" or "Power" after it, and it's not "Renewable Energy" or "Renewable Power" that is being disambiguated, which makes it even less likely for someone to add something like Innergex Renewable Energy to "Renewable" compared to adding one of the three examples that contain "Renewables" into a disambiguation page at "Renewables". Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that "renewables" is like Mathematics (disambiguation), in that the plural suffix is actually used for nominalisation to make a collective noun rather than a plural of another noun; "renewable" and "mathematic" are adjectives, "renewables" and "mathematics" are nouns. There are no articles which could just have the title "renewable" by itself because it would inherently be an incomplete title. – Scyrme (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have drafted both a disambiguation page and a set index article, as either may work. Since every entry refers to anything that can be renewed, it may be more suitable for a set index article. That being said, links to "Renewable" mostly refer to the description of being renewable (similarly to Zero emission), while links to "Renewables" mostly refer to renewable resources. Also, renewable energy seems to be a subset of renewable resources, so "renewable resource" would be reasonable target if disambiguation doesn't work. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Both drafts work, but I prefer the disambiguation page. Making it a disambiguation page would encourage editors to replace links to the specific article intended when making internal links to renewable or renewables. It's also easier to navigate to the intended article if someone searches for these terms and ends up at the disambiguation page. A set index would work better if we focused in one one of these, like making a set index for renewable fuels. – Scyrme (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate at Renewable I prefer the singular form over the plural form for the purposes of clearer disambiguation and to avoid partial title matches, and I prefer the structuring of a disambiguation page over that of a set index article. "Renewable" is always going to be an incomplete title, but is a lot simpler to articulate which articles it could be referring to, such as for energy, resources, etc., rather than "renewables", which can refer to energy or fuels, but is also used in various company names, which I don't think we're intending to disambiguate here. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaida military training camp

[edit]

Delete as not the only Al-Qaeda training camp. Strange what links to it as well. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that none of the other redirects identified by Jay have been tagged, nor is it clear if they intended to add them to this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppression and depression

[edit]

Target doesn't talk about oppression. Nor does the disambig Depression. We have an article on Oppression which doesn't talk about depression. Delete as an WP:XY. Jay 💬 11:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MNC News

[edit]

See, if there's any newer advert out there for the top 3 WP guidelines for article quality, it's this title! Having just arrived here via a routine scrutiny of G6 taggings, I looked through the page history and saw that it was subjected to AFD, which concluded as a merge to this target you see, but the current revision of the target shows next to nothing of this! Post-AFD, one IP attempted and failed 5 times to restore the content without going through AFC. Sdrqaz, an admin, declined an empty G6 tag by an IPv6, suggesting instead to go for RMTR the previous month. Today, I undid another empty G6 tag from a TA this time and rather brought it over here for discussion. Apologies if this rationale was too long for comfort, but what do you think? Worth still keeping this?! Intrisit (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been no !votes since the last two relists, so let's give this one more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MNCTV does mention it, but in context it's just to say that a particular anchor also works/ed on another channel, namely, Sindonews TV. According to Google's summary, it seems MNC News was rebranded as Sindonews TV in 2023. This is a distinct channel from Sindo TV, which rebranded to iNews in 2015. So iNews doesn't work as a target either.
The rationale for deleting the merged content as unsourced is sound, however, a few (not necessarily good) references were added to the attempted restorations of the article. In principle, the merged content could be restored and these references included. However, looking at MNCTV, I'm not sure devoting so much of the article to Sindonews TV/MNC News is due (WP:UNDUE).
I'd suggest restoring an old revision of the article with the few references it had and moving it to draft space for AfC, but the editor (RuddyKurniawan11 (talk · contribs) who was interested in that has been blocked so it'd probably be stuck in draft space limbo forever.
Searching on Wikipedia I wasn't able to find any substantial content anywhere, so I think despite the AfD's decision to merge the article has de facto been deleted anyway. Since the merged content was deleted from both Media Nusantara Citra and MNC Vision, I'm not sure the history needs to be preserved. If it does, due to the past revisions which contain that content, perhaps we need an admin to do something like a history merge (WP:HM).
If it wasn't for the history, I'd say delete as WP:RETURNTORED and WP:TNT. – Scyrme (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U(1)

[edit]

Either both should target circle group or both should target the relevant families of Lie groups. There seems to have been quite a bit of disagreement in that regard in the past looking at the page histories. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The current one seems fine, and the proposed change would be worse given the current state of these articles. These are two different things that happen to be isomorphic, but someone navigating to the former name is probably better served by landing on Unitary group and reading a few sentences then clicking over to the appropriate spot.
As an alternative you could add a new section to the article Circle group explaining the isomorphism in more detail, and then pointing the redirect at that section. –jacobolus (t) 10:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if special orthogonal group was an article rather than a redirect, there would be a case for that as a target. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't it point to Orthogonal group? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Circle group, which explains why both groups are isomorphic to a circle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been no !votes since the last two relists, so let's give this one more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep U(1) and tag as {{r from subtopic}}.
Retarget SO(2) to Orthogonal group as {{avoided double redirect}} for Special orthogonal group. Special orthogonal group is tagged as {{r with possibilities}}, so the avoided double redirect ensures it will be updated if that becomes an article.
"Isomorphic" doesn't mean "identical" or "synonymous". The redirects should point to the main topic, not a different topic with which they share some properties. – Scyrme (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Acii

[edit]

Unclear primary target. Could arguably stay here to Assassin's Creed II, but could also refer to Oliver Acii(which this rd previously pointed to), or a reasonable misspelling of Acai (or a lesser possibility of Acid). Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Eureka Lott and WP:DIFFCAPS. I also agree that ASCII seems like it could do with disambiguation, though after two relists it's probably best to list it separately rather than bundle. – Scyrme (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also a possible misspelling of ASCII. — W.andrea (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Epic Fury

[edit]

Should both have the same target; I suggest 2026 Iran war#Hostilities where the boldface mention lies. I2Overcome talk 22:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nominator. 2026 Iran war was the original target of both. One of them was changed to the list by an unregistered editor, but the list provides comparatively less information. It hasn't been that long since the war began, so the sources that refer to it by this name aren't that old and any incoming links would still expect 2026 Iran war as the target. Narrowing the target to the main section makes sense in the long term as the scope of the war exceeds the initial operations that started it. – Scyrme (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Concur! --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget – per nom. The proposed destination is the most appropriate place. Bravelake (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, redirect them both to the same target as suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Operation Epic Fury" as a redirect to 2026 Iran war and retarget "Epic Fury" to 2026 Iran war. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar, Yancowinna County

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Not useful for readers and an unlikely search term given counties are effectively obsolete in New South Wales. AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 07:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Picton Parish (Yancowinna County)

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Extremely unlikely search term due to the disambiguation and as both parishes and counties are largely obsolete in New South Wales AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 07:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah (Suikoden)

[edit]

Delete. Not mentioned in target article or any other article. Was an unreferenced stub in 2007 when it got redirected to now deleted character list. Mika1h (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 07:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Côco

[edit]

It can also refer to Coconut production in Brazil. Abesca (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

good catch, that's a small pile of articles to take to afd and infoboxes to take to... that'd be tfd, right? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 07:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Art

[edit]

We have a bunch of redirects here that I'm not sure what to do with. I would suggest either retargeting or deleting. Interstellarity (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the above nomination, it's odd that Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, none of these redirects are tagged, and I can't do it or do it quickly at the moment since it's a different day UTC ... requires additional, time-consuming steps. Steel1943 (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All are now tagged, and about to relist for procedural reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist since all of these redirects were just tagged today, as well as their creator and target being informed via their respective talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

America United

[edit]

I presumed this was the name of a team, but it isn't mentioned at the target and wasn't when the redirect was created either. Search results are all over the shop, with a couple of results related to Joe Biden's inauguration as president being the most prominent but an extremely long way from being primary, most hits were collocations of things like "America-United Kingdom relations". The only football-related result on the first three pages was an academy for young players in New Jersey. Searching for "America United" soccer did find a website about a football team with this name that play (or played, the website hasn't been updated since circa 2013) in Providence, Rhode Island, a facebook page that claimed to be an "amateur sports team" but which mainly posted memes about the World Cup in Qatar and a youth team in Quincy, Massachusetts called "America FC United" but then degenerated into even less relevant results. Either delete or retarget to the dab at American Union if that is expanded to cover similar terms (c.f. #United Americas). Thryduulf (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget: per my rationale for United Americas. Plausible typo. TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 04:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support this (retargetting to the United States) for the same reasons I disagree with it for #Americas United. This is not a common way of referring to the country in any language it has affinity to, and pretty much none of the results in my searches used this term to mean the USA. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

US invasions

[edit]

Invasion of the United States sounds ambiguous (eg: Invasion of the United States to Afghanistan), but at least this could be kept.
The others should have the same target. Which? Abesca (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of these are ambiguous between invasions of the US and by the US. I'm not sure what to do here. Ideally, we would have lists or set index articles at Invasions of the United States and Invasions by the United States, and then a disambiguation page at US invasions could link to both lists. Then again, how often has the United States itself been invaded (as opposed to attacked in some other way)? – Scyrme (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American invasion decided for deletion and redirect. But at least one editor was in favor of WP:TNT, so it could exist, if well formated. Abesca (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No it couldn't because the outcome was delete and redirect not TNT. Spartaz Humbug! 02:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then TNT means draftifying? And I never said that was the result. Abesca (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deep throat fetish

[edit]

Delete. No mention of fetish anywhere in the article. The target section contains a brief, straightforward description of the practice. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The word fetish is mentioned in templates. And since the target page is heavily associated with sex practices, it's totally plausible they have fetish versions of them. Readers might use the term fetish to refer to the general practice, instead of just thinking of it specifically as a fetishistic-only thing. Abesca (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suck and blow

[edit]

Leaning delete. Definitely do not keep. The primary meaning is a "kissing game" popularized in (and possibly invented by?) the movie Clueless. The game is mentioned at Clueless and in several other articles where the game appeared in later films and TV episodes. There's also Suck and Blow: And Other Stories I'm Not Supposed to Tell, the autobiography of John Popper. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera doll

[edit]

Delete. No mention of a doll in the article. Google search confirms that a series of Barbie-esque Christina Aguilera dolls did exist but these appear non-notable. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Her doll is mentioned at Celebrity doll. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Celebrity doll. The doll is apparently notable in its own right for its sales revenue, as mentioned in that article, but probably not worth a separate article. Tevildo (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added sources in the history of Christina Aguilera doll [2] to Celebrity doll. That should be enough WP:WEIGHT for at least a mention there, and redirecting to that article instead looks good to me. Siawase (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollow (Christina Aguilera album)

[edit]

Delete. Not mentioned at the current target nor at Christina Aguilera discography or List of songs recorded by Christina Aguilera. A Google search turns up mostly false positives—articles about Christina Aguilera that happen to use the word hollow. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Venezuela

[edit]

Procedural nom. @Theodore Christopher: blanked redirect with the edit summary "Venezuela is not currently under military occupation". ~ A412 talk! 20:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Squatting in Venezuela (pt:Ocupações na Venezuela), Colonial Venezuela, or History_of Venezuela#Spanish_rule. Abesca (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These all seem like a stretch to me. If it were Occupation in Venezuela, then I could see Squatting in Venezuela being possibly plausible, but with "of", not "in", it takes a very different primary meaning in English. Colonisation isn't really synonymous with military occupation, since colonisation is a process of conquest whereas occupation doesn't imply annexation. Even if you think that colonisation is effectively a form of occupation, in this scenario the Spanish colony of Venezuela would be the occupying power with the indigenous first nations of the region being under occuptation, not Venezuela.
I'm not sure that Venezuela itself has even been under direct military occupation. Some commentators speculated that the recent American intervention would escalate to occupation, but that hasn't happened yet. I'm leaning delete unless someone knows of a period in history where Venezuela has unambiguously been under foreign occupation.– Scyrme (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A412 and Scyrme, I blanked this not entirely understanding that it wouldn't just delete the page. I think it should be deleted, Venezuela has never been occupied since gaining independence. But obviously it's not up to me to decide. Theodore Christopher (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, first time for everything. And it's partially up to you to decide! RfD is the correct place to weigh in on the suitability of a redirect. ~ A412 talk! 07:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention of occupationat the target. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HO41

[edit]

Delete. H041 (with zero instead of the letter 'O') is a real strain that is mentioned at Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Antibiotic resistance in gonorrhea, but not at the current target. Note that H041 does not exist. Swapping 'O' and '0' is a plausible and common mixup, but on-wiki search reveals that HO41 is part of the provisional name of several minor planets. External search for HO41 almost exclusively returns results for "HO 41 Tail" ski gloves. Alternatively, delete HO41 and retarget the others Neisseria gonorrhoeae#Antibiotic resistance or Antibiotic resistance in gonorrhea#Cephalosporins and tag as {{R from misspelling}} or {{R from modification}} or some other appropriate Rcat. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Renewability

[edit]

"Renewal" and "renewability" mean very different things, and the latter isn't used once the article it redirects to. The only link that redirect has from an article is from Nanotechnology which clearly does not intend to link to renewal of motions. I suggest retarget to Natural resource § Renewability/exhaustibility, though I'm open to arguments for other targets, such as Renewable resource. – Scyrme (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipalities in Hanoi

[edit]

Delete. Misleading term used by the previous editor. Wards and communes are neighborhoods, rather than municipalities (which refers to cities and towns), see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Category:Municipalities in Hanoi. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Muntaber

[edit]

Indonesian-language term for topic. Gastroenteritis has no relation to Indonesia or Indonesian. Delete per WP:R#DELETE, criterion 8. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 and WP:RLOTE. K3 doesn't apply here. Criterion 8 is part of RHARMFUL, so I'm not sure why it was cited as an argument to not delete. – Scyrme (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Distinguishing itself from RLOTE, which wasn't pointed out by the nom so I didn't touch on it, D8 avoids stating that this sort of foreign-language redirect is harmful, merely that they're unlikely to be useful and should generally not be created. And how does K3 not apply here? J947 ‡ edits 23:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Foreign-language redirects for terms with no affinity to the topic do not aid searches. They are not mentioned at the target (resulting in WP:RSURPRISE rather than being helpful), and, per WP:RLOTE they produce the false impression that you can navigate the English Wikipedia in another language, resulting in fruitless searches. Additionally, a reader searching in another language may reasonably expect results in that language; having these terms redirect to English pages can hinder finding results in the intended language when using third party search engines as they may deliver the English article instead of the intended article (this is also mentioned at WP:RLOTE). Even ignoring third party search engines, if the intent is to find content in the language used, these redirects don't help (and cannot help as that content will never exist here). In order to aid searches for such cases, we'd need something like a soft redirect, though instead of it being to another project like Wiktionary, it'd be to another language's version of Wikipedia.
    K3 is intended for cases where Wikipedia has content, but that content isn't easy to find via the search engine (for example, due to a large number of partial title matches). It's not intended to justify arbitrary non-English redirects. – Scyrme (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accra International Airport (AIA)

[edit]

Incorrectly created before another editor moved it to the correct title. Odds of anyone typing this title are extremely low, and only 4 maitenance pages link to it. Electricmemory (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 A-League Men finals series

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target page. Qby (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 A-League Women grand final

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target page. Qby (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Epstein Fury

[edit]

Not mentioned, let alone described, at the target, 2026_Iran_war#Politicians. “Epstein”, in “Epstein files” is mentioned only once, and the connection of the 2026 Iran War to “Operation Epstein Fury”, while probably a fair satirical critique of the underlying motivations, is not encyclopedic, but is attempting to be clever rhetoric. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wanggiya (surname)

[edit]

As I know, "Wanggiya" only means the Manchu surname, which is a variant of Wanyan, and there is no need to disambiguate by parentheses. Therefore, I suggest to create the redirect "Wanggiya" (without parentheses) which would be redirected to Wanyan and delete this redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahogany115 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New York, New York

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Syrian Civil War, November 2012 – March 2013

[edit]

Clearly incorrect, the war was not ended in March 2013 A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Israel (Bible)

[edit]

Shouldn't it have the same target? Or at least hatnote each other. Abesca (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One is a place, the other is a person. A disambiguation page might be in order, but in lieu of that, definitely hatnote each other. Lychniis (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One is a place, the other is a person who isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the namespace. Retarget so both point to the place with a hatnote disambiguating the alternative name for the guy. — LlywelynII 13:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Land of Israel a better target for Biblical Israel? If it's ambiguous, Israel (disambiguation) would be the appropriate target for these. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jianghe Railway Rtation

[edit]

Implausible and unnecessary misspelling redirect, especially since "S" and "R" are not adjacent on a QWERTY keyboard. The correct redirect Jianghe Railway Station already exists and targets the same place. Also, googling gives zero results. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Sald

[edit]

Delete this typo and different caps, was page title for seven minutes. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the machine transliteration says it's spelled "slt". Thinking Hebrew typically omits vowels, this could be plausible, but i'm not sure. Abesca (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The typo combined with the capitalisation makes this implausible. "Sald" is unlikely to be a transliteration from Hebrew, since the two As in salat use the same niqqud, so omitting only one is strange (even before considering whether T→D is plausible). This is probably just a one off mistake by the editor who made it before it was moved. – Scyrme (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable salad

[edit]

Judging by what links to it, this is definitely not the right target so suggest delete. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keyicin

[edit]

Delete unmentioned redirect. Keyicin is a random, seemingly non-notable antibiotic that is not mentioned at the target nor anywhere on Wikipedia. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

[edit]

Smithland railway station

[edit]

Incorrect spelling which is why page was then moved. I can understand this mix up but don't think it meets criteria for inclusion as a misspelling. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 22:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond crossing

[edit]

Retarget to Level junction. The diamond crossing subsection of Double junction is entirely irrelevant to the topic, and will teach you nothing. The Level junction article is clearly written with a redirect from this page in mind. Gamingcanary (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Walden (play)

[edit]

Return to red: this redirect from the title of a notable play by Amy Berryman (who there is not a page on), is currently targeted at someone who directed one production of it. —BrechtBro (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed point

[edit]

Specialization preorder might be a more general context in which this is described. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P.B. Slices

[edit]

Unmentioned. History dive indicates this was an undiscussed(?) BLAR by an IP user whose contributions consist of a spree of similar BLARs; notably the edit says it was "merged" with the Peanut butter article, but no corresponding edit to the peanut butter article adding info from the P.B. Slices article was ever performed.

Honestly the more I look into this the more it seems like uncaught vandalism rather than good-faith editing... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the retargeting suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Play Time

[edit]

The target article does mention this is one of the spelling/styllistic variants of the title of the movie Playtime. It is, however, a primary title of the likely notable German magazine (de:Play_Time). Should it be a red link, a disambig, or is there a hatnote that can link to German wiki? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and hatnote to Brady Seals. Lacking any non-incidental enwiki coverage of the magazine, except a very brief mention at Computec, it's difficult to cater for the readers wanting information on it. Besides, I think the majority of readers want the current target: the film gets 14,000 monthly pageviews and this is a common way to refer to it; indeed, it used to be the article's title. J947 ‡ edits 22:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it should be deleted given it was at this title for at least a few months and was moved to it twice but a DAB might make sense given there are other uses such as books and films, see Wikidata. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Playtime (disambiguation). The magazine in my view is not the primary topic - there are plenty of other topics using that title that are more notable, so disambiguating is the way to go. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per BugGhost NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Partners 'n' Crime (Will & Grace)

[edit]

Unnecessary redirect disambiguation. Redirect exists at Partners 'n' Crime. Blethering Scot 20:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plausible search term and redirects are cheap. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is a redirect template for a reason, even if it wasn't tagged that originally. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shelving

[edit]

I'm not sure why this was redirected to Google in the first place, but this is certainly not helpful, as it will cause confusion for anyone looking for the user's user page. At the very least, it could be redirected to the user's talk page. (I'm also not sure if this warrants a speedy deletion, as I didn't see one that covers user redirects like these.) 8BitBros (talk • edits) 01:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't WP:MFD a better place? Abesca (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just blanking the userpage would have done too, tbh. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't WP:MFD a better place?
    As this is a redirect, I felt like it would be alright to place here; however, I don't have any objections to moving the discussion there.

  • Just blanking the userpage would have done too, tbh.
    From my understanding, editing it should be avoided. Per WP:BOLD: "It is generally recommended that you do not edit another Wikipedian's user page"
    8BitBros (talk • edits) 02:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a soft redirect, which is almost always the best option when a base userpage redirects somewhere inappropriate, as this maintains the link the user presumably wants but without the problems of a hard redirect. We have guidelines on this somewhere but I can't remember where. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this is already a soft redirect. I already clicked in user non-subpage pages that are redirects and I stayed at their user pages seeing the redirect. Abesca (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    All redirects effectively become soft redirects while nominated at RfD. The code shows that prior to the nomination it was a hard redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be brutal, the chance of anyone looking at the user page of this user, except from a cross-namespace redirect list, is vanishingly small. It does contain a malformed reference, as well as the redirect. I would be perfectly happy with any sane user making any sane and kind edit to the user page if they really think it's worth it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody searching for Google will put in a random user's name. It's almost WP:DAFT-worthy. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody searching for Google will put in a random user's name. true but completely irrelevant as the purpose here isn't to help random readers find the Google article. Editors are allowed to have links on their user page to whatever page they want, for whatever reason, whether anybody else can understand the reason or not. What they can't do is have their main user page be a hard redirect to anything other than a different user page or their user talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank. As a user page, there's no need to delete. There's very little chance anyone would find their way here, but if they do, having an active redirect to a random page is just an annoyance. Redirecting your user page to your talk page is one thing, but this really has no purpose. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple identity

[edit]

Didn't Plural identity become ambiguous with this now? If so, a hatnote, a retarget, or a disambiguation page? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple personality. Abesca (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From Asteramellus's comment, I'm inclined to say dabify.
Second option for me would be to retarget to Plural identity, with no hatnote unless a stronger argument says otherwise. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am inclined to dabify. A quick Google suggests other entries in addition to those already mentioned, including holding multiple social identities (as discussed, e.g., here and here) and dissociative identity disorder. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Games

[edit]

This a fake blue/green link for an unlikely capitalization error, while this should be a red link for the notable magazine (de:Amiga Games). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Apologies, I misread the translation of the article and missed that it wasn't always a supplement - striking that word BugGhost 🦗👻 18:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Japan

[edit]

Pinging LTPHarry who created this on 22 September 2020. Like, since when has this rdr been thought of, especially when currently un-notable Dlife currently redirects to Disney Channel (International)?! Intrisit (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Walt Disney Japan is the theatrical and home entertainment division of The Walt Disney Company Japan. It used to be called Walt Disney Studios Japan. Sure, it’s a confusing name, but it doesn’t have any connection to DLife, which is operated by TWDCJ itself. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sour Balls (Will & Grace)

[edit]

Unnecessary disambiguation redirect. Redirect already exists at Sour Balls. Blethering Scot 20:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plausible search term and redirects are cheap. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} (& my same point in a similar nom above). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ugandan anti-gay law

[edit]

Currently, multiple articles about the anti-LGBTQ law exist: Category:LGBTQ law in Uganda. Currently, only the 2023 one is in effect. Retarget to LGBTQ rights_in Uganda#Current laws? Abesca (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Check also Anti-Homosexuality Act and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies § Discussion regarding a naming convention for the titles of articles about an anti-LGBTQ law in a particular country. Abesca (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to LGBTQ rights_in Uganda per nom. मल्ल (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

25th anniversary

[edit]

It's great that Wikipedia has made it to 25 years, but this cross-namespace redirect presupposes that the primary topic of the phrase "25th anniversary" will be Wikipedia's event. We have an article at Silver jubilee on this subject, and while this might also not be the ideal target, something other than the Wikipedia event probably is. BD2412 T 18:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 25th Anniversary per RightCowLeftCoast. I think retargeting to Silver jubilee would be WP:RSURPRISEing, and if my primary vote of retargeting doesn't work I would prefer deletion. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

T20 World Cup

[edit]

Currently redirects to dab, as both Men's T20 World Cup and Women's T20 World Cup have articles on Wikipedia. There has been some back-and-forth with certain editors preferring a primary redirect to Men's T20 World Cup; posting here for discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Cricket World Cup disambiguation is too general since it covers all international cricket world cups whereas T20 is its own format,so it deserves its own redirect rather than something too general which most people may not be looking for. Not only that, but when people type "T20 World Cup" on Wikipedia or on Google but come to Wikipedia,they likely want to see the men's tournament since that is more widely searched,looked at,and more popular as well. Its better to redirect it there than having to go through a whole disambiguation to find what they actually are looking for or having to search longer titles(Men's T20 World Cup but searching up T20 World Cup is easier). This is distinct and should have a redirect of its own tournament which you have to understand. Also,on the top of the men's tournament I added an about template so users can have the link to the Women's tournament if that was what they are looking for,that should solve this dispute. Darrrrmilk (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the hatnote at Men's T20 World Cup pending the result of this discussion. See WP:NAMB. 162 etc. (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
not related Darrrrmilk (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Radio

[edit]

Potentially if not definitely ambiguous; while this is the former branding for KNDS-LP (now call sign-branded), it is the current branding for at least two other radio stations, KBWG and WMSR (AM). There is also a Thunder Radio Network associated with the Oklahoma City Thunder basketball team. At best this should be a disambiguation page. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Let people search for the entity they wish to find. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c)

Wikipedia:NOPE

[edit]

Why specifically WNIN? I don't see why "Nope" would refer to that article in particular. In general, "nope" is not very formal, so I doubt it would make for a good project-namespace redirect. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 13:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

VVIP

[edit]

Reads like a WP:MADEUP term with only 22 outbound links, and none of those articles source the term or note any kind of origination outside 'more important than a very important person' (sources in that article describing a VVIP just say 'they're richer', not that they're more well known). Mostly used in Indian articles, but other words can easily be substituted over a repeated 'very-very'. Nathannah • 📮 21:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate between Very important person, VVIP (hip-hop group), and V.V.I.P. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, but it is for things made up on 22 separate occasions. Since there's two things with articles whose names are inspired by the abbreviation for "very very important person", it's highly unlikely to be genuinely obscure. J947 ‡ edits 22:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for finding those; I didn't find them in a WLH search, but I would agree the musical groups take preference and that's how I'd expect the title to come up and disambiguation is preferred. I more had an issue with the uses I cited, which didn't elaborate on the concept in article text. Nathannah • 📮 23:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since previous relist. And this will be the final relist BTW.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

These should point to the same target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three editors are arguing for three different things.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD/Jr. international broadcasting

[edit]

Plucked out from my mass-nominated "TheMaxChannel528-24-created titles" RFD nomination and re-nominated them again because of trainwreck issues. These were created by blocked sockpuppet TheMaxChannel528-24 and as to why these aren't deleted as G6 is shocking as it serves no purpose. Their current target titles already explain the pages' contents in detail. Intrisit (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetric monoidal ∞-category

[edit]

The target currently does not describe this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Networks International

[edit]

The section that this redirect relied upon got removed within the first year of operation of Warner Bros. Discovery. I'm bringing it over here since it hasn't fallen into one before. Intrisit (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Painted Smiles (redirect)

[edit]

It seems superfluous to have a redirect with "redirect" in the title. Векочел (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bookends (album) (redirect)

[edit]

It seems superfluous to have a redirect with "redirect" in the title. Векочел (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Normally titles like this are the result of temporary titles when moving a page, but that doesn't appear to be the case here? Unless this dates to before page moves were logged at both the source and target I'm not seeing a reason for this. 10:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • This was used to see how many people searching with the plural want the album, see User talk:RHaworth/2015 Jun 12#special redirect but I'm not sure it's still needed as it isn't linked in a hatnote anymore. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Never Too Much (album) (redirect)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

ISO 4 (redirect)

[edit]

It seems superfluous to have a redirect with "redirect" in the title. Векочел (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is to separate ISO 4 redirects tagged with {{R from ISO 4}} from "germane" links to ISO 4 in Special:WhatLinksHere/ISO 4. This is akin to ISO 4 (infobox), ISSN (identifier), ISBN (identifier), etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects like this should have some documentation on the page/talk page to avoid good faith nominations like this one from. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rcat templates are more visible. Abesca (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dance with My Father (album) (redirect)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete. Tagged for WP:CSD#G7 by George Ho.

Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium

[edit]

Not described anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

World War Bee

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, and does not look like the only other mention at Skin gambling#Other games would be an appropriate target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Post-industrial (music genre)

[edit]

This redirect targets List of industrial music genres, however Post-industrial (music) targets the more general Industrial music. Both target pages have sections which discuss Post-industrial music. Given how similar the titles of these redirects are, I think they should target the same section. However, it is unclear to me which target is preferable. Uffda608 (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of Santa Monica

[edit]

Not mentioned in the article. It refers to Santa Monica, California, and the probably wouldn't be due weight for any article except that about the place itself.[1] –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Letters to the Editor: An old nickname might hold the clue for remedying Santa Monica's issues". Los Angeles Times. 3 November 2025.

Kharal (tribe)‌

[edit]

Confusing redirect containing a zero-width non-joiner, and this character is found at the very end after ")". There is already a redirect Kharal (tribe), and this redirect from a page move containing an invisible character isn't necessary or helpful. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way I found it when I moved it. Should have been tagged as a speedy delete. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 02:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedents at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_2#Redirects_containing_zero_width_spaces, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_3#Redirects_with_zero_width_characters, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_1, and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_23#Bhanot_(surname). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Gameube

[edit]

Implausible. No one will think "GameCube" is spelled this way, as the "C" is pronounced and even capitalized. Also, there is no such thing as a Gameube. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a missed-letter typo (i.e. this is meant to catch an instance where the reader missed a letter while typing). Single-character typos are typically considered plausible enough to keep. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as a note for future viewers after this discussion, if the result of this redirect is to keep, take a look at various possible searches like "Gameube controller", "Gameube accessory", "Gameube games", "Animal crossing gameube", and other similar searches. Look to see if the results are ideal. See also a related discussion at "GameCibe". Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mathguy2718. Gameube is implausible - it's leaving out a capital C. A redirect "Australian ootballers" was speedied under R3 - could this redirect be R3ed? KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since this redirect existed for many years, it cannot be R3ed. However, age alone does not make a redirect useful, especially with the implausible typo. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is implying the C is always capitalized-- I've seen it spelled "Gamecube" with a lowercase C many a time-- and the C is here in the middle of the word, not at the very start of a word-- and also close to the end-- there's only three characters between the missing letter and the Enter key to "ootballers"'s ten. Besides, this argument has shades of WP:WHATABOUT-- we're here to discuss the merits of Nintendo Gameube, not Australian ootballers. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, C and u are at opposite sides of the keyboard. While I give up my point on speedy, the low number of users is kinda concerning. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be an issue if this were a letter-substitution typo (i.e. Nintendo CameZube). This isn't that-- this is a missing letter typo. This can be caused by the finger failing to properly press the button, such as with a faulty key switch on the keyboard. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible redirect. Not a popular misspelling either. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Johal (disambiguation‌)

[edit]

Confusing redirect, as it is not what it initially looks like. The normal page, Johal (disambiguation), is a distinct page. The difference is that this redirect has a zero-width non-joiner between "disambiguation" and ")". This page is semi-protected, which I assume comes from moving the semi-protected page at Johal to this nearly impossible to type page before the move was reversed. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the zero-width non-joiner. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

[edit]

Phal

[edit]

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

Church lands

[edit]

Delete. There's no reason for the generic name to redirect to a government confiscation of some instances of the subject. The English confiscation is far from even being unique in world history. Astro.furball (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Nazarene

[edit]

Should they target to just Jesus instead? Jesus Nazareno also exists, should it be bundled? Abesca (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship attribution

[edit]

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

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

ScanScope Virtual Slide

[edit]

Does not seem useful without an explanation at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's add an explanation at the target rather than deleting the redirect. A single sentence to the effect that "ScanScope Virtual Slide" format is another name for TIFF is what I am thinking. The harder part if finding a citation to show that we've verified that. I'll give it a try... but if you have such a citation handy, please post it here. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added TIFF § SVS. Please critique or improve. Hopefully, this is enough of a start to justify keeping the redirect currently being discussed, either as a redirect to TIFF or to TIFF#SVS. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of horror films of 2026.

[edit]

Delete per RTYPO Could easily have been R3 if I hadn't waited for approximately 2 months to list this here! Intrisit (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin B100

[edit]

Unmentioned at target. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GameCibe

[edit]

Improper typo. ~2025-42974-91 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of torn on this one. Its not like a "Gamecibe" is...anything it was ever accidently called. But is it a plausible typo considering its just one letter off, and the two letters in question, u and i, are right next to each other on the keyboard? Maybe? 21:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC) Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything can be a typo, and this certainly isn't a common one. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 19:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral; I can see the meanings behind all arguments in this discussion. The typo can occur due to the positions of U and I on the keyboard, but it may or may not be frequent enough, and I personally haven't seen any instances of it online. 1isall (talk | contribs) 00:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as r from typo, as per miminity. One-character typos are keepable as per prior consensus. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Abesca (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Photolab

[edit]

Photo lab would seem to be the primary topic. In addition, though generally less significant, other software or software components named "PhotoLab" seem to exist, cf. WebPlus, Digital Scrapbook Artist, DrawPlus. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the suggested target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Abesca (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Minilab Given the aforementioned Photo lab already redirects to minilab, redirecting Photolab differently would create a discontinuity between two near-identical search terms. That article focuses on the actual photographic system as a technological device used in places and for services, whereas photographic processing is about the broader chemical process of photographic development. It's also worth noting that the minilab article explicitly defines its subject in contrast to larger centralized photo labs, and even equates the chemical processes used between the two for their specific purposes. Thus, readers arriving from a "photolab" search would find more relevant coverage of the photo lab concept generally, especially in its applications, instead of arriving at an article largely detailing the broader chemical processes. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither is a great target, but Minilab seems too specific given the ambiguous term "Photolab"/"Photo lab". 162 etc. (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maldives corruption scandal

[edit]

Maldives has had a lot of corruption scandals so this redirect is very ambiguous. This redirect isn't really specific to the MMPRC scandal and isn't much use. UnilandofmaTalk 17:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Manduk pami

[edit]

Misinterpretation of the Hindi term "Manduk parni", combining r and n into m. Unlikely search term. The only results I found for the term were scannos on the Internet Archive. ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmas Carol (video game)

[edit]

The game in question was ultimately not released and is no longer mentioned in the article. Maybe the game Ebenezer and the Invisible World could be a suitable redirect but it's not explicitly called A Christmas Carol. The game does exist, I just missed it while searching. However, it's still not mentioned in the movie's article. I think a mention could be added, but I'll let others say what they think. Mr slav999 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The game does appear to have been released - see Sumo Digital and List of Nintendo DS games (D–I). However, the film's article is a very tangential redirect, so I would Delete per Criterion 10. Tevildo (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DZTG

[edit]

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

Centumduodetrigintanion

[edit]

Essentially unattested (and morphologically questionable) terms; no longer mentioned at target after this edit of mine 11 months ago. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_28#Pathion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

🤨

[edit]

Can emojis be turned into disambig page? If not, then how about redirect to Doubt? This emoji doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive to suspicion, questionable/doubtful expressions are often followed by this emoji too. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 05:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Never delete. Emojis are valid search terms and are a part of every day life. Don't care about the target. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym "Never delete" is not a valid bold text in xfd responses. Either keep or retarget. If you "don't care about the target" please clarify: Do you simply want to keep the redirect without deleting it, or do you specifically want the current target to stay? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 14:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They are probably referring to every emoji (and probably every one-character unicode as well), not solely this one. WP:REMOJI. Abesca (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
XfDs are not votes, and bold text is a common way to summarize one's argument for ease of navigation, not something that must be fit into a rigid schema. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is only useful if the target contains appropriate information on the subject. I2Overcome talk 16:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We really should have a follow-up RfC to the one in December 2023 that resulted in no consensus. The closer's recommendation was to pursue a new RfC on option 7, which was creating a new class of content pages especially for emojis that are not indepenently notable. One user even created a draft template. I think something like this would be a good alternative to the "status quo" option 4 that was adopted in lieu of consensus: having some redirect to articles, some to dab pages or SIA, and some to lists or tables. Redirecting to articles that represent the emoji's meaning is problematic even when it is unambiguous (which is almost never), because the target contains no information on the emoji itself. Creating dab pages for different emoji meanings is just ridiculous. Definitely do not redirect to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs, where the only information whatsoever is "this is unicode character U+1F928," which is basically nothing. If no target exists that contains useful information on the subject, there shouldn't be a redirect. Therefore, delete for now. I2Overcome talk 16:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus for 🔞 resulted in soft redirecting. would that be default then? Abesca (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Another RFC may be in order. In my experience, recent emoji RFDs are at least somewhat controversial. For emojis like 🤨 that appear on multiple lists with no substantive explanation or description anywhere, arbitrarily picking one of the pages as a target in order to comply with WP:REMOJI makes no sense and is at odds with how we treat other non-notable redirects that have brief mentions on multiple pages. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I'm not sure we need a special system for them. There probably needs to be a pre-RFC discussion somewhere to define the scope of the problem and range of solutions before launching an RFC, if that is the direction we decide to take. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. A similar result happened with 🥰 recently, based on WP:XY. Abesca (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Except that now redirects to Hearts in Unicode, which has more information, like the name of the character and a history of heart emojis. It’s worth mentioning there are currently only three emojis that target Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs, and I don’t think it’s a suitable target for any emoji. I2Overcome talk 22:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch (Arcade Archives)

[edit]

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

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

List of religious studies scholars

[edit]

Was previously an article which was BLARed. However, there is no list of religious studies scholars at the target so the target is misleading. Also nominating List of religious scholars, List of religion scholars, which were redirects to that. Restore? Delete? Send to AfD? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Speedrunz (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we send it to AfD though? Since there was an article that got deleted without discussion? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Megawatt (band)

[edit]

Currently a redirect to a list which say absolutely nothing about the band. Furthermore, the band is also present in List of number-one hits of 2023 (Switzerland) and List of number-one hits of 2025 (Switzerland), and it is unclear why the 2022 list should be favored. Based on the article on de.wikipedia and a cursory search, the band arguably passes GNG and several points of MUSICBIO, so per WP:REDLINK and WP:RETURNTORED a redlink would be more useful, as it would encourage editors to create the page. Cavarrone 18:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Speedrunz (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

[edit]

Historic Israel

[edit]

The article Land of Israel itself describes under piped link [[Ancient Israel and Judah|historical Israelite and later Jewish kingdoms]]. However another possible target is Kingdom of Israel. Parallelly, Historic Palestine exists. Abesca (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC) edited to fix Abesca (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire county cricket teams

[edit]

Delete. Superseded by Yorkshire county cricket team (pre-1863). Jack (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 21:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nottinghamshire county cricket teams

[edit]

Delete. Superseded by Nottinghamshire county cricket team (pre-1841). Jack (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 21:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire county cricket teams

[edit]

Delete. Superseded by Lancashire county cricket team (pre-1864). Jack (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I2Overcome talk 21:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Men's T20 World Cup Qualifier

[edit]

Men's T20 World Cup Global Qualifier has been defunct for 4 years now. This title should either be re-targeted to or be disambiguated with the currently active Men's T20 World Cup regional qualification. Vestrian24Bio 07:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie hat

[edit]

I fear this is one of those words that means very different things to people in different countries, so disambiguation is probably in order.

To me, this is a beanie. In other countries, they call toques "beanies", to the bafflement of every Canadian in the vicinity. In some countries, it seems, "beanie" means something else again. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Eureka Lott. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Military industrial oligarchy

[edit]

No mention of oligarchy on redirect target. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This is a term that gets used in the wild (although more often the first two words are hyphenated), as a whole phrase almost exclusively in the context of the United States and as part of "clerical-military-industrial oligarchy" in the context of Egypt. Someone using this term is not going to be surprised to end up at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This redirect was not tagged until now. Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Speedrunz (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rape in Iraq

[edit]

A broader redirect (which has possibilities) pointing to a smaller one. It implies that only IS has done so, but American soldiers and other organizations have also done so. Should be deleted. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 21:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rape in Iraq exists Abesca (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pop stars

[edit]

I'd suggest retargeting pop icon as an avoided double redirect/from plural to match pop starpop star. I ran into this one from an edit request where it was being used in the wild incorrectly. But it's been in place like this for 20 years, so I figured I'd bring it up here first. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, and checking more, there are 5 existing uses of this in articles, all of which are incorrect and should be targeting pop icon instead. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Capitols of ancient Rome

[edit]

Delete, article does not discuss topic. Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Idk, there is also the Capitoline Hill and I don't think such a misspelling is likely enough for a redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Binigura/Pinikura language

[edit]

Highly improbable search. The spelling Binigura is already covered in a separate redirect. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Dummy

[edit]

No mention at target, unfortunately... not for either of her names. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Haroonur Rashid (disambigation)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Draft:Jake Lang

[edit]

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

  • FWIW, I noticed that there have been a few previous RfDs for similar redirects by the same editor, who hasn't edited since last August (at least, under this name; their user page mentions the existence of other accounts). A quick search shows there are 100+ similar redirects they've added over time.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gender ambiguity

[edit]

Couldn't it also refer to Gender nonconformity as well? Note it was originally pointed to androgyny and there's already a hatnote for Ambiguous gender and Ambiguous genitalia. Abesca (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biochemical analysis

[edit]

This may have a suitable target but I'm not sure which is best; deletion is not unreasonable for this unmentioned, vague/ambiguous term. This could refer to bioanalysis, blood tests and other medical laboratory analyses, various topics listed at Outline of biochemistry#Applications of biochemistry and Outline of biochemistry#Biochemical techniques, and probably others… —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I really want to say retarget to bioanalysis, but that article is pretty underwhelming and could use some major expansion for such an important and large topic, and technically, bioanalysis i.e. bioanalytical chemistry is more specific than biochemical analysis, the former being more quantitative, and the latter including more qualitative aspects like protein structures and such. So I am on the fence between that and another WP:RETURNTORED situation, where we really need a broad concept article at this title, pulling together the disparate content, like bioanalysis and Blood_test#Biochemical_analysis. We could try for a sort of disambigation page, but I don't really like that idea at all, as I don't think we can pull together enough links in a sensible way. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
--Altenmann >talk 21:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambiguation page has been drafted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the dab page as presented. "Analysis of biochemistry" is somewhat unclear but could include, for example, a written description of biochemical principles or of the biochemistry of a particular organism or pathway, which would not really be considered a "biochemical analysis". The list is also missing a general description of things that would typically be considered part of biochemical analysis but are not necessarily synonymous, like protein purification and characterization. Listing examples or subtypes of biochemical analysis would give a more complete picture but such a list is not fit for the purpose of a dab page. Also, as User:Mdewman6 pointed out, bioanalysis is not really synonymous with biochemical analysis but describes a distinct subfield. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate too that I don't think disambiguation makes sense here. I lean toward deletion per RETURNTORED. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the dab page. I think it's an improvement but I'm still lukewarm on it and favor deletion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was bot created because the {{disambiguation}} template was prematurely added to the draft below the redirect (which I have removed). It can be WP:G14'd if the redirect does not become a disambiguation page. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesses the Elder

[edit]

Was not able to find any source corroborating this Ramesses I being called "the Elder" PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 15:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's just to follow convention, similar pharaohs have been called "the Elder" like Intef, Ahmose, and Osorkon, plus not to mention that Ramesses I's grandson, Rameses II, is called "the Great". UWMKEgypt (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

National Democratic Party (Philippines)

[edit]

The Democrata Party is almost never referred to by this name in English. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You said this term also refers to National Democratic Front of the Philippines.
But since we are here, retarget to either Political parties in the Philippines or National Democratic Party. Abesca (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think none of the parties/political organizations (extant and extinct) in the Philippines are referred to in English exactly as the "National Democratic Party". I'd oppose a redirect to Political parties in the Philippines as a reader arriving here would not find a party with exactly this name (the Philippines has similar sounding parties such as Nacionalista Party/Nationalist People's Coalition/National Unity Party, or the various parties named as democratic as seen on the hatnote at Democrata Party. I'd be fine with redirecting to National Democratic Front of the Philippines as a second choice, with outright deletion as the first. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish White Elkhound

[edit]

Not listed on the article. Listed as a separate breed on elkhound. UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Khochna, Yemen

[edit]

Delete. Appears to be a small town in Yemen. Very little information about it online, not mentioned in the target article. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chone Town

[edit]

Not mentioned at target; maybe delete unless someone has an explanation? Duckmather (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mathguy2718: It turns out that Chone, Ecuador is actually seen as a city, not a town (note that the official website chone.gob.ec/chone/ is literally titled Una historia de nuestra ciudad). Can you provide any evidence that Chone, Ecuador is seen by some people as a town, or is ever referred to by the exact string "Chone Town"? Duckmather (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some sources that refer to this place as Chone Town, mostly in Spanish. For example, this source uses words like "localidad" and "pueblo" to mean town. The source you gave also has one mention of "pueblo de Chone", which I believe literally means "Chone Town" here, not only just the former town name of Villa de San Cayetano de Chone. Other such mentions in Spanish (specifically Ecuadorian) can be found here from Google search. English Google searches gave me more mixed results: it could refer to either the place in Ecuador or China. This is because English coverage isn't high in either place, so native language sources would be more reliable here. I couldn't find information about a Chone Town in Jonê County as it doesn't appear on a map. As a result, I think "Chone Town" more likely refers to Chone, Ecuador, but I wouldn't object to deletion if this would be confusing. Mathguy2718 (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mardin 1969 Spor

[edit]

Currently redirects to a different club based in the same city. Should be a red link. – anlztrk (talk | contribs) 12:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Membership Award

[edit]

This target is far too specific for such a general search term, even as a proper noun it is not unique to this one organisation (and the target article suggests that the title of the award there might just be "Honorary Membership"). Ideally this would retarget to some content about the concept (probably as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Honorary member (currently being discussed at #Honorary member; I have no objection if someone wants to combine the two, I debated it), but the closest I've found is Title of honour which isn't quite right I don't think. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental gunshot

[edit]

Today I renamed the redirect Accidental Gunshot to Accidental gunshot to change the title to title case. After that I changed the redirect target from Gunshot wound to Unintentional discharge#Accidental discharge to make it match the target of the redirect Accidental discharge. Only after that did it occur to me that "accidental gunshot" probably should refer to the situation where a person was actually hit accidentally by gunshot, e.g. in a shooting accident, not just the event of a gun/firearm discharging accidentally. Shooting accident currently redirects to Unintentional discharge, and I couldn't find a more specific target. Tea2min (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary member

[edit]

I don’t know if the redirect makes too much sense. Surely there are honorary members in all kinds of organizations, not only in academies. Geohakkeri (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rape gangs scandal

[edit]

As per Rape gangs below, newly created link to Grooming gangs scandal which is a UK based politicised issue regarding specific instances of group based child sexual abuse with an underlying racialised narrative. Academic literature often calls it a moral panic. The page is controversial, and geographically localised to the UK. The incoming link is not justified by sources, which overwhelmingly talk of the the grooming gangs, or, in academic literature, as group based CSE.

Unlike the below, this one at least includes the word "scandal" that attempts to localise the term. Yet sources don't speak of the grooming gangs scandal this way. Because that page has been restricted to the politicised ethnic narrative, it is incorrect to use this term for that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In common parlance, the term ‘rape gangs’ is often used interchangeably with ‘grooming gangs’ to refer to this aspect of group-based child sexual exploitation (GBCSE). Indeed, the former is preferred in the current statutory inquiry being undertaken in the UK and heavily reported on. There isn’t a plausible alternative meaning that may confuse readers that isn’t dealt with by the disambiguation template linking to ‘Gang rape’. The moral correctness of the public’s use of that term, or whether it promotes a ‘racialised narrative’, is neither here nor there. Riposte97 (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plausible search term. Nomination reads as WP:IDONTLIKEIT Historyexpert2 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination says Yet sources don't speak of the grooming gangs scandal this way. That's policy not preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rape gangs

[edit]

Newly created link to Grooming gangs scandal which is a UK based politicised issue regarding specific instances of group based child sexual abuse with an underlying racialised narrative. Academic literature often calls it a moral panic. The page is controversial, and geographically localised to the UK. The incoming link is not justified by sources, which overwhelmingly talk of the the grooming gangs, or, in academic literature, as group based CSE.

Redirecting to Gang rape would be one solution, although this may be a case of it being better to simply delete the redirect, as this would red link the term, and it is at least plausible that there is sufficient literature on a concept of rape gangs that would justify a page that describes the phenomenon from a global perspective. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above. Respectfully, your arguments could be read to imply that we ought to delete redirects in order to drive down page views rather than prevent confusion. Riposte97 (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And yours (as the creator of the redirect) would thus appear to imply we ought to have redirects to drive up page views rather than because the target meets the information need of the information seeker. You are using a generic term to direct the user to a specific page they were probably not looking for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose to some extent it depends on our judgement, as we can’t collect data on what users expect. On that basis, I won’t push it if others share your view. I will just note that you’re correct that most sources use ‘grooming gangs scandal’ for the topic. However, it doesn’t follow that the most common use of ‘rape gangs’ doesn’t also refer to this. Riposte97 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Gang rape does not mean the same thing. Historyexpert2 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Obamna

[edit]

Primary topic should be the listing at List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. Not unilaterally redirecting since this is a fairly popular redirect Mach61 04:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just don’t delete it pla Idibiks (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Geiser involution

[edit]

Not described at target; passing mention at Glossary of classical algebraic geometry but seems like a WP:RETURNTORED situation unless content is added elsewhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BLAA

[edit]

Unable to find out what this acronym is pointing to the video game. Suggest either redirecting to Blaa or delete. – robertsky (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Games

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Too vauge, Summer Olympics are not known simply as "Games", see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 28#2020 Games A1Cafel (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that per the previous RfD, the nomination statement is incorrect and Summer Olympics are referred to as just "Games". Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per my initial Google and Google News searches of "the 2024 games" (with quotes), the majority of hits on the first two pages of each do refer unambiguously to the 2024 Olympics. This occurs almost invariably in prose after the subject has been more fully introduced. A few referred to other "games" (i.e., Crossfit Games), again after first introducing the specific games in question. However, a Google search for "2024 games" (with quotes and without 'the') mostly turns up hits related to video games. There is possibly a WP:DIFFCAPS argument to differentiate Olympic Games from video games and a primary topic argument to differentiate Olympig Games from, e.g., Crossfit and other proper name "Games". Possibly, but I'm not yet sure it holds. I agree with Thryduulf that the Olympics are and can be referred to as simply "(the) Games".—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Games

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Too vauge, Summer Olympics are not known simply as "Games" A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the previous RfD contains evidence that the Summer Olympics are often referred to simply as "Games". Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Olympics are often referred to as "Games", and seems the 2020 Summer Olympics also uses the term "2020 Games", but the term "2020 Games" does not seem to be commonly used. "Tokyo 2020 Games" seems more plausible. Also, I see that there is redirect for 2024 Games (which can also be grouped here for RfD), but redirects for other similar Olympic Summer games (e.g "2010 Games", "2014 Games") do not exist - which suggests that just "Games' is not commonly used by itself to refer to Olympic Summer Games. Asteramellus (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other games are known as the 2020 Games? If unambiguous, Keep per my vote at the 2024 RfD. Jay 💬 13:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Jay's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

[edit]

Birtish

[edit]

Target has no entries that could be called "Birtish". Its creation may be related to this discussion on Template:Use Birtish English, where the only internal link exists at this time. Searching on Google and searches on Wikipedia outside articles show that "Birtish" is most likely a misspelling for "British". Also, note Steel1943's comment on the discussion for Template:Use Birtish English that was made months before this redirect was created, which said:

Delete [Template:Use Birtish English]. If this typo was so common, the redirect Birtish would have existed sometime during the almost 25+ years of Wikipedia's existence, but it never has.

What do others think? Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misspellings are more likely to happen in sentences like in the template than as standalone words. Not all common or standart misspellings have a redirect, but this one had, except it wasn't standalone or in the mainspace. Abesca (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...What/Huh? That's not clear at all. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to British and tag as {{r from misspelling}}. External search results show this is an error that does occur naturally outside Wikipedia, so it's not implausible that it could be helpful. It's not just one that appears in informal contexts; see eg. Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, New York Times. Something not existing before on Wikipedia doesn't mean it shouldn't; there are a lot of things on Wikipedia that editors just haven't gotten around to yet. If it exists for a while and the traffic report shows negligible usage, then it can be renominated. – Scyrme (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't especially like keeping redirect misspellings, but probably retarget and tag as above. Seems to be used frequent enough. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Scyrme, this is plausible, reasonably common and pretty unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, R3, and as a WP:POINTy creation after the previous RFD. This is not a spelling error, but a typo, and this typo is no more deserving of a redirect than any other. Searches find matches for all sorts of them, such as "Brtiish". Again, we managed for 25+ years without this without any problems, and like pointed out in an rfd a few days ago, searches for "Birtish empire" and "Birtish columbia" find their targets just fine, rendering this especially useless. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects from plausible, common typos aren't unusual. {{r from typo}} is a redirect to {{r from misspelling}}, and hundreds of redirects from typos use that redirect. The rcat description for {{r from misspelling}} encompasses typos: This is a redirect from a misspelling or typographical error. – Scyrme (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:POINTy at this point if there is not sufficient evidence. We don't want to be the ones encouraging an unlikely misspelling by having this spelling flow all over Wikipedia mirrors. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think it's unlikely? There's plenty of evidence of people making this exact mistake, as has already been shown.
    Regarding, WP:POINTy, that is about editors who apply an interpretation of policies/guidelines they disagree with to make a point about how bad it would be to apply the interpretation consistently. I don't see how that applies here. Hypothetically, the equivalent here would be nominating other redirects that have the same typo (if they existed) for deletion to try to make a point of how disruptive it would be to actually do that. This redirect isn't any more disruptive than any other redirect from a plausible typo or misspelling. – Scyrme (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Retarget to British per Scyrme. This is a typo, a recently created one at that, but as demonstrated above it's not an implausible one, so R3 does not apply. I don't think the act of creating this redirect is disruptive, so WP:POINT doesn't apply either (not to mention that the creator didn't participate in the RFD, so I'm not sure what point the others think they're trying to make). That we went over 2 decades without having this redirect means absolutely nothing, since you could use that argument to ban the creation of new articles (which I'm not going to do, as that would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). As for the argument about search results, you need to make an extra click to reach your destination, and this redirect is useful by preventing that. Also, readers might search for this term (on accident, of course) using methods that don't autocorrect this kind of thing, and this redirect would be especially useful to them. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I, as nominator, have a few comments, which should not be treated as a !vote but are simply observations made to provide more information: 1) The redirect creation is mostly related to the discussion on the template redirect. That discussion had the only link to "Birtish" before nominating the redirect in this discussion. In addition, it's unlikely that this redirect would be created independently of that discussion given the strange target. 2) This word may possibly be a misspelling of birdish. In this case, only one letter is incorrect instead of two, and "Birtish" sounds more similar to "birdish" than "British". 3) Just about every possible misspelling exists on the internet. One source though describes that "Birtish" specifically is a last name, but that source may be unreliable. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Birdish" seems like an enormous stretch to me. Even setting aside that "birdish" is a very uncommon word that few people would have cause to ever use, let alone misspell, the comparison of one letter's difference against two is very misleading. In English, as in many languages, errors of metathesis (swapping letters) are very, very common. In-fact, they're so common in English that the letters don't even need to be next to each other to swapped around (see spoonerism).
    In contrast, randomly devoicing a consonant would be exceedingly weird in speech, let alone in writing. Especially so, as English, unlike languages like German or Russian, doesn't regularly devoice consonants like "d" to "t", and in-fact often does the opposite, voicing consonants like "s" and "t" to "z" and "d" in various contexts, including intervocalically (relevant to birtish-birdish if your dialect is non-rhotic) and in clusters with voiced consonants like "r" (relevant if your dialect is rhotic). – Scyrme (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Anagrams are more likely to be mistyping than with closer misspelling with distant keyboard letters. And if birdish existed, it could be linked in a see also section of british, but currently it's an obscure dictionary entry. Abesca (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is that this is part of what I thought made birtish a possible misspelling of "birdish". Also, maybe a reasoning for creating this redirect may help? I'm still trying to understand why you created this redirect to "Birt (disambiguation)". In case any logic for creating the current redirect exists. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to British per Scyrme. It is beyond plausible that this is a common typo for a very common demonym in the English language. Google Search results number nearly 200,000, which for a typo, is a very high number. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TTân Châu District, Tây Ninh

[edit]

Delete. Typo in the title. No page links and not useful for searching in any way. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

K. B. Hedgewar redirects

[edit]

In many Indian languages, ji generally functions as an honorific suffix, comparable to "Mr". The redirects in question point to K. B. Hedgewar, founder of the Indian right-wing paramilitary organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. As they stand, the redirects are extremely broad; most readers searching for the title would be unlikely to have Hedgewar in mind. Moreover, the two pages have collectively attracted a little more than 60 views over the entirety of the past two years, as seen from their page information; clearly, they aren't being used. Given their novelty and general obscurity, they are never going to be useful and should therefore be deleted. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abdallah Husseini

[edit]

Should point to the same place but not mentioned at either target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per this New York Times piece,[5] Abdallah Husseini is an alias of Labed Ahmed, mentioned on List of Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay with isn 703. मल्ल (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Palæstina

[edit]

Retarget to Palaestina? Abesca (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to Palaestina. Seems like an obvious case of WP:DABCOMBINE. Besides being a closer match in spelling, these aren't spellings which someone would likely use by mistake and I doubt someone deliberately using an archaic spelling would be looking for the modern state of Palestine. – Scyrme (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Palaestinea, which might be a misspelling of special:search/palaestinae (Daboia palaestinae, Leucania palaestinae, Caesarea Palaestinae) Abesca (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to bundling it, but I lean delete on that one. I'm not convinced it's a likely misspelling, and the base title for which it's a misspelling (Palaestinae) doesn't exist so it can't be tagged as {{r from misspelling}}. I'm not sure that the base title should be created just to make it work; it's an adjective not a noun, and comes from Latin, a language where adjectives follow the noun (which means someone searching this would type the noun first), whereas the redirects nominated here are nouns. – Scyrme (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is too detailed to be assumed to be accidental, so retargeting to a disambiguation page makes the most sense. ----Joy (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Wiglesworth

[edit]

In my mind, she is best known as a runner-up in Survivor: Borneo, while she was eliminated in Survivor: Cambodia. Perhaps the page should be redirected to the Borneo page due to how far she has come. I doubt that sources covering her Cambodia appearance would justify retargeting the page to the Cambodia one.

Indeed, plenty of reliable sources covering her Cambodia gameplay discuss mostly her elimination. This mag piece deeming her a "boring" TV character of Cambodia would be one of grounds to restore the article. So would how Cambodia has changed her life. Unfortunately, a draft article about her that I made (Draft:Kelly Wiglesworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) wasn't approved, so good luck to those favoring an article restoration.

I can't help wonder how the current target destination has helped readers seek her name. Indeed, they would have to look for her name, click/tap on either the season that she first appeared in or the subsequent season that she also appeared in. Also, how much data has the MediaWiki server infrastructure handled over the years since it was retargeted from Borneo to the list?

If the list is no longer a suitable target for this person, then the page should be (again) retargeted to, preferably, Survivor: Borneo. George Ho (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC); edited, 17:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ossero

[edit]

"Ossero" does not appear at the target, or at https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osor. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This should be fixed by simply mentioning the old name in the article. --Joy (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the old name to the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some redirects

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, zglph•talk• 06:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Stillman

[edit]

I'd like this page listed into the multi-nomination section. However, this concerns the person related to controversy about her elimination and all. Should be, preferably, re-targeted to Survivor: Borneo#Controversy... or simply Survivor: Borneo. Well, she hasn't reappeared in any other season after Borneo. George Ho (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Found her name at Survivor (American TV series)#Controversies and legal action. Perhaps a good alternative target, though I prefer Survivor: Borneo. George Ho (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor: Borneo-only contestants

[edit]

Redirected ten years ago by a user who was kinda new-ish back then and hasn't been active since that year. Should be re-redirected back to Survivor: Borneo since they haven't been in any other Survivor season after the Borneo one. George Ho (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

retarget as per nom. Borneo-only should redirect there User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 16:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

X (formerly Twitter) killer

[edit]

Yes, many people use the term X (formerly Twitter) where they previously would have said "Twitter". That doesn't mean they perform this substitution inside the moniker Twitter killer. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirects are cheap Yacàwotçã (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a term mentioned in the article, even. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
X killer exists. Abesca (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Should be deleted as well. That term is also ambiguous. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely implausible, especially given he acquired the moniker around the time of his trial, which ended years before Twitter was rebranded. This substitution would be anachronistic. – Scyrme (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I wanted to say for my !vote as well. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Airlines(1928)

[edit]

Error redirect with no space between "Airlines" and "(1928)". The correct form, Northern Airlines (1928), does not exist. However, this redirect was created a bit over two months, which means it is too old for deletion through WP:R3. Could this be WP:G6ed? Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

possibly. would've been WP:X3 if that was still in effect. perhaps move to Northern Airlines (1928) User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 17:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
G6 or delete through RfD. Space is needed, and even if it is moved, the page still would exist (then as {{R from move}}. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the money

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

Puzzle (video game)

[edit]

Usually, "Foo (video game)" is for a specific game, not genre. The current target is about a genre, and while it mentions a single specific game (a redirect to American_Video_Entertainment#Puzzle), this is also not ideal. That game may be notable (MobyGames has 2 reviews: [6], which makes it borderline notable), but in addition, there were many other games named just "Puzzle" [7]. At least one other has a review in MG, and MG is far from a complete database (I found a review of another game called "Puzzle" in a non-indexed Polish magazine, for example). Anyway, right now choices are: 1) keep (which I don't like due to reasons explained) 2) retarget to American_Video_Entertainment#Puzzle (the only article that mentions a specific game called "Puzzle") 3) turn into a disambig using data from MobyGames (problem is we cannot be sure these other games are notable). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ultimately, no result for a video game simply named "puzzle" is going to be notable enough to outweigh the WP:SURPRISE of landing anywhere other than Puzzle video game. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect the title to redirect to the element of puzzles in video games, not the genre as a whole. Delete unless a stronger argument is shown. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Homepage

[edit]

I suggest this should be a disambiguation given Wikipedia:Homepage (new user feature). I think the term homepage is increasingly used for that new concept. I also suggest creating and redirecting WP:HOMEPAGE to the new disambig. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 01:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Check also Wikipedia:Homepages of Non-English Wikipedias. Abesca (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

[edit]

Khamenei

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Pokemon master

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Potentially confusing. An earlier discussion resulted in similar the last three redirects being retargeted from Gameplay of Pokémon to Ash Ketchum. At the same time, the plural Pokémon Masters mostly refers to the current target Pokémon Masters EX, but there isn't anything that currently deals with the confusion of the similar terms. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC) (updated 00:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Retarget to Ash Ketchum, who repeatedly proclaims he wants to be a Pokemon master. PokémonPerson 19:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, going to do the following: user:Cogsan user:Pokelego999 user:Lenticel user:Skynxnex 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No preference where this goes tbh. Perhaps point to Masters with a hatnote to Ash for those looking for that? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
retarget as per Pokelego999 User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 17:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too vague - it can refer to the title as part of the plot of Pokemon or the specific gameplay challenge of the video games to collect all Pokemon. The search function should be allowed to do its job instead of forcing someone to arrive at a surprise target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chorlton, Lancashire

[edit]

The article redirects to one area named Chorlton that used to be in Lancashire before 1974; however, there is also Chorlton-cum-Hardy, which was also formerly in Lancashire, is also in the ward of Chorlton, and has the longer article out of the two. I'm not sure which has historically just been refered to as Chorlton more, though Chorlton-cum-Hardy seems like the more fitting redirect option on the surface, but the person who created the redirect in 2018 disagreed. Ringtail Raider (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

War of Independence.

[edit]

Delete as it is an unnatural redirect, since "independence" is a full word, so a period after is implausible. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to main the attribution per Jay.Toarin (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible (see the period). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is not an option for legal reasons. Unless someone finds an alternate method of attribution, any consensus to delete will have to be overridden because it goes against legal and WMF policy. Retargeting is obviously an option, and if anyone finds a good alternate method of attribution, I'd have no dispute, because it's not a plausible title. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Intestinal paralysis

[edit]

No paralysis mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that section as unsourced. Jay 💬 01:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ileus, which mentions the word "paralysis" several times and can be understood to be about something that non-specialists would regard as "paralysis" more generally (even if it may not be technically correct). Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ileus mentions "paralysis" only once, and as one of the causes of Ileus. It appears to be a synonym of atony which is a generic muscle-related term, and we don't have intestinal atony. The lead of Ileus mentions peristalsis which also doesn't mention paralysis, because Ileus is the lack of peristalsis. Delete if we have no info anywhere else. Jay 💬 08:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

War on independence

[edit]

I have absolutely no idea why this term redirects here. Not mentioned at target and searching produces extremely scattered results (alternate history scenarios, music, an academic paper), none of which have anything to do with the Eighty Years' War. Delete. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeeaaaaahhhhh, I repeat that these need to be bundled to have them pointed at the same target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the redirects ending (disambiguation) should stay pointed at the list article, as that's performing the disambiguation function. The rest should all have the same target, and that target should be either List of wars of independence or Wars of national liberation. I'm leaning towards the latter as the search terms don't indicate a desire for a list, but this preference is weak. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marrying for money

[edit]

This topic could also refer to a Marriage of convenience or a Gold digger. Redirecting only to Transactional sex would narrow the scope of the topic and likely cause confusion. Uffda608 (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd say retarget to Marriage of convenience through the WP:SMALLDETAILS of "they are specifically asking about a marriage and not sex", but that article needs some SERIOUS help-- logically it'd cover the topic, but it doesn't mention marriages for money at all... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to marriage of convenience and gold digger; transactional sex is basically just prostitution, both in the normal sense and in "exalted" forms. This is marriage, at least, and it needs to be distinguished from prostitution. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pippo Speedway

[edit]

"Pippo" not mentioned in target, even when the redirect was created. As a result, someone who searches "Pippo Speedway" will get no information about the speedway. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "Pipo". The page can be moved without redirect to Pipo Speedway. Jay 💬 05:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All the other enwiki mentions call it "Pippo Speedway". Even if they're all wrong, a longstanding and non-obvious error on enwiki will normally make for a useful redirect anyway, the error becoming relatively common as it propagates to other sources (and to readers). Besides, a redirect is an exact search term. Moving the redirect to a different title makes it reach a completely different cohort of readers. Just create a new one. J947 ‡ edits 06:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei

[edit]

No longer a alleged assassination. Mysticair667537 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, redirects are cheap, and several dozen hits per day is still a fair amount. I would revise my position if (roughly) median daily traffic drops to zero signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The last two redirects have now dropped to a median daily zero and the first one has dropped to 16. There are other problems with these redirects aside from the very low pageviews, readers using these may think that they will be directed to a section of Ali Khamenei's article about old debunked assassination rumors, leading to issues with WP:XY. Mysticair667537 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rape-vinegar

[edit]

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

Keep Read Preserved_lemon#History. I don't usually hang around these parts, but couldn't looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Rape-vinegar have prevented this confusion? 03:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Reading the source, it is indeed "rape-vinegar". I understand it as rapeseed vinegar. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 03:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure where I land on what to do (since the article doesn't actually reference rape-vinegar, which as far as I can tell is just an outdated term for wine vinegar?), but firmly on do not keep since there is no section Wine in the article Vinegar so we should at minimum retarget elsewhere in the article (to either the article as a whole or a different section). NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be real with you, I'm pretty annoyed you didn't acknowledge my comment. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 01:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My comment didn't seem related to yours? Mine was primarily about the fact that we shouldn't have a redirect pointing to a non-existent section of an article. And I did read the context from where it is linked at Preserved lemon#History, but that doesn't change any of what I was adding NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on refining to Vinegar#Spirits?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Microslop

[edit]

Not mentioned in article Isla🏳️‍⚧ 12:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Retarget to either microsoft#2020–present: Acquisitions, Xbox Series X/S, and Windows 11 or List of Streisand effect examples#By businesses as the last paragraph of these sections mentioned Microslop. AI slop is also another suitable target.Toarin (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a redirect to Criticism of Microsoft would be more appropriate? MakeLife2013Again (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MakeLife2013Again the term "Microslop" is not mentioned there, so at present I think the answer to your question is "no". However, the lack of a mention there does surprise me as it would seem a natural home for the content. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make a relevant section on the AI controversy as it isn't already mentioned EvanTech10 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PAL

[edit]

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

  • @Gzyeah: Template redirects don't come by RfD very often, so the regular participants here might not be very well versed in best practices for what to do with them. "PAL" as short for Palestine (even if mistakenly) seems reasonable enough to me, and it's unclear if you're proposing that something else is a more appropriate target. Would you care to elaborate your nominator rationale a bit further? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But "PAL" is technically not in used as exact "country code" by recent notable organisations searchable online, and the current redirection pointed to modern sovereign (Palestinian Authority) is giving wrong info on equating it with "PSE", rather than simple geographical meanings. Gzyeah (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The "PAL" is fine to be mentioned its functions in disambiguate page, however we should not encourage to continue holding it for a country template without historical and logical senses unless we had any reliable source to prove such misuse. Gzyeah (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a better place to retarget, or do you prefer a disambiguation instead? And would you use a bot to replace the current transclusions? Or its own new template? Abesca (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
there is already an existing PAL (disambiguation) as mentioned with content updated, while it may have no better place to retarget since it was created initially as an individual template compared to Template:PSE before the last redirection made. Gzyeah (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep primary topic PER WP:PT1 and WP:PT2 Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 22:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to the bathroom to read.

[edit]

Retarget to Elvis Presley#Death, since it's his last words. ~2026-13617-37 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should I nominate other last word redirects? ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Chess enjoyer – we only "delete." redirects with periods when the period is not part of the term itself. Nobody would argue that we should delete U.S.U.S. in favor of U.SU.S, or move Apple Inc. without leaving a redirect. The connection between a sentence and its final period might be slightly weaker than that, but it's still a reasonable WP:AFFINITY. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:In rem jurisdiction

[edit]

In rem jurisdiction is not exclusive to the United states. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

[edit]

Zhang Weiyin

[edit]

"Zhang Weiyin" is the name of at least two (?) other non-notable people: a professor at the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, and a person in IMDb who worked in a "transportation department". So I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

28 February 2026

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sweet sandwich time

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Liz (musician)

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sparra

[edit]

vague, almost hopelessly so. the closest this term seems to have of a primary topic is somewhat suggestive furry art

...except this isn't where it ends, as there's some pre-blar content here, that suggests that this was a somewhat obscure type of irish battle axe. that axe isn't currently mentioned, and of the two sources in that stub (which seems to have been an attempt at an article about obscure ancient irish battle axes in general?), i could only get one to load, and mentions of the sparra seem to be passing in it

i don't really know if the source is useful for this. if it is, i don't know if the target would be the proper place for a mention, and i've found no other stuff about it, so maybe return to red? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-BLAR page content?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Access 1 disorder

[edit]

The section target is broken and the terms aren't mentioned in the article. The redirects were created in 2009 but I can't find mentions of the terms in the article from that time and a search didn't bring up enough sources that I think it warrants adding the terms to the article. Suonii180 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Big DT

[edit]

This page was originally created as a fan page for Donald Trump, but I opted to create a redirect instead. However, a Google search for "Big DT" brings up Desmond Watson instead, though this name isn't mentioned on Watson's article. I'm happy to delete or change target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Watson's nickname is Big Dez, also, according to this website (don't know how reliable it is) "Tush Push Terminator". I've never heard or seen Donald Trump referred to as "Big DT". Judging by Bob4230's user contributions, the creation of the Big DT page, with its only source the Donald Trump page, was trolling/vandalism. I recommend deleting the redirect page. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Geo &YO

[edit]

Another "Nat Geo" redirect created by TimTims2022. I originally tagged it on 15 February, but I didn't add it to the now-closed multi-pronged nomination, so I've fixed the date to align with this nomination. Pinged Mathguy2718 who participated in that nomination to weigh in on this! Intrisit (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unsure what "&YO" is supposed to mean, and searching for this exact string gave nothing related to Nat Geo. This is most likely a punctuation error, but even then, there is no information on "YO". Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathguy2718: "&YO" is a stylised version of "& I", where "yo" is a Spanish pronoun. It was a channel under the National Geographic brand that operated in Latin America. (see eg. [9]) If there's no information on Wikipedia, this might be a case of WP:RETURNTORED, but the title isn't made up or an error. – Scyrme (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even then, the cases shown in the video are "Nat Geo & Yo" in the title and "NAT GEO & YO" in the logo. The logo could be misinterpreted as "NAT GEO &YO" but not "Nat Geo &YO". Anyway, this video isn't a reliable source and does not explain how what the actual TV channel is. Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The video is isn't intended to be RS for anything or to explain what the TV channel was; I was not proposing to use it as a reference to add it to the target article. It's just a demonstration that the channel existed, and that I'm not guessing or making this up. My point is literally just to say what this title is intended to refer to, nothing more, as you had no idea. – Scyrme (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No-kernel

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

God's Beads

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#God's Beads

Bloodwort (disambiguation)

[edit]

First time I've ever seen this... I don't think we need spelling variant redirects for disambiguation pages? Both Bloodwart and Bloodwort already redirect to Bloodwart (disambiguation). This seems superfluous. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodwart redirects to Sanguinaria currently. However, I would support a moving of Bloodwart (disambiguation) to Bloodwart though that is a different discussion. PokémonPerson 15:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... so it does. Okay as primary topic. But I don't understand what you mean by moving of Bloodwart (disambiguation) to Bloodwart - that means giving the article the title of the (unneeded) disambiguation? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think they mean that since there's no article located at Bloodwart (the article is located at Sanguinaria not Bloodwart), there's no need for the disambiguation page to have "(disambiguation)" in its title; it can just be located where the redirect presently is. Practically, this would mean a technical move to swap the titles of Bloodwart and Bloodwart (disambiguation), so the latter becomes a redirect to Bloodwart (which would be the disambiguation page). The redirect with "(disambiguation)" in its name could be kept in case intentional links to the disambiguation page are needed. – Scyrme (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as {{avoided double redirect}} for Bloodwort - Bloodwort (disambiguation) could, in principle, be used where a link to Bloodwort is intentional in a context where "bloodwort" rather than "bloodwart" is the spelling used by an article. If only Bloodwart (disambiguation) existed, the only way to make an intentional link to the disambiguation page would be to use "wart" even though elsewhere the article refers to "wort". Though we could get around this problem by piping the link to make it look like Bloodwort (disambiguation), it seems harmless to keep it so piping isn't needed. – Scyrme (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bloodwart is the misspelling; bloodwort (disambiguation) was recently moved with the edit summary "correcting typo", and bloodwort was moved by the same editor without an edit summary. I can see somebody not familiar with list of wort plants thinking that wort is a misspelling, but it isn't. I don't think Sanguinaria is the primary topic of bloodwort; that plant is usually known as bloodroot. Haemodoraceae is definitely known as the bloodwort family. At a minimum, move back to bloodwort (disambiguation), delete bloodwart (disambiguation), keep bloodwart as a plausible misspelling and retarget to bloodwort (disambiguation). But also consider moveing bloodwart (disambiguation) to bloodwort. Plantdrew (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as mover: I've found sources that use the spelling "bloodwart" (e.g. [10])- Bloodwort would be a useful redirect as the -wort ending is common in plants as seen by List of wort plants, but the -wart ending seems to be used more specifically for bloodwart. PokémonPerson 15:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sammarinese Ambassador to the United States

[edit]

Redirect to one individual who previously served as ambassador but is primarily notable for other reasons. Unclear that readers searching this term would expect to be directed to this biography. AusLondonder (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ico (playstation)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Ico (playstation)

Cuban language

[edit]

Is Cuban Spanish the best target? The current target does show this is the main language of Cuba. However, it does not link to Languages of Cuba, which redirects to Demographics of Cuba#Language. The only mentions of "Cuban language" are for Cuban Language Academy and in Music of Cuba. At the same time, no language spoken in Cuba is directly called "Cuban language", but there is Cuban Spanish and Cuban Sign Language. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language as {{R avoided double redirect}}, since it mentions the other languages spoken in Cuba and already has a hatnote to both Cuban Spanish and Cuba language, which is another possible (but less likely) desired target. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1st choice) and add a hatnote to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language and possibly Cuba language. Spanish is the official and predominant language of Cuba. A cursory Google search for "Cuban language" exclusively reveals hits referring to Cuban Spanish on the first page. Google Scholar results are more mixed but largely reference Cuban Spanish; references to non-Spanish languages are often qualified, e.g. Afro-Cuban language. Weak retarget to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language as distant second choice—in other words, don't let me stand in the way if consensus otherwise goes that direction but Cuban Spanish appears to be the primary topic for Cuban language and is my preferred target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Kepler-1229b. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yguazú

[edit]

Retarget to Iguaçu, hatnote, or disambiguate itself? Abesca (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

gn:Yguasu is a dab. Abesca (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify at Yguazú for Colonia Yguazú, Yguazú District, and Yguazú River NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Iguaçu, and add these articles to that list. I think this falls within WP:DABCOMBINE. In this context, "y" is pronounced identically to "i" in Spanish, so someone could plausibly confuse the spellings if they don't know the Paraguayan version is spelled with "y", more closely following the Guarani y guasú. Iguaçu already combines Iguazu; it's not a huge leap from there to Yguazu or Yguasu. – Scyrme (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I previously said to dabify on its own, but after re-evaluating, equally okay with retargeting with the articles added. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LENS

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#LENS

Super Pro Fighter Q

[edit]

What does this has to do what the target section? Anyways, delete. ~2025-42974-91 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

サンズ

[edit]

This should be deleted per WP:FORRED. There's no affinity between Undertale and Japanese, so this is not a valid foreign-language redirect. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 23:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Japanese-speaking fanbase of the UT/DR franchise is large, and it's inaccurate to say there is no affinity. Dege31 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the Japanese-speaking fanbase be seeking English-language information about the subject by searching the English Wikipedia in Japanese? Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there any other foreign-language redirect? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not to cater to foreign language readers. We create foreign-language article titles and redirects to cater to English speakers who may have encountered something under its foreign name. Non-English speakers should be consulting the Wikipedia for their own language. If they are going to use the English Wikipedia, they should have enough familiarity with English to look topics up by their English names. --Srleffler (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if someone does want to look up information about a given topic in English but doesn't remember the English name, then there are several far more reliable strategies to finding the English Wikipedia article, including:
  • Looking at the article in the Wikipedia for the language they do remember its name in and following the interwiki link
  • Looking at a related article in the English Wikipedia they do remember the name of and following links from there
  • Searching using related words/phrases they do remember
  • Consulting a dictionary / translator to find the English name
Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if this has already been explained before, but this definitely could be for "English speakers who may have encountered something under its foreign name". 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Comment: Honestly, I never even thought about including a Japanese name for each of the Undertale/Deltarune characters. At the very least, I believe the redirect for San's Japanese name should be kept if the actual article mentions this specific word/phrase. If it's included, then I will change my Weak Keep to Strong Keep if that is the case. For example, Sans name could be written like Sans (Japanese: サンズ, romanized: sanzu) OR Sans could have a nihongo footnote like Sans[a]
As video games, Undertale and Deltarune has official Japanese localization/Japanese language in the game by Toby Fox. This is what matters. I understand why this redirect was questioned, but considering what I said earlier though, It isn't misleading to say that Undertale/Deltarune has Japanese in the game since there's official Japanese language in both of the games by Toby's Japanese localization team 8-4 and this is reassured on https://undertale.com and https://deltarune.com with the site having the option to be in the Japanese language. If this redirect is kept I will include Japanese names for each of the Undertale/Deltarune characters that currently has an article and cite this RfD discussion as the reason for doing so.
  1. ^ Japanese: サンズ, Hepburn: sanzu
KrispyBlueJays (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago station

[edit]

This should be a disambiguation. Chicago has had multiple intercity train stations in the past. There are also a number of 'L' stations called Chicago. Gamingcanary (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some stations to consider:
Gamingcanary (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also Dearborn Station Gamingcanary (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also Wells Street Station and Wells Street Terminal Gamingcanary (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate - there are no less than four CTA stations alone that are named Chicago station, none of which is currently the target of this redirect. I'll draft up.a dab page. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I drafted up a dab page at Chicago station (disambiguation). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest adding the intercity terminals listed above. On most timetables and station indices they would be written as simply “Chicago”, with maybe a footnote or subtitle indicating which one. Gamingcanary (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamingcanary, I would be fine with that. You can feel free to add any (or all) links you find appropriate. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nazzi

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Nazzi

Obsolete word

[edit]

DELETE. "Obsolete word" is just a common noun phrase. It shouldn't be in an encylopedia. It also shouldn't redirect to an article about a distinct topic (Archaism), as this is obviously misleading.

On a sidenote, the Archaism article shouldn't give a dictionary definition of the word "obsolete": "an obsolete word or sense is one that is no longer used at all." No shit. you could replace "word or sense" with anything and it would be true, because that is the definition of the word obsolete. Really; use your imagination. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the proposal here. My only comment to leave here is to explain why anyone felt compelled to explain what "obsolete" means regarding usage specifically (as opposed to other senses of that word). There is a specific reason why that desire for clarification arises. People assume various interpretations of the label "obsolete", regarding word choice and usage, that coexist and compete with or contradict one another. Wiktionary tries to reserve "obsolete" to the sense that "not only is that word, or that specific sense thereof, no longer used, but also, many readers might have a hard time even guessing the intended meaning", which makes it different from both (1) "archaic", which refers to a word whose intended sense in the given occurrence is obvious to most readers (i.e., fluent speakers who aren't stupid or ignorant) but whose use for that meaning feels noticeably antiquated, and (2) "historical", which many people assume "obsolete" refers to. Again, this is only to explain why the explanatory effort wasn't stupid; I have no objection to the proposal here, because I currently don't give much of a shit about how or whether Wikipedia tries (or fails to try) to help its users with this usage quibble. Wikipedia and Wiktionary are both currently merely assclownery anyway, really, compared to what they ought to be by now, because almost nobody on Earth (not even the minority who are competent to try) truly gives a fuck about being arsed to fix them lol. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a simple redirect from a quick two-word definition of "Archaism" towards the actual article for "Archaism", meant for those who don't know what the actual name for the concept is but still want to read an encyclopedia article on it. As for the idea that the Archaism article should be rewritten... That's not for this forum to worry about. Bring your concerns to Talk:Archaism... or be bold and find a way to fix it yourself. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No its not. These mean very different things. Your misunderstanding of that illustrates the problem. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...Sorry, got distracted by the actual arguments you made in the OP post-- "noun phrase that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, and shouldn't be redirected towards any topic" and "Archaism needs to be rewritten"-- and didn't think to check the actual meaning here, which is something you never argued against in your original post. You're right in that, as the Archaism article states, a distinction exists between archaisms and obsolete words; however I'm not sure a good alternate target exists.
Still weakly keep, as the article does briefly talk about obsolete words in the second paragraph (as a comparison between that concept and archaisms); however, if a better target is found please take the reader there instead. Worst case scenario we can delete as per WP:RETURNTORED; while I am roundly unconvinced by the idea that a "noun phrase" like this "doesn't belong on an encyclopedia" given we have actual articles with much longer and more elaborate titles, the idea that we don't have a suitable target to go to is much more concerning. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with being long and elaborate. It would be like having a Wikipedia entry for "red shirt", that redirected you to a page that said "a red shirt is a piece of clothing worn on the upper body that is red in colour". The entire meaning is contained in the word definitions, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY, its an encyclopedia. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
red shirt exists, though-- it's a redirect to the Redshirt DAB, which includes, among other things, a link to Redshirt (stock character), a noted trope regarding stock characters killed off early for little reason. Which tells me the problem was never with the redirect itself, "noun phrases" like that are fine-- it was with the target being a WP:DICDEF.
And I repeat what I said in response to that-- if you feel the page redirected to shouldn't have a WP:DICDEF of "Obsolete word", the response is to try and get the DICDEF removed first-- not to remove the redirect first. And the correct venue to do so, if you're not interested in simply being WP:BOLD and rewriting the article yourself, is Talk:Archaism. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Y2K7

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Y2K7

9:41 AM

[edit]

I find it extremely unlikely that anyone will be searching for "9:41 AM" on Wikipedia. Further, it is implausible that anyone wanting to go to iPhone will use 9:41 AM to get there. GSK (talk • edits) 00:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What if we add it to the target article? Can this fix it? Maybe this will fix it without the use of wiki duct tape. Maybe... - SimpleObjects-9ei (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, my concern is not whether or not 9:41 AM is mentioned in iPhone. My concern, as I mentioned above, stems from the fact that it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be searching for "9:41 AM" on Wikipedia. Further, it is implausible that anyone wanting to go to iPhone will use 9:41 AM to get there. GSK (talk • edits) 00:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I added something to your talk page. Go check it out. - SimpleObjects-9ei (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not usually in the business of repeating myself but I did so again on my talk page in the hopes that you read what I'm saying and understand it. I do not care if 9:41 AM has coverage in news sources. That is not my concern here. GSK (talk • edits) 01:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 9:41 AM is just a time and is not exclusive to iPhones?
feedmepaperr (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

[edit]

Barnstar of National Merit

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chicken Pyongyang

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nintendo 8-bit

[edit]

Nintendo 8-bit and Sega 8-bit are ambiguous, as the Game Boy, Game Boy Color and Game Gear were also 8-bit. Sega 16-bit is less ambiguous, but the Sega CD can be considered a separate system in some respects. UPDATE 7 FEBRUARY: bundling similar redirects. Mr slav999 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nintendo video game consoles and List of Sega video game consoles would be the ideal landing places for these redirects. The Nintendo list does a good job of listing the number of bits, but the Sega list does not. Perhaps that's something that can be added to the Sega list? -- Tavix (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Sega CD can be considered a separate system in some respects
    Even if this was correct-- it's not, the Sega CD is as unambiguously an add-on to the Genesis as the Sega 32X is (as well as the Nintendo 64DD > Nintendo 64)-- the Sega CD is explicitly discussed on the Sega Genesis page. Similarly, the Game Gear is basically a Master System made portable, and is compatible with all Master System games through a cartridge converter; it is also, as with the Sega CD, discussed on the Master System's page. Keep these two.
    The Game Boy and Game Boy Color, though... Those aren't as clear-cut, as the tech of the GB and GBC aren't nearly as cleanly mapped to the NES's hardware (you can't just use a converter to plug an NES or Famicom copy of Super Mario Bros into a GBC and play it, like you can with a Master System game on Game Gear). NES still feels primary topic, but I'm not sure enough to come to a decision there; anyone have any other thoughts here? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think most people would say a console is the same as another just because it can play its games. The Genesis has an add-on that allows it to play Master System games, but no one considers them to be the same. The PS2 can play most PS1 games but no one thinks they're the same thing. Also, I said the Sega CD may be considered its own system because it has an exclusive library of games that can't be played on a base Genesis. Mr slav999 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think most people would say a console is the same as another just because it can play its games.
    That's a valid concern re: referring to the Genesis as a Master System, a PS2 as a PS1, or the Wii as a Gamecube. However, I'd say it's not applicable re: the Master System and Game Gear. Unlike with all of the prior examples, which are backwards compatible but have extensive libraries that the prior console it's compatible with can't play, the Game Gear and Master System are literally the same thing-- not only can most Master System games work on Game Gear with a cartridge converter (save for certain games that require, say, the light gun), but in turn, most Game Gear games can be played on Master System (although a converter didn't exist at the time, there *are* third-party ones that exist); there are exceptions-- Game Gear exclusive titles that you can't play on Master System because they use colors that the Master System couldn't support-- but one of these Game Gear exclusive games can be converted into a Master System compatible game with only minor graphical modification.
    Which means rather than being a case of a PS2 and a PS1, it's more like the case of a Game Boy Advance, a Game Boy Advance SP, and a Game Boy Player. All three of those I'd consider to be versions of the GBA, and that includes the Game Boy Player.
    I said the Sega CD may be considered its own system because it has an exclusive library of games that can't be played on a base Genesis.
    ...Hm. I'm... a little torn on this. Part of me is insistent that the Sega CD should merely be considered a disk drive addon to the Genesis-- like of course the base Genesis can't play Sega CD games, it doesn't have a disk drive on its own!-- but then I look up at my own argument that the Game Boy Player is a GBA (which... it is, it's not an emulator, it's the actual hardware from a GBA hooked up to your Gamecube). And as per Sega_CD#Technical_specifications, it's NOT just a CD drive bolted to the Genesis, it has its own graphics and processor.
    ...Hm. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all redirects missing the word "console" as vague with consoles, games, rereleases of those games, and rereleases of those games but in collection form, among other less plausible stuff like merch and the reader being one of those "so retro" folk
delete the others as well as... a misleading mess of varyingly implausible targets at best. judging by the views and incoming links (all one of them not related to this rfd in sega 16 bit console), it's unlikely that a reader would be looking for those without already knowing what the consoles are, which would make the most plausible target some sort of list of consoles separated by bits or something, which technically doesn't exist, and even if it did (which would be at the list of sega video game consoles and list of nintendo products), they'd actually still be vague with arcade systems, which are separated in the nintendo list and in a separate list for sega (for which no 8-bit ones seem to exist, and only one 16-bit one seems to exist), and with the multiple consoles each of them have per bit (despite sega's best attempts to hide its pre-mega drive stuff) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
they'd actually still be vague with arcade systems
You're arguing that the redirects that have the word "console" are an issue because they're vague with... arcade systems, which are famously not consoles? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes and no. regardless of whether or not i think it's plausible (it's a skill issue, really), this is a confusion i've seen a good bit of among people who have lives, and i have snk's arcade shenanigans of all things to blame for about half of it, with the other half being a sentiment of "that's just nomenclature, isn't it?". and Streets™ 2 depending on who you ask
even then, there are still multiple systems for both (do people even remember the sg-1000 and pico?), and no target that would really fit the oddly specific criterion of a search for consoles per that one number consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 22:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...Okay, while the Pico does roundly trounce the idea that the Genesis is the only target for Sega 16 bit console, I'd like to point out that the Master System was the SG-1000 in much the same way that the Game Gear was the Master System; the Master System being the Sega Mark III (as in the 3rd release of the SG1000). The Master System article even mentions it in the second sentence. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
that they even have different articles in the first place makes this whole thing kinda pointless, as they're considered different enough platforms in mainspace consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, my counterexample regarding that is Game Boy Advance SP, DSi, 2DS, et cetera, all examples of major revisions of popular (handheld) consoles (the GBA, Nintendo DS, and 3DS respectively for the examples I gave) that ARE in every respect the base console but have enough notability by themselves to have their own articles. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most would say that the SG-1000, Master System and Game Gear are separate consoles, even if they have some common origins. Sorry, but the fact you have a different opinion on this is kinda irrelevant, because what matters is what most people think. Mr slav999 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I left a general comment—not a !vote—that would also apply to the additional entries. -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I read your comment as a retarget !vote. Jay 💬 17:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard skin

[edit]

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

Retarget per nom with following specifications:
Elephant skin to Elephant#Skin
Lizard skin to Lizard#Anatomy
For Leopard skin, I tend to think retarget to Leopard skin (clothing in Ancient Egypt) is the way to go with potentially the addition of a hatnote to Animal print and Leopard#Characteristics but could also be convinced otherwise (or convinced to dabify) NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget elephant skin to elephant#Skin, retarget lizard skin to lizard#Anatomy, and disambiguate leopard skin. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Elephant skin can also refer to matgrounds. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What should we do with Leopard skin?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Lizard skin and Elephant skin, with a hotnote to Matground, and disambiguate Leopard skin per above. मल्ल (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Man Savage Beast 2

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Savage Man Savage Beast 2

Symplectic form

[edit]

Most backlinks to this seem to be referring to the 2-form on a symplectic manifold. Should this be retargeted or disambiguated? (cc Chatul per Talk:Symplectic form#Redirect or disambiguation?.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Super P.E.K.K.A.

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Renewability

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Renewability

MNC News

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#MNC News

00FFFF

[edit]

Unless someone can demonstrate that hex is more affiliated with Aqua (color) and rgb is more affiliated with Cyan, these redirects should have the same target. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Central Estonia

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Central Estonia

Autopedophilia

[edit]

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

I'll note that MassXFD declined to notify user:James Cantor (redirect creator) of this discussion, and upon investigation, it turns out that he got himself blocked for socking. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions autonepiophilia multiple times; nepiophilia redirects to pedophilia. Abesca (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not something explained in the article itself-- in order for someone who searched this to figure out why they got sent here, they would need to:
-Read the entire article, in order to
-Find Paraphilic infantilism#Historical terminology and definitions at the bottom of the article, where it's explained where the at-first-blush-unrelated term "Autonepiophilia" came from, as well as the link between it and the term "Nepiophilia"
-Decide to look up what "Nepiophilia" means, which will FINALLY lead them to Pedophilia#Etymology and definitions, and the revelation that it's a subtype of pedophilia
-THEN AND ONLY THEN will they have the "ohhh" moment of "oh okay now it makes sense"
On top of that, I also have two MORE issues-- the first is the "anatomic" thing, which even with the "autonepiophilia" connection still makes little to no sense; the second is the worry that this specific formulation runs into WP:NEO / WP:RFD#D8 issues. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so hard cause both have the same prefix and suffix to guess. The anatomic part seems to apply to desiring to be physically a baby, but that’s what I’m guessing since I didn’t search it yet Abesca (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another target has been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Renewables

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Renewables

Fastest man-made object

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of shipwrecks in Lake St. Clair

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

l + ratio

[edit]

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

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Link both to Glossary article, most fitting target, with a bit added in either the #R or #L section, under the ratio or L section about its usage. — Knightoftheswords 14:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think so, honestly. if a proper mention is added, i'm not entirely sure this would be a good place for it, as it's more of a sentence composed of slang than just slang consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 07:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Soccer Team

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Côco

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Côco

Sarah (Suikoden)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Sarah (Suikoden)

Picton Parish (Yancowinna County)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Picton Parish (Yancowinna County)

Edgar, Yancowinna County

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Edgar, Yancowinna County

Body mass

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at Human body weight with a hatnote - External search results for "body+mass" are overwhelmingly for Body mass index, however these results are misled by the partial title match. When searching "body+mass" -index results are overwhelmingly related to human body weight, indicating it's the primary topic (WP:PTOPIC) for the base title.
While Shhhnotsoloud is right in the abstract, in that scientifically-speaking weight is a measure of force not mass, in practice people discuss their weight in units of mass, and if someone asked you how much you weigh and you answered with a measure in Newtons they'd be baffled. They'd expect you to state your mass as read by a scale. Similarly, "body mass" in Body mass index actually does mean "body weight" in the sense it is used by Human body weight, which is why the article for BMI defines BMI as a value derived from the mass (weight) and height of a person, using weight and mass synonymously. It's also why there's a whole article for Mass versus weight which begins with In common usage, the mass of an object is often referred to as its weight.... Given this, it'd make sense for body weight and body mass to share a target.
Though "body" in isolation is ambiguous between body (biology) and physical body, in the whole expression "body mass" is much less ambiguous as in physics you wouldn't need to use that expression, you'd just use "mass"; if something has mass then it is a body, likewise if something is a body it has mass. This is why I don't think the broader, more fundamental meaning in physics has primacy. The full expression "body mass" suggests biology, not physics, which concurs with the search results.
The hatnote I'd suggest would be:
"Body mass" redirects here. For the mass of a physical body, see mass. For the measure derived from body mass and height, see body mass index.
If someone wanted horse body mass, they'd almost certainly include the word "horse" in their search, so I don't think that partial title match (WP:PTM) warrants mention. – Scyrme (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with Scyrme - Human body weight seems to be the primary topic for body mass and suggested hatnote would help navigation to other meanings. Asteramellus (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnote per Scyrme. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shhhnotsoloud Body mass and body weigth especially human body weight don't have the same meaning Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guitarjunkie22: What is the difference? If someone asked you for your body weight, how would your answer differ from if they asked for your body mass? – Scyrme (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or delete/create new article. There are a few reasons that googling "body mass" gives mostly results about human body weight, and it's not that the topic is called just "body mass". If referring to a person's body mass or weight, something like "my body weight" or "your body weight" would be used since using "your human body weight" is uncommon; however, a standalone "body mass" is ambiguous in itself (since "its body mass" could refer to something else). Also, the results involved "lean body mass" and "muscle body mass", but usually not "body mass" by itself. But most crucially, googling has a strong bias towards humans; for example, searching "nose" gives mostly results about human noses, even though other animals have noses; searching for "height", which could literally be used for almost anything, gives mostly results about human height.
    Also, look at the links to "Body mass" and the links to "Body weight". For body mass, most links refer to body masses of organisms–mostly animals–in general, but a few do refer to human body mass. It would be weird for an article like Woodland jumping mouse to indirectly link to human body weight through body mass, as that was not the intent. The reverse is true for body weight; the links that do not refer to human body weight include but are not limited to in Primate and in List of poisonous plants. Disambiguating will let editors know that they should link something more specific when linking to "Body mass" as to avoid linking to ambiguous terms. It is possible that an article that talks about body mass in organisms–including humans–is needed, which would help with the ambiguity problem in links. Keeping and hatnoting would not help resolve the ambiguity in links, as there are no reminders given when linking to redirects to articles and the proposed hatnote does not mention body masses of organisms.
    There's also confusion between mass and weight. In addition, there's body force, which may fit in a possible disambiguation page on body mass. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U(1)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#U(1)

Muntaber

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Muntaber

Acii

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Acii

Big Booty Judy

[edit]

“Big Booty Judy” appears to be a song from Chris Brown’s first mixtape, “In The Zone (Rhythm & Streets)”. However, this specific song on the mixtape is not mentioned in the article nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. The mixtape in question also doesn’t have its own article.

This term also seems to have multiple uses besides the Chris Brown song, as there is apparently a wrestler also called “Big Booty Judy” from searches of the term, so I’m not sure where this could be retargeted to. ApexParagon (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there may be enough bits and pieces to scrounge together a dab page, Myceteae is right that it would hide mentions to the wrestler. Readers would be better off with the search results. मल्ल (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accra International Airport (AIA)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Accra International Airport (AIA)

Paaskula

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Safechuck v. MJJ Productions

[edit]

This nomination is on behalf of Bhdshoes2, whose original nomination was somewhat malformed. Part of their rationale is as follows:

apologies if this is redundant or poorly listed for discussion but I do not see the entry. The redirect of Safechuck v. MJJ Productions points to "1993 allegations" page, but this is a distinct lawsuit now set for trial in 2026. It should be a freestanding article.

Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was also this text at the redirect itself:

I believe the Robson and Safechuck lawsuit against Michael Jackson's companies for aabuse likely warrants a standalone article because it is a separate civil lawsuit with significant independent coverage, some notable legal rulings on the duty of care, two celebrities (Jackson and Wade Robson), and an upcoming trial in California in November 2026. At minimum I dont see logic of redirecting it to an article about a completely unrelated child abuse case from 1993. Only commonality is that the alleged perpetrator is Jackson. SEE ALSO Overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations for context (in my view) Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Free access

[edit]

Access is not copyright, which is what the target is about. Possibly retarget to Open access? 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or retarget to gratis versus libre) - To me, 'free access' means I could access a place without payment. Note that in English, free either means 'free as in freedom' (libre/liberty), or 'free as in no payment' (gratis). JuniperChill (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Open access. Free as in beer.--Srleffler (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

[edit]

Shock and Delight (Bridgerton)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Saint Vincent (island)

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Singature of Imam al-Mahdi

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Closed point

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Closed point

P.B. Slices

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#P.B. Slices

Israeli invasion

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Merely

[edit]

Immediately recreated as a redirect following deletion. None of the entries on the page are called 'merely'. — An anonymous username, not my real name 16:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does consensus from eight years ago (2018) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merely prevent {{R from adverb}}? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rotideypoc41352, look at the entries on the page. They are all specific words unrelated to the adjective 'mere'. 'Merely' would never be used in relation to them. — An anonymous username, not my real name 18:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
{{Wiktionary redirect}} per 8BitBros User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 02:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon ThunderYellow

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Iran–Israel war

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

National Geographic TV channels

[edit]

Utopes previously nominated these here at RFD on 31 March 2020, more than a fortnight after E789999 created these to redirect to the original American channel on the 14th. (Not sure what the linkages meant or were for!) Approximately 6 years later, the target decided at that RFD has linkages akin to MOS:CIRCULAR and WP:SELFRED. Per Mathguy2718's statement (not comment) at my earlier RfD nomination; "Weak delete National Geographic (Spanish TV channel) (but more strongly delete the non-nominated National Geographic (Spain TV channel).", I wanted to nominate only the latter, but after seeing its page history, hence leading me to this earlier RfD linkage, I'm rather re-nominating all the 4 again to gauge if anything has changed in the about 6 years since all this! Intrisit (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom and my previous statement, which also included in reference to National Geographic (Romanian TV channel):

    Note that there are similar redirects which cause some links on National Geographic Global Networks to indirectly self-link. I think WP:RETURNTORED also applies to all of the "National Geographic (nationality TV channel)" redirects and these redirects should also be deleted.

This also applies to National Geographic (MENA). Most of these are also inappropriate self-redirects. Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it took me 2 hours and 30 minutes or 150 minutes to survey all the links to "National Geographic Global Networks" which has this exact title "National Geographic (nationality TV channel)" in the "WhatLinksHere" special page per my internet café time as at this edit, but I've finally done it! (the previous day) The links in total were numbered 447 with the title in focus here rendering 12 (excluding the American, Latin American, Canadian, British/Irish, Scandinavian, Asian/Southeast Asian, South Korean, Australia/New Zealand, Iran/Farsi, Dutch, French and Portuguese channels which all have articles as at this edit). So now, it's up to you to remove the circular and self-redirection titles I've nominated from the NGGN page, to avert or head off any possible accidental redirection back to this target title when clicked (desktop/laptop-wise) or tapped (smartphone/smart TV touch/tablet PC-wise)! One exception to this: I tagged the Nat Geo &YO title on 15 February, but did not attach to my "TimTims2022-created redirects (Part 1)" nomination that was closed by Pppery the day before (7 March), so I've now nominated it alone and fresh at the present-day (March 9) page more than a fortnight now! You can vote or comment over there if you wish/desire! The 7-day clock for this can now begin!!! Intrisit (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote applies to all of these redirects. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Japan

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Walt Disney Japan

Lewkenorian theory of Shakespeare authorship

[edit]

Does not seem to be described anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. It started as an article [13] but it was all SPS/OR and the article was written by the originator, I think. It's ok to delete it, nothing was ever merged. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Crater/tank it. Apart from WP:OR, it's WP:Promo. Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two different issues entangled here: redirect; and delete. Redirecting would amount to deletion. But I don't see the point of a redirect, because there is nothing in the Shakespeare authorship question about Lewkenor (or Lewknor?). If someone wants to salvage this article, perhaps there is enough, with sufficient reliable sources, to justify remaking it into something like "The Influence of Lewes Lewknor on William Shakespeare". If what results would still be judged too heavily original research, then, yes, delete. But I can't see any value in a redirect, which would be a redirect into a void for anyone interested in any kind of connection between Lewknor and Shakespeare. --Alan W (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought. If the article is truly all SPS and OR, then it doesn't even deserve a redirect, which would preserve the title as if it were a topic worth considering on Wikipedia's terms. So just delete it, with the proper warning. If anyone is interested, they can preserve as much of it as needed for the kind of article I just mentioned. And there certainly are reliable sources that establish that Lewknor was an influence on Shakespeare. But "redirect"? I say no. --Alan W (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eins, Zwei, Drei

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Cinémathèque de la Ville de Luxembourg

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dark Oak

[edit]

People searching for "Dark Oak" could reasonably be looking for the Minecraft wood type. The Minecraft article doesn't mention the block, however. Bold suggestion, but perhaps a disambiguation page could be created at Dark oak (lowercase "oak") and then this redirect can be retargeted to there? Newbzy (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Palmerston North District

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Richie (Pokémon)

[edit]

Neither Richie nor Ritchie mentioned at Pokémon (TV series), which means the "Ritchie" section is broken. I believe it is linked to Hiroshi as it looks like the Japanese name (and also why it is part of this nomination). There are mentions of the character in other languages, like in Japanese. However, in English, there seems to be no information about the character. Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty pictures

[edit]

Contrary to the edit summary of this redirect's creation, I would not call it "valid and proper". — An anonymous username, not my real name 04:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Play Time

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Play Time

Amiga Games

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Amiga Games

VVIP

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#VVIP

Multiple identity

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Multiple identity

Discussion

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Discussion

Therianthrope

[edit]

Retarget to therian, therianthropy, or therian subculture? Abesca (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Theranthropy and Therianimism as implausible (to my knowledge), Contherianthropy and Contherianthrope as unmentioned, and retarget the rest (Therianthropic & Therianthrope) to Therianthropy. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 02:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I just noticed Therianism. Maybe should I bundle, boldly retargeting or does it deserve a separate discussion? Abesca (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly agree with organhaver. "Theranthropy" seems to be sort of plausible looking at a web search, but "therianimism" gives essentially no results. Cladotherianthrope should probably be deleted for the same reason as the contherianthropy redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These might retarget better to Otherkin. The Some of them are documented in Lupa's Field Guide to Otherkin or in Scribner's Otherkin Timeline. Cladotherianthropy came into use substantially earlier than might be imagined from Scribner's reference to Pantairin's essay, as the essay itself pushes the history of the term back to at least September 2003, citing Mokele as the credited coiner on the Awareness Forums. I believe the Mokele post may still be out there, since it sounds similar to something I have come across. Note that Cladotheria has a distinct scientific use. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Therianthropic is perhaps worth separate attention, as it's not a term exclusive to the therian/otherkin community, but is also used (Merriam-Webster) in "serious" publications as a term to describe the Egyptian gods and similar historical figures. This usage is currently covered on Wikipedia under Zoomorphism, which is perhaps less than ideal, but that's a topic for another discussion. Tevildo (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Therianimism I've never heard of before, so probably not notable; I'm unsure whether cladotherianthrope or contherianthrope are notable but if they are I would personally redirect them to therian subculture, theranthropy appears to be a mispelling, therianthropic I'm unsure about. kitokat (xe/it/any) (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shelving

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#User:Shelving

Source code respository

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pagalavan

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nintendo Gameube

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Nintendo Gameube

QkFTRTY0

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

March 6

[edit]

Merely (definition)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete, redirect was deleted under g8 of the speedy deletion criteria and no longer exists (non-admin closure) caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 15:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queer woman

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Second gulf war

[edit]

These should have the same target. My preference is for the disambiguation page, as while the Iraq War is the conflict most commonly referred to as the second there are enough sources using the term for the conflict beginning in 1991 that I don't think there is a primary topic. It's worth noting that Second Gulf War was a separate disambiguation page from 2003 until it was merged to Gulf War (disambiguation) following a discussion in 2013. That remained the status quo until an IP editor boldly retargetted it in Novmeber 20142024. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC) corrected typo 2014→2024. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Doohickey

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Authorship attribution

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#Authorship attribution

Sexidemic: A Cultural History of Sex in America

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sexidemic

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Theta angle

[edit]

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

The original target was Theta vacuum (actually, that page was originally titled "Theta angle", and then moved to "Theta vacuum"), but after a brief RFD in 2022 by two random Wikipedians without input from any experts in physics, it was retargeted to angle on the grounds that the symbol ⁠⁠ is commonly used for angles in many contexts. I think that was poor reasoning and the retarget was harmful to readers. Judging from a search of academic literature, "theta angle" is a physics jargon phrase with thousands of papers using it with a commonly understood meaning, but is rarely used as a phrase in other contexts. This should be retargeted back to Theta vacuum. The appropriate place to add information about the history of the use of the symbol ⁠⁠ to represent angles is in Theta § Mathematics and science or somewhere in Angle; feel free to research that topic and expand our coverage. –jacobolus (t) 16:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Target both to Theta vacuum with hatnote if needed (see below) or disambiguate. Searching externally "Theta+angle" provides a mix of results relating to geometry/topology and physics, though by my estimation leaning more so towards the latter. I was initially sceptical, but it does seem it's more often used in a physics context than a mathematical one. I think this is a case of small differences (WP:SMALLDIFF), where theta angle pertains to physics, while angle theta pertains to mathematics. As an aside, I was surprised angle theta doesn't already exist; it's a common expression. I would suggest creating it and redirecting to Angle, assuming others here agree that the order of the words makes a big difference to the most pertinent topic. – Scyrme (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any value in having angle theta as a page/redirect title, so please don't create one. There are many angles which are labeled with the symbol ⁠⁠ (theta), but the phrase "angle theta" is not commonly used as a unit. There are likewise many angles labeled with ⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠ (phi), ⁠⁠ (psi), ⁠⁠ (alpha), ⁠⁠, ⁠⁠, ⁠⁠, ⁠⁠, etc., but it would be ridiculous to try to make redirects out of every such title (angle alpha, angle C, etc.). –jacobolus (t) 20:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not a unit. It's a conventional name for a variable. Given how especially frequently it's used across levels of education I don't agree that's it's no different from any arbitrary symbol. There also would be value in it, as it's plausible a confused student might look it up when they're not yet familiar with the nomenclature and conventions of mathematics. Searching online gives plenty of results aimed exactly at students explicitly referring to "angle theta" (how to "find" it, what it means, etc.).
I think a stronger argument against my own suggestion is that Angle actually doesn't mention "theta" at all, surprisingly (which is also all the more reason for theta angle to not redirect there as well), it only uses the Greek letter, so wouldn't be super helpful to a hypothetical confused student looking this up on Wikipedia. Search around I wasn't able to find a particularly suitable target, so I now agree that it shouldn't be made. – Scyrme (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the purpose of redirects. We also don't have redirects from the titles t time (time t is something specific, redirected based on the data type time_t), i index or index i, n number or number n, r radius or radius r, etc. Instead, people can find those uses under t (disambiguation), n (disambiguation), i (disambiguation), r (disambiguation), or more generically at Variable (mathematics) § Conventional variable names. –jacobolus (t) 00:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of redirects is to assist readers in finding what they're looking for (if it exists and belongs on Wikipedia to begin with). I don't agree that these are comparable, but it does't matter; I already retracted the suggestion. – Scyrme (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both to Theta#Mathematics and science, where it's usage as angle variable is noted. Failing that, second best option is delete per WP:XY (ie. do you want to know about theta, or about angles?) BugGhost 🦗👻 22:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The name "theta angle" is a specific jargon term in physics. You can find thousands of papers using this as a jargon term (with such titles as "Instantons, renormalons and the theta angle in integrable sigma models", "Discrete theta angles, symmetries and anomalies", "A Solution to the Strong CP Problem Transforming the Theta Angle to the KM Cp-Violating Phase", "Theta angle versus CP violation in the leptonic sector", "Theta angle in holographic QCD", or "On unconstrained SU(2) gluodynamics with theta angle"), and it's highly plausible that someone learning about physics and encountering this term would look it up at Wikipedia; it's also plausible that authors of physics related Wikipedia articles would use a wikilink to theta angle to point interested readers at background information about it. Deletion would be harmful; the situation is entirely unrelated to WP:XY. The current situation is an inappropriate target that was improperly switched by people who didn't understand the context and made a bad decision. Switching to Theta#Mathematics and science would replace one bad decision by a different approximately equally bad one. –jacobolus (t) 00:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In it's current state Theta vacuum does not mention "theta angles", it mentions "theta vacuums" and "vaccuum angles". It refers to angles using θ, but so do hundreds of other articles. If the article were to define theta angle then it would be a good target. At the moment though, I think Theta#Mathematics and science is a better tatget, as it explains the usage of theta as an angle in several different topics, which is a far more plausible target than a uncommon term for a very niche topic. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how deletion is preferable to redirecting to an article that discusses the topic and was located at Theta angle until 2022. We could just add a {{redirect}} hatnote to Theta vacuum if we agree it's plausible that at least some readers would expect something about other scientific or mathematical nomenclature.
Maybe the following hatnote:
"Theta angle" redirects here. For notation representing angles in geometry, see Angle § Notation and measurement. For other uses in science and mathematics, see Theta § Mathematics and science.
That seems like it'd work fine, and cover everything some might plausibly be looking for. – Scyrme (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Java

[edit]

This title could be mistaken as an outline of the island of Java, rather than the programming language, and is likely to cause confusion. Uffda608 (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One one hand there is no WP:OUTLINE for the island and I'm not sure how likely it is for anyone to make an "outline of" for a geographical location, but on the other hand Java is the primary topic (WP:PTOPIC) for "Java". – Scyrme (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We do have Category:Outlines of geography and places so a geographical place outline is not as unlikely as I might have thought. The redirect has scant pageviews since its creation and no incoming links. I'm leaning 'delete' but an alternative would be to 'keep' with a hatnote to Java and possibly Java (disambiguation). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Looks like it's mostly cities/metropolitan areas, countries, and territories right now, but someone making one for a large island doesn't seem so implausible now.
Thinking about it more, I'm actually now leaning keep. There is no outline of the island, and redirecting to the island's article isn't appropriate as it's a prose article (WP:NOTOUTLINE). The primary topic problem could be dealt with using a hatnote so if anyone was looking for information about Java they could still find it, even if not in outline format. I only lean because arguably it might discourage someone from creating an outline if it already redirects somewhere else, especially if there end up being incoming links to change. – Scyrme (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion above. If an outline is ever written about the country, it should live at the base name or this should be retreated there. If there is concern for ambiguity, a hatnote can be added to the outline pointing to Java and/or the dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalized industry

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Corporate nationalism

[edit]

The target doesn't talk about Nation or Nationalism. There is a section on Fascist corporatism, but this will be an extreme, and not what the reader would expect from the redirect topic. There is a section on examples by country, but at best this could be a target for a redirect titled "Corporatism by country".

There is no content about corporates or corporatism at Nationalism. Among similar titles, there is Corporate statism which may be close, but Nation is not State. There is Business nationalism but this is US-centric. Other possible targets are Economic nationalism, Nationalization and State ownership.

If there is no suitable target, Delete. Note that this used to be article that had a no-consensus outcome in a 2009 AfD, but was subsequently trimmed and finally BLAR'd in 2024. Jay 💬 14:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Corporatocracy sounds better ~2026-14405-64 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure this was a good BLAR, done by a user with only 3 prior edits and only 19 total with the comment "Contains no relevant information. Lacking citations. The little text that existed had nothing to do with corporatism." Nevertheless, the pre-BLAR article accurately describes that the term has at times been used to mean several different things, which is not an appropriate quality for an article. I've found a source that defines it synonymously with Corporate statism, but the article on that discusses (sans citation) how it is different than corporate nationalism. I also see a source that defines it as synonymous with corporatism, but means something more like Corporate capitalism or toward corporatocracy. Other sources use it to discuss corporations acting in the national interest. So, disambiguate or delete. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

US-Iraq war

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Iraqi War

[edit]

While Iraq War is the primary topic for "Iraq War", I'm not convinced the same is true for "Iraqi War". External search results for "Iraqi+War" and "the+Iraqi+War" yield mixed results including results for the Anglo-Iraqi War, Gulf War, War in Iraq (2013–2017), and Iraqi Revolt, in addition to the Iraq War. A primary topic suggests the target is more likely than all the other topics combined (WP:PTOPIC), but with these results I don't think that's the case. I propose a retarget to Iraq War (disambiguation) where several of the entries include "Iraqi" in the title, and which includes all the wars returned by external search results. – Scyrme (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rthro

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

ImageBind

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Post-industrial (music genre)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Post-industrial (music genre)

Commie Manifesto

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

St. Lawrence Valley

[edit]

I feel like a better target would be Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Lowlands, which describes the broader biogeographical region of the St. Lawrence Valley, not just the river itself. As an Ontarioan, I feel like saying "St. Lawrence valley" would be understood to mean the lowlands surrounding the river, not the river itself—thus, a slightly stricter definition that the St. Lawrence lowlands, but looser than just the geography of the river. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine E. White (Michigan)

[edit]

Subject is not sufficiently notable and is only referenced in passing in the target article. 42-BRT (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 07:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Battrio

[edit]

This is just one of many pairs of Pokemon/Pokémon redirects that need their targets matched. I think I prefer List of Pokémon video games#Puck series as there is more information there. For more information, many redirects that have different targets based on "é" are shown below:

Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think if we're going to consider the list of redirects we'll quickly enter a wp:trainwreck situation. Mathguy2718 - just a reminder that wp:bold applies to redirects too, so if you're willing feel free to boldly retarget the more obvious ones (like Pokémon: Diamond & Pearl to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, and other similar ones) rather than taking them all to RFD. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Low boys

[edit]

On the one hand, these are unmentioned at the Hi-hat article. On the other, "Low boys" or "low socks" are a known ancestor of the hi-hats (what do you think is "high" about the hi-hats? They're higher than low boys, is what), to the point where it's mentioned in the title of one of the references on the Hi-hat article-- and they're mentioned in other articles, such as Drum kit#Early development and Double drumming (the latter is where a link reading "Low-boys" is piped to the Hi-hat article; said article actually describes the low boys better than the actual hi-hat article).
On the THIRD hand, Lowboy can't be scooped into the RfD because it's too busy being an article for a piece of furniture. Said furniture has an equal claim to the name, I suppose, if not a greater claim given you still find lowboy dressing tables in use wearas the lowboy cymbals have vanished near completely in favor of the hi-hats (which have the exact same function except you can hit them with your drumsticks).

on the FOURTH hand (what are we, one of Ben 10's alien morphs?), the Low sock redirect pointed to a THIRD place unrelated to furniture OR cymbals, because apparently someone thought it was a synonym for 'low cut sock'. So idk lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like the current lowboy is the most prominent item here, and the rest should be added to the hatnote at the top of that page along with Lowboy (trailer). Add mention of the term to hi-hat or make Drum kit#Early development the target listed in the hatnote. Redirect both "low sock" and "low-sock" to Drum kit#Early development since it's already mentioned there, or to hi-hat if mention is added there. A hatnote at either target pointing to Sock#Low cut socks should resolve that concern. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Low boy is a disambiguation page, that should probably be the target mentioned in hatnotes. To complicate matters further, W. A. Case & Son Manufacturing Co. mentions it being "the first company to produce a one-piece, "low boy" toilet", but that's the only mention of such I can find here. On google from the UK, the furniture is the clear primary topic for lowboy as one word, but it is pretty much equally prominent with the drum kit component (or more commonly actually stands for them) when searching "low-boy"/"low boy" (Google treats them as identical). Turning on a VPN set to the US changes things considerably - the one word form has no primary topic at all with trailers, cymbals and various other things competing. The two-word form is a roughly equal split between trailers and cymbals with furniture a close third. As such I'm leaning towards targetting everything to the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that for lowboys, the only meaning that is (moderately) widespread is the current redirect target, so it makes sense to keep them as WP:PRIMARYTARGET with a hatnote in Lowboy pointing to Low boy, as all other meanings appear to be obscure. I have not heard before about low-socks, thus no position on these. --Викидим (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Canada women's national lacrosse team

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gay erotica

[edit]

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

Homoeroticism is a better target. Abesca (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Homoeroticism is sexual attraction between members of the same sex whereas erotica refers to literature or other art forms of a sexual nature. Homoeroticism exists and is experienced in real life, although it is of course also a subject of art. Erotica, gay or otherwise, is explicitly an art form. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Although Homoeroticism gives that definition, it clearly depicts arts as if the concept of homoerotica is more about aesthetics rather than erotic attraction. Abesca (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to erotica Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to erotica. Its conventional definition (cf. erotica at the Encyclopædia Britannica) includes neither the number nor sex of people whose amorous activities or thoughts are being depicted, so this generic article is a good fit until a specialized article is written. --Викидим (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true of the generic term but when someone specified gay erotica they surely are expecting the narrower subtopic to be described, well, specifically. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Anyone navigating to erotica to learn about erotica will be disappointed as all they can learn about specifically gay erotica there is that it exists as a subgenre. —BrechtBro (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Martin

[edit]

Although this redirect was created from a page move, it is likely to be confused with Vernon Martin (jazz bassist). Perhaps it should be made into a disambiguation page that also includes Martin Vernon and Vernon Martinus? Uffda608 (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate is the right answer. BD2412 T 21:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends.
    • If the football player's article should truly be at "Vern Martin" (I had trouble getting a good answer due to inability to access most of the sources), then the bassist should be moved to the base title of "Vernon Martin" and hatnotes would suffice.
    • If on the other hand, the football player should be at "Vernon Martin"
      • and one is primary among the two, then that article should be moved to the base title, and hatnotes will suffice.
      • and neither is primary, then there should be a dab page at the base title consisting of exactly those two entries and nothing else. Neither of the other articles mentioned in the nomination are the same name and shouldn't be listed in this case.
  • –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Deacon Vorbis's suggested approach. It's not readily apparent to me that there is a primary topic. A Google search turns up several unrelated, probably non-notable Vernon Martins, including a recent news story[20] (that probably gets an artificial boost as he is in the news now) and two deceased individuals.[21][22] A quick scan of the first page of JSTOR results was no help.[23] Neither page has a significant pageviews advantage.[24] (Note that the page move occurred Feb 21, 2026[25] so past pageviews for "Vernon Martin" are for the article that now lives at "Vern Martin"). Absent evidence of a primary topic, a dab page would seem to make sense. On the other hand, Vern Martin lived at the base name until very recently, apparently without controversy. Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Vernon_Martin&namespace=0&limit=100, there are 80 links to Vernon Martin in article space but when I spot checked several of these, I could not actually locate the link in most of the articles listed. Not sure if this is user error or if the "What Links Her" is out of date. The links I could confirm clearly refer to Vern Martin the football player. Changing the target could be quite disruptive and would require review and possible updating of the links in articles. That would seem to argue for maintaining the status quo. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the Eurovision Song Contest 2025

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Slavery in Slovakia

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nicole Cathcart

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

2026 Iran-US war

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Third Gulf War

[edit]

It appears sources are now sporadically using this term to describe the current Iran war ([26], [27], [28]), and it seems reasonable to accordingly retarget this redirect there. I could see how this might look like recentism, but it's unclear what else would be the "Third Gulf War" if not this. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coexsekans

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

March 5

[edit]

Yorkshire county cricket teams

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Yorkshire county cricket teams

Nottinghamshire county cricket teams

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Nottinghamshire county cricket teams

Lancashire county cricket teams

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Lancashire county cricket teams

Achievements of Ash Ketchum (Pokemon)

[edit]

Delete, term not mentioned in target article and the article doesn't have a section which specifically discusses his achievements in sufficient detail. Previously an article which was turned into a redirect in 2020 [29]. I don't think it's a useful search term and the parentheses are not needed as there is not an article or redirect at Achievements of Ash Ketchum Suonii180 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page content?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially re-refine to Ash Ketchum#Appearances, which does list SOME of his achievements; that said, I can totally see an arguement re: implausibility.
History dive indicates pre-redirect content was hilariously incomplete, as by the time the article was BLAR'd it'd only managed to amass a short list of the eight Kanto gym badges and which episode Ash obtained them in; nowhere near comprehensive enough coverage to warrant keeping. The section it was redirected to, however, lasted until 2023 when it was removed as part of a flurry of trimming by user:Media Mender. Said section was more complete than the article version, but it was... nnnnnnot much better in other regards. Maybe we don't bring it back. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Booji (Vorlon god)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Megawatt (band)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#Megawatt (band)

Minnesota Target

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nintendo Switch (Arcade Archives)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#Nintendo Switch (Arcade Archives)

Donald J

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Iran conflict (2020-present)

[edit]

Retarget to List of wars involving Iran § Islamic Republic of Iran (since 1979), because involves more than just the U.S. Abesca (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Capitols of ancient Rome

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Capitols of ancient Rome

Iranian plate

[edit]

There is no mention of this tectonic plate in the article, and it would need its own article if there is consensus that it exists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep or subtarget to Iranian plateau#Geology, unless we have a target that better explains the presumably complex geologic situation here where multiple major plates are colliding. I can't find a definitive source at a look that really defines the purported plate (also found a mention of a Turkish-Iranian plate) so perhaps geological consensus is unclear, but being pointed to the plateau puts readers in the right direction and includes the geology section which rather briefly touches upon the topic. CMD (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and refine per CMD. Abesca (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Men's T20 World Cup Qualifier

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Men's T20 World Cup Qualifier

Chone Town

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Chone Town

The Poles

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Rejected energy

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Donald Jr.

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

March 4

[edit]

Experimentalist

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Diquark condensate

[edit]

Does not seem to be described anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to Bose–Einstein condensate, though a retargeting to diquark also makes sense. the current redirect was created in the big '06 around the same time as the colour superconductivity article. diquarks are mentioned in revisions of that time as a possible occurrence of said superconductivity in nature, e.g. as a "a bose–einstein condensate of spatially-bound diquarks" (note: the bec article didn't exist at the time), and the academic literature describes diquark condensation relative to bec. there is always the possibility of returning to red, but i feel like it may be better as a section on the bec article. any particle physicists in chat let me know if this makes sense or not caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 11:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Yuan, Wen-Li; Chao, Jingyi; Li, Ang (8 August 2023). "Diquark and chiral condensates in a self-consistent NJL-type model". Physical Review D. 108 (4). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043008.

Pope elect

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Oppression and depression

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Oppression and depression

Military industrial oligarchy

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Military industrial oligarchy

Virumandikum Sivanandikum

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Canada at the 2028 Summer Olympics

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Child recruitment

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of religious studies scholars

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#List of religious studies scholars

The Liverpool Post

[edit]

Possible disambiguation here? The Mill (newspaper) also lists the Liverpool Post as one of its (existing) titles - see https://www.livpost.co.uk/ GnocchiFan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for the redirect Liverpool Post, FWIW. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10.18792

[edit]

DOI prefix targeted to an EL section with multiple journals listed and which it is unclear to the reader which journal this targets. The section does not contain a single sentence about the subject in question. Not helpful (would be helpful if we had an article on the subject, which is probably notable, but we do not) PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Match outcome with the British Association for the Study of Religions RFD, discussed below. It redirects there because British Association for the Study of Religions redirects there. This is clearly explained on the redirect page, and is used by WP:JCW (see WP:JCW/DOI/10.17250#10.18792, WP:JCW/Publisher32#British Association for the Study of Religions). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I probably should have bundled it. My bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

British Association for the Study of Religions

[edit]

Useless redirect. Not a word of content in this article is about them, only a single external link, which is not helpful to redirect towards as the article gives you no content about them; also, one of many listed (surprisingly, none of the others are redirected). I think this may also be notable [30], in which case, WP:RETURNTORED PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled eighth Mission: Impossible film

[edit]

per WP:UFILM. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight (character)

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to Starlight (disambiguation)#Fictional characters

K. B. Hedgewar redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 11#K. B. Hedgewar redirects

Photolab

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#Photolab

United States War against Iran

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Half-circle constant

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete RfD is not bound by an AfD of a different title entirely. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:67

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Phoenix (2019 film)

[edit]

Ambiguous and confusing redirect. Could just as easily refer to Dark Phoenix (film) also from 2019 Mysticair667537 (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be a wrong term for a wide variety of things, and possibly a correct term for something we don't have content on. Seeing a redlink would hopefully tell then that and result in the reader using more specific terms to look for whatever they are looking for. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commie blocks

[edit]

There are several kinds of concrete apartment building that might be referred to as "commie blocks" including (f.x. Brezhnevka). Redirecting only to Khrushchevka rather than discussing Urban planning in Communist countries would mislead readers. Uffda608 (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Urban planning in Communist countries as proposed - more general target for a term that doesn’t only refer to one type of Soviet panel building. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Commie block was discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 21#Commie block. The result was retarget from Urban planning in communist countries to Khrushchevka. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to bundle Commie block and Commieblock
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given this range of articles containing information about the sorts of large apartment blocks in eastern bloc countries which tend to be colloquially referred to as 'commie blocks', I think the best bet would be to just present the reader with a disambiguation page to the specific articles about large-scale housing developments in the eastern bloc, so they can find the information about the particular commie block they're looking for. Of course, there would be the page name issue (as 'Commie block' is arguably a bit of a perjorative), so maybe just call the disambiguation page Soviet large-panel-system buildings or something like that. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • I'm with HOTmess in the idea that disambiguation is likely warranted; that said, I wouldn't put the dab page at Soviet large-panel-system buildings, I'd just put it at Commie block-- specifically so that a link to Communist block, the proposed alternate target from that old RfD, could be placed as part of the DAB (which would in turn prevent potential WP:SURPRISE from those who searched Commie block and expected discussion on the Eastern Bloc rather than discussion on Soviet architecture.)

𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stage 13 (company)

[edit]

Another TimTims2022-created redirect which leads nowhere! It's not even mentioned at the target! Delete Intrisit (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaida military training camp

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Al-Qaida military training camp

Abdallah Husseini

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 11#Abdallah Husseini

Lists of Pokemon

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Incorrectly ranged List of Pokémon redirects

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hossein Borujerdi

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Puzzle (video game)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 11#Puzzle (video game)

WikiIndex

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

March 3

[edit]

Template:IIHF World Ranking/testcases

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

GameCibe

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#GameCibe

Template:IIHF World Ranking/sandbox2

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:IIHF World Ranking/sandbox

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:IIHF World Ranking/doc

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:IIHF World Ranking/data

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hindu theology

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: article created

Boston's

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Servangio

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pokemon master

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Pokemon master

Spongebob's Sea Monster Smoosh

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog film

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Tambucho

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hello! How are you doing today

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Serb and Serbian diaspora

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget some to Serb_diaspora#Demographics, Delete others

Korean Japananese

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Speedy close

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This should definitely be retargeted though I'm not quite sure where. It seems a safe assumption that anyone searching this is looking for a policy page, not a rather obscure user essay. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this retarget proposal. The current redirect, and the user page (it's hardly an essay) to which it links, were both created to fill a gap in our documentation that no longer exists. This is documented at User talk:Andrewa/speedy close#Why this page. Once they were helpful, but they are now counterproductive. Good catch. So assuming this retargeting goes ahead I'll then see to the deletion of my user page. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Tavix et al; my first instinct was to retarget to WP:SPEEDY's target but Tavix and ApexParagon make a good point re: the potential XY with WP:SK. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, add mention at WP:WHENCLOSE and retarget, or delete (in that order, with the deletion process retarget as my fourth choice): Speedy closes are frequently used in a wide range of discussions around the project like DRV, RM, GAN that I think it's too ambiguous to have a primary topic. I suspect that there may be a systemic bias towards favoring the XfD process in this discussion given that it's being hosted at a deletion discussion venue, and am weary of forming a local consensus here. A disambiguation page can include WP:RMEC, WP:DRV#Speedy closes, and WP:GAFAIL. In GA-land, speedy closes are called "quick fails" but essentially the same concept. Left guide (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the disambiguation options?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. Morgan Bank

[edit]
No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PAL

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Template:PAL

I'm going to the bathroom to read.

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#I'm going to the bathroom to read.

March 2

[edit]

Liberal Party (Chile)

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

The Democrat

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to The Democrats * Pppery * it has begun... 20:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maonesa

[edit]

somehow, no affinity with catalan demonstrated despite the affinity the target technically demonstrates, and this doesn't seem to be the only meaning of the word in catalan consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 21:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What Jay said is still true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric Estonia

[edit]

Bot note: Prehistoric GreecePrehistoric Greece (talk · links · history · stats) is a related redirect of "Prehistoric Estonia "— Preceding unsigned comment added by VWF bot (talk • contribs) 09:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect targets a section that does not exist. Not sure what the best target is, whether it be History of Estonia#Ancient Estonia: pre-history, Ancient Estonia, or Estonia#Prehistory. Mathguy2718 (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the latter two both direct readers to the former, I say this should uncontroversially retarget to Ancient Estonia. Besides, the § Ancient Estonia: pre-history section is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK of the Ancient Estonia article and the § Estonia prehistory section is just a summarized overview. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Prehistory of Estonia and notified of this discussion at the proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Center Party (Iraq)

[edit]

Without the target section, it is unclear why this redirect points here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak restore the section. The creation summary makes it clear that Mowaffak al-Rubaie was the founder of the party. We have a List of political parties in Iraq but there is no mention of a "Center Party" (or "Centre Party"). The section as it existed when the redirect was created notes "al-Wasat" as an alternative name, but that doesn't appear in the list either (that apparently just means "Centre Party" so is ambiguous with other parties of the same name). It is also not (currently, I've not looked in the history) mentioned by either name at 2010 Iraqi parliamentary election which the old section linked it to, nor on the current version of the articles about the three groups that section mentioned there was speculation it would form an alliance with. The section was reworded and de-sourced by Alibaker with this edit who then removed the entire section an hour later [31], with neither edit giving an explanation. Alibaker contributed only to this one article, with 23 edits (including the 2 above) over 3 hours in February 2010 and then a further 2 edits in as many minutes in December that year. The removed section was sourced, and other sources verifying this do seem to exist so my thinking is that the target section should be restored and the redirect retained. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:In rem jurisdiction

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Category:In rem jurisdiction

Hawaiian English

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Template:Infobox Paris street

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Лв (disambiguation)

[edit]

Redirect contains "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page. In this case, Лв does not seem to have refered to Kyrgyz som, which was in the former disambiguation page of Лв, but there is possible ambiguity with ЛВ, which redirects to Soviet locomotive class LV. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Streets of Toronto

[edit]

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

Note that technically those bypasses were done out of process. Keep - "Streets of Toronto" as a proper noun is commonly used in the racing press, community, and vernacular to refer to the street course used for the Molson Indy Toronto (and referring to it by that name probably dates me!). - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

French speaking countries

[edit]

These redirects should have the same target. Note that the 4th redirect misspells "countries" as "contries". Also note that there are many other overlapping redirects that target to all of the possible given targets. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Portuguese-speaking redirects to Portuguese-speaking world, while Portuguese-speaking countries to Community of Portuguese Language Countries. French-speaking has French language as the target, French speaker has Geographical distribution of French speakers, but French-speaking world has Francophonie. ZNático (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC) {I just noticed I repeated what Mathguy did.}[reply]
  • Comment: My first thought is to target all to Francophonie. There is a subtle distinction between French-speaking world and French-speaking countries that may justify different targets for similar redirects. The question is whether the wording most often represents a deliberate distinction or whether these term are more likely to be used interchangeably or imprecisely. I'm uncertain at this point. See: redirects to Francophonie for more related redirects. I would not bundle these or French-speaking worldFrench-speaking world, as the discussion may hinge on the specific use of countries. If any of these need discussion, I would wait until this discussion closes. I see distinct but related considerations such that the outcome here may be relevant to the assessment of others but the discussions (if more are needed) are best separated. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the last item: with the error has no use. Retarget the others to one item, I am flexible on which. The targets are so similar and repetitive that it doesn't matter so much. Some or all of the potential targets need to be merged. gidonb (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of countries and territories where French is an official language. It includes non-official cases as well in a specific section. ZNático (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian strikes on Cyrpus

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Iranian strikes on Cyrpus

Yekgirtú

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Darft:2025 Lone Star Le Mans

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

Microslop

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Microslop

If you read this, you are gay

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Superwholock

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Burundians

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close

Subsurface-to-air missile

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rape-vinegar

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Rape-vinegar

Nazzi

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 9#Nazzi

Zeroth Avenue

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei

March 1

[edit]

Hetero-curious

[edit]

Invert the targets? Also, there's no homocurious/homo-curious redirect(s). Abesca (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per caesar. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Hetroflexible → Heteroflexibility. Not sure if a redirect can be both an {{R from misspelling}} and an {{R from adjective}} but if so, these both apply. It's simply a misspelled adjective form of the word Heteroflexibility. Note that the correctly spelled HeteroflexibleHeteroflexible redirects to Heteroflexibility and HetrosexualHetrosexual exists as an {{R from misspelling}}. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hetero-curious, Heterocurious, and Straight-curious. These are not synonymous with either heteroflexibility or bi-curiousness. At a minimum these terms require more explanation, which is not found at either target, though it's possible they could be defined in these articles or some other article as related concepts. Bicurious typically describes a straight-identified person whereas hetero- or straight-curious describes a gay-, lesbian-, or otherwise queer-identified person. Bicurious people are "curious" about sexual or romantic engagement with the same gender while heterocurious people have similar "curiosity" about the opposite gender (or a gender different from their own, depending on definition). Heteroflexible is an identity unto itself although may also describe someone who also identifies as or is assumed to be straight/heterosexual. Keeping or retargeting these indicates that these terms are synonymous with heteroflexible or bi-curious. These all receive minimal pageviews and none are linked in articles. Thus they do not qualify for soft redirects to Wiktionary per WP:SOFTSP and Template:Wiktionary redirect. All of these terms may have somewhat squishy and context-dependent definitions. Reliable sourcing may be a challenge but these need to have a clear definition or discussion of varying usage if they are to be targeted anywhere. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    homoflexibility redirects to its antonym. And it doesn’t seem that there are only one case of bicurious or only one definition for heterocurious. It’s not rare to find uses while searching for this having the same meaning of bicurious, especially when most results in my first googling were porn. However, I found some definitions in scholar:heterocurious: [32] By ‘heterocurious’ we mean those individuals who consider themselves heterosexual but like to engage in sporadic homosexual relations. So it’s either a subtype of bicurious or itself. Abesca (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    HomoflexibilityHomoflexibility may need to be considered separately. I maintain that all the straight/hetero-curious redirects should be deleted unless and until they are discussed in an appropriate article. The fact that the definition is squishy is all the more reason why an appropriately sourced discussion is necessary to support these redirects. My finding is that definitions vary but part of the base definition of 'bicurious' is straight or straight-leaning while part of the base definition of 'heterocurious' is (often) non-straight. Unexplained redirects will either indicate that these are always completely synonymous with 'bicurious' in all its uses or will leave readers scratching their heads wondering why they landed at an article that doesn't describe the redirect—WP:RSURPRISE applies. With only 21 hits on Google Scholar, this terminology appears rather obscure, hence my earlier statement: Reliable sourcing may be a challenge but these need to have a clear definition or discussion of varying usage if they are to be targeted anywhere. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notice placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kuiper belt in fiction

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Iran-Israel-United States war

[edit]

Ambiguous since there's not a single page it could refer to, Iran–Israel conflict, US-Iran War. Abesca (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is the contentious topic warning really needed? (/genq) I've seen other discussions of redirect similar without it, and redirect discussions are... fairly short, I've seen. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who added it, I think it's necessary, @Organhaver. You're right that RFD participants don't often go over 1000 words, but this also lets non-extended confirmed editors know that they can't discuss this one. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable. The CTOPIC restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the major exception being non-disruptive edit requests on Talk: pages. I agree that the average RFD discussion is short and measured but they can become heated. I think the reminder can't hurt and may help. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Kings

[edit]

"Dead Kings" could mean a lot of different things. Having not played the game, my mind jumps to this being a reference to the pharaohs of old. I think a redirect like "Assassin's Creed: Dead Kings" makes sense, but without that context, this feels confusing. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Given titles like "king" are very often capitalised (depending on the conventions of manuals of style and opinions on grammar), this seems little different to dead kings. I think this redirect would be surprising (WP:SURPRISE) to anyone not following the franchise. On the other hand, external search results do mostly bring up results for the expansion pack, so perhaps it really is the primary topic (WP:PTOPIC)? I don't think disambiguation is possible, as the only other article I could find with "Dead Kings" in the title was The Three Dead Kings, but that's only a partial title match, and it's not like we're going to make a list of every specifically dead King. – Scyrme (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My search results also included The Dead Kings, a poem by Francis Ledwidge, but we don't appear to have any content about that. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly fine redirect to a section with the relevant title. If more relevant content appears, this should be disambiguated. I'll clarify that I've seen various reviews of mentions of game expansions that use just CD instead of AB:CD, so it is a valid rediredct (and later a disambig title). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from nominator): A possible target would be something like Rephaite#Long dead ancestors, where there is a possible linguistic link to "dead kings". Other possible targets from a cursory Wikipedia search are Dead End Kings, The Three Dead Kings, King's Dead... not perfect, but worth mentioning. Maybe the AC DLC pack is the best spot, but I was WP:SURPRISED to arrive there as opposed to something ancient history-related. TNstingray (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect-specific guidance at WP:RSURPRISE is:

    Wikipedia follows the "principle of least astonishment"; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "Hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.

    Readers landing where they expected is part of this, but I read the main point as making it clear that the page they landed at is a reasonable match for the redirect. The subject heading Assassin's Creed Unity#Dead Kings makes it clear why "Dead KingsDead Kings" lands here. The real question is one of primary topic. I agree that the generic phrase dead kings would seem to refer to kings who have died or maybe one of these partial title matches. I also accept that "King" is often capitalized but there may still be a WP:DIFFCAPS argument in favor of the video game. But I'm unsure whether there really is a primary topic problem here and whether these other entries are actually attested as being referred to as "Dead Kings". FWIW, I'm not a gamer so I would need context to know what "Dead Kings" refers to, and the current target does supply this quite clearly. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I too was initially skeptical of this, but we don't seem to have a target for the general concept of dead kings (aside from the facetuous idea of retargeting ot Category:Monarchs by century which I'm sure nobody will want) or any other works that aren't PTMs, so we may as well target the video game. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin's Creed: Rising Phoenix

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old English words for "True"

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Miś

[edit]

Not sure why this currently redirects to this disambiguation page. "Miś" does mean teddy bear in Polish, though. The only thing that could be called "Miś" in this disambiguation page is Teddy Bear (1981 film). Searching at pl:Miś shows it is also a surname. Here on enwiki, we have Krystian Miś. Other searches show the word is used to do with anything with teddy bears in Polish. There is PZL.49 Miś, which I'm not sure would be referred to as just "Miś" or not. Mathguy2718 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was created as a redirect to Teddy Bear (film), which at that time was the title of the 1981 film titled in Polish as Miś. The redirect was incorrectly updated by a bot to point to the disambiguation page. That said, I'm ambivalent about whether to redirect this to the film or to the MIS disambiguation page. I suppose leaning slightly towards the film with a hatnote to MIS. older ≠ wiser 19:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to MIS as {{avoided double redirect}} for Mis. The film is already listed there at MIS § Other uses. – Scyrme (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert into disambig. Miś is an implausible typo for Mis/MIS since only Polish people use this diacritic, and it requires two keys pressed (ALT+S). But we already have more than one target on en wiki: Teddy Bear (1981 film) and PZL.49 Miś (and there will be more, as articles like LWD Miś or bios with people with that surname will be eventually translated from pl wiki). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the film, the rest are partial title matches (WP:PTM). Disambiguation pages aren't intended to be lists of partial title matches. Also, listing variants of titles with diacritics in the same disambiguation page is very common practice. I don't see the problem with just having a single disambiguation page at MIS.
    Many English-speakers search for topics with diacritics in their correct titles without including the diacritics in their search terms for various reasons (they don't know how to type them, their keyboard layouts don't support them, they just can't be bothered to type them because native English-speaker often routinely ignore diacritics anyway). Doesn't mean they're not looking for a title with diacritics in it.
    If we separated disambiguation pages based on diacritics, a lot of readers wouldn't find what they're looking for because they're used to typing in titles without diacritics and redirects sorting it out for them. eg. PZL.49 Mis redirects to PZL.49 Miś. – Scyrme (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Plane types and similar are often prefixed with a specific code but actually discussed using their common name, there's no reason to assume this is not the case for this one. The prospective Miś disambiguation page can be linked or transcluded with {{transclude list}} into the Mis disambiguation page, there's no issue there. --Joy (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there examples of disambiguation pages that do this? {{transclude list}} is tagged as being in alpha, suggesting it isn't widely used on disambiguation pages for this purpose and probably shouldn't be until it's in a more ready state. – Scyrme (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, for example Marauder lists Martin B-26 Marauder, Raiden lists Mitsubishi J2M Raiden. With ships, this is even more common, for example Scurry lists USS Scurry (AM-304), Surprise lists HMS and USS, Enterprise#Vehicles has a lot of prefixes and suffixes, too. With helicopters there's Iroquois listing Bell UH-1 Iroquois, Sokol lists a plane, three submarines, motorcycles and a ship. Listing the Miś bomber at Miś seems entirely mundane.
    With regard to the template, I don't think that the situation is as scary as the tag implies, as the functionality seems to work reasonably well. I don't see how it would not be ready. I've used it many times, and the only thing that ever bothered me was the fact that it doesn't parse sections, which wouldn't a problem here. You can see dozens of examples in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Transclude list. Worst case, we can just not transclude it, and instead just link it. --Joy (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I meant. I meant "are the any examples of disambiguation pages [that transclude another disambiguation page]?" I was never disputing that there are cases like the links you provided. The nominator expressed doubt whether the PLZ-49 Miś is ever actually referred to as just Miś, so I was going with that. That said, searching externally, I've found some Polish-language forums ([34], [35]) where the participants do just refer to it as simply "Miś". So you're right, this isn't just a partial title match.
    However. you did also indirectly answer my intended question with "WhatLinksHere" (I had assumed this template would mostly be used in other contexts, but evidently not). However. all the examples I checked only ended up that way after you edited them. So far this doesn't look like there's a consensus that this is an acceptable way to handle disambiguation pages.
    Besides the issue of it being an alpha that's still in development, I have concerns that transcluding disambiguation pages inside other disambiguation pages could result in the transclusion of unintended list entries. Transcluding one into the other implies that every entry could plausibly share either title, but this isn't always the case. For example, a hypothetical lake called "Misty" might be listed at both "Misty (disambiguation)" and "Misty Lake (disambiguation)". A book titled "Misty Lake" could also be listed at "Misty Lake (disambiguation)". Transcluding "Misty Lake (disambiguation)" into "Misty (disambiguation)" would result in the book being listed where it shouldn't.
    Even setting this aside as it seems likely anything at disambiguation at Miś probably wouldn't run into this problem, my bigger concern is about consensus. This way of handling disambiguation is only done on a small number of disambiguation pages, and the approach is a big departure from how disambiguation are usually handled. Is there a consensus for making new disambiguation pages at titles with diacritics and transcluding them into pages without them, when ordinarily the entries with the diacritics would just be directly included on the page without? The seems like a case of WP:PANDORA, but for disambiguation pages rather than redirects.
    In principle, I don't disagree that if someone searches "Miś" (including diacritic) they probably don't want MIS, Mís, mis, etc. so it makes sense to provide them with a narrower list, while if someone searches "mis" they might plausibly just be omitting details like capitalisation or diacritics, so it makes sense to provide the broader list. However, in practice, there still seem to be problems and I'm not comfortable with doing this without a broader discussion about whether this is appropriate given its potential to upend the well established approach to WP:DABCOMBINE. If such a discussion has already been had, I'd appreciate a link. – Scyrme (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's common for English readers not to use keyboard with all these various diacritics, so for the purposes of efficient navigation, we want to make every variously diacriticized topic name reasonably available to navigate from a diacriticless form. I don't think there's any lack of consensus about that, because it fits into the spirit of the WP:DABCOMBINE guideline - it says clearly that we may do so. I can't remember a time when we weren't doing so, it's probably been decades now. There is no real controversy in this regard. The only thing that may not be straightforward is the extent to which we combine lists. In the meantime, we've observed a number of variations, and in WP:DABNAME you can see how diacritics are described, I did that guideline update after the relatively recent RM discussions about Joaquin and Mana (and just noted the case of Pena). --Joy (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also not what I meant. In-fact it's the opposite of what I meant. I'm not sure how you read what I wrote as questioning the consensus around that given I have literally been arguing for included articles with diacritics in a page that doesn't have them in its title. I already mentioned WP:DABCOMBINE in reference to this (ie, listing them at pages with titles without diacritics) being the established way of handling diacritics.
    The things I don't see a consensus for is:
    • Transcluding disambiguation pages into other disambiguation pages.
    • Creating new disambiguation pages at titles that have diacritics separate from the title without. (Instead of combining them and redirecting one to the other.)
    Both of these things should be discussed. If they have already been discussed, please link the discussions. Regarding the guideline update, that seems to say that the title of the diambiguation page should reflect the majority of its entries, such that if most use a diacritic then the title should too (which wouldn't be the case with Miś if diambiguated at MIS), not that it's appropriate to split disambiguation pages to make a new one which only lists the entries with diacritics. – Scyrme (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think we need some sort of a new consensus for listing things under their most appropriate names? The WP:PRECISE and WP:SMALLDETAILS parts of the article title policy are fairly clear on this already. If there's a distinct spelling of this Polish word, and there seems to be one, there's little to disagree about in this regard. It also wouldn't make sense for anyone to try to use a disambiguation guideline to override a policy, a higher level standard. --Joy (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Both WP:PRECISE and WP:SMALLDETAILS apply to article titles. Neither eliminates ambiguity (and IMO, too slavish an application of these can increase the ambiguity). Since disambiguation is required, the question concerns how best to address that and WP:DABCOMBINE presents a perfectly valid option for many such cases. older ≠ wiser 21:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything is an option, but let's simply consider the facts of the matter at hand. There is a distinct Polish word here and at least three meanings for that. If an English reader actually manages to look up that specific word, there is zero benefit in forcing them to parse a longer list at Mis if they can just read the relevant short list. There is absolutely no way in hell that combination would lead to more efficient navigation outcomes for those readers. --Joy (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not how these policies were interpreted or applied in such cases over past years (over a decade). If the guideline were so contrary to the policy, why has it been the established guideline for so long? Probably because that's not actually how we've been interpreting the policies until now. Yours is a new interpretation of how to apply these policies, and a new interpretation which has practical implications including changing/overriding well-established guidelines should be discussed because even if you're right that this is the best way to interpret and apply these policies, we need editors to be on the same page here.
    I really doubt I'm the only editor surprised to have encountered disambiguation pages which transclude others or who has doubts that we should apply WP:PRECISE and WP:SMALLDETAILS to override (or rewrite) WP:DABCOMBINE and begin creating separate disambiguation pages distinguished only by diacritics. – Scyrme (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is no actual conflict between the guideline and policy. Where do you see it exactly? I keep hearing of this purported lack of consensus, but I'm not seeing a coherent explanation of what the actual problem would be. --Joy (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But I have given a coherent explanation??? Creating "separate disambiguation pages distinguished only by diacritics" (quoting myself), on the basis of WP:PRECISE and WP:SMALLDETAILS, contradicts the advice of WP:DABCOMBINE to combine them in one page. How has this not been clear from what I said earlier?
    If there's no problem, then having a discussion about it will surely result in you getting your way, then we can update WP:DABCOMBINE to remove the advice about diacritics, because obviously we should be encouraging the opposite and the fact we haven't for over a decade now has clearly been a mistake. Is changing guidelines not something that requires consensus? – Scyrme (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to be clear, I'm happy to argue in favour of your argument. It seems entirely reasonable to me to split disambiguation pages in this way rather than combine them if there's no problem with transcluding narrower less ambiguous (but still ambiguous) lists into broader more ambiguous ones. I still think it should be discussed at via proper venue first, because WP:DABCOMBINE will have to be changed and I am not 100% certain I'm not missing anything important. Maybe you are certain, but I'm not. – Scyrme (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let me see what WP:DABCOMBINE says: A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms.
    That's may, not should (or must or has to).
    Sets of terms which are commonly so combined include: Terms that differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks. For example, the terms Oe, Ōe, OE and O.E. are disambiguated on a single page (Oe).
    Okay, so Mis and Miś seemingly differ only in diacritic marks, but then they also differ in etymology and meaning. The most relevant example there is Ōe. If we look at the Oe list, this diacritic seems to be distinctly Japanese, unlike most of the rest of that long list. So it might as well be a short list, too.
    If we look at history at Ōe, it was disambiguated to make sure people didn't only land at the Japanese surname, but that they can also reach the places.
    @Xezbeth, would you revert me if I made a short disambiguation page at Ōe in addition to the listings of those three topics at Oe? --Joy (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never have noticed. My (probably outdated) view is that a second disambiguation page is unnecessary, not that it does any harm. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The distinction is similar to what I happened to run into just now - there's a short Robert D. Bailey list and both of its entries were included in the longer Robert Bailey list. (I just switched that to use the {{transclude list}} helper to reduce source duplication.) --Joy (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate in place, with the movie, the plane and the person, if an English reader types in or follows a link to this specific spelling, they should get a specific disambiguation list for those three topics which are all plausibly referred to as "Miś". Throwing them into the much longer Mis list can't be more efficient than that. --Joy (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Drafted at the bottom of Miś. --Joy (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding that if we disambiguate this, we should interwiki to pl:Miś (I think I didn't link it - pl disambig has dozens of enities that we will eventually have, outside the teddy bear). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kuiper belt and Oort cloud

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Iraqi wars

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

UN-Iraq war

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

Symplectic form

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Symplectic form

Artsakh’s

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Renewability

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Renewability

US-Iran talks

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Miki mouse

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Let's get physico

[edit]

Delete undefined phrases. These are mentioned without definition in the article. This could refer to physical properties and chemical properties together as well as to certain properties that may be conceptualized as living at the boundary between these classifications. These are certainly relevant to physical chemistry but are broadly part of the domains of chemistry, physics, and other disciplines. An introductory text will often define and distinguish physical properties and chemical properties together and it's possible an en-wiki target could but I've not found one. Information Note: There are several redirects from adjectival forms like physicochemicalphysicochemical that I have intentionally not bundled. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Material property / List of materials properties. Material property seems close if not identical to the literal meaning of physicochemical, "a physical property or chemical property that does not depend on the amount of the material". Also the content makes sense as a target, generally someone is looking for a specific property. The actual page may need some editing (e.g. physical property is a "see also" but also a link in the lead) but that can come after. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have an opinion on the redirect but it would also be helpful if the definition of physical property in the respective article could be improved. At the moment the lemma could be understood as either synonymous to physical quantity or to "physical property" in a broader and more general sense, i.e. not purely in the context of physics as I have stated here. best, KaiKemmann (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion of these topics across multiple related articles needs improvement. @Mathnerd314159, do you have a source for your definition of physicochemical property? A clear definition should be added especially if these terms are not always completely synonymous. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, the quote is from the material property article. As far as the physicochemical property, the sources do not seem good, so I would rely on the etymology, which is just physical and chemistry put together. That is part of why I said redirect, is because there does not seem to be a suitable definition of physicochemical property to use as the basis for an article. I did find some definitions such as this NIST definition, but they seem like convenience definitions and not authoritative. In particular, it seems across different sources they generally speaking want to include almost all physical and chemical properties in the definition. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I see. I had similar findings. The term is used with closely related meanings but I've not found a strict definition. Its usage in certain fields appears to often refer to a specific subset of relevant properties but these don't constitute a general definition of "physicochemical properties". Usage in medicinal chemistry is especially common per my search, see this book chapter for an overview. I agree these are usually convenience definitions or simply lists of especially relevant properties for a given discipline or discussion. Standard dictionaries define physicochemical as referring to both physical and chemical properties, with a secondary sense pertaining more specifically to the domain of physical chemistry.[36][37][38] (These dictionaries aren't necessarily authoritative for technical definitions, just sharing what I have found.) It's not as well-defined as other related classification of "properties" such as chemical, physical, material, and mechanical. I've not seen anything that suggests the meaning is consistently the same as material properties and nothing that defines "physicochemical property" as being defined as "material property". Assigning a definition of "material property" sounds like WP:SYNTH. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie worm

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sammarinese Ambassador to the United States

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 9#Sammarinese Ambassador to the United States

Leopard skin

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Leopard skin

Sooth

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate * Pppery * it has begun... 20:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Man Savage Beast 2

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Savage Man Savage Beast 2

Renewables

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Renewables

United States strikes on Iran

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Ico (playstation)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 9#Ico (playstation)

Draft:2026 CONCACAF U-20 Championship qualifying

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Draft:Football at the 2028 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Draft:Football at the 2028 Summer Olympics – Women's qualification

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Anaclitism

[edit]

Unmentioned; this is a 2007-era BLAR victim that was unmentioned upon BLAR. The edit summary notes that the page was PRODded and then BLAR'd after user:PhilKnight moved the article to Wiktionary; the wiktionary article resulting from this is here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This redirect's history functions as attribution for the Wiktionary entry, and that should be retained.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 05:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative biochemistry

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. I'm inclined to delete, sort of per WP:RETURNTORED, although the edit history reveals some editors consider this a non-notable subfield. It is a real thing, has a few incoming links, and the phrase is used in other articles, including History of molecular evolution. That is not a suitable target as the terms are not synonymous and it includes a minimal description of what comparative biochemistry is. There is a DAB page Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology which includes three articles that are partial title matches. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore or retarget to molecular evolution. In this case I think we should see what the editing process can do for us. If restored, no predjudice against WP:AFD, though I would note deletion is not cleanup, despite WP:TNT. The stub in the history equated comparative biochemistry and molecular evolution, and while not necessarily synonymous, perhaps we do only need a single article, and not sure which title is best. But the page history should not be deleted here at Rfd. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If retargeting, the section Molecular evolution#History might be better since it uses the term. I find the coverage somewhat deficient but targeting to the section helps to avoid readers erroneously concluding that molecular evolution and comparative biochemistry are exactly synonymous. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you prefer Molecular evolution § History instead of its main article History of molecular evolution that you mentioned in the nomination? Jay 💬 09:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. If not deleted tag as {{r with possibilities}}. Neither Molecular evolution nor History of molecular evolution actually explain what "comparative biochemistry" means or discuss it in detail, they only contain passing mentions that it contributed to the the development of molecular evolution as a field. It appears Wikipedia simply doesn't have an article or section with any substantial material about the field anywhere, so it should be redlinked. The rationale for BLAR was Redirect chronically-unsourced stub (on an apparently obsolete sub-field) to parent field, but this is simply mistaken. The revision which added the line Comparative biochemistry is used to study evolution; it was a precursor to molecular evolution before the rise of molecular biology. is similarly confused. Though it is a subfield of Biochemistry, comparative biochemistry is not a subfield or precursor of molecular evolution, but is rather a subfield of comparative biology, and it isn't obsolete (research is still being published in journals like Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology B; UC Berkeley even presently offers a PhD program for graduates to specialise in the field). Despite that, I don't think the ancient 2009 stub should be restored as it has no references. (As an aside, I might be willing to draft a start to a new article about it with references later if no-one else does it, but right now I don't have time.) – Scyrme (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:RETURNTORED per Scyrme's reasoning. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator update: I agree with Scyrme's assessment and after considering this and the earlier discussion, I am more convinced that deletion is the proper outcome here. Comparative biochemistry is a real and distinct field. It is relevant to the development of molecular evolution but that is not the extent of its relevance. The passing mention in the molecular evolution articles doesn't tell readers what comparative biochemistry is and may misleadingly suggest it is merely a historical footnote in the development of another field. I agree there is little value in maintaining or restoring the revisions.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Albert Kluyver#Career which discusses this topic. It's not perfect: it only looks at comparative biochemistry from one specific angle. But deletion isn't better. If four editors couldn't find this information – the only real information about "comparative biochemistry" on enwiki – then I heavily doubt the reader sent to search results will either. As for the return-to-red issue: either this deserves its own article, in which case the best way to encourage creation of a good article is to restore the old stub from which it can be expanded, or it doesn't, in which case we shouldn't delete because that would encourage article creation. J947 ‡ edits 07:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Avanthop

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 19:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2/28 and its kind

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Big Booty Judy

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Big Booty Judy

Crab emoji

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seperating Personalities

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2024 Games

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#2024 Games

Troy aiken

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Global economy journal

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rod Blackhurst

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bryce McGuire

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Amélie Hoeferle

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Réis

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 28 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 27 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 25

#invoke:Navbox