Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 15#Mickey J

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 15, 2025.

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

that's not a word that exists. sonido is, but there's no affinity, and people already familiar with that word would know that this one doesn't exist consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Retarget → Sonida Senior Living. Every single hit on the first three pages of Google search results for sonida refer to this and sources do call them "Sonida" for short, usually after first using the full name for the company. DuckDuckGo search results are more mixed but every hit on the first page is for the senior housing company and >half on pages 2–3.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 22:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason to delete. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 18:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Myceteae. Given its frequency in Google search results, it's more likely that someone searching for 'Sonida' is looking for the senior housing community rather than 'sound'. Katiedevi (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the current target doesn't mention this word while the proposed target refers to Sonida Senior Living as just "Sonida" in prose. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Woon (video game) → Pizza Tower#Future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Woon is no longer mentioned at the target, and the section "Future" no longer exists there, either. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 20:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Katiedevi (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Labiodental trill → Trill consonant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems to be unattested. BodhiHarp 18:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mickey J → Michael Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Not at all a common name for the famous singer. The search term is vague and not suitable for a dab page since it would consist of partial title matches and similar names such as Mickey J. Meyer, Mick Jagger, Mickie James, Mickey Jones, Emlyn Jones aka Mickey Jones (footballer), Mick Jenkins, Mick Jenkins (rugby league), the nine entries at Mick Jones, and since "Mickey" can be short for "Michael" we also have all the Michael J's to consider. On Google, I also found a comedian and a musician who each go by Mickey J. Both appear non-notable. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not at all a common nickname; in all of the years that I've been doing Michael Jackson, I've never heard him being called this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there's no indication he ever went by this or was known as such. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or maybe retarget to Mickey J. Meyer as that is who comes up on Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, vague term with no suitable target. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thameslink and Great Northern → Govia Thameslink Railway  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could refer to GTR (current target), Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise, Thameslink Southern Great Northern (future GTR operator from 2026) or Thameslink (disambiguation) (maybe even Great Northern (disambiguation)?. I would note that this redirect used to be an article until 2018 which was then merged to GTR via a merge discussion, so I'm against deleting the redirect to preserve the page history. JuniperChill (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add hatnotes to the franchise. The current operator seems to be the primary topic for this exact pairing, but the franchise is not implausible. The others are just partial title matches that can be found from the current article easily enough. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 1 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) 14:37, 8 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) 16:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Mark (video game) → First-person shooter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Draft:The Mark → First-person shooter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Draft:The Mark (video game) → First-person shooter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

a polish game seemingly only known for having been published by akella in russia. where i come from, that means it's a 2/10 at best. only mentioned in the mark (capital m, no disambiguator), so this redirect only really tells the average reader about the game's genre consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or retarget to Akella and add a mention to that article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:2A2E:3F49:20E:BBE6 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if it's actually mentioned anywhere, i don't think it should be akella. the game is seemingly best known for being published by them in russia... but it's not a game developed by akella, nor did it publish it in any other languages consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:47, 8 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) 16:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and remove from The Mark dab page. Seemingly non-notable video game that does not warrant a mention at First-person shooter nor Akella. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Add entry to Akella, and redirect there. It was developped by T7Games for PC/Windows and released in 2006/2007/2009 [1]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  that's not a reliable source, though. hell, it seems to be more of a piracy site than anything else, so it's especially unusable here (even if i support the act of piracy, i love downloading old games that aren't being sold) consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MJ Jackson → Michael Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• M. J. Jackson → Michael Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• M J Jackson → Michael Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• M.J. Jackson → Michael Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as vague. He is commonly referred to as "MJ", where the J stands for Jackson, not his middle initial. We have a Michael J. Jackson and I haven't looked at every Mark, Molly, Marvin, etc. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even when the singer does have "J" as a middle initial for "Joseph" or "Joe", it's presumptuous to think no other people with "Jackson" last names have M-first names and J-middle names like he did. There could easily be others beyond the actor linked with such criteria, and either way that other link alone helps illustrate the ambiguity. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and Snuggums. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Democracy → Lee Teng-hui  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm curious if Lee Teng-hui is the primary topic for this. Based on my own Google search, Lee Teng-hui is the first topic. However, the first page also has links to John Dewey and Larry Diamond (see here). With the recent creation of both Mr. Democracy and Mr. Democracy (disambiguation), I thought it would be worthwhile as a community to determine whether this is a correct primary topic. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Mr. Democracy (disambiguation) to Mr. Democracy. No clear primary topic. मल्ल (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, the most representative example of "Mr. Democracy" is to refer to Lee Teng-hui.

ProgramT (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gimme 5 → Gimme 5 (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Malplaced redirect after move for further dab in 2015. This should be Retargeted to the dabpage Give me five as there are three entries there with this spelling. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom 88.97.192.42 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Gimme 5 → Give me five or Move Give me five → Gimme 5. Gimme 5 is the modal title among the entries on the dab page. Either way, Gimme 5 should be or point to the dab page and not one of the specific entries. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Enteropneusta (order) → Acorn worm  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: unlikely to be searched for, and Enteropneusta is already a redirect to the same target page. Apparently this redirect existed for Template:Taxonomy/Enteropneusta (order) to link in the past, but the template no longer uses it (and the template itself is not needed anymore either, I've been updating pages for acorn worms to not use the template). Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Was created for a specific purpose that is now obsolete. The only incoming links are related to this RfD listing; no links in article space, article talk, etc. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nucleon decay → Proton decay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous -- neutrons are also nucleons, and we have a separate Neutron decay article already, and too unhelpful to bother with disambiguating. There's no coverage of this as a general concept, and if you know what a nucleon is, you already know enough to find what you're looking for more easily anyway. Suggest deleting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There are dozens of reliable sources on "nucleon decay". Ok I'm convinced let's go with Redirect to Nucleon#Stability. The missing piece is source explaining why neutron decay is separate case from nucleon decay. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question is whether physics sources always or usually mean proton decay specifically when using the term nucleon decay, not whether nucleon decay is used at all. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the topic "nucleon decay" passes WP:GNG so it cannot be deleted. So what shall we say about "nucleon decay"? Every source I looked at treated issues equivalent to proton decay. Either we redirect to proton decay or we create an article named "nucleon decay" based on the numerous sources. Delete proposed by the nominator is not appropriate. It is my opinion that these are the same topic, but I have no source to verify that claim. I hope this is clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We *should* delete redirects that are notable but have no corresponding coverage (WP:RETURNTORED). However, that's not the case here so I agree we shouldn't delete. The current situation seems reasonable if we treat this as effectively WP:ONEOTHER, where the Neutron decay dab page is the secondary or co-primary topic. The other option is to create a dab page which would be identical to Neutron decay but with the addition of Proton decay. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The neutron decay dab page already has baryon decay, which redirects to proton decay Lavateraguy (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any source that claims "Nucleon decay" is anything other than "Proton decay"? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per @Johnjbarton. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nucleon decay could also refer to nuclear decay by either neutron emission or proton emission. (I haven't checked usage elsewhere, but I use it in this sense.) Replace it with a dab page? Lavateraguy (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or dabify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics for more input from physics editors. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nucleon#Stability. It summarizes both neutron and proton decay, and directs the reader towards more specific article as needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nucleon#Stability. Headbomb's target is elegant, as it covers both cases and provides more context than a simple dab. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Johnjbarton @Drunk Experiter @Lavateraguy thoughts on Headcomb's proposed target? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, sounds good to me. I Support the retarget. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Notice placed at Talk:Nucleon. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Headbomb's suggestion seems logical but not supported by any source. There are sources on "Nucleon decay" as noted above. They don't say what "Nucleon#Stability" says and that section has no sources at all. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources are trivial to find for this, and irrelevant on whether or not things should be redirect there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I challenge you to find one! If you do I will update the articles accordingly. There are sources on beta decay, neutron decay, and proton decay of course, and articles on nucleon decay that overlap with proton decay. But is there a source on nucleon decay that matches the section Nucleon#Stability? Sure seems like there would be one. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nucleons are protons and neutrons. A source on proton decay is a source on nucleon decay. A source on neutron decay is a source on nucleon decay. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are 3 plausible interpretations of the term nucleon decay

  • hypothetical decays in which baryon number is not conserved. Research into this focuses on proton decay, as for other baryons any such decays would be overwhelmed by other decay modes. But a short search finds mention of tri-nucleon decays. I think I'd prefer the broader term baryon decay here - if you're going to generalise from proton decay to further baryon number non-conserving decays you might as well go the whole way - but I would be trumped by actual usage if it differs.
  • weak (beta) decays interconverting protons and neutrons. Here I think I'd talk about nucleon decays, rather than nucleon decay, but that's a subtle difference,
  • emission of nucleons by a unstable isotope, either narrowly the emission of protons or neutrons (including 2 proton, 2 neutron and 3 neutron decays), or broadly including the emission of clusters of nucleons (diproton, deuteron, triton, alpha, heavier clusters). The term cluster decay is widely used for the last, so by analogy I find nucleon decay a natural term to apply to neutron and proton emission.

  Nucleon#stability covers the first two interpretations but not the last. Whether we dabify the redirect, or change the redirect, depends on the balance of usage; if one concept dominates redirect there, with hatnotes if appropriate, otherwise dabify. (While googling I found one paper that uses proton decay to refer to proton emission; but proton decay to leptons is used so much more often that dabifying proton decay wouldn't make sense. There is already a hatnote to proton emission there.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nucleon#Stability as a nice, non-confusing target. Any sources on nucleon decay that overlap with proton decay (as mentioned above) are consistent with that redirect target, since Nucleon#Stability does discuss proton decay. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nucleon#Stability per above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nucleon#Stability. "Nucleon decay" is a logical search term for decay OF nucleons, not the decay of a nucleus by emission of nucleons. PianoDan (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nucleon#Stability. I find these arguments most persuasive and at least one other editor has changed their mind in the course of this discussion to support this target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 19:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Novigrad (the Free City) → Novigrad#Arts and entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Novigrad, the Free City → Novigrad#Arts and entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Novigrad (The Free City) → Novigrad#Arts and entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Novigrad, The Free City → Novigrad#Arts and entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This term is only mentioned on the disambiguation page that this redirects to. No mention of "Novigrad, The Free City" on any other page on Wikipedia. No mention of "Novigrad" on the page for The Witcher, either, i.e. the link right next to it on the disambiguation page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt#Setting which discusses "the free city of Novigrad". (and relink the dab page), since none of the irl Novigrads are called free cities. Sword of Destiny#"Eternal Flame" has a mention of Novigrad without the epithet, though it's more trivial than the one at Witcher 3. There may be more, but search is shadowed by real-life Novigrads.Rusalkii (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaf mimicry → Mimicry in plants#Leaf mimicry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I rather expected this to go to a section of an article about insects that mimic leaves, like leaf-mimic katydids. I propose retargetting to Camouflage#Mimesis Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While I agree that the target is not appropriate, the alternative is not better. A mimicry example should not redirect to camouflague, a form of Crypsis. In common usage, mimicry is a situation in which an organism resembles another, while in crypsis an organism resembles its background. Endler, J. A. (1981). An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16(1), 25-31. Since there are both plant and animal "leaf mimics", I think the redirect should point at Mimicry. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A quick look at Google Scholar indicates that leaf mimicry is used to describe the phenomenon in both plants and insects. Perhaps more for insects but I haven't attempted to assess the quality of sources. If something more specific than Mimicry is selected, we should have a hatnote to (an)other related article(s). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the redirect should point at Mimicry since, as pointed out above, both plants and animals can mimic leaves and the term "leaf mimicry" appears in both botanical and zoological literature. MossOnALog^Talk 15:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting this to Mimicry?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra Would you agree to repoint to Mimicry? I think the other editors would be satisfied with that outcome. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not super keen on it, because it doesn't specifically discuss "leaf mimicry" in much capacity. (There's a brief mention of leaf mimicry in katydids.) I feel like that makes it a deceiving target for readers. Lacking a good target, perhaps deletion is a good option, pending the creation of more detailled articles. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Mimicry is the best target that's been suggested but I think readers would be better served by search results[2][3] since the term is used in a number of articles describing plants and insects. I wonder if a set index article could be written defining (at least) the two most common uses (in plants and in insects). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Flamingo Legs → Lemon Demon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target. Debatable if retargeting this somewhere on the Flamingo article would be helpful, but that might be an option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or weak retarget to Flamingo#Description. Their standing posture is a defining characteristic but I think this can safely be deleted. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't seem needed, and a red link seems preferable in this case. If this has something to do with Lemon Demon, we don't have info on that, and Flamingo is the first link for these search results. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Just notified of this discussion at the target talk page. Jay 💬 16:19, 12 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Invincible error → Vincible and invincible ignorance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target, therefore it should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Psychotic drugs → Psychosis#Psychoactive drugs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Psychotic drug → Psychosis#Psychoactive drugs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as vague. The phrasing is ambiguous for substance-induced psychosis, psychoactive drug, psychedelic drug, antipsychotic and possibly others. It is not correct terminology for any of these so not appropriate for a dab. Antipsychotic is probably the best target if there is one. Or retarget to Psychoactive drug. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC) Edited per discussion below. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antipsychotic makes the most sense to me Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Antipsychotic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Drugs commonly alleged to induce psychotic symptoms include [list] at target gives exactly what I was seeking via the term. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/retarget to Psychoactive drug, which is a better target than the current one. I oppose retargeting to Antipsychotic, because those are the exact opposites, despite sounding similar – that would be like redirecting "good" to "bad", or "up" to "down". (I agree with the nom that the term is an incorrect one, but since it could be a search term, at least send the reader to the closest correct match, where it might be appropriate to have a hatnote telling readers about antipsychotics.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm, antipsychotics are a class of psychoactive drugs, not the "opposite". Paradoctor (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand what you mean, but I was trying to indicate that "psychotic drugs", whatever that means, is the opposite of medicines used to reverse psychosis. I see your point below, that it's not a good search term, but I think it could be search term used by confused readers, and I would rather send them to the right place than to leave them confused because we decided that we should not honor a flawed search strategy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was trying to indicate that "psychotic drugs", whatever that means, is the opposite of medicines used to reverse psychosis. 🤦 Paradoctor (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Facepalm back atcha. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it could be search term used by confused readers, and I would rather send them to the right place than to leave them confused because we decided that we should not honor a flawed search strategy. The challenge is that psychotic drug(s) sounds close to multiple different targets. On what basis do we decide which real thing editors are most likely looking for with this bad search? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a very good question, and the best I can offer is to send them to a relatively broad topic, where they can start reading and then decide if they want to look somewhere else, and that's what I was aiming for by retargeting to Psychoactive drug. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This makes sense, thanks for expanding on your thinking. I'm on the fence. On the one hand, Psychoactive drug is the umbrella category that includes all the other possible targets. On the other hand, it barely addresses the topics we think readers might be looking for, and we are still only making a best guess at what they might mean by psychotic drug(s). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All results I found for this term are either partials of "anti-psychotic drug", or of "psychotic drug user(s)". This term is not in use, and not a good search term. Paradoctor (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychoactive drug. This seems to be the most sensible option. Article "Psychoactive drug" includes both the psychosis inducing substances as well as antipsychotics and more. Ion Soggo (talk) 20:58, 2 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) 22:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to psychoactive drug per Tryptofish and Ion Soggo. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've updated my nomination to support retargeting to psychoactive drug. I still find the case for deletion roughly equally strong but psychoactive drug is the least worst option if we don't delete. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since deletion is still being considered as an option by the nom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NINETHESES → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:9THESES → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:9T → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:9 THESES → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:NINE THESES → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESISONE → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#1. End decision-making by “consensus.”  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS ONE → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#1. End decision-making by “consensus.”  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS 1 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#1. End decision-making by “consensus.”  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS 2 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#2. Enable competing articles.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS TWO → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#2. Enable competing articles.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESISTWO → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#2. Enable competing articles.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS 3 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#3. Abolish source blacklists.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESISTHREE → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#3. Abolish source blacklists.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS THREE → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#3. Abolish source blacklists.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS 4 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#4. Revive the original neutrality policy.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESISFOUR → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#4. Revive the original neutrality policy.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS FOUR → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#4. Revive the original neutrality policy.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS 5 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#5. Repeal “Ignore all rules.”  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESISFIVE → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#5. Repeal “Ignore all rules.”  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS FIVE → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#5. Repeal “Ignore all rules.”  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:9THESIS → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:9 THESIS → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:NINE THESIS → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:NINETHESIS → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS 6Wikipedia:THESIS 6 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#6. Reveal who Wikipedia’s leaders are.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESISSIXWikipedia:THESISSIX → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#6. Reveal who Wikipedia’s leaders are.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS SIXWikipedia:THESIS SIX → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#6. Reveal who Wikipedia’s leaders are.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS 7Wikipedia:THESIS 7 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#7. Let the public rate articles.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESISSEVENWikipedia:THESISSEVEN → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#7. Let the public rate articles.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS SEVENWikipedia:THESIS SEVEN → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#7. Let the public rate articles.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS 8Wikipedia:THESIS 8 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#8. End indefinite blocking.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESISEIGHTWikipedia:THESISEIGHT → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#8. End indefinite blocking.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS EIGHTWikipedia:THESIS EIGHT → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#8. End indefinite blocking.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS 9Wikipedia:THESIS 9 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#9. Adopt a legislative process.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESISNINEWikipedia:THESISNINE → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#9. Adopt a legislative process.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:THESIS NINEWikipedia:THESIS NINE → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#9. Adopt a legislative process.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These were all created by a different user, User:Iljhgtn, and besides redirect creep most of these have spaces inconsistent with the standard shortcut format. BrokenSquarePiece ^{(complete me)} 09:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom 88.97.192.42 (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as these are perfectly valid and likely to find use for navigating to and around the WP:9T page which itself has already proven to be a watershed moment for Wikipedia. These easily qualify for WP:CHEAP-keep just like the other redirects/shortcuts. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NINETHESES and WP:9T, delete the others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All Considering how many views the main Nine Theses page is getting it's clearly getting quite a bit of traction with google searches and these redirects make it easier to find. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all People might find these useful. @Warudo and @Utopes made good points on the other rfd which also apply here. 12.196.94.50 (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per criterion 4, as transparent attempts to make fetch happen. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, but WP:NINETHESES & WP:9T. Most of these are excessive for a single user-essay & as stated above, the spaces in some are awkward. I agree with Headbomb though that those two (WP:NINETHESES & WP:9T) are still useful & directly relevant redirects. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Useful shortcuts for particular sections that people need easy ways to refer to. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all Per WP:CHEAP and WP:RFD#KEEP point #5. Point 5 reads, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." These are harmless redirects and I and others find them useful. Project-space shortcuts to user essays are not uncommon and help users find what they are looking for without necessarily implying endorsement. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Nine Theses is clearly gaining traction among editors and the redirects are potentially helpful for further discussion. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NINETHESES and WP:9T, delete the others per Headbomb. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except WP:NINETHESES and WP:9T. Flooding search results for the word "thesis" is not helpful. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except maybe WP:NINETHESES and WP:9T (but IMO even those are unnecessary), as spam and likely to confuse people into thinking this essay has any level of support. This is getting ridiculous. We don't need 41 redirects to this essay. If anything in it gets implemented, it's going to be despite the essay rather than because of it. While WP:RFD#K5 does say "if someone say they find it useful, they probably do", I think this is a case that necessitates the "probably" in that statement. Anomie⚔ 23:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Laundry Service → Laundry Service (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Malplaced redirect. Retarget to Self-service laundry (Laundry service redirects there) or move? ArthananWarcraft (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Retarget Per nom Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move Laundry Service (album) to Laundry Service and add a hatnote pointing to Self-service laundry. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Laundry Service (album) back to the base title per WP:DIFFCAPS, as distinct from laundry service. It shouldn't have been moved in the first place. - Eureka Lott 14:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Laundry Service (album) to Laundry Service per DIFFCAPS, with a hatnote to Self-service laundry. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]