Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 4#Witch Beam

< November 3
November 5 >

November 4

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 4, 2025.

Mario and Luigi

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 12#Mario and Luigi

Mario Brothers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 12#Mario Brothers

The old

[edit]

While this is the literal meaning of "Ye olde" I do not expect most of the (very few) people searching for "The old" to be looking for the phrase "ye olde", the entire point of which is the weird spelling. This primarily has the effect of cluttering search for anything starting with "The old". Rusalkii (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of the term being used in this manner, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. A hatnote probably wouldn't be necessary, but it wouldn't be the worst thing. - Eureka Lott 14:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list entries are PTMs, but the list itself isn't. I think that's an important distinction. - Eureka Lott 14:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this but I see this as a technicality; something that a relatively tiny group of editors like us can rationalize based on all of our various naming conventions but doesn't align most readers' expectations. "The old", used alone, informally, most likely refer to the elderly/old people. Mostly, it's a very common pair of words that occurs in many article titles. There are also a great many titles where we omit 'the' per WP:THE but where the average reader would might include it (The Old World, The Old Testament, etc., etc.). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is some support for the new retarget option, but there also appear to be some questions and skepticisms about it that haven't been addressed yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus, especially since there are now multiple retarget options suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Old per voorts. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 09:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you could also acknowledge the existence of Old by having a hatnote like this:
"The old" redirects here. For other uses, see Old (disambiguation).
Duckmather (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is, Old itself is a disambiguation page. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 19:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget The old →to List of people known as the Old; and add a hatnote to List of people known as the Old: "The Old" redirects here. For other uses, see Old (disambiguation). Shazback (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchee

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Frenchie. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be right... right? I don't see anything on the page or a cursory Google/Urban Dictionary search. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Retarget Frenchee →to Frenchie as most plausible. Shazback (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Mabbing

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Complex/Rational 23:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible OR target, no sources found listing this as slang. There is an obsolete verb, as in "to mab", that does not have a Wikipedia aritcle. This could also be a misspelling of Mobbing. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very unclear if this is the right target, users would be better with search results showing it's not a clear term than a misleading redirect. Shazback (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Shazback. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Transpeptidation

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget Transpeptidation , Keep Transpeptidase (disambiguation) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Straight to the point – Reasons 1 and 5 of WP:RFD#DELETE:
Transpeptidation → delete
Transpeptidase (disambiguation) – three options:
→ 1: delete both target page and this redirect
→ 2: delete target instead, move its contents into this redirect
→ 3:[added. 12:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)] make target into an article, make this redirect into an actual disamb page as named so.

Both link to a disamb page; you'd think the page with "(disambiguation)" literally in its name/title would be the disamb page, but no! It also doesn't make sense to redirect "transpeptidation" to "transpeptidase" – that's like redirecting polymerization to polymerase, and the latter is just a disamb page anyway (despite not having "(disambiguation)" in its name/title). I also don't think that a disambiguation for transpeptidase needs to exist; it's a class of enzymes, it's not exactly a "may refer to" situation since nobody uses the word to mean specifically a particular protein, unless they specified that protein. Since I don't have enough knowledge for either subject to make them into articles myself, I decided to choose deletion, hoping it becomes a red link somewhere for someone see and turn it into an article.

If I recall correctly, I only just discovered transpeptidation/-ase because I saw the former word mentioned in peptidyl transferase center, and I tried to wikilink that until I discovered... (Perhaps no wonder it wasn't hyperlinked?) And that's why we're here now. CheckNineEight (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deleting transpeptidation. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it's decided only Transpeptidase (disambiguation) should be kept. Also, I forgot that I had a 3rd option for that, which is: swap it with its target and make Transpeptidase – the one without the parentheticals – into its own article (no deletions, but no more redirect – just an article and a disamb). Speaking of options, I realized that I could have worded my original post much better, and I also forgot to put "(disambiguation)" in "Transpeptidase – two options:". (Can I edit my post?) CheckNineEight (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'transpeptidase' label is clear enough but you can edit it to add '(disambiguation)'. It's always good to exercise caution around changing the wording in discussion posts but in this case it isn't likely to mislead and you can always add an updated timestamp or make a note about the change. There's some general guidance at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. Transpeptidase is a good candidate for a set index article. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:29, 5 October 2025 (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 💬 18:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Transpeptidation →to Translation (biology); definition on the page which puts it in context of the broader topic
Keep Transpeptidase (disambiguation) →to Transpeptidase; as per WP:INTDABLINK Shazback (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Schmear

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 12#Schmear

Shameena Riaz

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, another example of a redirect that is costly when search results give a much better overview of the player rather than just her national team: [1] Delete Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Liu Siya

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of a badminton redirect that redirects to just the team where she is not mentioned, rather than search results which will give much better results: [2] Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ruqayya Salem

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search results will give a much better overview of her rather than just the national team she plays for: [3] Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Robyn McAlpine

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search results will come up with more rather than just her national team: [4]. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

C Lalramsanga

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search results will give a much better overview of his career, as shown here: [5] rather than a single snapshot of his career. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Suryaksh Rawat

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I have retained the links for this and the above redirects as red links instead of unlinking since there's a REDYES argument; if anyone believes that these shouldn't be kept feel free to unlink. Rusalkii (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search results will give a much better overview of his career where users can find where he actually played rather than a single snapshot of his career. Let's just look at search results. This redirect is actually a costly one. There is basically content history whatsoever to lose. Just Delete. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Servite et contribuere: Do you think any of the people whose redirects you've nominated are notable? If so, this might (though I'm not sure) be a REDYES case. Duckmather (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duckmather I don't know. They might be. At bare minimum, this redirect should not stay. A deletion would be fine if they are notable per WP:RETURNTORED. Anyways, still think this redirect should deleted regardless, and then determine notability, because red links are there to encourage article creation. And these types of redirects are kind disruptive considering other editors might just assume the article exists: Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above (Shameena Riaz, Liu Siya, Ruqayya Salem, Robyn McAlpine, C Lalramsanga, Suryaksh Rawat). IMO these redirects are not useful because a) they direct readers to something that is temporarily true (these players may not remain part of national teams for long) which will cause confusion and a burden to maintain and/or b) they present partial information (these players will compete in other competitions, so redirects to a specific tournament is not useful), which will become outdated if they have more notable performances in other competitions, again causing confusion and burden to maintain and/or c) these are "too early" in many cases for these athletes' WP:N to be clear and I feel REDYES is preferable to encourage creation of these articles when notability is established while preparing for inbound links. From looking at the "[Country] national squash team" articles, it seems there are a lot of such redirects - not sure this is useful for readers when we have flagicons that can be used to redirect to national teams... Shazback (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

BFDI drafts

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These drafts were created after the main article, Battle for Dream Island, so serve no purpose and should be deleted. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 08:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated as cross-namespace redirects should not be created without a compelling justification. Katzrockso (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-useful / relevant cross-namespace redirects Shazback (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dawans

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 11#Dawans

Post-cycle therapy

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 12#Post-cycle therapy

Wikipedia:Pages for deletion and similar titles

[edit]

Pages are not just limited to articles; they are also categories, files, templates, etc. I should also note that Wikipedia:PfD redirects to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I believe these redirects should be retargeted somewhere else, maybe Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussion venues. Also, tell me if there are redirects similar to the ones being nominated that I missed. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 14:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I noticed that WP:PFD was linked on a page created in 2005, though I created the page in 2014. I then noticed that WP:PFD was speedy deleted in 2012 per WP:G8. Admins ... what did WP:PFD target before being deleted in 2012? Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding stating that "...WP:PFD redirects to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion": Umm, no it doesn't... Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I meant Wikipedia:PfD, with a lowercase F. My bad. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 16:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added to the discussion, considering what happens to one "PFD" title should affect the others. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Discovered via WP:REFUND that the answer to my question is: WP:PFD apparently used to target Wikipedia:Page for Drunks in 2012. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't it be better to retarget all to match wp:xfd, and then add a hatnote there? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I oppose this option for Wikipedia:Pages for deletion per my finds above. I'm "weak oppose" regarding the rest since I prefer my resolution since it matches an established naming scheme. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
should've mentioned that my comment wasn't a vote. not that that's worth much consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused

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

So ... Lucid? Delete as hopelessly ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lunamann and Cyber. At least in terms of Wikipedia usage "Not to be confused (with)" as a phrase is used in the sense of disambiguation, and because disambiguation is redirected there it makes sense for this phrase to lead there. Furthermore, from there there's a hatnote to the corresponding Wikipedia policy. It's simple and straightforward enough to keep the redirect. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 04:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator follow-up: I meant to chime in sooner, but here I am now, about a week or so late. The comments stating this redirect is proper due to it referring to what this phrase might mean within Wikipedia is totally meta to Wikipedia. What I mean by that is there is no expectation that the average reader who is searching this term is intending to find the current target. My nomination statement is to illustrate this phrase could refer to something else, which illustrates it as ambiguous. In other words, if this redirect was titled "Wikipedia:Not to be confused", I could validate it existing and targeting something within the "Wikipedia:" namespace, but the same expectation cannot be set in the article space as there are other encyclopedic concepts which this phrase could refer. In addition, this phrase without the word "with" at the end is ambiguous; if the word "with" or "for" were added to the end of this phrase, I would've never started this discussion, but as it stands, this redirect is missing one of those key words at the end. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016/0280(COD)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Rusalkii (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the article, it seems unclear how this redirect is a likely or helpful redirect, given that "0280" and "COD" seem to be mentioned now there in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{keep}} This is the code of the legislative procedure, which was and is linked in the article. Nemo 08:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Nemo. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 15:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When this redirect was created in 2018, the directive was a draft, and was mentioned as such. Now, it is confusing why a 2019 directive is referred to as 2016. Delete - without mention, these are just some numbers and letters with a burden of verification. No reason to use draft version codes. I unpiped it from PhotoDNA. Jay 💬 05:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Good offices

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 13:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, the association with Cyprus is certainly not the primary one. I think the main meaning for this term is the diplomatic one used in e.g. Foreign relations of Switzerland#Good offices, but the term isn't unique to Switzerland, making that a poor target. We also have United_Nations_Commission_for_Indonesia#Council's_Committee_of_Good_Offices, United Nations Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and several other similar articles. Could conceivably be a XNR to wikt:good offices? Rusalkii (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a disambig page would fit this? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikt:good offices? Disambiguate? Or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Type-67

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Type 67 articles in the wiki do not have hyphens in the names. Would like to request a delete. Ominae (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Witch Beam

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 18:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Witch Beam is a video game studio that has developed at least two notable games (Unpacking and Assault Android Cactus). Two months ago, a redirect was created to one of those games, but a redirect here implies that the studio is only known in the context of the one game. I filled out the redirect with a short stub and was reverted by the redirect's creator. We should either have an article on the studio or a redlink with no prejudice against article creation, since there is more than one potential redirection target. Chubbles (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much independent coverage around the studio itself that are not separate from its games, and one game is more well known than the other with their articles reflecting that. From what can be seen at the first expansion edit at the page, there just isn't much for an article to be needed. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A user searching for Witch Beam will be redirected to Unpacking with no ability to ascertain that Assault Android Cactus is related to the search, despite the fact that we have content about the latter game as well. This is not good from an information-seeking standpoint. Chubbles (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm @Myceteae A redirect to Unpacking#Development might suffice since the section serves as an introduction of the developer. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would maybe downgrade to 'weak delete' but I still think that's the better option. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or even stub is better than to one game. Category:Witch Beam Games shows three games. Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Bulking cycle

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Bodybuilding#Preparations. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. At best, current target seems too specific. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Cutting cycle

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 11#Cutting cycle

Anasteroids

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 13:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be an abbreviation in common use, and the possibility exists for confusion with asteroids. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the singular anasteroid does not exist. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - not an existing term Drew Stanley (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Gaza massacre

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 11#Gaza massacre

Steroids in High School Athletics

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids#Sports. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfDs for this article:

Redirect from an old WP:BLAR not discussed at target or at amateur sports. Article content in page history would have no chance of being kept at Afd, so delete here per WP:SNOWBALL, but if someone insists upon restoring the article and sending to Afd, I wouldn't object. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Caerussalem

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem in Middle Welsh - no particular affinity I can see / WP:FORRED. Zzz plant (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Juice monkey

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is slang for a user of anabolic steroids, but not mentioned at target. Soft redirect to Wikitionary, add sourced mention to target, or delete? Mdewman6 (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).