This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
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
Current discussions
Redirects that have been nominated for discussion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.
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.
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.
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:
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.
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.
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.
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:.)
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.
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.) The message template {{subst:not mentioned}} may be useful.
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.
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
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.
They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a copy or merge (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and 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.
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.
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.
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 alsoWikipedia:Link rot §Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
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.
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:
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 are 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.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.
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|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
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.
This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.
Delete as no information about Rangatahi at the target. The non-disambiguated Maraeroa redirect to the same target, was deleted at its RfD today. Rangatahi itself is a redirect to a tribe, which has no mention of Maraeroa either. Jay 10:08, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
ANALYSIS: McCune-Reischauer System and Revised Romanization of Korean
I propose that this redirect be deleted. (1) This page was started as WP:OR. (2) It is very unlikely that someone would use the title of that page as a search term. ~2026-55400-49 (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete The "ANALYSIS" in the title pushes this into implausibility. The only reason I can see for why this might be kept is that it has history. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think it is really necessary to retain that page, regardless of the title. It looks like most of the contents copied from that page at the time are no longer in the current revision. ~2026-55440-76 (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or Move without leaving redirect? Also, there are 3 temp accounts in this discussion, and it's not clear if the 3rd is same as one of the prior two. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 08:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Canadiens
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
I am doubtful on whether French Canadians is the primary topic of the term "Canadiens" among anglophones at large. While there was a previous discussion for this specific redirect 12 years ago, it seems woefully deficient in multiple ways:
The discussion did not properly address whether the word "Canadiens" itself more commonly means either the hockey team or the ethnic group within the anglosphere, whether via arguments based on usage data, arguments based on where and how often would a general audience would be exposed to each meaning of "Canadiens" in daily life, etc.
It doesn't address properly how much "Canadiens" is even used by Anglophones anymore to refer to French Canadians after the emergence of e.g. "French Canadians". Statements in the French Canadians article like "referred to as Canadiens mainly before the nineteenth century" (emphasis mine) need to be addressed, because a problem arises if the usage of "Canadiens" for French Canadians turns out to be on its way out.
Global anglosphere reach of the meanings of "Canadiens" was not properly addressed. The fact that the Montreal Canadiens often play against teams representing faraway and foreign anglophone locations generally annually (and for a century now), and has sent multiple players to the Olympics (obviously a global event) gives the team a big headstart over the "French-Canadian" meaning (which I am not sure is even known in e.g. the southern or western United States, or even Western Canada) on these grounds.
Given these deficiencies, a fresh discussion is warranted. My first preference is a disambiguation page, by the way. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 18:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Should we add Canadien to this nomination as well? Having Canadien as a primary redirect, but not Canadiens, is not necessarily the best outcome here. 162 etc. (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
CanadienCanadien may be worth discussing but it's likely to be correct already, as the ice hockey team is referred to mainly in the plural and the other meanings aren't popular. (Parti canadien gets the second most views, one twentieth of French Canadians.) Certes (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not finding any evidence that "CanadienCanadien" is used in English to refer to French Canadians (except perhaps historically–if we are to believe the lead of that article; the usage is cited to an offline source that I can't verify), nor that there is any significant usage of the singular form referring to the ice hockey team, and would be strongly tempted to suggest moving the dab page to the base name. But that probably ought to be discussed as a separate RM rather than here. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to the disambiguation page and modify the led of the dab to mention the hockey team — in the Canada-adjacent anglosphere, the hockey team is one of the primary topics that comes to mind more commonly than the ethnic group. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Montreal Canadiens as primary topic for the plural, well ahead of French Canadians in all but historic use. I'm based in France and I would have expected a search for "canadiens" -wikipedia to bring up hits relating to Canadian people, but in fact even in this primarily French-language context all the hits on the first 10 pages (I stopped checking after that) relate to the hockey team and I had to add -hockey to see other uses of the term. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 08:22, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
This song is not mentioned in the target article or Polo G. However, this subject is mention in a list of songs in both Burna Boy discography and Polo G discography, but neither one of them have any context for this subject, as well as the fact that there are two potential targets, it is not clear why one target should be preferred over the other. Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as there is no secondary coverage of the song and it is most likely not notable enough to warrant a redirect. If there's a compelling reason to have a redirect somewhere, I would be okay with redirect to Burna Boy discography. (A quick Internet search quickly shows that it is Burna Boy's song and Polo G is featured on it.) I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 00:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Burna Boy discography#Singles. The song is credited as by Burna Boy with a feature by Polo G, so the Burna Boy discography article would be the more primary topic. मल्ल (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:02, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Nominator comment: I believe it would be more helpful for our readers if this redirect was deleted per WP:REDLINK rather than pointing to one article over the other considering both articles contain the same amount of information: Only naming the subject in a list without any sentences describing the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Burna Boy discography#Singles per मल्ल. The source there confirms that Polo G is the featured artist, so I don't see an WP:XY problem. Want It All (Burna Boy song) probably needs the same treatment, whereas Want It All (Polo G song) probably shouldn't exist (though I don't know offhand if there is a good precedent for it). --BDD (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For nom's later rationale of deleting per REDLINK. Or is the topic not notable enough? Also bundling the similar redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 07:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
No such section and no information about this software at the target. The section was added in January of this year, and removed in August as a minor and legacy subsection. There is a mention at another software - Kross (software) - where Dogtail is mentioned as an example, and in brackets, and wouldn't be a suitable target. Delete, and remove from the Dogtail disambig as well. Jay 06:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
new creation. To be deleted because it is misleading and clutter for enwiki database. "Estonian" refers to country Estonia Estopedist1 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2026 (UTC
It was simply a spelling mistake, my applogiesStrattonsmith (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
In Japanese, ending a title with ッ is unlikely. In this redirect, ド is missing at the end, so the correct form is "メタルギアソリッド". So in this case, this redirect is implausible and should be deleted. Note this is the only redirect ending with "ッ" besides "ッ" itself. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Implausible that this is an alternative name in Japanese. This is sort of equivalent to a redirect titled "Metal Gear Soli". Possibly a typo. Popcornfud (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Recently created by request. However, ambiguous with Parsec, also a unit abbreviated pc. Retarget to the PC dab page? Treat one as primary with a hatnote to the other? Delete as unlikely? pC and PC are also abbreviations for the units of picocoulomb and petacoulomb, respectively, although those start to get more unlikely. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 05:32, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation page. Pica is only four letters so not often abbreviated. No obvious primary topic. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Vague informal slang redirecting to a page about a specific medical condition. Could be taken as a jab at people with said condition by implying that they are "hangry" all the time. Seems like a WP:NOTDICTIONARY issue. Arguably fails WP:ASTONISH. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I feel like there's potential for an article here. I uncovered this within the first two pages of base google search, which makes me inclined to think there's more. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 15:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't like any of the targets so far, and would prefer deletion to encourage article creation over any of them. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 06:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to -gry puzzle#Answers, which does mention the word. I can also accept deletion to make room for an article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Another possible target might be the musical duo Hangry & Angry. pburka (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to dab page. No clear primary topic, and the term itself doesn't really seem to have garnered enough coverage to be used as an article topic. With a dab page we could direct to all the pages mentioned above, plus the "hangry" entry on Wiktionary. I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 22:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:03, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with the nomination that readers may be astonished to find this term linking to this article as it is only stated in a reference, not clearly in the article text itself. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Replace with Template:Wiktionary redirect. It's unlikely that anybody searching "hangry" is looking for an actual medical condition such as hypoglycemia. 162 etc. (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Do not keep the current target makes no sense and is arguably a MEDRS issue. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Skarmory. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate to catch all the suggestions brought forth. I have drafted one for your consideration. I'd even support tagging it with {{Broad-concept article}} to also catch Skarmory's findings. --Tavix(talk) 20:30, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the dab? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relation to target unclear; not mentioned at target. ~ A412talk! 01:40, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Irrelevant and of no use. From Googling it, it seems that some people think it might have been his Wikipedia username. I have no idea whether that is true and nobody cares anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
That’s what Wikidata says as well, based on a tweet. Irrelevant trivia as he is not known as an editor. Dudzcar (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to William Shakespeare (disambiguation), as the Bard of Avon is overwhelmingly known as William and not Bill. As such, someone looking for Bill Shakespear is probably searching for someone else. In addition, Bill Shakespeare already targets the disambiguation page. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Shouldn't both go to the Bard of Avon as there isn't anyone else titled "Bill Shakespear" or "Bill Shakespeare". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to dab, for consistency. pburka (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 07:51, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep this redirect and retarget Bill Shakespeare there too (it should have been bundled). "William" is often shortened to "Bill", even in reference to the bard, especially in comedic contexts (see eg. Bill (2015 film)), and external search results include the bard. Seeems to me that the bard is the primary topic for both the formal "William" and the informal "Bill". I could understand treating this as a case of minor differences signalling a distinct topic if any of the entries at the disambiguation page were titled "Bill" not "William", but this is not the case; all the entries listed are Williams too, so I doubt any has a stronger claim to "Bill" than the others. (The closest is the entry for William Shakespeare (Australian singer), who also went by "Billy", not "Bill".) – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:07, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Referring to the bard informally as "Bill" isn't even just a recent thing. You can find lots of examples of authors doing this in publications from the 1800s on Google Books. (eg. Boyesen's Social Strugglers (1893)). People have been doing this for a very long time. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
It should definitely be mentioned in the article. The article currently only mentions "Bill Shakespeare" in the references. As an American football player, he was active in the 1930s (until WW2). It seems unlikely that readers would be more likely to be looking for a player from the 30s than the bard of Avon. Though if I use a VPN to search from the United States, a couple (but not most) of the front page results on Google do refer to him. Could be added to the hatnote, though it would then be 3 lines long. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:03, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@NerdyEpiscopalian: Does the 1930s American football player change things, or do you still think the bard of Avon is the primary topic? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:17, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@Scyrme, thanks for checking. I think the Bard is still the primary topic—and that the hatnote to the disambiguation page still suffices for anyone who might be looking for the American football player. Based on search results online and that the American football player doesn't appear to get a lot of referral traffic from the disambig (which is where I would expect him to get referral traffic if people going to either of these redirects were looking for him—since they would be directed to the disambig page (or to the bard and then click on the disambig in the hatnote) and then be able to click on the link to his article there). Not sure if that was fully sensical, but all that to say—no change to my opinion. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep and RetargetBill Shakespeare. Not a slam dunk for me, but it seems like a slightly better option than the disambiguation page. It's at least worth getting the two in sync before potential future discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I had closed this as "keep and retarget", but past RfDs for Bill Shakespeare in 2024 and 2025 (now linked above) have come to light. So I am (1) in a strict sense involved, and (2) uncomfortable with overturning a strong consensus in a recent RfD with a weaker consensus in an RfD that technically does not have jurisdiction over Bill Shakespeare. Since no argument that these redirects should have different targets has been raised, I will bundle Bill Shakespeare. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 23:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I personally support deletion, because I don't see any reason why someone would refer to an X-ray source in this way as a person who has written numerous articles about X-ray astronomy and has had to read through the scientific literature to find information about them. However, I would also not be opposed to DABifying with the sources I listed above. Shocksingularity (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Dhivehi League was created in 2000 (see this article https://mihaaru.com/sports/110799). According to RSSSF (https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/maledchamp.html), 1985–1999 corresponds with the "National Championship" section and not the Dhivehi League section. If you check the history of the pages before I turned them into redirects, you can see the winners corresponds with the list in the RSSSF document. UnilandofmaTalk 16:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
The current target hardly discusses the topic. There is a single paragraph about general court-martial, which wasn't what I was looking for because it only applies to the situation in Ireland. A more detailed discussion is found at Courts-martial of the United States#General court-martial, which was what I was looking for. Of course that page runs into the same issue (only covering one country). I suggest that we either change the target of the redirect, or add a hat note to Court-martial that explains that General court-martial redirects there, and where to find additional information about it (as it applies to the United States, or elsewhere). Renerpho (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The BushrangerOne ping only 18:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled General court martial here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 15:50, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
May also refer to mononormativity (discrimination against nonmonogamous people eg. polyamorous people) LIrala (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Neither polyphobia nor mononormativity mention the term "polyphobia" or explain that it should be interpreted to mean "bigotry towards polysexual people" and "bigotry towards polyamorous people" in each of those contexts respectively. The only mention of polyphobia anywhere on Wikipedia is at Mau5ville: Level 3 where it's the title of a song. A soft redirect to Wiktionary would obscure search results for the song. I think it's fine to let the search bar handle this one; there are only few results and Wiktionary appears besides the search results list. Note, Wiktionary doesn't list a definition for the anti-polysexuality interpretation. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 03:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
This is a notable subject on the National Register of Historic Places. The target has no information about the subject itself, only a page listing. Therefore, I propose deleting this redirect per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I do not think these are synonymous. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Abolitionism (animal rights) (target of abolitionist veganism). Not all abolitionist vegans are anarchists. These terms are generally used for vegans who believe that everyone has a moral obligation to be vegan if they are able (ie. they're abolitionist vegans). Critics often view this perspective as pushing vegan ethical views and dietary preferences onto everyone else, hence it's labelled as "radical", "militant", "fundamentalist". However, these terms are sometimes also be worn voluntarily by those proud to advocate for "radical" philosophies or "militant" action. Abolitionism (animal rights) encompasses non-anarchist vegans who share such views, and explicitly refers to "radical" and "militant" approaches by advocates. Those using it in a positive sense will find what they're looking for. Those using it in a pejorative sense would be unsurprised to end up at an article about vegans who want to abolish meat-eating. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 03:44, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think the target is primary, considering Monisha Blessy and Monisha Kaltenborn. However, I'm putting this at RfD instead of RM despite the existence of Monisha (disambiguation) because that page isn't helpful, as the dab page doesn't mention other people with the given name. I am requesting that the redirect be replaced by a given name page listing all of the people with the given name "Monisha", with a see also to Monisha En Monalisa, and the links updated. If the target turns out to be the primary topic, though, Monisha (given name) should be created, so a given name page should exist regardless. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
PNAELV
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn
MoveNeshan (disambiguation) to Neshan. Current situation is WP:MISPLACED, Signahistar's suggestion would be WP:MALPLACED. Neshan (software) used to be at the base name Neshan until it was disambiguated last month, the redirect Neshan language was created, and the disambiguation page was created; the disambiguation page should have been made over the redirect at the base name. Assume no primary topic until there is more usage data, then a WP:ONEOTHER situation can be considered. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Song from the album Goodbye Blue and White, which is a redirect to the discography page; we have no information on the song anywhere. ~ A412talk! 03:21, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
There are only a few pages here that mention Wikipedia3 in this context, such as Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki (archive) and there was apparently plans for a Wikipedia4 that never happened based on meta:Wikipedia4 (proposal) and meta:Wikipedia4 timeline (proposal). (It might be more accurate to say that it was not released under that name given the switch to MediaWiki.) In any case, I don't see any links that use "Wikipedia4" that point to MetaWiki. Instead we just have this redirect for Wikipedia3 that points to MediaWiki. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 03:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Apparently described from a single specimen and recently rediscovered. Not sure why this redirect to a different species was made. WP:RETURNTORED. —An anonymous username,not my real name 03:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I just added the actual synonyms list to the article. This redirect is not one of them. - In solidarity, UtherSRG(talk) 14:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. WoRMS lists Chiloscyllium caeruleopunctatum Pellegrin, 1914 as an accepted species, not a synonym of C. plagiosum. Signahistar (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment There was a stub at Bluespotted bamboo shark that was turned into a redirect in 2014; that article could be restored but it was pretty pathetic. If the scientific name redirect is deleted, "Bluespotted bamboo shark" should be deleted as well. The species list at Chiloscyllium could do with an update; it is missing Chiloscyllium caeruleopunctatum as well as Chiloscyllium serralheiroi (which was described in 2025). Plantdrew (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
A retarget would probably need another section hatnote, but I think it's probably unnecessary to have a hatnote at the top of Nexus Airlines and again to the same article underneath a section heading.
If there's consensus for deletion, this was an {{R from merge}} but insufficient attribution can be repaired via dummy edit as there's only one significant contributor, being the page creator.
Weak delete: neither of the homonymous airlines has a separate destination list, and the UK one to which the pre-BLAR content related is likely not notable. There's no history worth keeping, as none of that content remains in the merged article. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
This is a notable university, but it is not covered in depth anywhere on Wikipedia. It should probably be deleted per WP:REDYES to encourage article creation, as this topic is important tincluding being relevant to Discourse on Inequality. Casablanca 🪨(T) 23:10, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
There's nothing on Wikipedia about this character. I did a fair amount of trawling through pages mentioning Abner, and there does not seem to be any matches of note at all. Casablanca 🪨(T) 23:04, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
While Dr. Abel is a Tekken character, he is not mentioned anywhere in a satisfying manner in this article, and it seems like the rest of matches for "Dr. Abel" on wikipedia are partial matches. Casablanca 🪨(T) 22:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a random typo, no exact matches anywhere on WP. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 18:09, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per nom --Lenticel(talk) 00:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
keep because it's a realistic typo, s is right next to d and there is no article that will be written on "Mohammes" (as far as I know). Educate me on the redirect policy if typos have to be deleted because I really don't know.
I had previously nominated this for WP:R3 but it was declined for being an "obscure variant" instead of just a typo. Not sure where that variant is attested myself, though. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
This cyclone name has not been used by the IMD yet (see this article for details), and may (will?) be used in the future for a different tropical cyclone than the one to which this redirect is currently pointing, making the redirect misleading if not misinformative. My R3 tagging of the redirect was declined, but the reason of "alternative name" given for the decline is incorrect: the sources calling the depression as "Arnab" are either unreliable on account of WP:RSNOI and related issues, or fall into WP:RSHEADLINES. JavaHurricane 16:01, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: As the creator of this redirect, I made it because "Cyclone Arnab" was widely used in news reports while the storm was active, such as in The Hindu and Firstpost. Even locals along the coast (like in Digha) were calling it by that name during the event. Since readers are likely to search for the system using the name they saw in the news, keeping the redirect helps them land on the right section. If the IMD officially assigns "Arnab" to a different cyclone in the future, we can easily retarget it or turn it into a disambiguation page then. --Rojeni (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@Rojeni: the Hindu article doesn't mention the term "Cyclone Arnab" at all, and the Firstpost article is in fact a good argument for deletion: the IMD (the RSMC for the region) didn't name the depression in the first place, and no other reliable source called the depression "Arnab". This leaves some sort of "social media buzz", some usage in sensationalist or other non-reliable sources, and some usage in headlines which comes under RSHEADLINES; and none of this use lasted beyond the lifetime of the storm (cf Google trends for instance). None of this usage justifies a redirect. JavaHurricane 17:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for pointing that out regarding the Firstpost piece. However, the fact that an entire explainer had to be written asking "what's the storm everyone's talking about?" actually highlights that "Cyclone Arnab" was a widely searched term among the public during the event. Per WP:REDIRECT, redirects are routinely created for common misconceptions or unofficial names precisely to help lost readers land on the correct article. That said, I am completely fine letting the closing admin decide if strict IMD classifications should override general reader search utility in this case. --Rojeni (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,—Preceding unsigned comment added by BDD (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all. With all content on these having been removed, there is nothing left that requires attribution. I maintain that attribution is not required for old revisions due to the disclaimer found at the bottom of those pages. --Tavix(talk) 20:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Said disclaimer is, in entirety: "This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, outdated information, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License." (relevant part in bold). All this states is the article may have been revised to remove content incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing. It does not state that Wikipedia's license has been revoked from any contributions to those revisions which are compatible with that license (or the 3.0 license Wikipedia previously required contributors to agree to, which has the same requirement for attribution). You're reading something into it that simply is not there. Not maintaining attribution for all public revisions means making revisions which previously were compatible with Wikipedia's license now incompatible with Wikipedia's license by unilaterally violating the terms which past contributors agreed to when they published those revisions. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 01:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, this is too ambiguous for even a disambiguation page as there's one of these (almost?) every season. --Tavix(talk) 14:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: This is indeed the initial designation of the first tropical depression to form in the eastern Pacific each season, prior to reaching the intensity needed to become a named storm (I assume the designation is effectively unused if the first storm of the season forms with sufficient intensity to be immediately given a name). The current target seems perfectly logical, though we should preferably add an explanation of this initial designation mechanism. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 20:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
unmentioned meme. considering the creator's rationale, it might've even been a g7 if not for the other edits consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 17:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I think its pretty unlikely that people are referring to the relationship between these two countries as "usrael". I haven't really ever seen this term used and it is more like a typo of Israel then it is otherwise. Justcgi (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
This originally targeted 1 Timothy 4, which was merged into First Epistle to Timothy, but much of its content was not merged in, including the section about 1 Timothy 4:10. Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
While this is a concept associated with SSDs, it is not mentioned at the target and the only other mention of a "1 MB partition alignment" is in passing on Disk partitioning without a helpful explanation as to what it is. This should probably be deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Ambiguous. I'm seeing a lot of different things this could refer to in search results, none of which are this specific slogan. It would be stranger to see two numbers and one letter with an unambiguous meaning. Delete as vague. —An anonymous username,not my real name 15:00, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
R3 requests on these titles undone by this now-expired TA ~2026-51624-17 because they were created via moves on 22 September 2006 (over 20 years old); hence also ineligible for G6 errors, since these title now has declined CSDs, so I've listed them here! Intrisit (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, harmless. There is no benefit to deletion and none has been offered. Yes, it's true they don't meet any CSD so leave them alone and move on. --Tavix(talk) 13:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
This is specifically the German term for convolutions, I see no reason as to why it exists. --Bumpf said this! ooh clicky clicky![insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 07:46, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Somehow I came to be under the impression that before about 1950, people who wrote about this in English used the German word rather than the Latin-derived word. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 06:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: the term Faltung is actually mentioned in Convolution#Historical developments, so perhaps refine there (though this isn't my field either so not entirely sure). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Seemingly an obscure plot element, not mentioned in target. When searching I only see 6 results, of which one is its entry on Hammerfest (disambiguation). Recommend delete as likely confusing to searchers. ScalarFactor (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
GRUB uses "PFF2 font format" bitmap fonts so the term is a related topic to GRUB. If I remember right, I created this redirect because I searched Wikipedia to find out what it was and found nothing. It took a bit of digging to find out what it was and GRUB is the main place were it was used. I'm unaware if it has an established use elsewise. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 00:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
While season 1 episode 2 is titled "Remembrance of Rings Past" the 1.2 makes it a rather unlikely search term. Casablanca 🪨(T) 22:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, implausible search term, page at title for 28 minutes. ~ A412talk! 06:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom and A412; prefixing the episode number is dubious in the best of circumstances, and the unspaced format is especially implausible as a search term. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. It was an old move and I don’t know why it kept the original redirect. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 04:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Environmental impact of paper §Paper waste as {{r from subtopic}} and {{r to section}}. Not all waste paper is recycled and readers may be interested in the environmental impact of paper which is not recycled. The section is flawed, but it's the best overview specifically about paper waste that's available. It also links to Paper recycling, so that aspect is still accessible. Waste mentions paper only 4 times and does not discuss it in any significant detail. My second preference is to keep as {{r from related topic}}, as Paper recycling mentions paper over 100 times, of which 10 are explicitly to waste paper/paper waste including in the first sentence. Wastepaper and Discarded paper should be bundled as they should share the same target. Scrap paper also redirects to paper recycling, but it may be better to nominate separately as it has different connotations (my first thought is closer to 'spare paper' than 'waste paper'; I'm sure many people keep scrap paper lying around to jot quick notes on, like shopping lists or reminders). – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 02:06, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The citogenesis argument is plausible, and it doesn't sound like the citogenetic name picked up enough recognition to be useful in a "Millville Meteor" sense. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 04:11, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Not mentioned at the target, at Pitt Lake, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. This appears to be rather obscure, with just 1 hit in Google Scholar and zero in the "Wiki Refs" search. In unreliable sources, it is sometimes described as or assumed to be a Bigfoot and is sometimes treated as a distinct creature. Usage appears restricted primarily to a single purported sighting in 1965, which we don't describe. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Pre-BLAR content relied on a single source. The edit history reveals concerns for OR and notability. My search results confirm this does not pass GNG.
Per WP:R#8 - This is an implausible search term and overly specific minor character in a Netflix show. It is not a misnomer per se, but there is no use in creating pages for minor characters to redirect to a character list.
The user who created it made similar others, but as it does not perfectly fit for D8 I wanted to present one case before nominating them all. EvergreenFir(talk) 20:37, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Agree, very specific redirect. Not needed Avienby (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Recently User:162 etc. retargeted this redirect to point to Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters rather than the card game. This is understandable since Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game is entirely about the real-life trading card game, but at the same time, the fictional Duel Monsters game is played in far more than just the original series. I'm thinking it should either point to the main Yu-Gi-Oh! article or be disambiguated. The only thing that will decide this is a d-d-duel! I mean discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:54, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I'll note that Yu-Gi-Oh!, as it is written today, barely mentions "Duel Monsters" at all. At first glance, I'm not really seeing the need for WP:NOPRIMARY here. 162 etc. (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
At the very least, Duel Monsters is mentioned in the plot summary of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX, making it not a good thing to redirect to the first anime series. That's putting aside the fact that it's dubious Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters is even remotely close to a common name for the first show in the West, it may be better to simply call it Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:38, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 20:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
You've activated my Trap card! I would agree that the current target is not very informative. "Duel Monsters" was used heavily (at least in the seasons listed on the Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters page) as the in-universe name for the card game. The same may also apply to the video games, but I'm less familiar with those. Retargeting to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game#Comparison to other media might be an alternative as it at least talks about the TCG in reference to the anime/manga. Would need a hatnote on that section if we go with this option. --Crimson Bleeding SouIIs (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Surprisingly not mentioned at the target. Delete per WP:RETURNTORED unless a suitable section is written in the current target or another suitable target discussing the topic can be found. The closest possible target I could find was Terry's Chocolate Orange but it's certainly not the only brand selling orange-flavoured chocolate out there (e.g. Aero sells an orange version mentioned in the article, and if you want to stretch what counts as orange chocolate, there's Jaffa Cakes too) 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:15, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Orange was mentioned as a flavour, but the section was removed with the summary "Moving text to EU specific section". It could be restored or added to Chocolate#Flavors, which currently mentions mint, but not orange. Peter James (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this could also refer to orange-coloured chocolate made from a white chocolate base (commonly found for example in France for Easter or Halloween ) but we don't seem to have any content about this type of coloured chocolate. In the absence of any specific content, delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The event is not mentioned in the body of the article. Mention was added at the time of the redirect's creation in November 2023 and subsequently removed about 6 months later. This appears to be a rather small event that is appropriately not covered in the article, especially relative to all the other Bigfoot events and tourist attractions out there. According to this 2020 Daily Jeffersonian article, the conferences attracted about 400 attendees annually in the years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The event does receive a passing mention in three articles: Patterson–Gimlin film, Bobcat Goldthwait, and Minerva Monster. None of these provide general information about the conference, nor would they be appropriate places to add such coverage. Search results would show readers the brief coverage that we do have in these articles. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
This is the official DelDOT designation for the bridge, but it is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia and could be potentially confusing to readers. Given that there is no longer a section on the Christina River Bridge, there is also nowhere to really add this information. This might be best deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 19:07, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. A quick search suggests that the bridge is non-notable, barring some WP:ROUTINE coverage it received when it had to be closed for emergency repairs in 2014. When not filtering for sources about the bridge specifically, "1-813" appears to only yield search results about the 813 area code; I'm skeptical that someone would insert the country code to search for area codes 813 and 656, so I support deletion over retargeting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
This is not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Casablanca 🪨(T) 19:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is tagged as a {{R from merge}} but what occurred is actually a BLAR preceded by this edit where mostly different information not found in the original was added to the target article. The pre-BLAR content is a single sentence plus an infobox. This can safely be deleted. Note that the redirect targets Naphthalene#Naphthalene derivatives, a section which has been removed entirely from the article. If for some reason this is kept, the erroneous {{R from merge}} tag should be removed. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Restore stub. It is not a foregone conclusion that the article would not be kept at Afd, therefore we should not be deleting it here. There are plenty of similar stubs for small molecules around and this one is no different, if there are notability concerns, Afd is the venue to address that (or even WP:PROD). As a redirect now without a mention, the best resolution is to revert the WP:BLAR. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
While there are a lot of football formations listed at this article, 1-6-3 is not one of them and I cannot find anywhere else to properly target it. Casablanca 🪨(T) 19:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Template:Relist
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
This template name is a common typo for {{reflist}}, leading to XfD relist notices being displayed where they should not be displayed, with no indication that this is an error. I recommend that either (a) something clever be done to display an error message when this template name is used, or (b) this redirect be deleted and not recreated after all 100+ transclusions have been replaced (manually) with the correct template, and scripts have been updated as needed (I don't see any recent script-based placement of this template, but it might be hiding somewhere). – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
I note that none of the transclusions are in article or wikipedia namespaces (apart from a single occurrence in an old RfD); almost all are in user sandboxes or user subpages entitled "citing sources", created with the edit history "automatic post as part of sandbox guided tour". I can't quickly find where the sources for that guided tour live, but I assume that the typo existed in a previous version and has now been fixed. Assuming that to be the case, delete to avoid future recurrence.Rosbif73 (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I found the guided tour and walked through it. It recommends "Reflist" but may have had a typo in the past (it's run a bunch of JavaScript that I didn't have access to). Also, the recommendation in the tour required/requires new editors to manually type "Reflist" into the Visual Editor template selection dialog, which may have been subject to error. Without a bunch of further research, I don't know if the errors were caused by a typo in the JavaScript instructions or by editors making typos. Given the volume of errors, I suspect the former. In any event, "relist" seems like a likely typo for "reflist" and does not appear to be used by XfD, which is all or mostly script-driven anyway, so a shortcut template name should not be needed. [Caveat: This whole talk page post contains a bunch of guesses and surmises. Actual facts are welcome.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think the latter, people misreading "reflist" or auto-correct auto-correcting it. There are 43423 "User:*/citing sources" pages, and the ones having the typoed template don't seem to be clustered. Anomie⚔ 21:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete seems a very good and neat solution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
don't do anything yet, just so this gets relisted
then delete per above, including an extremely weak addition of the possibility of confusion in non-xfd uses consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 18:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I definitely welcome this RfD being relisted, if only for the comedy value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
The most policy-based way to do this would be to make all of our !votes conditional. We can say "Oppose unless this RfD is relisted". This way, the closer needs to relist the discussion, but then they can immediately close it because WP:RELIST says A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. So, as soon as the discussion is relisted, all our dormant conditional !votes immediately become valid, and therefore consensus is reached but only immediately after relisting. FaviFake (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nominator's rationale. Great and easy way to prevent these issues. Nobody uses that redirect anyway, everyone uses XFDcloser. FaviFake (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe disambiguate given Template:RM relist but I don't see a problem with the current target otherwise given WP:RELIST goes to the deletion meaning and typos probably shouldn't prevent actual spellings. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, they should if the template is virtually only ever used through a user script like XFDcloser. FaviFake (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I share the concerns expressed by those who !voted to keep this just one year ago. The idea of a dab was also shut down there. There are over 500 existing links to this (now redirected) template. Given that this template is substituted, we cannot actually say how common the use of this is (though I will admit that XfD closer likely does get the vast use-majority these days). However, we should not count on gadgets continuing to function in the future and let our plain old relisting system decay. No opposition to something clever to prevent any potential disruptions to the mainspace when this happens to be misinvoked once in a blue moon. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:58, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
we should not count on gadgets continuing to function in the future and let our plain old relisting system decay. What? Nothing stops us from creating a better shortcut like {{xfdr}} or {{rlist}}. Our plain old relisting system won't decay if this is deleted. FaviFake (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Those shortcuts are not better. This was the (15-year) original name of the template, which has existed for 20 years. Manual relisting will only be hampered if this cannot be substituted. Furthermore, people merely looking for this template for one reason or another may be severely set back. The benefit of deletion does not outweigh the boon of its retention. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:09, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, then I guess we just disagree. FaviFake (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Surprise! Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 01:47, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
I hope this is a joke relist? There are 5 "delete" !votes and one "keep" !vote... FaviFake (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
*Puts on serious hat* I think this is a good example of when a discussion should be relisted despite there being a consensus. For a litany of reasons, another week looks likely to change the outcome, and the outcome is reasonably important by RfD standards. J947 ‡ edits 02:29, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Godsy and arguments raised in the last RFD. I am persuaded by the arguments that the potential downside of deleting these redirects from longstanding former names for these templates is greater than the hypothetical benefit. This may be a common typo for {{Reflist}} but the error would be immediately evident in article space, which is likely why this is not a live issue. The erroneous usage in a few sandboxes is not actually harmful. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I genuinely don't have an opinion on the nomination, but as a reply to the "this shows up when people make a typo" folk - if this is kept, just set a namespace-conditional check so that if this template is not in the WP space (because as far as I am aware that is the only location the template should be used) it gives a more-visible error that directs the person to rethink their life choices. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@Jonesey95 or anyone else, would you be able to create such a warning, and categorise the page in an error category when it is shown? FaviFake (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I use this regularly, and have just now learned it was a redirect. (I did so long before the 2020 discussion that moved it.) I can try to get in the habit of using {{XfD relist}} instead, but I don't love the idea of such disruption just because someone elsewhere may make a mistake. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I'm convinced by BDD's user experience combined with Primefac's idea for a more-visible error message. --Tavix(talk) 16:41, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep and add an error message when used outside the Wikipedia namespace. It's probably not a good idea to delete a long-standing name for an important template because it could be a typo for a different template. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 03:27, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LIrala (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned at target, though the first of these was originally merged into it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LIrala (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
It stands for "CSX Intermodal". (see eg. , ) There are a few mentions of it around Wikipedia. Seems to be synonymous with "CSXT Intermodal". The pages mentioning CSXI all seem to be old, so it may be that there was some corporate restructuring. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 21:25, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LIrala (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
CSX has officially abbreviated CSX Intermodal as CSXI in the past, per some primary sources such as this press release even though their reporting mark is actually CXVZ. I'm not seeing some more recent secondary sources refer to them as that, but still leaning weak keep. TruenoCity (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
This could be re-directed to Real Sociedad or (highly unlikely) Society (disambiguation) (Spanish for "sociedad"). Noteworthy to see that Google Search results show more results for the La Liga club than the El Salvador municipality, plus back when this redirect was created, the target at the time was too short than the club's page at that time. —SimpleObjects-9ei 🍂/🌰/🤗 (see talk) 14:22, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I do think of Real Sociedad first, but I'm a football fan, and I note that Sociedad alone isn't even listed as one of the nicknames in the article. I see in the hatnote there's a Honduran C.D. Real Sociedad too. As things stand, though, I'm leaning keep, with the idea that the Salvadoran municipality is the only thing properly referred to in English as Sociedad alone. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The football clubs are only partial title matches (ineligible for disambiguation). External search results don't exclude partial title matches, so don't necessary reflect the primary topic for Sociedad by itself. I've added a hatnote to Sociedad, El Salvador on the off chance that someone does expect to be redirected to one of the football clubs, but as BDD notes, Sociedad isn't a nickname of the clubs. The clubs are more likely to be known as (La) Real ("[the] Royal") or variations thereof than Sociedad ("Society") per the nicknames listed in the respective articles for the Spanish/Basque and Honduran clubs. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:56, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LIrala (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Most of the entries there use the full name, but a couple do abbreviate to Sociedad, eg. 'What a way to open your account' - Guedes with Sociedad's winner. I think the hatnote I added handles this adequately, though since the name has been abbreviated to Sociedad in some sources, the clubs probably are eligible for disambiguation (or at least 1 is). – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 02:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This is the proper name of the town and only part of the name of the football club(s). —An anonymous username,not my real name 22:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I mostly agree with the nomination (2024 Iran–Israel conflict would be the way to go), although any of the redirects that specifically mention "Israeli retaliatory strikes" could potentially be confusing since Israel attacked Iran first on two separate occasions (technically, Israel retaliated in response to Iran's retaliation both times, but this subtlety is lost in redirect titles). Section links wouldn't work here since there were two separate sets of exchanges of attacks by the two countries. My verdict is redirect all except the "Israeli retaliatory strikes" (unsure on these) to 2024 Iran–Israel conflict. —An anonymous username,not my real name 22:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
This originally targeted 1 John 5, which was an article, but that was merged into First Epistle of John in 2020 and the content around verse 20 seems to not be there or anywhere else of note anymore. This might be best deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 17:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
These redirects seem to be mentioned a bit in different articles, but none cover the topics in proper depth. I'm far from an expert in higher-level Euclidean geometry though, so it is very possible I'm missing something. Casablanca 🪨(T) 17:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the topic but I notice that these redirects were all created by a now blocked user who made a very large number of very similar and overly detailed articles on geometrical shapes before getting blocked for decidedly non-mathematical reasons. Nobody else seems to care about them. A great many of his articles have already been deleted for covering non-notable and arbitrary examples drawn from an infinite range of possible shapes. It seems unlikely to me that anybody would search for one of these specific examples rather than for a more generic topic covering their family. Of course, I don't understand the topic so I could be wrong, but, unless anybody knowledgeable about this subject can give a reason otherwise, I think we should lean delete on these. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
unmentioned... uh... work? some results imply that this may or may not be the actual title of a painting that may or may not exist and may or may not have been made by vinny (results are really inconclusive on which one it even may or may not be), his general palette(s), his literal palette, a work based on his literal palette, or a picture of his literal palette. seems to be one of many batches of those kinds of redirects from the creator, though why they're at different targets is beyond me
also the subtitle formatting on the latter two is implausible, but you don't need me to say it consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This is an unmentioned redirect that requires some explanation at the target in order to be helpful. This is a persona known for prank calls and parody songs that is apparently "frequently associated with" the radio show. I am unable to find reliable sources that would support adding content to the target. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
If someone searched "Ned Mandingo" they are expecting to find information about, well, Ned Mandingo. And we have none. When we don't cover a topic, we shouldn't have a redirect to nowhere that will only confuse, mislead, or irritate readers who've expected to find a discussion of the thing they've clicked on or searched for. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Then we should add info about Ned to the page and redirect to that, it seems to be a prevalent character considering 100+ videos in the playlist Avienby (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find any reliable sources. If you have better luck and suitable content is added and survives reversion, that should "rescue" this redirect. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Move "gigaleak" to redirect to Internet leak as it has become a more generalized term for huge leaks. Change this redirect to "Nintendo gigaleak". Avienby (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Most recently the term "gigaleak" was used for a Cartoon Network asset leak, and using the term in History of Cartoon Network has led to arguing since the redirect is for the Nintendo gigaleak. However, sources listed, especially Gizmodo, refer to it as a gigaleak Avienby (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
If there's now two possible terms for Gigaleak, neither being used in the respective page title but mentioned in prose, then the solution is to make the redirect page a disambiguation page for the two possible terms. Masem (t) 11:20, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
what happens if a third major "gigaleak" occurs? I don't disagree with this, I'm just wondering about whether gigaleak will be a disambiguation in tbe future or a full fledged article once enough cases occur. For now though, I agree with disambiguation. Avienby (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
then we expand the disambiguation page, or if for sone reason there becomes a leak that clearly gets the primary topic for the term "gigaleak" to have its own page, hat notes to point to others. Key is that "gigaleak" is a searchable term, and we just need to make sure the reader can find the version they want. Masem (t) 13:39, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation seems like the best option Avienby (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
No information about this summer camp for kids, at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was an unsourced stub from 2006 that lasted about 2 months before it was PRODed and merged. And the merged content removed within 2 months as part of a cleanup. Delete, and no need to retain the pre-redirect content. Jay 09:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete until there's a use onwiki that's something closer to a definition than a product being used as an example. ScalarFactor (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 07:41, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
(Creator) Good catch. Delete and let the search engine handle the query. Interestingly, the hatnote on ja:コロナ does not link to ja:トヨタ・コロナ (Toyota Corona). feminist🩸 (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Search results aren't that helpful because the majority of uses on English Wikipedia are in reference titles Traumnovelle (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Retarget to corona dab page, as there are at least two relevant Japan-related targets. Covid-19 response is likely the more primary topic over the Toyota, but considering jawiki's target, I think this a case of the term being too general to determine a primary. Search results wouldn't be very helpful if the redirect were deleted, as the word appears in the references of many pages. --Crimson Bleeding SouIIs (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per Soulls LIrala (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The two Japan-related entries are Toyota Corona, which features the katakana, and Corona (Takemitsu), which does not include the katakana. The Corona dab page does of course list SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 but of course does not list Japan or any other individual country's response. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Corona dab page. There are now several entries on the page where "コロナ" appears in the article. Ultimately, I don't know how helpful this will be to readers. Corona is a very long dab page and the katakana does not appear there so readers will have to hunt around. The association with COVID-19 pandemic in Japan is obvious but I don't think this is a reasonable way to search for this. The extreme global interest in the pandemic perhaps increases the plausibility but it is reasonably likely that readers would be searching for the name of one of the other Japanese topics with the native name "コロナ" as opposed to using a shortened form of the Japanese for "coronavirus". —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
There is no U.S. Route 8 in Montana, United States ~2026-55862-17 (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Tagged redirect since it wasn't tagged by the nom. CycloneYoristalk! 00:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete—US Highway 8 has never been designated in Montana, nor was it ever proposed to be in that state. There is no mention of Montana in the article that is a target for the redirect, thus I find it odd that this redirect was ever created. Without some rational basis, it should be deleted. Imzadi1979→ 00:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. I've bundled in a couple variants. --Tavix(talk) 13:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 08:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Support as nom of the last time, also noticed that suddenly there were many people using edit request instead of Request edit. It's pretty clear this will need to be redirected as well. Theeverywherepersontalk hereIn solidarity! 13:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Template names and aliases (redirects) should be intuitive. I would expect {{Edit request}} and {{Request edit}} to be the most generic or widely used type, not specifically COI. I don't work in this area, so I don't want to put my thumb on the scales, but this just seems odd to me. Also, any idea why this is happening? How are so many editors learning the wrong way to place or categorize these requests? —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
No. I have no idea how or why so many people are using the incorrect template, and the majority of these requests are some sort of COI request. To make sure that this doesn't cause more damage than the {{Request edit}} discussion did and if consensus moves against a retarget, I suggest that if we can't retarget, then we could program a bot to go through the open transclusions and those that mention COI could be changed. Theeverywherepersontalk hereIn solidarity! 15:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Or those that are on pages that weren't protected as of the date it was requested be changed automatically. meamemg (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Ariana Grande is not known mononymously. Either redirect to Ariana (name), or plain outright delete as an implausible search term, and I personally lean to delete as there is no good anchor for the redirect at Ariana (name). Similar discussions: here, and here. Oh, and same target, but not quite similar discussion as it was about a shorter name, but here is another similar discussion. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
This kind of redirect is the type that I wouldn't recommend creating, but since it already exists, it's not worth the cost of deleting, or even talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Hmmm. There are other people named Ariana who are singers, but there is also another Trump (president) (Clifford Trump, former president of Idaho State University). Ariana Grande is without a doubt the most prominent singer with the given name Ariana. I say keep because it does appear that her fans affectionately call her by her first name, even if she isn't widely known mononymously. —An anonymous username,not my real name 20:33, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
The lack of a mention does seem like an issue. We have Spawning#Spawning grounds, though that's limited to aquatic animals. Best we can say for Habitat is the mention of supporting species reproduction. I'd like to represent the biological concept somehow; the band looks somewhat obscure. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
The biological concept is undoubtedly the primary topic. I wouldn't object to moving Breeding Ground (band) to Breeding Ground, but would object to redirecting the lowercase breeding ground there. Though WP:PRIMARYRED is concerned with disambiguation pages, "[t]he existing article is not automatically the primary topic nor is there automatically no primary topic" is still relevant here. The band should not be treated as though it is the primary topic for breeding ground just because it exists and an article about the biological concept does not. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 16:48, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as return to red, unless someone volunteers to add substantial content before this RfD closes. This is a surprising gap in Wikipedia's coverage. The current target only mentions reproduction twice, one them being irrelevant as it pertains to microbes (which don't have breeding grounds). – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 16:51, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget. I am open to turning this page into a soft redirect to a Wiktionary definition, since the term "breeding ground" is also used idiomatically. AlphaBeta135talk 17:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
The existence of a soft redirect would discourage the creation of an article or section to fill the coverage gap. The biological/ecological concept is certainly notable. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 17:24, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete to encourage creation. We should absolutely give priority to encyclopedic concepts over idioms (there may be overlap between the two at times, but definitely not here). —An anonymous username,not my real name 20:35, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Unneeded redirect. Only one letter off from target. If this redirect did not exist, typing it into the search bar would result in the first search suggestion being the target. International Fujita scale (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per the arguments in the previous RfDs. Redirects that only save one click are less helpful than most, but still helpful when used 600 times a year. It's only harmful to the extent that people keep nominating it at RfD. J947 ‡ edits 23:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
If you'd stop showing up to oppose deletion, then it would stop getting nominated at RFD...problem solved. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 21:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Nah this redirect naturally leans no consensus keep so if I !vote keep I'm simply expediting a foregone conclusion.:-) J947 ‡ edits 06:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Nothing has changed since the last RFD, which found consenus to keep. Several editors in that discussion found this redirect useful, so I'm against deleting it unless someone can demonstrate a harm it's doing. I agree with J947 that the page views are nontrivial. Chessenjoyer (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Delet random end-letter deletion, the same type of which can be done to any of our millions of other articles (and countless more other redirects). This holds no particular affinity to the target, and the search feature already suggests the correct article to the wayward typist. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 07:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete This is (at best) a lazy misspelling, not really a likely search. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment Note that the nominator has been globally locked for long term abuse.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per J947, this is a useful redirect. --Tavix(talk) 14:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Deacon Vorbis. Mgasparin (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:01, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This is not a likely term that could be misspelled as Trump's name is well-known from media reporting. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:R#K5. Readers objectively do use it. This has >9,500 total all-time views with a daily average of 2 a day. Google search results also provide examples of this appearing off-Wikipedia. (eg. VTV9headline: Trung Quốc đón trọng thể Tổng thống Mỹ Donald Trum, Világgazdaságarticle: ...újdonság számára Donald Trum bejelentése...) I don't necessarily support creating other end-letter deletion redirects, but I also see no strong case for deleting this one given it gets good traffic. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 16:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Note, both examples I linked are non-English, but that's just a coincidence. Both of them use Donald Trump elsewhere, demonstrating that Trum is a misspelling even in the relevant languages. English-language results also appear (eg. TVC Newsvia YouTube) including social media (a lot of results were Facebook or Instagram posts). – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 16:45, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Delet redirec wit on lette chippe of i no plausibl searc term, an therefor no goo redirec. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
If it's not plausible, why have thousands of readers used it? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:35, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I've stricken your second bolded delete, you only get one. Can you confirm if this is a serious !vote? If you're being serious, it does not read that way. --Tavix(talk) 17:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
It is a serious vote. I will tell you that. I don't honestly want to escalate this into a fullblown argument, so I'd prefer to just leave it here. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More editors have advocated deletion than keeping thus far. Given the nominator's global lock and the previous discussion, however, more participation could help. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@AlphaBeta135: If it's implausible, why have thousands of readers used it? Why was I able to find examples off-Wikipedia in news reporting in three different languages (English, Vietnamese, Hungarian) and social media? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 17:42, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PANDORA. Such redirects are not helpful in my opinion, and should not be created, and we should not be encouraging their creation by keeping prominent examples that exist, though I note past consensus is to keep such redirects. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
No mention at target. Seem to have been intended for the alt.capt. at Triple Baka which was deleted. Rose Abrams (TCL) 11:15, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Rose Abrams. A mention was added during the previous rfd (which I was the nominator of), but appears to have been removed since then. Chessenjoyer (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
The target link appears to be broken. There is no Lithuania section under the Limited liability company article. ~2026-55977-78 (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. According to Google Translate, "uždaroji akcinė bendrovė" is the Lithuanian term for "private limited liability company"; the limited liability company article makes no suggestion that the concept of an LLC is especially tied to Lithuania or that Lithuania has a unique form of it. In short, no clear reason why this redirect would be useful for the English Wikipedia. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as there are no such sections and no information about Minefield at the target. There is an unsourced mention at Cherrypal, a computer company, but that cannot be a target. These were articles that were BLAR'ed 15-20 years back, and the pre-redirect content need not be retained unless trying to merge somewhere, which was suggested at its AfD in 2006, and also for Minefield (trunk build) at its RfD, earlier this month, but which did not happen.
The creator of MineField Browser kept claiming it was a browser, despite opposition at his talk page, and after it was BLAR'ed, recreated it as Mozilla Minefield, which was also immediately BLAR'ed. Firefox minefield was created later by another account, but was also BLAR'ed within 10 minutes. Jay 09:25, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as there's no information about this term at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. When it was BLAR'ed, the target at the time didn't have a mention as well. There was a Google Doodle celebrating Fred Rogers, but that would not be named this way, and would not be an ATD. Jay 16:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Stubify with the draft at User:Godsy/Google Fred. Just barely seems able to muster and meet core content standards. Might be merged somewhere eventually or expanded. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:23, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete for now. I'm not necessarily opposed to Godsy's suggestion, but don't know the topic well enough to affirmatively say we should publish the draft now. I'd rather let the usual processes play out. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I've just come across this obscure and slightly spammy redirect created using domainRedirect, which is a good idea for organisations but not such a good one for people in general IMO, perhaps unless their website address is a core part of their brand or something. I rewrote the article last year (this is what it looked like before I got there ... the person creating the redirect was trying to help me with a related issue) and I can pretty much guarantee that the subject isn't known by their website name at all. Graham87 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I agree {{R from domain name}} for an individual is unusual, but I don't see anything wrong with it. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
This title and the title above target the same title, but for potential perceived trainwreck purposes, I've nominated them separately so as for it to be judged in its own right. Checking through the page history of the target, it seems like there were conflicting, disputable tile to best describe the article under the current title target. What do you the community think? Intrisit (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, the target does describe Nicolás Maduro's presidency/ies(?) and no other issues have been presented. This is not the correct forum to discuss the title of the target (that would be the talk page (informally) or WP:RM (formally)). --Tavix(talk) 16:46, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
This is not the correct forum to discuss the title of the target. I'm wondering if you thought it was my intention to change the target's title rather than delete this and the one below as unnecessary. Because the target already has all the recorded info of the Maduro government from 2013 to date, just that unlike the similar American and British counterparts, this doesn't get as much coverage and editing to the point where XC/ECP is needed for them. Take the US government's intervention in Venezuela as an example; as an admin, you saw how relentless it unfolded, even ECP was invoked because US politics was involved, yet no PP was invoked on this title nor its target despite the attention they were (if not are) received/receiving. It should tell you something! Intrisit (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
This is also not the correct forum to rant about page protections. --Tavix(talk) 13:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep The idea that Maduro had multiple presidencies does seem unusual to me. If someone holds a presidency continuously, even in changing circumstances like Maduro's, I'd call that a single presidency. George W. Bush or Barack Obama, for example—you could discuss their second terms, but not second presidencies. Chester A. Arthur or Donald Trump, yes, in that case they had second terms, which were also their second presidencies.
That said, the target article is framed as there being a first and second presidency, and Second presidency of Nicolás MaduroSecond presidency of Nicolás Maduro also redirects there. At a quick glance, this might represent WP:OR which we'd want to address, but the redirect has to follow the content, not the other way around. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
The funny thing here is that the "Second presidency..." article is/was created enough to invoke WP:MAD, hence the listings here. The target though has all recorded info of the Maduro government from 2013 to date, yet it's literally not like the American or British ones that gets coverage and edited so much within seconds that XC/ECP is needed. That's why I want both deleted! Intrisit (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
keep harmless. LIrala (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: This would be a reasonable misspelling if "environmental irresponsibility" were an established name for any concept, but I don't think this is the case. —An anonymous username,not my real name 20:41, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I could not find any reliable sources to suggest that I-694 ever existed in planning. The only source I could find was a Kurumi page, which is most likely a dubious self-published source. The FRR&P page also mentions "I-694", but the only reference the author provides is a Wikipedia article on Lake Shore Drive (2018 iteration). The Wikipedia article at the time suggested that "I-694" was the successor of I-494, but the AASHO minute in July 1966 (page 11) states that "The former location [of I-494] along the Lake Shore Drive is to be abandoned)[sic] as a portion of
the Interstate System". I suspected that I-694 never existed at all, even when the upgrade was planned, so I removed mentions of I-694 in articles like Lake Shore Drive, Stony Island Avenue, and Crosstown Expressway (Chicago). AlphaBeta135talk 01:02, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
The Herekino Forest is to the north of Herekino as per the article, but this isn't a helpful redirect with similar descriptions at Ahipara and Pukepoto. Suggest deletion in absence of any suitable target. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Northland Conservation Park. It is part of that park & mentioned in the list of forests in the article. Nurg (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
So there are actually two forests with this name... one west of Manukau North that is a commercial forest that is leased by a Maori trust and the Herekino Forest conservation park you mentioned to the west
The retarget is a good suggestion, although I'm now unsure what to do given that there are two forests here. I feel a conservation forest is the more likely target than a commercial one but the commercial one has multiple archaeological reports on it. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I can't readily find anything on the web about a commercial forest called Herekino Forest. In any event, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in any WP article. So we can retarget to Northland Conservation Park for now and reconsider if the commercial forest ever comes up in an article. Nurg (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
It has several archaeological reports available on Heritage New Zealand's greenstone library. Although we could just add a footnote that mentions the commercial forest and that it isn't to be confused with it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I see, yes, the exotic forest is down on the north side of Herekino Harbour. I'm still comfortable with retargeting to Northland Conservation Park. I don't feel bothered whether a footnote is or is not added. Nurg (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate; unless a better alternative can be found or consensus is established to remove the hatnotes and see also sections (the latter not necessarily being a great idea). Redirects, including soft redirects, do not contain any content. Link boxes are the exception because they are not content but navigational redirect aids in and of themselves. WP:TOU currently disambuguates between Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (in the hatnote), wmf:Policy:Terms of Use (the target of the soft redirect), and Wikipedia:Wikimedia policy (listed in the see also). WP:PRIV also does this in regard to two pages. Given the prominence of these pages, it is not a good to provide a poor example of a soft redirect (which can be an arcane subject of understanding) to so many (be it they seasoned or freshly minted). TOU, for example existed as non-redirect from 2004-2014, a proper soft redirect from 2014-2016, and was finally distorted in late 2016. Thus, while a disambiguation page (similar to e.g. WP:WMP) is not a perfect solution, it is an improvement. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:06, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Myceteae: I had imagined two separate technical 'disambiguation' pages, viz. Wikipedia:Terms of use & Wikipedia:Privacy policy. Whatever anyone finds appropriate to list on them is fine, such as WP:BLPPRIVACYWP:BLPPRIVACY & WP:PRIVACYWP:PRIVACY which you mention. They could even be converted to short information pages of sorts (or list, set index, etc.) if desired. I suppose my argument at its core is that these cease to be redirects. A redirect should not contain a see also section, hatnote, etc. (i.e. any form of disambuguating or other content); soft redirects are a technical solution applied when hard redirects are not able (intentionally or not software-wise) to function, but are still bound by the conventions of hard redirects (that is, no one would argue for content of any kind on a hard redirect—outside of an rcat or category which are entirely different beasts). If these are to remain as soft redirects, then the hatnotes, see also sections, etc. should be removed. Linkboxes or historical tags (the inclusion limit) are sometimes present—e.g. Wikipedia:Ambassador Program & WP:VAIN—as navigational relics and due to deprecation respectively. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:25, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
I find disambiguation rather silly. I don't see the point of marking (Tag: Disambiguation links added) to every edit that links to the terms of use and privacy policy Wikipedia pages. This statement refers to more than those two pages, but also any other soft redirects converted into "disambiguation pages", for example Wikipedia:Trolling where certain talk pages of politicians get tagged as disambiguation links added. Unhelpful "disambiguating" clutters recent changes pages filtered with the disambiguation links tag, and marking former soft redirects that have "See also" content or hatnotes as disambiguation pages isn't helping anyone who patrols the addition of disambiguation links. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Just noting (after pondering) that perhaps a good solution would be to purify the soft redirects (i.e. leave just the soft redirect template on the pages by removing any hat notes, see also sections, etc.). {{Legal policy}} could remain, or it could be converted to {{shortcut}} (and Category:Wikipedia policies, Category:Wikipedia legal policies, or both could be retained manually if desired).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:11, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
@Godsy, I guess the question is: Do we think the pseudo-dab setup is helpful? In other words, are readers who type or click one of these reasonably likely to expect to find a different policy/page than the redirect target? Or maybe readers don't know what they are looking for but are wondering if we have a terms of use or privacy policy. The likelihood that some disambiguation is helpful seems high to me but I don't know how people actually end up on these pages or what they expect. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Not currently mentioned at the target, and while a mention could conceivably be squeezed in, I imagine WP:REDYES would be more helpful for editors. This publication appears notable and deserving of a standalone article. I advise deletion. —An anonymous username,not my real name 19:59, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete/Comment I would have expected this to be a misspelling for Cambridge Footlights Revue. However, that doesn't seem to be the case so support deletion per nom. The top result when I search for 'Cambridge Review' is an online magazine in Cambridge, MA, so until there is an article on the Cambridge University magazine we can't really say that it is the primary topic. Robminchin (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Xbox 720
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn by nominator
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: delete or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 16:06, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Mentioned in a bunch of articles but not described anywhere; was originally merged into the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
The MIPS article infobox does mention it supports both types of endianness, and el in this case means little endian, but it's not obvious, it requires either prior knowledge or a fair bit of research to surmise that from the current article content. We should probably just add a sentence about it. --Joy (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
1234qwer1234qwer4, Joy, there are two terms, "mipsel" and "mipsle" that both seem to refer to MIPS little endian. The term "mipsel" is probably best known for its use by Debian and derivatives (and that's probably what most readers are looking for when they search for it), so changing the target to Debian release version history#Debian 13 (Trixie) may also work. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:36, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
that seems to be an implausible romanization of an implausible reading of a misremembering of the japanese title of thus spoke rohan kishibe with a subtitle i know too little of japanese to find info on (literally none of those layers of implausibility are a joke), and also there were no results for this exact title anywhere that i could find consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 15:18, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Several layers of implausibility. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. No clear evidence of usage to contradict that this is implausible. All-time traffic is indistinguishable from usual background traffic that all redirects eventually collect just by existing. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:15, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Why would it be? The phrase doesn't appear in that article at all. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, this is an alternative name for the flag as mentioned in the lead sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
According to the article, its alternative name is "An Appeal to Heaven". ——🦝 The InteraccoonaleWill be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 15:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep as an alternate name. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
There is no indication in the article of why Mahoré redirects to Mayotte. There used to be a mention of "Mahore" in previous versions but not in the current version, and the word doesn't appear in the native-language article fr:Mayotte. fr:Mahore redirects to fr:Grande-Terre (Mayotte), so I suggest English Wikipedia does the same and we: retarget Mahoré and Mahore to Grande-Terre, Mayotte; add "also called Mayotte Island, or Mahoré in shimaoré) to the lead; and delete the hatnote at Mayotte. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
If you can find some WP:RS to cite, you can be WP:BOLD and make the change without asking permission. jnestorius(talk) 15:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. Grande-Terre, Mayotte is called Maore or Mahori according to its infobox. And here is a reliable source that calls the island Mahoré (e.g. "Opposition to independence on Mahoré was organized [...]" – emphasis mine): https://countrystudies.us/comoros/7.htmJoe vom Titan (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: in French, for which Mayotte of course has affinity, mahoré is an alternative spelling of mahorais, which translates as the adjective mahoran, i.e. either the demonym or the language; the alternative name for the island is usually spelled maoré. One solution would be to retarget to mahoran and add a mention of the French equivalents in the opening sentence of that dab page. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: multiple targets have been suggested Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 14:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
an interesting case for a possessive form redirect (to which the usual answer would be telling you to check the incoming links for "delete's"), in that this will instead come down to "weak delete as vague" with differing definitions of jojo, and even just within the context of abnormal proceeding of jojo (where it's vague with mid-sentence/title uses for every jojo and every piece of media separate from the manga)
also, don't note that the creator was blocked for socking with the original block having occurred before, i'm pretty sure the timeline of this sock's block or the block being over socking doesn't match to warrant a g5consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 13:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I've definitely heard "Jojo's" as shorthand for the title. Sure, it could also be a possessive form of anything on the disambiguation page, but we typically delete such possessive redirects. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
so have i, but as was the case with prime 1, those uses were limited to contexts and discussions already about jjba consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 15:19, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I've also seen it in discussions of anime more broadly, e.g., "My top anime are Inuyasha, JoJo's, and Naruto", or "If you liked JoJo's, try...". Not as common shorthand as JJBA, but still. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep While this could also arguably refer to JoJo's Circus, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure appears to be the primary topic. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. WP:PTOPIC states that a topic is primary with respect to usage if it is more likely than all the other topics combined (emph. added). Looking at everything listed at Jojo and its Massviews analysis (latest 90d), it seems unlikely. This could be the possessive form of so many of the entries at Jojo, especially since the redirect does not use the capitalisation JoJo, which would narrow the list of relevant titles. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 17:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per BDD. --Tavix(talk) 18:53, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Leaning keep — it is a fairly common shorthand for the series, and it's not clear what exactly someone searching "Jojo's" as a possessive of someone named Jojo would be expecting to find. —An anonymous username,not my real name 20:03, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, this is a very very rare case where a possessive redirect actually makes sense. JoJo's-the-possessive is a common shorthand for JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, and in general it doesn't make sense to search for a possessive otherwise. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
keep per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Too vague, also could be WP:SURPRISING for people searching for a list of, well, physical stands. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as hopelessly vague. Stand is a disambiguation page; it has no primary topic, so it would be inappropriate to use this as the descriptive title of a WP:stand-alone list. Stand §Objects is also a "list of stands", using the more common sense of the word. However, I don't think we should redirect there as it's section of a disambiguation, not a list article, so that would be misleading to both readers and editors regarding the format of the target (the target is not intended to be a stand-alone list; it follows different guidelines). Also worth noting the section the redirect currently points to does not exist. Wikipedia seems to not have a list of "stands" in the JJBA sense anymore. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:08, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - this would be fairly-self explanatory if there actually were a list of Stands in JoJo at the target, but there is not, and adding one would be undue weight towards in-universe elements/plot summary. That sort of information is far better off on a site like the JoJo wiki, which has a good reputation among fans, as far as I know. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
delete as vague per above. This RfD must be the work of an enemy stand! --Lenticel(talk) 00:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Absolutely nonsensical for the average reader (delete). --Joy (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
These were silently retargeted here per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 26#Shamone with the comment I'm redirecting the "ch" variants as well, despite both commenters not expressing an opinion on them. If there's any objection to that feel free to re-nominate them separately. Well, I object. It makes absolutely no sense for Wikipedia to have a redirect to Wiktionary from a term that Wiktionary itself doesn't have a page on; if the spelling variation were truly important, Wiktionary, which is supposed to have lower standards in this area than us, would have noted it. Suggest deletion. * Pppery *it has begun... 19:39, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
As original closer, no strong opinion either way. Rusalkii (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I'm usually skeptical of Wiktionary redirects, but as long as we do something for this phrase, it makes sense to be generous with the spelling. I'm not even sure there's an "official" one, and ch- rather than sh- is reasonable. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Chamone and cha'mone are both used at Bo' Selecta!, and clips from the show on YouTube also use "ch" spellings. The show may have contributed to the popularity of these spellings. However, Chamone is also an unrelated surname so traffic to that redirect may be from mixed sources. Wikipedia doesn't appear to have any articles about people with this surname, but there are few mentions in articles (eg. 9 Horses mentions someone called "Rafael Chamone") – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 21:23, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete both Term does exist, but does not seem to be that notable. In addition, this alternate spelling isn't mentioned on Wiktionary. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
This is rather confusing. SUSE LINUX is a disambiguation of which Suse linux redirects to and all of the other alternative capitalizations redirect to OpenSUSE. Does WP:DIFFCAPS or WP:DIFFPUNCT apply, and if so, which cases would it apply to? Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
RetargetSUSE linux and SUSE LINUX → OpenSUSE. It seems like OpenSUSE is the true successor to the original SUSE Linux, with the enterprise version being a slightly different tangential entity. So the majority of redirects above are already correct. There was a merger two years ago which took all content from the original SUSE Linux page over to OpenSUSE as well. —Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
There is no mention of "FUSE ZFS", "port", or "Linux" at the target. In addition, the target is a broken section link. Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
And Oracle ZFS refers to Oracle's proprietary version, which would only be available for Linux if Oracle had ported it. Most ports are based on the open-sourced OpenSolaris version, so ZFS would be a better target, although it also mentions FUSE only in the infobox and one table and doesn't mention any Linux port in any detail. But no page refers to this, so it's probably there just in case anybody searches Wikipedia for information about a FUSE-based port of ZFS to Linux, in which case just throwing them at the ZFS page would suffice. Guy Harris (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Confusing; maybe a disambiguation is appropriate? Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
No, a dab wouldn't be good as they're all related subtopics of Linux kernel. A WP:SIA would also not be good.
Suggest: redir all to Linux kernel#Scheduling and maybe put a section redirect hatnote (or see also) to RTLinux (although it is already covered in the article). Ideally a real-time section of the article would fix it.Widefox; talk 20:13, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate as this seems to be an ambiguous term. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Railway heritage magazine/periodical not mentioned at target. It is also linked as a see also from NSW Rail Museum without any further elaboration. The pre-BLAR content is sourced solely to the National Library of Australia/Trove, which is simply just a catalogue listing, the article lasting from 2009 to 2021 and BLARed again in 2022.
Keep. It is verifiable that the topic indeed exists. This is a great alternative to a full article and aids searches. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I would prefer that a mention is added (however brief) so that readers aren't WP:ASTONISHED by a lack of information about this magazine. This isn't obviously immediately synonymous with the target (an organisation or a museum). Fork99 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
That has already been done as a reference is included in the article. I will also move that information across to the Transport Heritage NSW article very soon. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, a section on the publication has now been added to NSW Rail Museum. Perhaps rather than being WP:ASTONISHED, it would be more productive for editors to fix the problem rather than nominating for deletion. Siighns (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Speedy refine to Transport Heritage NSW#Publications or retarget to NSW Rail Museum#Publications per above. I still don't know what the better target is and there probably shouldn't be duplicate information about this magazine across both articles. Who is actually responsible for this magazine, the umbrella organisation (Transport Heritage NSW), or the museum part of the organisation? Fork99 (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:40, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. There are no football teams titled this way so this is not a plausible way to search for any of them. --Tavix(talk) 16:25, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:11, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:39, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete While it is reasonable to assume that someone searching this would be looking for football teams in Cincinnati, it's also reasonable that they might be looking for the Cincinnati NFL team but just forgot the name. Best to delete and let search guide them. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
No mention of either spelling of weenie at either of the target articles; unclear which (if either) is preferable. Alternatively retarget to Weenie dab page? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Saveloy and sausage at least mention the term cocktail sausage. --Joy (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Cocktail sausage redirects to Saveloy; perhaps it ought to be bundled here too? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
It seems too specific. People seem to use this term for a generic small-format sausage, regardless of the contents. Maybe we could document it in List of sausages#By type instead. --Joy (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Agreed that it's too specific; I've bundled it into this discussion. A mention somewhere on List of sausages would indeed seem like a good idea. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak retarget, but where? While Handegg is an accepted alternative spelling of the Swiss village Handeck (see my reply to the nomination below), Hand Egg as two words (or hyphenated Hand-egg, which I've bundled into this discussion) would seem less likely to refer to that locality and more likely to refer to the slang term for a sport that involves handling an egg-shaped ball–though that usage of the term doesn't seem to be mentioned on wiki with the exception of the existing redirects for American handegg, Australian handegg and Canadian Handegg. Perhaps the generic Gridiron football would be a better target? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
On further thought, target both to Handeck and add a hatnote linking to wikt:hand-egg–unless a mention of the slang term is added somewhere, in which case target that mention.Rosbif73 (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Please merge this and the discussion below. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
The rationale for these is not quite the same as for Handegg (one word), so I think it's preferable to keep the discussions separate. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. As far as I know, no sources use the spellings "Hand Egg" or "Hand-egg" for the village in Switzerland. I think these spellings are only used for the joke about different kinds of football. But American football isn't a good target either – if a reader is trying to understand what the term "Hand Egg" means, the American football article doesn't adequately answer the question; instead the reader is likely to think they've ended up at that page by mistake. —Mx. Granger(talk·contribs) 22:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The nominator is referring to the their rationale for another (now closed) discussion, i.e. Shouldn't it redirect to American football or something similar?@Candidyeoman55: Please be wary of such references; discussions can easily move far apart through relisting and different closing schedules can obscure once prominent links. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:09, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Soft redirect to wikt:handegg per Mx Granger (changing my previous !vote as this seems a better solution for the two-word or hyphenated spellings, in the absence of a suitable mention on enwiki). Rosbif73 (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to American football: I've spent a lot of time over the past decade plus talking about American football online, and I don't like it, but this is a very common thing for people to call American football (in a mocking way). I genuinely believe that, if this search term were used, people would be searching for American football as opposed to the city. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget both to American football. Both "hand egg" and "hand-egg" appear to be alternate spellings of "handegg" when referring to American football. On the other hand, unlike handegg as one word, neither are alternate spellings of Handeck. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Firstly, why target American football when the term can also refer to Canadian, Australian and possibly even Rugby football? And secondly, the term isn't mentioned at the proposed target, potentially surprising a reader unfamiliar with the term. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Unestablished pejorative epithet for a living person. Delete Pascuet (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
I've seen it used on social media, but that's self-research. The nickname is used in some opinion pieces when you Google it, so Keep (The National Line) (The Salt Lake Tribune]) Pinoccappuccino (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete, this is libel. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
It is not libel; libel is a deliberate or negligent publishing of something false. This epithet is an opinion, which people are allowed to have. Our only question is if this is a possible search term. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. It's not libel, but we also shouldn't have it if it's not mentioned at the target, per the usual arguments. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 19:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep as Bibi is mentioned as his nickname in the lead. The term doesn't need to be included verbatim if it is obvious why it redirects there. plenty of uses of the term and it cannot refer to anyone else. I cannot see a scenario of someone searching this and being confused as to why they ended up where they did. I am not against revisiting this in a few months if pageviews show that this redirect isn't being used. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep as {{r from pejorative}}. As Pinoccappuccino notes, it has appeared in the news and on social media so I see no reason to think it wouldn't be plausible, especially as "butcher" is also a very common pejorative with a long and well-established history of use for politicians and officials. Finding examples of such redirects on Wikipedia is trivial (eg. Jamal the Butcher, The Butcher of Beijing, Butcher of Bengal). It's unambiguous and I agree with Traumnovelle that this would not be a surprising target; also not against leaving this open for renomination in a few months if the traffic shows no discernable usage. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 13:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Unambiguous, obvious from the first sentence that it refers to him as "Bibi" is in the first sentence, has enough usage that people will plausibly be looking it up, and per Scyrme the article + common knowledge of "butcher" as a nickname is enough to figure out why someone would call him that. WP:RNEUTRAL does not require us to delete even very biased names. Rusalkii (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Violates WP:NPOV and WP:NEUTRALTITLE. Does not serve as a standard, objective search alternative to the primary article. —Biosketch (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
It does not violate those policies because this is a redirect not an article title. Non-neutral redirects are permissible, and there are hundreds of them. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Redirects don't have to be neutral or inoffensive, and "not mentioned at the target" is really a proxy for "will a user be surprised to wind up here?", which I'm pretty sure they won't. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:12, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep This term is used in the news, so people may search for it. Non-neutral redirects are common and permitted. Joe vom Titan (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete. It's a reasonable description and I'm sure that it is used, but probably not by reliable sources. If it was mentioned in the target article then I'd say Keep but it isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Not being explicitly mentioned is only a problem if readers would otherwise be surprised to be redirected to the article. Why would they be surprised here? The article does mention his nickname, "Bibi", and the reasons for which he has been called a "butcher". – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:20, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
There has to be coherent criteria for such a redirect otherwise we could be awash with non-neutral redirects. We wouldn't be best pleased if somebody made a load of redirects called "[Politician] the Shithead" so we need a way to separate justifiable redirects from ones like that. The best solution for those who want to keep the redirect is to find an RS source discussing, or at least using, the name and add it to the article. Maybe add a short section for Epithets and cover various notable things he is known as? That could cover both what his fans and his detractors call him and would actually improve the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Adding the offensive redirect is far worse than it existing but not being mentioned from a BLP perspective... Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Usually these could be speedily deleted but this is mentioned by reliable news media. Go D. Usopp(talk) 14:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep The current target looks like the best we can do. I considered Literary theory and even Philology. I like that the current target has prominent discussion of its relationship with literary theory. An equivalent to Literaturwissenschaft could be good, but in the meantime, I don't think there's anything wrong with the redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 20:11, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate - too many possibilities to be useful as-is. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 20:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The creation of a draft disambiguation page may help with consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
as a heads-up, massxfd can make the process of nomming multiple redirects at once a little easier, and avoid cluttering talk pages consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep most, as despite being made by a blocked editor a lot of these are uncontroversially reasonable spelling variations. It's trivial to find variation in hyphenation between "trans-saharan"/"sub-saharan" and "transsaharan"/"subsaharan" on Scholar and Google Books; redirects where this is the only difference are fine and are useful for both searches and internal linking. Variation between "Saharan" and "Sahara" also seems generally fine; eg. "trans-saharan slave trade" and "trans-sahara slave trade" both yield results on Google Books. Searching for "[the] Sahara slave trade" shows that the unprefixed "Sahara" is also plausible variation. Delete redirects where the hyphen is replaced by a space, as I don't see much evidence that this is common in my external search results and this isn't conventional for English in general. Seems more like an SEO technique than plausible language. Delete redirects which capitalise Sahara mid-word without a hyphen ("transSaharan", "subSaharan"). These are entirely unnecessary for searching (the search engine ignores case whenever possible and will redirect you even if no explicit redirect exists; try a search for TraNs-SaHaRan sLave trAde) and are worse than useless for linking as they're incorrect but appear in blue, making unintended use easier. I strongly suspect these titles reflect how sometimes hyphens get omitted in, eg, previews extracted from pages on Google Books, even when they're present on the actual page itself. This is something a machine would do. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete all relating to "Sub Saharan" (too lazy to list all, just spent a lot of time writing elsewhere): there were multiple slave trades south of the Sahara desert which could be discussed, including (arguably) the Atlantic Slave Trade, so the use of that namespace specifically for the one slave trade noted for crossing the Sahara satisfies confusion under WP:RDELETE.. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Then I reckon that needs review as well, as it just seems to be a strange attempt to attain "equivalency" with the Atlantic slave trade. But I'll agree that this might be a matter separate to the purpose of this specific nom. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all "Sub" redirects, all redirects with a space between 'trans' and 'saharan', and all CamelCase redirects. Keep the rest. --Tavix(talk) 15:00, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Scyrme: What is your opinion on the "Sub" redirects, as these arguments came after your !vote? Also, was sub-subsaharan a typo for sub-saharan? Jay 20:15, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
@Jay: Yes, it was a typo. I agree with 9ninety. I'll also add: Regarding there being multiple slave trades, sure there were many local slave trades in sub-Saharan Africa, but these redirect titles refer to the whole region implying a search for the wider network of slave trading. Practically speaking, it was clear that variations on "sub-Saharan slave trade" were being used in (at least most of) the results on Books/Scholar to refer to the trading of sub-Saharan Africans as part of the trans-Saharan slave trade. If HiddenHistoryPedia has access to contrary sources, then it would make sense to start a separate nomination focusing specifically on sub-Saharan slave trade and its variations, after all the implausible variations have been weeded out to keep the discussion from being derailed. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
This could've probably been closed as “delete the spaced and CamelCase redirects, no consensus on the other "Sub" redirects, and keep the rest”, instead of relisting again, since as Scyrme and HiddenHistoryPedia noted, a separate nomination for sub-Saharan slave trade would make sense, while the other ones had consensus. 9ninety (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep all except the ones without a space. Delete those. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete the CamelCase ones as implausibly rendered; keep all others as plausible search terms. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
As above, delete the CamelCase redirects and the redirects where the hyphen is replaced by a space, and keep the rest. 9ninety (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep all. None of there scream out to me as bad, per say, these seem helpful, but not entirely needed. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
There are two marae with this name, this could be a dab page but with only two topics, neither of which have more than a sentence I'm unsure how helpful it'd be. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep. There is no other marae called Te Iringa; perhaps you are confusing this with the wharenui called Te Iringa at Terere Marae on the outskirts of Ōpōtiki? Moreover, Kaikohe is the nearest township to Te Iringa Marae (less than 5 km drive from the marae to the edge of town, according to Google Maps) but you recently removed mention of Te Iringa Marae from the Kaikohe article, and reverted my edit when I reverted your removal. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Te Iringa Marae should be mentioned on the Kaikohe page, given its proximity to the town, along with the other two marae listed. As there is no other marae of the same name and hence no ambiguity, the redirect should be kept. Paora (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
>It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Te Iringa Marae should be mentioned on the Kaikohe page, given its proximity to the town, along with the other two marae listed
Any sort of mention in the Kaikohe article should be based on secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
That isn't a secondary source, its a primary source. The journalist probably got that information from Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
That's complete speculation on your part; the journalist is just as likely to have looked at a map! Paora (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
It was also mentioned on the Kaikohe page as a marae in the Kaikohe area until the nominator deleted it, and which I reverted. The nominator reverted my reversion, and I still believe that the marae is indeed in the Kaikohe area, being less than 5 km from the town. Paora (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
A claim which was unsourced in the article. What you believe is irrelevant, we base our articles on reliable secondary sources, if the user adding all this content in a robotic manner consulted such sources there wouldn't be all these errors. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
That's why I added it back in with references, and yet you still chose to delete it! Paora (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
The first two should have the same target; the second one is not mentioned anywhere... 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:58, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Target KDE Plasma. Workspaces were a feature before Plasma 5. Except delete "2". There's nothing specifically about Plasma Workspaces 2 mentioned in either article or anywhere else on Wikipedia, so there's nothing helpful to redirect to. Presumably someone searching this would want information about how this differs from Plasma Workspaces 1; no such content exists. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
DeleteKDE Plasma Workspaces 2 as unmentioned and thus misleading, as someone searching for that term would probably be expecting information on that specific version. Retarget the rest to KDE Plasma, as workspaces are not exclusive to Plasma 5. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Since I've never heard of this term, I suggest deleting this redirect. SilverMatsu (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a neologism. Term has zero Google search results, and was likely invented by whoever created the redirect. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
This redirect should be deleted. These two terms are completely different things. Schwa indogermanicum refers to the "laryngeals" in Proto-Indo-European, whereas the target page Mid central vowel is about "schwa" in the context of phonology. Furthermore, Schwa indogermanicum is an outdated and rare terminology that was used back when laryngeal theory was in its infancy, and although German terms were sometimes used in Indo-European studies, I don't think this terminology was ever used in English. Leslie255 (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Misleading typo. Event occurred at the University of California, Santa Barbara, UCSC is the University of California, Santa Cruz and is unmentioned. ~ A412talk! 00:01, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
About a musician we have no article for and no information about, and therefore should not be on the DAB page or have incoming redirects. ~ A412talk! 23:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
No such listing exists at target - misleading to readers. "Concepts in the Wheel of Time series" was moved to Unusual abilities (Wheel of Time), which I am not nominating at the present time because judging by the page history circa 2009 it may have been split into ~10 or more other pages. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all. This is an uncommon titling convention - Special:PrefixIndex/Concepts in has 9 entries, 2 of which are outlines and 3 of which are the actual name of a work, and as such I consider this an unlikely search term. While "concepts" is a vague enough term that the current article could be construed as containing concepts, a reader looking for a list of in-universe concepts, like the old article mentioned in the nom, would not find the information they are looking for. ~ A412talk! 23:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
delete all per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:43, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Best I could come up with is that this is an obscure meme/dogwhistle. Apparently this is a meme about the target. That been said, it's not documented in any sources and not mentioned at the target. ~ A412talk! 21:02, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, this isn't necessarily obscure; I see this very, very frequently in reference to the Christchurch shootings (particularly on TikTok). Beta Beta Beta - talk 06:20, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I believe you on the frequency; I'm not on TikTok. What do you make of the lack of sourcing? This is not exactly an intuitive target for a reader who searches for "-51". ~ A412talk! 07:03, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirects don't need to be well-sourced. Its quite obvious what this refers to, the question is whether this is a useful redirect. I'm going to lean towards no as it could mean other things and someone looking for the Christchurch shootings is unlikely to use this as their starting term. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
"PLAGE"
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
Non-notable person formerly mentioned at the article until this 2008 edit. The title Dr. Qamar Tabish was also recreated as an article thrice (and speedily deleted each time), then deleted as a redirect in a 2014 RfD discussion. So I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
implausible that someone would only abbreviate half of the name (and also forget a space after the colon, i guess) consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:39, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
implausible that someone would only abbreviate half of the name I looked it up and it seems common enough for it to be abbreviated as Mario and Luigi PIT or PiT, so it isn't implausible. Examples: , , 9ninety (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
it's "2x2" (as in 2 by 2). someone writing the game's japanese name (or its romanization for whatever reason) would have to write too much stuff before forgetting to do that consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:41, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
I did find afewexamples of the name "Maria & Luigi RPG 2" being used, so it seems plausible and harmless, so keep. 9ninety (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Just specifically looked up "マリオ&ルイージRPG2", and it's actually not only the title used by the Japanese Wikipedia, jp:マリオ&ルイージRPG2, but also Nintendo's website, according to the search results, as well as other examples. 9ninety (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Mario & Luigi RPG 2 and the Kanji name, alternative name and useful redirects. Delete the romanization as it is unhelpful as a search term. Go D. Usopp(talk) 15:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Artemis VI is not currently being planned by NASA and the article it redirects to says nothing about the proposed mission. Anotheroneoutthere3 (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Note that there is a single mention of it at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:40, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Not sure where the idea that Artemis VI isn't being planned is coming from. While I don't contest that there is no clearly defined mission for that designation yet, I also don't see why we should assume the program will end at V when NASA has said nothing of the sort. NASA officials have - if obliquely - mentioned the mission as recently as 6 months ago. – Jadebenn (talk·contribs·subpages) 22:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Seconded. Until NASA says it's not happening, we act like it is. RedDeadGuy (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: while it seems likely that a sixth mission will be planned at some point, nothing significant and verifiable can be said about it yet–and indeed, the probability of the mission actually occurring is arguably rather lower than the totally predictable examples such as 2044 U.S. presidential election mentioned in WP:CRYSTAL. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:37, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - Looks like I am the creator but have no opinion. Looking at the redirects history, they were listed at the target page at least at the time it was created. That list was removed by an editor in July this year. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
This redirect was created in 2015 when it was thought that the next UK election would be in 2020 under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, but an early election was called in 2017, so that an election was no longer expected in 2020. There was then a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 2#2020 UK general election, in which it was decided to retarget this redirect to Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011#2017 general election, because that section effectively explained why there was no longer to be an election in 2020. However, the target article has been extensively rewritten since the repeal of this Act in 2022, and the section in question no longer exists. Moreover, it is no longer the case that anyone is going to be wondering why there will not be an election in 2020, since that date has long passed without an election. It seems merely confusing having a reference coming up to a 2020 election in the search bar when there was no such election, and I cannot see what useful purpose this now serves. I would therefore propose deleting this redirect. Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 12:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
This previously targetted one specific school shooting. I retargetted it as an improvement as I couldn't find a more general target. The situation could certainly be improved. PamD 14:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Move and redirect Oregon school shooting to Oregon shooting, as all of the former are by definition instances of the latter, along with whatever other Oregon shooting incidents have occurred. BD2412T 18:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Requesting deletion so that page name can be reused. Husskeyy (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Hm, are you trying to create an article at this title? If so, you can just edit the page without needing to get it deleted first. If you have a draft page, a page mover or admin can handle it for you at WP:RM/TR. ~ A412talk! 23:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Since I would have expected this to be about bakers (as in the people) from France, retarget to Category:French bakers, or possibly List of bakers (although I'll note for the record that the mainspace list currently only has exactly one baker from France on it). Duckmather (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
retarget per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Bakery#French bakery per nom. It seems more likely that a reader searching for this is looking for information about French bakers generically, as a profession, rather than individual bakers from France. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
"Metaspriggiidae" appears to be a hoax added to the Metaspriggina article by an IP user in 2013 . It has no basis in any scientific literature whatsoever as far as I can tell (I checked the original 1993 paper and found no mention of it), any of the (sparse) references to it on the internet appears to be WP:CITOGENESIS based on the Wikipedia article Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
To add to this, I can also confirm this. I've had a look through the online library I have access to (outside of Google Scholar and Wiki Library), and there are no recorded mentions of it there either. Even the official Burgess Shale website (run by the Royal Ontario Museum) lists Metaspriggina as "Unranked clade", which cites the 2008 redescription by Simon Conway Morris, who only assigns Metaspriggina tentatively to the Vertebrata and no higher, and not to any "Metaspriggiidae" rank. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
There's a concept here somewhere, but it's not really discussed in enough depth to warrant a redirect. The sole mention at the target is the throwaway sentence Within a psychological context demons may be used as metaphors for inner psychological processes ("inner demons"). in the lead with no body support. Normally I would say "delete per WP:REDLINK", but the existence of Inner Demon (film) at a WP:MISPLACED title throws that off so I have no idea. * Pppery *it has begun... 23:24, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
This could still be deleted per WP:RTR (which I think is what you meant to cite?) and Inner Demon (film) moved to base title Inner Demon, leaving inner demon a redlink for someone to create. Surprisingly, there's no Wiktionary entry on inner demon to soft redirect to, even though it is mentioned at wikt:demon in one of the usage examples.
Wait, there's also inner demons, which is a disambiguation page... 9ninety (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per 9ninety as a natural variant. I think the variant of the battle itself is a more likely intended target than any individual film based upon the battle. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
In a previous RfD, it was decided that the subject of this redirect is a broad topic and that the redirect should be deleted per WP:RETURNTORED. I believe that the same rationale still applies and that this redirect should be deleted. OrderlyOhioan (talk|contribs) 22:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
The iPhone 18 does not currently exist, but there is already the iPhone 18 Pro. I think calling the high-end phone simply as the "iPhone 18" is a common mistake. The latest mid-range flagship phone is the iPhone 17. Rumors I saw say that the base model iPhone 18 will be released in early 2027. Slackintosh (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom; the iPhone 18 Pro is not the iPhone 18, which is a model that doesn't exist yet. When it is released/confirmed, Draft:iPhone 18 can be moved to mainspace. 9ninety (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep As {{r from misnomer}} for the time being. While the iPhone 18 does not yet exist, it is likely readers will search for this trying to access information about the iPhone 18 Pro. When the iPhone 18 is announced, this can be replaced by the draft. Casablanca 🪨(T) 22:40, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I did consider that, but I think it could just end up being misleading or confusing, if readers expect to find an iPhone 18 model, only to land at the 18 Pro. The article has no information on the actual expected base model (or why there isn't one yet), so it isn't a very helpful target. The lack of a target would make it clearer that this model doesn't exist yet. 9ninety (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I found this page (checked 22 October 2026) on the Apple Developer website. Notice how the text below the picture of a device bezel says "iPhone 18" instead of "iPhone 18 Pro". My guess for this intentional mistake is that Apple is trying to get ready for other products of the iPhone 18 generation. Slackintosh (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: There is no chance that people will mistake the name of the base 18 for the 18 Pro, given that the Pro moniker has been used for 7 years. iPhone 18 Pro already shows up in search results when you type iPhone 18 anyway. We can delete this redirect for now and then move the draft when it's actually announced. EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 00:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per non and per WP:CRYSTAL. Although it is mentioned in the article, it is the Pro models, not the base model. Cosmic-840≈ ● ✒️ 10:11, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
How is it a CRYSTAL violation strictly as a redirect? It's not speculating on anything's future existence, it's been used as a short-hand search term. Sergecross73msg me 00:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment I went ahead and bundled Iphone 18 into this discussion because they only vary by capitalization. --Tavix(talk) 18:31, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - it's obviously a plausible search term. Not everyone keeps track of all the "pro/max/slim/special/whatever words tagged on to product names. Someone who only knows there's a phone wuth a name that contains "iPhone 18" in it could very well do it as a search when they're really looking for the pro model. If Apple someday announces/releases a regular iPhone 18, we can change course if/when that happens. Sergecross73msg me 00:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I recently added a passage to the iPhone 18 Pro article (here) noting that it was the first time a Pro phone had been announced without a corresponding same-numbered non-Pro phone, in an attempt to explain why there isn't (yet) an "iPhone 18". Plausibly we could set up an {{anchor}} there to be redirected to for the time being, though I'm open to other options like how iPhone 9 redirects to iPhone naming. I agree that a lot of users less tuned to the Apple product cycle and naming conventions are likely to search for just "iPhone 18". — stickguy (:^›)—||talk|| 14:56, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I like Stickguy's solution. --Tavix(talk) 15:48, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Serge's reasoning, not everyone knows that "Pro" is a separately released product line from the base model, and support stickguy's proposal so the target clears up the confusion. ~ A412talk! 20:58, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I support Stickguy's idea too, for the record. Thank you. Sergecross73msg me 00:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Generic title for an album actually titled Classics II, whereas we have an article on a different album Classics Volume Two, also stylized as Classics, Vol. 2. Retarget to the album article, or make this a disambig?
The redirect page has merge content history, and many incoming links to the current target. Maybe move the redirect page to Classics Vol 02 (Era album), which doesn't have history, and was the prior title of the page, and fix the incoming links? If looking for an alternate move target, Classics II cannot be a redirect title, as it's an article on another album. Jay 18:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I may have added {{R with history}} incorrectly here, I just added it because there was history as an article, not because it was being used anywhere or was worth keeping for some reason. (If there is actually merge content history then never mind) – Mullafacation『talk』 16:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Per WP:FORRED, Malaysian is not a common language in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Gorjestan is actually Persian, not Malaysian; the exonym "Georgia" does actually have Persian roots ("Land of Wolves"). The Persian name is mentioned at names of Georgia#Gruziya. 9ninety (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
There aren't any reliable sources that refer to Era as "The E.R.A." It's implausible that a user would search for this instead of just Era. Streetr4 (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Era (disambiguation). I know offhand this is a very common way of referring to the Equal Rights Amendment; presumably it also is for other entries at that disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the suggested target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 15:35, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Indigenous law is obviously not limited to Canada, but there's no clear target. Indigenous rights isn't really the same thing. I also stumbled across aboriginal law, which is an odd dab page that just links to related concepts in Canada, Australia, and the US.
I (maker of redirect) was planning on making a page for Indigenous law, if that context is helpful.GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, I don't (edit: think) the redirect in its current form is very helpful, and there are only two incoming mainspace links, so it should probably just be a red link until an article is written. 9ninety (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I think DABifying it for now would be good, there's several concepts that cover the same one as the Canadian Indigenous law article, they are as follows:
We might consider Customary law, then, or at least its #Customary legal systems section. An article on Indigenous law would indeed be useful, though in the meantime, it seems awkward to try to make it into a disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Incorporating them at that list is probably a good idea. Surely Aboriginal law and Indigenous law represents the same concept and is just a matter of naming. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Aboriginal law is like tribal law in the United States, it's the legal system imposed by the colonial power (in this case, Canada) on the indigenous inhabitants. Indigenous law is the actual legal system of an Indigenous nation. Customary law is a practice of law, not a whole legal system. Indigenous law includes customary law in the same way Islamic law or American law includes marriage law (Both of them also have their own customary law). These things are all different. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Peter is not the given name of the target article's subject. 42-BRT (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
MovePeter Hoekstra (footballer) over the redirect and add a hatnote. If we didn't have someone actually named Peter Hoekstra, I'd be comfortable with this redirect as a plausible error. As such, I prefer to assume a search term is not a mistake when practical. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
No information about image formats or convertors at the target. I'm not sure what this is supposed to represent, perhaps softwares like Canva? They were created by a now-blocked editor, and have no incoming links. There was no mention of this at the target even at the time of creation.
Delete. This could plausibly mean a few things: an artificial intelligence-specific image file format, which is not a thing, the Adobe Illustrator file format (.ai), for which we have no information about file format converters, or an artificial-intelligence-powered image format converter, for which we do not have an article. Delete in all cases. ~ A412talk! 23:26, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 01:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
The section this points to doesn't exist, and the target article doesn't contain any information about Minecraft Experience. 9ninety (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: The target at the time didn't even have a Minecraft Experience section, with the page creator (now blocked by ArbCom) claiming to be working on the section when this redirect was created but it never happened. —SimpleObjects-9ei 🍂/🌰/🤗 (see talk) 13:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
wow, that sent me down quite the curious rabbit hole trying to find out why they got blocked... 9ninety (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:26, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
delete. from my admittedly quick research, this isn't a plausible search term for any of them. ironically, this one is the least implausible just due to not being a warioware game, but not by much consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 13:29, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to List of Wario video games, admittedly it would be better if there was a specific Nintendo DS section for the purposes of this redirect, but since it sees almost zero traffic this is good enough. Choucas🐦⬛ 13:39, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as ambiguous. I was considering retargeting, but no Wario games are called Wario DS. As mentioned, it has almost no traffic, and the list doesn't have a section for DS games. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
All Wario games released on the DS can colloquially be referred to as "Wario DS". If you want a nice neat section, you can hack that option by targeting List of Nintendo DS games (Q–Z)#W. --Tavix(talk) 14:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Better to let the search function take over, than anchoring it to an arbitrary game in the Wario games list. We have a search, let's let it do its job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:46, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think forcing people to browse through an entire list of Wario games is going to be helpful. Search function will help people significantly more. We should break the irrational obsession with forcing people to even the most utterly tangentially relevant page out of fear of sending them to the search. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:13, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
A curated list of games is much more helpful (and reliably so!) than search results, which are given at the whim of an algorithm. An "obsession" with giving a relevant and useful target for a given search term is never irrational. --Tavix(talk) 19:52, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
When I use Wikipedia search for "Wario DS", the first things that come up besides List of Wario games are: Wario: Master of Disguise, WarioWare: Touched! and WarioWare D.I.Y., all Nintendo DS Wario games. It is absolutely going to bring up more relevant games faster than forcing someone to look through a general list of Wario games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:33, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
alas, i'm not the nom, and i fail to see what in that is per me consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 16:31, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 07:53, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
No information about this algorithm or the acronym at the targets, or anywhere else on enwiki. The pre-redirect content says this was based on PageRank, and a claim needing citation said Google was thought to be using this, with no evidence to show. The article was BLAR'ed for being non-notable, however if reusing the content to merge to either target, we would need to show that this is significant to Google search or PageRank. Delete as not being helpful. Jay 06:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
KeepTopic-Sensitive PageRank, retargetTopic Sensitive PageRank and Topic Sensitive Page Rank to PageRank, deleteTSPR. This seems like a pretty obscure term, but while there is currently no information on target pages this could change. I tagged the two redirects to retarget appropriately. The acronym however does not even exist in the niche sources I found on the topic. Choucas🐦⬛ 13:50, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all as misleading. A person searching for these topics on Wikipedia would probably already have an idea on what PageRank is, and, since topic-sensitive PageRank seems to be a related algorithm or type of PageRank, a person searching for it would likely want info on TSPR in particular, and not just a general overview of PageRank. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 07:52, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Were you looking for Samoan Islands? Those aren't referred to as "Samoas" as far as I can tell. The cookie looks to be the only topic routinely pluralized in this manner. --Tavix(talk) 13:38, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. The dab page has plenty of entries, so it is reasonable to assume that someone could misspell or deliberately type "Samoas" in pursuit of a variety of topics. TNstingray (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep Google search results for "Samoas" overwhelmingly refer to the cookie, but I can find a few instances of people calling the Samoan Islands "Samoas". It doesn't appear to be a particularly common name, however, unlike Dakotas or Carolinas, where the region is clearly the primary topic. Maybe a hatnote is appropriate? ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
There is already a hatnote in place. --Tavix(talk) 16:53, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to DAB page. Special:WhatLinksHere/Samoas has no links to the cookies (other than a selflink) and one to the islands. "The Samoas" is a natural way of referring collectively to American Samoa and the former Western Samoa, which has become less common since the latter was renamed. Google Books and Scholar matches are overwhelmingly the islands, not the cookies. jnestorius(talk) 23:53, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 07:52, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think retargeting to dab is particularly helpful as there are only two things this could really refer to, and none of the other entries there are relevant. Since the Samoan Islands apparently aren't commonly called the Samoas, while the cookies are, I lean keep, but change the hatnote to specifically link to the Samoan Islands instead of the dab page. 9ninety (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep I guess. Yeah, this should target either the cookies or the islands, with a hatnote there to the other. The islands certainly have more long-term significance, but it's also a fairly unlikely way to refer to them, and most people are probably more interested in the nation rather than a general geographical region. One day, the cookies will probably go away and be forgotten about, and we can update this, but until then, it seems like it's the more likely target. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 17:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to LGBTQ (term)#MVPFAFF. I think that's probably better than redirecting to List of LGBTQ acronyms, since MVPFAFF specifically means Lgbtq+ within the context of specifically pacific societies, so this would probably be more helpful to readers who would be looking for information about that. Redirecting to either is probably helpful, though. Quinn-TGDF (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose changing this redirect to either going to Matriarch (disambiguation) or Elder (administrative title)#Matriarchs. Whichever is preferred, I'd prefer a link to the elder page. A Matriarch is simply an older woman in a position of authority, typically within some sort of kinship thingy. Meanwhile, Matriarchy is a largely unrelated pseudohistorical conspiracy theory claiming that the world was run by women for 200 thousand years through love, hugs and kisses. I did this change previously, but a user on my talk page insisted this must be a move request. It seems to me that's for changing a page title, so I'm doing this instead, maybe I'm misunderstanding GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Matriarchy is a pseudohistorical conspiracy theory claiming the world was run by women for 200 thousand years
Unless I'm missing something, that's just… not at all what's described by the article? 9ninety (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
The article is biased but regardless, they're still distinct, matriarchy is an obscure political ideology/pseudohistorical revisionism. I think Matriarch wikilinking to Matriarch makes more sense than Matriarch linking to anything else. Do you disagree with this? GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
matriarchy is an obscure political ideology/pseudohistorical revisionism
Again, that is not supported by the article, wikt:matriarchy, or Google search results. The §Paleolithic and Neolithic Ages section discusses prehistoric matriarchy, but I find no indication that this is a general usage of the word. According to Google, it just means "a social, political, or family system in which women hold primary authority, power, and leadership roles," which is pretty much also what our article and Wiktionary say. 9ninety (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
This isn't the discussion topic, so idc? I'm not here to debate your article or do some pedantic definition debate. I think Matriarch should link to Matriarch. Once again, do you disagree with this?GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by matriarch should link to matriarch. Are you suggesting to move matriarch (disambiguation) to matriarch? A WP:RM would be the correct procedure. I don't think your other suggested target is much better than the current target, as it seems to treat matriarch as an Elder title (and is also written in a very weird way and doesn't make a ton of sense), while matriarchy covers a broader sense of women in authoritative/privileged positions, which seems more appropriate and less confusing. 9ninety (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
If you're suggesting Matriarch doesn't have a primary topic and should be a disambiguation page (for example, Mercury is a disambiguation page since it doesn't have a primary topic), you'll need to start a move request to move matriarch (disambiguation) to the base title. However, as I stated, I think matriarchy is an appropriate target, and clearly the primary topic over the movie, album, and other miscellaneous items listed at the disambiguation. 9ninety (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
That's not how it works. "X" can't redirect to "X (disambiguation)"; the disambiguation page would have to be at "X", with "X (disambiguation)" redirecting to it. So, you are proposing to move matriarch (disambiguation) to matriarch. 9ninety (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I see what you mean, I'll get on that then. Sorry, I literally was not aware of this rule, I've never done this before.GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I'll just say that I don't think it's a good idea to start a move request while this discussion is already open; this discussion could be used to first determine whether there is a primary topic, or the disambiguation should be moved. RFDs typically run for a week. 9ninety (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Addendum: now that I think of it, I have seen RFDs end in consensus to move disambiguation pages to base titles, so a move request is probably not actually needed; that's my bad. Need to remind myself that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy! 9ninety (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
'while matriarchy covers a broader sense of women in authoritative/privileged positions, which seems more appropriate and less confusing.' The vast majority of the page is about Matriarchy as a specific political/social system not individual women in a nondescript priviledged position, idk where you're getting this from even the categories show thats its about a unified political/social system. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
yes, matriarchy is a social system, and matriarch clearly refers to the women in such systems. It's not explicitly spelled out in the article, but I thought the implication was self-evident. It may not be the best target, but it is understandable. 9ninety (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
100% of Matriarchs have not lived in a Matriarchy, so this is not obvious to me sorry.GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Move the dab page / retarget. I agree that matriarchs hadn't lived under matriarchy unless in fiction or indigenous cultures maybe. Dudzcar (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
So vague as to be confusing - any number of places have train lines known as line no. 3, 4, etc. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 23:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I didn't actually want to create these, earlier this year a new user began moving all Polish railway line articles to these ambiguous names, I was just moving them back but at the time didn't have the page mover right so redirects were created every time. I want to add that there are many more of such redirects under similar names. Fortek67 (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
If they are ambiguous there can be disambiguation pages similar to List of A1 roads. Peter James (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
If this suggestion is done, would a retarget to "Line X", X being the respective number, such as Line 4, be better as to avoid duplicating dab pages? These are used more for urban public transport lines though than for mainline railways. Fork99 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
What are the odds an actual reader types in "railway line no. 3" into search? Seems slim. --Joy (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
The Polish articles (and some Dutch and Japanese articles) use the line numbers as article titles. Peter James (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@Peter James, please see MOS:PLRAIL, Polish railway lines are not referred by line number. Fortek67 (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
also in MOS:PLRAIL: "and a redirect from the line number may also be created". Peter James (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Again, does that matter for an actual (English) reader? --Joy (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
If they are article titles, they are not "very obscure" which would be the only reason for deletion in WP:R#DELETE. Peter James (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
But they're not article titles? --Joy (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Not in English, but the line numbers are used in Polish Wikipedia article titles, and I don't think they would be if they were very obscure. Peter James (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Sure, but does that mean that the English readers will look them up in the same format? That they won't use railway line 3 or similar instead? --Joy (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirects in that format can also be created. Peter James (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I did notice that we have a "No. 3 Line" redirect, but I don't know how useful it is right now (pageviews stats website is temporarily broken). --Joy (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I should have made it clear that that is actually what railway lines are referred to. I say delete all these redirects. Fortek67 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
return to red per previous deletion (where it's still unmentioned outside of the one incoming link, where it's not supported by the associated source), but also per creation
...well, at least i'll suggest doing that, but search results imply that usage of the term was limited to buffy the vampire slayer fans and somehow literally no other demographic before its deletion 18 years ago (eighteen! ah! ah! ah!), niche in that context back then, and has dropped significantly since then, so i wouldn't count too much on it consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 15:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to vampire lifestyle, as "vampirecore" as a term refers to aesthetics associated with vampires, so this is probably the most appropriate target. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Retargeting it to vampire lifestyle seems to be a good decision. Vampirecore is clearly an aesthetic connected to Vampires, and people who practice Vampiric lifestyle are the closest to it From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete "Vampirecore" is not synonymous with "vampire lifestyle". It could just be used to describe media that is heavily vampire-themed or glorifies vampires. Retargeting it would be an unnecessary amount of assumption about what the person is searching for. It should be sent back to the coffin deleted in preparation for its glorious rise as a notable article or to let the search function give people a list of possibilities without assuming they are searching for one of many potential definitions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget because the page mentions aesthetics and subculture. ~2026-55841-55 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Page can be deleted, as it was moved as soon as it was created, so redirect is not needed. Husskeyy (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
You can just tag it for speedy deletion with WP:G7 in that case. However, I think the original disambiguator (retail chain) is actually better than the new one (South Africa) in this case. Maybe there's a better one still, though. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 15:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Although it might have been an accident, I feel like this is a more reasonable title than the current one. Possibly worth taking to WP:RFM. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
There is also Game (retailer); that article should also be moved, and the titles with "retail chain" and "retailer" can be redirected to the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned in target. "Retard" is mentioned but not this particular usage. Go D. Usopp(talk) 10:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
It is nevertheless clearly related to it, cf. q:Tropic Thunder. Would you want to fix this by mentioning the phrase in the article text, or doing a soft redirect to Wikiquote, or? --Joy (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Ehhh, do not keep, since it's not mentioned at the target. It is mentioned at Oscar bait#In popular culture, which would be reasonable, but ehh. It's also the name (capitalized, with "The") of a couple songs that have brief mentions in other articles, but ehhh. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 19:38, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per nom --Lenticel(talk) 00:41, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
According to Māori Maps, Mahuhu ki te Rangi is an alternative name for Te Riingi Marae, and the wharenui at the marae is also called Mahuhu ki te rangi. Māori Maps does not, however, spell it Māhūhū. Most likely the name comes from the waka, Māhuhu-ki-te-rangi, although that is speculation on my part. Paora (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The place is not fictional. Te Puni Kōkiri lists the Mahūhū spelling, as does the Ngāpuhi website (albeit for the wharenui). Māori Maps in te reo Māori shows the Māhuhu spelling instead of Mahuhu on the English version. Perhaps the article should simply be changed to Te Riingi Marae, with a redirect to Tautoro? Ladleduffle (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
The source also gives two different spellings for Mangakahia Road. Its low quality and full of errors and as you said thats the name given for the wharenui, not the marae.
>Perhaps the article should simply be changed to Te Riingi Marae
The article (Tautoro) is about a locality not a marae, so it shouldn't be renamed. Te Riingi and Te Riingi Marae are redlinks. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Onomatopoeia not mentioned at target. Should it be kept, retargeted to Ooga Booga, or deleted per WP:RETURNTORED? 9ninety (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - wikt:ooga booga exists (and covers the meanings quite well); preferable target over the capitalized game, if this is retained. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Creator here: I made this redirect in 2025. At the time, I was hurriedly making redirects that had even a minor chance of being related. I don't particularly care about this redirect anymore, though I will defend it slightly by saying that "ooga booga" is inherently tied to cavemen and (barring the occasional racist every now and then) most people will imagine a caveman. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Ooga Booga. Term ambiguously relates to cavemen, might as well redirect it to something with the same name. Go D. Usopp(talk) 13:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: There is no mention of "Trans de Direita" at Sophia Barclay. If a mention is added, I have no opinion as to which article would be the WP:PTOPIC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
"Air Korea" is not mentioned anywhere on this page. Judging by the history, it was a placeholder name before the airline commenced operations, but was never used. In my opinion this redirect is confusing and unhelpful, its far more likely people would be looking for Korean Air although I don't know if that would be an appropriate target either. Cubnorth (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Following a bit of googling (e.g. ) Air Korea was founded by Hanjin Shipping and it looks like it became part of Korean Air. So pick your redirect! Certainly the existing redirect is not correct. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Looking at the page revision it does appear like it was the initial name of Jin Air but nobody is searching that now. I think a disambiguation between Korean Air and Air Koryo might be the best bet? Cubnorth (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
As the original creator of the redirect, I agree time has passed this by and making this a disambig page or straight up redirecting to Korean Air is the best option. Asamboi (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
dabify per above. Seems to be the best course of action. --Lenticel(talk) 03:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Why should it go to Hanjin Shipping? That makes even less sense. Cubnorth (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
This redirects to a page that makes no mention of the subject; I'm not even sure why it does so, as the target isn't the apparent originator of the phrase (that was apparently Paul Rudd?). I would suggest converting this to a soft redirect to wikt:totes magotes. The BushrangerOne ping only 21:47, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Random, and I feel like retargeting to Wiktionary would be quite a stretch. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: The previous target was Niagara Falls, New York and the connection is a recycling mascot with that name . It was featured on Last Week Tonight in 2021 and had another news cycle . It could be worth a mention? --Tavix(talk) 21:17, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:39, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
sort of similarly to prime 1, this is only plausible as a thing you say or a search term in contexts already about metroid (such as discussions about it). unlike it, it's a little too vague in terms of use for me to have found a fitting target, even ignoring the part where 4 isn't a prime number consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 19:04, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Prime (symbol), as it's an alternate name for a quadruple prime, which is more likely than people searching for Metroid 4. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:38, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm sort of neutral on keeping vs. deleting, but I strongly oppose redirecting to the symbol, as a wildly implausible search term, especially compared to the game. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 07:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
"Bad guy" can refer to villain, antagonist, or real-life criminal, yet it redirects only to villain. I think it may be better to retarget to the DAB page... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
retarget to Bad Guy dab page. There are good targets there to point the reader to whatever they want --Lenticel(talk) 00:07, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Ehhhh, keep I guess. First, per WP:DIFFCAPS, the dab page is capitalized, as every entry there (barring the intro note about the plain meaning) is a proper name. And antagonists aren't always the bad guy (just as protagonists aren't always the good guy). And the colloquial usage as villain is far more plausible a way to look that up than it is to look up criminal. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 00:14, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Antagonists aren't always bad, but "bad guy" can be more metaphorical than literal. I still believe its obvious target is not always villain - not enough for a forced redirect at least. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:37, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Retargeting to the disambiguation page, and formatting a common section at the top, seems like a good idea. A primary redirect is a bit too much on the side of WP:NOTDICT. --Joy (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Deacon Vorbis. Also worth noting that though the nomination implies that "villian" excludes real people, the article Villain explicitly includes both real and fictional people. It seems to me that the current target already encompasses the full breadth of what "villain" or "bad guy" means. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 12:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
While real people can controversially be called villains, as a whole it is not typically used to describe an actual person because it refers to a fictional antagonist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep The uncapitalized version is on the very top of the disambiguation page. To me, it seems that "Bad guy" in lower case almost exclusively refers to a villain. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think makes sense to retarget to the dab page, since it defines the villain meaning ("type of character in fiction and other narratives") as the primary topic at the top. Retargeting to dab would imply there isn't a primary topic, which contradicts the dab page. So, keep. I will say that I think the villain article should establish a distinction between the term and antagonist, as they're often colloquially used synonymously. 9ninety (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I think what goes unsaid here is that current WP:disambiguation page content is not gospel, and the proposal is to amend it as well, to make this ambiguity more explicit. Likewise we can choose to amend villain to explain it, because that's also not unimpeachable:) It depends on how much practical ambiguity there is. --Joy (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Bad Guy when the term "bad guy" doesn't necessarily mean villain, and this term isn't even mentioned on the current target page anyway. Even with an appropriate mention on article, let's not downplay how the phrase "bad guy" is often another way of calling someone a "jerk" or "mean—spirited". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:22, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
both of those would be better off retargeted to samus aran, but should it be refined to #design as well? consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 13:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Man, that's a bad picture of it there, though. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 15:00, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
i'd really prefer a sprite or screenshot, but that discussion is best saved for later consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 15:11, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose In the case of Morphing [sic] Ball, it is literally not called that in any other series game, AFAIK. Morphing [sic] Ball is a Super Metroid-only gameplay element. Morph Ball is heading to its proper place, an entry explaining its gameplay usage in the Metroid series.. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:44, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
why would someone who isn't a metroid fan know or care about the distinction? consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 11:32, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Why assume that someone searching for "Morphing Ball" is making a typo when it's more likely they are searching for Super Metroid? "Morph Ball" is by far the most common and widely known name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:36, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
for starters, there's a chance a reader wouldn't know what a morph ball was in the first place, and search based on not fully knowing what it is. being taken to a section that explains how it works in one single specific game could, among other stuff, lead them to believe that the morph ball is only in super metroid (which people familiar with, say, prime, dread, and prime pinball, would know might not be the case)
and just a little more importantly, the article outright refers to the form as "morph ball" and clarifies that "morphing ball" is just what that game calls it, so having different targets for both would make things surprising for a reader who, for whatever reason, decides to search a thing more than once, and has learned by at least the second time that it really is called "morph ball" consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 11:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
This was created in 2013 by a 13-edit account called "Wagger pagger bagger":) wikt:gagger does not mention hot dog. It seems to be either a machining term or a comedy term synonymous to gagman, so it should be disambiguated, but for the former I don't know what a good article would be to mention. --Joy (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget toDisambiguate with gagman and Hot wiener, for which this is a nickname according to sources such as this. A mention on that page would of course be highly desirable. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
OK but then we can start by moving this to e.g. gagger (food) and disambiguating gagger between that and gagman? --Joy (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Rosbif73 ping ^:) --Joy (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think we need a (food) disambiguator, surely we can simply transform the current Gagger redirect into a dab page. Indeed, I've just drafted one, and updated my !vote accordingly. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thanks! --Joy (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
what about gag? LIrala (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
4 mentions on-wiki to 2 different topics. All mentions are trivial and none has any clear claim to primacy. Suggest deletion and let search results direct the reader to where they wish to go. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
KeepAhipara seems to be the only page on Wikipedia with Koroukore as an alternate name. Three of the results for Koroukore refer to Ahipara, while the other two refer to a Tainui woman with no page. I can't find much info on her, as almost all search results for "Korokore" refer to My Hero Academia. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Koroukore isn't an alternate name, but is instead a marae within Ahipara. Still, keep. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
This is why I feel these redirects are more harmful than helpful. Its not an alternate name of Ahipara. Its the name of a marae in Ahipara and the name is shared with the woman you mentioned. Neither of these topics have a standalone page and neither meet notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
"Pligs" does not appear anywhere in the target article. ...discospinstertalk 03:23, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. There doesn't appear to be any other articles that this could potentially be retargeted to. While an entry of the term exists on Wiktionary, I don't think the redirect fulfills the criteria for it to be redirected there. LazyLune (talk•edits) 04:24, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Genuine alternate term. Even if it's a bit obscure, I do think it serves some use, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
If it's genuine then why doesn't it appear in the article? There is no context whatsoever as to why this term would redirect there or what it even means. ...discospinstertalk 17:54, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Term is an alternate spelling of plyg, which originated as a term for Mormon fundamentalists as a condensed pronunciation of polygamy. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
"Plyg" is not in the article either. ...discospinstertalk 16:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Unhelpful typo redirect. Go D. Usopp(talk) 11:29, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RDAB, the correctly capitalized title Jubilee (album) exists and goes to the same target, the Versailles album was at this title for an hour and a bit in 2009. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Nothing further needed, it's just a capitalization. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 23:08, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Speedy delete under what criterion? This is too old for R3, and I can't think of any other ones that would apply. Chessenjoyer (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Much too old for R3 but G6 might apply though probably not due to the fact a criteria for such redirects failed a few years ago. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep To me this seems reasonable as I often type the name of the article I'm looking for in my browser's address bar rather than the Wikipedia search bar. However, I don't think many other people do this. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:31, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Smackaroos refer to any currency, not just the US' money Froglord(Finnfrog99)(talk) 15:56, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm going to retarget it to Currency and cat it under an informal name, that seems like the best approach for WP:NPOV. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 16:52, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Looking at etymology, it would be more accurate to point to Paper money as that's what produces the onomatopoeia. I'm going to try to close this. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 16:56, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Slang terms for money, where the alternative spelling of smackeroo is mentioned. --Tavix(talk) 16:58, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Whoops, accidentally edit-conflicted. Let's go with this one, it seems better-fit. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 17:02, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
I realize here that I did not read the XfD process wholly, I'll be casting votes now like others. Sorry for the hastiness! Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 18:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry for the slight amount of hypocrisy (as I just closed the RfD for this same page), but isn't the retargeted page just saying the same as the original pointer? The only place "smackeroo" &c. is listed is under US Currency: my rationale. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 17:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Again, sorry for the hastiness & pings back, but wouldn't "smackaroo" just refer to US paper bills? I know it references the sound of any paper bill, but it's only used in the US to refer to US money. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 17:19, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Per WP:RFD: 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. I've reverted the target back to United States dollar. Please be patient and let the discussion play out. --Tavix(talk) 17:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, not even spelled the same as the proposed retarget, but regardless, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and a bare listing of slang terms is outside our scope. There's no need to compound one error with a redirect to it. And the current target (US dollar) doesn't specifically mention this, leaving the connection unclear (nor should it). –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 17:45, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. As the deacon says, WP:NOTDICT and a mis-spelling. Happily, we don't have redirects for the normal spelling "smackeroo" or even "smacker" (which used to be a peso, and then a UK pound or a dollar), nor should we for this. (The proposition that it's an onomatopoiea is baffling to me, as I've never heard any money make a sound like "smackaroo".) NebY (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
wikt:smackaroo calls this an alternative spelling, not a misspelling. --Tavix(talk) 18:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep While this seems like an unlikely search term, redirects are WP:CHEAP, and this also isn't a misspelling. Ultimately, this does overwhelmingly refer to USD, as it's an American slang term, and it may refer to some other currencies, but usually USD. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
CHEAP is about server resources, which no one has brought up, so it doesn't apply here. Further, it's unmentioned at the current target. Either someone already knows what it means, but will find no further information on the term there, or they don't, and they don't know why they've landed at the target. Either it's misleading, or confusing. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 18:54, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
It's an alternative spelling of smackeroo (per wikt), which is mentioned at the target as a nickname for the United States dollar. 9ninety (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Next Quebec general election
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
vague, referring to any force that is predominant in any given context, any force that is just really forceful, or some batman villain who isn't a big guy for you so who cares, but i haven't found any uses strictly and primarily tying it to the concept of causality
also, it apparently has some use in some military context, but i couldn't figure out what that was:( consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 13:06, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Might reasonably redirect to Major Force, the villain of the story that spurred the creation of "Women in Refrigerators" ("fridging"). "Major force" is not mentioned in Causality and there's no obvious reason why it should be. NebY (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
I assumed this was a calque of Force majeure. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as there's no information about this term at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was an article from 2007 to 2008, and had survived an AfD, as two decades back, searching for someone with your name was considered a thing in egosurfing. But the article never improved, and there was a failed attempt at PROD, and when it was made a redirect, the target didn't have the information even then. Although the redirect summary said merge/redirect orphaned article into Google search, I don't see any merge done.
Google Gemini, named after the Gemini twins, is a poor ATD choice as well, because of the singular, and there is no Google twins. Jay 06:42, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, looks like a bit of WP:Recentism from two decades ago, zero Google Books hits for either the singular or the plural. --Joy (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Restore and AFD – this has already survived an AFD, I think that's grounds to not backdoor delete it through RFD. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 09:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@Skarmory if there's been a backdoor deletion in this case, it happened in 2008, and nobody's cared for two decades. --Joy (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
If it was a thing in egosurfing, couldn't something about it be added to that article to retarget there? 9ninety (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I went ahead and re-worded and added in the definition from the from the former article to egosurfing, so it can retargeted there. 9ninety (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I had thought of it, but didn't know if or how it will fit into that article. Jay 07:44, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Eh, it's probably good enough, but with a source being just a random 2007 human interest story, it kind of perpetuates the idea of Wikipedia being just a summary of the internet. --Joy (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I assume the undisambiguated phrase should just point at Adverbial clause. Not sure why that article does not mention the "technical" Latin-derived terms though. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Comment: There's a currently open RM that may end up moving the destination article. I don't currently anticipate that the RM result is likely to have any direct effect on this redirect, but it's probably worth noting regardless. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I notified the RM Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The RM concluded with target Temporal clause (Latin) becoming a redirect to Latin temporal clause. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 20:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Political candidate who ran in but withdrew from the target election. Previously ran in 2014_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California#District_35. The 2014 election is probably a more primary topic since she actually received votes in it but I think readers would be better off with just the search results. मल्ल (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
I would 100% agree to Delete for having withdrawn in 2026. With that being said, there is an argument for going back to 2014 and I would Support that. She was a notable candidate in that race, after all, and advanced to the general election. PickleG13 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Non-notable political candidates who have run multiple times should be redirected to their most recent campaign. The 2026 election notes her 2014 run, but the 2014 election does not note her 2026 run (and it would be anachronistic to do so). --Tavix(talk) 17:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
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 20:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Bursty star formation
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus
Couldn't find any reliable sources using this term, in contrast to Microslop. No mention anywhere on Wikipedia either.
Wiktionary has an entry, wikt:SlopTube, so it could be redirected there. ~ lilymy tree ~ 15:29, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
No mention at target. Perhaps redirect to AI slop; YouTube is mentioned there in this context but not with that phrase.--☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 15:33, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to content mill, as "slop content" is a term made for content made by a content mill, and content mills are primarily on YouTube. The -tube suffix is used for YouTube specific trends (such as BookTube). In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
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 19:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
no list found in the target, lists are per-game (you know, per individual game on the entire library of every console with an action replay made for it) and violate the "wikipedia ain't a guide, stinky" guideline, and if you've seen one such list, you'd know that the one in the pre-blar content was nowhere near complete for the two games it was compatible with. it's also copyvio from at least codejunkies and an unrelated wiki that seems to have died ages ago consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 13:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
also it was poorly formatted and some of the codes' functions were wrong. sorry, i just had to rub smelling salts on this wound consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 13:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep. The target does describe what the codes are and how they're created, so it's helpful from that standpoint. If someone's searching Wikipedia looking for the codes themselves, they're gonna have a bad time. --Tavix(talk) 21:00, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Target article contains information on the search term. If the reader wanted a list, yes they'd be disappointed, but they should have known that List of X and X tend to be different anyways. ~ A412talk! 23:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
really vague name, and incomplete at that. blar from unsourced cruft twice!! consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 13:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. There's nothing else on Wikipedia with this name, so if someone is looking for something else they're not going to find it no matter what. I also think it's plausible to read "NDS Trainer Toolkit" as "Trainer Toolkit" for the NDS so I'm not convinced that it's an incomplete name. --Tavix(talk) 20:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Firewireless
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus
I don’t think there is a primary topic between the footballer and the YouTuber, a dab page would probably be better. The footballer has greater long term significance but the YouTuber is primarily known as “King Kenny” and not his actual name. There is also some Kings called Kenneth such as Kenneth III of Scotland, couldn’t find sources referring to them as Kenny though. Sahaib (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Convert to disambig page. GiantSnowman 08:51, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
It's probably bad that I’m Scottish as well. I’m not saying the King Kenny page should be moved, just wondering if a dab page would be better. Sahaib (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Only mention of this at this point seems to be at No-disc crack; not sure if this is enough for retargeting. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:54, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned in the target article. Most likely, the intended target of this redirect is Zangfu#San Jiao三焦 (Triple Burner), but again, the redirect is not mentioned in that article. Third-party search engines for this term seem to primarily return results for three chamber boiler units, and well as a nonexistent subject Triple-pass boiler, meaning most likely, if someone is searching this term in English, they are most likely not looking for anything in the current target page. Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
We do have an article for three-drum boiler - I don't think this is the same as a triple-pass boiler? For the record, "triple boiler" does appear to be a reasonably English synonym for the current target based on the English results I get for the term on Google Scholar. The term triple boiler also seems to be used in reference to some espresso machines. Quite a few potential topics here, but only two that appear to currently have articles. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 23:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Sulfate is not mentioned at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:22, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Trimethoprim/polymyxin B. The salt of TMP is used in this combi-drug. NIH only list TMP sulfate products paired with Polymyxin B so this might be a good target. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:24, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep or retarget, per Miminity. Either target is ok for this plausible search term. If "sulfate" isn't mentioned in the target articles, that's a deficiency of the articles, not a problem with the redirect. Marbletan (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 14:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or retarget? Both the current and suggested targets still do not mention the redirect term. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 19:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. @Marbletan: how is it a deficiency in the target article? Trimethoprim doesn't appear to be a sulfate, so trimethoprim sulfate would be a different chemical (like sodium and sodium sulfate). pburka (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Pharmaceutical drugs are often formulated as salts. There can be multiple different salt formulations of a drug while the active ingredient remains the same. Trimethoprim sulfate is one such salt formulation (see CID 64936 from PubChem, for example). It is reasonable and useful for a Wikipedia article about a pharmaceutical drug to describe the salts that are used in the medications that are sold to consumers, so I think it is a deficiency of a Wikipedia article to not do so. Marbletan (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
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) 00:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
These two redirects should have the same target, but I know nothing about the topic of radar technology, so I'm not sure what it should be. Or maybe the target should be Fan labor or Filk music? Or maybe Fan §Music? –CopperyMarrow15(talk·edits) 03:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the two ways to solve this would be either to make a disambiguation page, but I'm not sure there would be enough articles that relate to that title, and the option I personally like more is that both should redirect to the SNR-75. Feel free to correct me though on the topic of there not being enough articles to make a disambiguation, and then if there is like one or two articles, I would just add the for template to the SNR-75 article.
Actually looking at it again, I think the Fan-song should be a disambiguation page, even if there's only a few articles, and Fan Song to redirect to SNR-75 as that's the way the NATO reporting name of the radar is written. Thanks for noticing this and bringing this up by the way. 12030123O9 (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
redirectSNR-75 , because S-75 Dvina simply uses Fan Song, and is not a synonym or extra meaning for "Fan Song". --Altenmann>talk 16:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: would a move discussion be more appropriate first? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Inappropriate redirect from non-notable actor to a single film he appeared in. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 21:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Question did this person appear in any other movies? If not, then this redirect actually is appropriate to have when mentioned on target page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Most of the sources there are unusable - and I suspect there's probably AI involved as well. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 15:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, it was deleted as an LLMPROD. Jay 16:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Restore. A WP:BLAR was reverted twice, so there is disagreement on whether or not there should be an article. --Tavix(talk) 20:46, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: restore and send to AfD or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
topical scope: redirect to Canaanite religion ostensibly relates to a subtopic of the broader issue of Semitic paganism, and so a redirect to a laterally equivalent issue (Semitic religions) is preferable; presumably, one using such general nomenclature specifically wants information targeted at the general level, lest they would have searched for more specific nomenclature.
Summary:
Redirect Semitic Pagan deities should be either deleted or moved, and if moved then likely retargeted, for title violations and ambiguity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HiddenHistoryPedia (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Don't delete redirects from miscaps are perfectly normal. Don't move either per WP:MOVEREDIRECT. No opinion on whether to retarget. * Pppery *it has begun... 20:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Are you suggesting we should also have Semitic pagan deities as a redirect, though? Otherwise, I don't quite get why we would have the wrongly-capitalzied variant and not the "correct" formulation? No response to move until I understand the former. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Semitic pagan deities was deleted at its AfD, but closer missed deleting this redirect. Jay 08:15, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:36, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
These random snippets of mathematical notation occur in countless places. There is no reason to think that a person putting them in the search bar would be looking for these particular, rather obscure, targets, as opposed to n+1, N-1 Victory, Kawasaki P-1, etc. In the case of n - 1, the title of the article didn't even include this phrase until the redirect creator added it last week. --JBL (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
See P − 1 and P+1, which are created by others. Athina241 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
I would also support deleting those, for the same reasons. --JBL (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Retarget N−1 to N1, and P−1 to P1. Both of those disambiguation pages already include "-1" variations. No opinion on P + 1. BD2412T 13:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Both proposed retargets are reasonable. --JBL (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 16:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget N−1, N-1, n−1, n-1 to N1, and P−1, P-1, p−1, p-1 to P1 per BD. I would extend this to retargetting P - 1 and P − 1 to P1 as well. Note the spaces and EN dash versus hyphen. Enumerating all these versions is frustrating to deal with and is almost always not needed given the power of search. P+1, while very ambiguous, seems to match only the algorithm on Wikipedia. I don't see much reason to change it at the moment. ⇌Synpath 14:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to List of computer security companies, which includes a list of computer security services (also known as cybersecurity services). It also includes a link to "computer security", where multiple mentions of "cybersecurity" can be found, leaving readers to not be surprised. LazyLune (talk•edits) 09:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
It's easy to find sources saying that "cyber service" means virtual volunteering, so if it is retargeted, we should add a hatnote. Disambiguation is an option. Oppose retargeting to List of computer security companies, which is certainly too narrow a topic (cybersecurity as opposed to online services in general). Neither of the titles under discussion mention security. —Mx. Granger(talk·contribs) 20:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
It's easy to find sources saying that "cyber service" means virtual volunteering It largely depends on the scenario here. In this case, cybersecurity seems more applicable here. Search results yield sources pertaining to said topic. In addition, "cyberservice" is a used initialism for "cybersecurity services". Neither of the titles under discussion mention security. May you provide some further context to this part of your rationale here? I'm having a bit trouble understanding what you're fully saying, as the articles I mentioned both cover security (although I will say that "Cybersecurity" is more informative about it than "List of computer security companies"). LazyLune (talk•edits) 23:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 16:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
@LazyLune: The two redirects under discussion are "Cyberservices" and "Cyber service". Neither of those are about security. Cybersecurity services are a small subset of online services in general, so it doesn't make sense to redirect either of these to a page about cybersecurity services. —Mx. Granger(talk·contribs) 21:59, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Do note that I explained my reasoning above. It appears that our search results are a bit different. LazyLune (talk•edits) 00:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Network service? Cyber and network (in this context) are roughly synonmyous so I can see the connection. Otherwise, I would think cyberservice, meaning "a service on the Internet", to encompass both e-commerce and virtual volunteering so both options are too narrow. --Tavix(talk) 14:52, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
These redirects should point to the same target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Comment - Retargeting to SAR supergroup is my first instinct, but I notice this will create circular redirects on the SAR supergroup page. Someone with knowledge of the topic should confirm the intended destination of those [[TSAR supergroup|TSAR]] links.
I had the same thoughts. Neither article contains a lot of substantive coverage of TSAR but SAR supergroup is the logical place where this might be expanded. The brief mention at Diaphoretickes §Evolution just says that Telonemia [...] is sometimes resolved as the sister clade of the SAR supergroup, forming the hypothesized TSAR clade. That makes Diaphoretickes an improper target to discuss TSAR on the whole. The circular link at SAR supergroup can either be removed or it can be left as an acceptable circular redirect if editors think this has standalone article potential. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Support retargeting TSAR to Diaphoretickes. TSAR includes groups that SAR does not, and is fully included in Diaphoretickes, the nearest parent clade. Furthermore, its validity is still unknown, as the 'T' often branches with Haptista instead of SAR. The Evolution section at Diaphoretickes covers this information. For these reasons, TSAR redirecting to Diaphoretickes is preferable, and is a surefire way to avoid misleading readers into thinking SAR and TSAR are equivalent. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I think I initially misread Diaphoretickes, and did not bother to look at the taxobox. I do think the information could be presented more clearly in the article. I've followed the TSAR discussion from afar and my (limited!) understanding is that it is disputed but still felt to be relevant enough to cover somewhere. This is a bit beyond the scope of RFD but I do think the coverage could be improved while still kept fairly succinct. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
@Myceteae Agreed that coverage should be improved. I have added some more bits of info at Telonemid and will try to add something at Diaphoretickes itself. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Support.Jako96 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Target both to SAR supergroup per my reply above. I've notified WP:PROTISTA, WP:ALGAE, WP:PLANTS, and WP:TOL to get input from subject-matter experts and would be open to amending my !vote if there are factors I've not considered. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Snotelek that targeting the least inclusive group that contains TSAR is usually the best solution. But TSAR is sort of SAR sensu lato so might be a more natural place to discuss it. It's mentioned in the lede and the article could be reorganised to have a short section on TSAR that could be linked in the redirect. Likewise, Diaphoretickes could have a sections on TSAR/SAR and other component supergroups, but the article isn't organised that way. TSAR is mentioned but seems quite dismissive of the hypothesis. At the moment SAR seems a better target because the issue is addressed in the one paragraph lede. —Jts1882| talk 14:39, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
This was part of the thinking that originally led me favor SAR supergroup. Either target is justifiable and the coverage could be improved in either location to better support these redirects. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Telonemid, where there seems to be the most coverage of TSAR. I think this makes sense, as the difference between the TSAR and SAR would be the inclusion of Telonemia. --Tavix(talk) 17:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A new target has been proposed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
DisambiguateTSAR with Tsar and TSAR's current target, Retarget the other one to SAR supergroup. It seems plausible to me that someone looking up the first redirect could be looking for the Slavic title. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
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) 00:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
This may be better off redirecting to teaching assistant, although it can also mean an object used to assist in teaching, though I am unsure if there is an article on that topic on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
REVDEL first version, then delete. Borderline vandalism creation, eventually redirected to somewhere that doesn't really make any sense. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 16:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 20:51, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The correct spelling for the meaning "Teaching assistant" is Teaching aide. An "aid" would a tool, instrument, or toy to assist in teaching. While this is a plausible mistake, I think correct interpretations should take priority. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article about teaching tools, educational tools, educational aids, or learning aids. It has educational toy but that's not quite right as it seems mostly concerned with play independently of teaching. In absence of a target, I suspect this is a notable gap in coverage; papers about the topic can be found on Scholar and publications on Google Books. Return to red to encourage article creation. The first revision is obvious vandalism, the most concerning part being that it includes a phone number. The fourth revisions seems to include personal names. Obviously these are concerning, but I'm not sure what the point of doing a revdel first would be. To leave a log entry? I'm not against it if it would be helpful in some way. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 21:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Here's the extent of the remotely useful content (not much) in the revision history:
revision 321151393 (by User:Hirihata at 07:11, October 21, 2009): "Teaching is aid something that we learnt and make in our school. [...] I was once made 1 teaching aid that not help the entire school. I break the new generation of the children.. They knew the gossip of some artist but don't know about mathematics and stuff.
revision 321152265 (by Hirihata at 07:20, October 21, 2009): "Teaching aid is something like this:", followed by some unhelpful examples of riddle questions and answers, two pairs in English and two in Indonesian
refers to games about falling things, like the latter half of puyo puyo tetris, or the former half of puyo puyo tetris. that said, it's not actually a term exclusive to puzzle games (really, results imply it's more common in shmups), or to video games (though it seems to at least be primarily associated with video games) consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 19:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep the ones with "and" per the acronyms/collective terms discussed at Maintenance §Definitions, or delete them as WP:XY if that would be too confusing. Retarget Repairer and Repairman to Handyman as those terms refer to a role or type of person rather than directly to the work they do. Note the bold synonyms at Handyman. Retarget the rest to Corrective maintenance as "repair" and its variations by themselves imply that something is broken and needs "fixing" or, synonymously, "mending". Maintenance is a much broader topic, and can include routine work to maintain continued function of things that haven't broken yet and as such do not need repair. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
This is a very big vote, but I think it makes sense to me for us to DisambiguateRepair with links to every pages the listed redirects send you to, and Redirect everything else to Repair. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Every? The redirects currently only go to two, one of which is a subtopic for the other, that subtopic being corrective maintenance, which states in bold that it is synonymous with repair. The only reason repair is mentioned at maintenance is because repair is a type of maintenance, but maintenance is not synonymous with repair so linking it at a a disambiguation page is not appropriate. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - First of all, IMHO, this RFD should be split into one entry per term, as this could become cumbersome. That said:
Since these are closely related, I do think we should discuss them together rather than fragmenting the conversation, even if distinguishing the subcases is a bit annoying.
I've removed DNA repair and Right to repair from the disambiguation page as partial title matches (PTM). They are never referred to as just "repair" by itself and it's not appropriate to list them on the disambiguation page except maybe in a see also. Repair and deduct may also be a PTM but I'm not sure; I'm not familiar with United States law I've left it. If it is a PTM, please remove it too. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
For some reason, "Broadcast satellite" currently has multiple hatnotes pointing to Broadcasting Satellite (Japanese) (→ Yuri (satellite)), but the three closer terms all pointing to the same other target have none...
Weak keep Potential miscapitalization, but I mostly just don't see a better target. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
weak retarget to game & watch as a plausible enough misremembering of the name. the one mention in the target is in the context of what would become a top tier in ssbu, and if confusions were to exist, the hatnote can have a reader covered consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 19:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
We could delete to facilitate searching instead (although I'm not sure if the lowercase version would interfere anyways...); the results include all of the proposed targets. There is no content in the history, just redirects (briefly Nelsonic Industries, and then Handheld electronic game).
Alternatively, if this is retargeted, the hatnote created by User:Tevildo at Handheld electronic game, {{Redirect|Game Watch|the Nintendo console|Game & Watch|the Nelsonic Industries product line|Nelsonic Game Watch|the IT news website|Impress Watch}}, should be moved to the new target and adjusted as appropriate.
Or we could could convert that into a DAB page, and perhaps tag it with {{broad-concept article}}.
I'll just repeat my comment from the last RfD that Nelsonic Industries is probably the best target, as their product is actually called "Game Watch" with that spacing and capitalization. But the status quo seems acceptable. Tevildo (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh, good point. If the orthography is a distinguishing characteristic, that is a valid argument as per WP:SMALLDETAILS. However, frequency of usage can override it; I'm not sure how to judge that here. Solomon Ucko (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Sollyucko Fair, but the stylization is inconsistent. At least in some Wikipedia references, the website is called just Game Watch, ditto in Template:Video game journalism. Granted, maybe the solution here is to fix things in the template and our citations? But it is, obviously, not an uncommon error. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Per Sollyucko, the website is GAME Watch, and Sollyucko's solution (with three different targets depending on capitalization) would probably work per WP:DIFFCAPS. Tevildo (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Quick search with ctrl-f shows no mention at the target. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 15:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete This is an actual Sia song, and is apparently also the first one she ever made. Maybe a mention could be added, but currently, delete. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
delete for now per above as potential WP:REDYES --Lenticel(talk) 00:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
It is also a song from the album Welcome to My Blue Sky by the band Momma. So either Delete to favour search, or if making a disambig, add How Do I Breathe to the See also. Jay 15:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Name of WP:LPI accused not found guilty or responsible in any venue removed from article per WP:BLPCRIME. Per WP:BLPRESTORE, name cannot be restored to article without positive consensus to do so, which has not been sought or achieved. ꧁Mangroves꧂ 04:46, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Both of these have old articles in their histories. The one at DeviousMUD was blanked and redirected after an AfD, then redirected again after it was briefly resurrected in 2012. The one at Deviousmud was redirected to enforce that AfD, though the content seems to have been written from scratch. Though RuneScape did mention "DeviousMUD" in 2007, I didn't see any evidence of a merge when scanning over the revisions. (See, eg., revisions neighbouring 1 February 2007, 24 September 2007, 9 November 2012) Suggest deletion for lack of a helpful target. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 04:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete both Although "DeviousMUD" has no results on any Wikipedia pages aside from these two redirects, it does have results in WikiBooks, where it's mentioned as "RuneScape started out as a 2D game known as DeviousMUD. It was not released to the public and very few people saw it." I don't know much about RuneScape, but this appears to be somewhat important in the game's history? Anyway, it's misleading, as someone searching for this probably already knows what RuneScape is and would be looking for information on DeviousMUD in particular. I'm not entirely sure if it's important enough to be re-added to the RuneScape article. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Calvin (2021) and Levene and Anderson (2012) affirm that DeviousMUD existed and became RuneScape. Levene and Anderson (2012) does not mention "releases in 1998 and 1999", it only mentions that it was eventually released in 2001 as RuneScape. Calvin (2021) mentions development began in 1998 with a brief beta test after 7 months of development; plausibly that could have been in 1999 if development began in the Summer 1998. The Tip.It Times does mention versions in 1998 and 1999, but explicitly states the 1998 version was never released, though it states a beta test of "DeviousMUD2", a completely rewrite from scratch, was released in 1999. The Tip.It Times is blog in the style of a newspaper, maintained by players from the Rune Tips fansite/forum, so it's not a reliable source. I've reworded the mention to simply say the name was used and development began in 1998. I'm not comfortable mentioning the release in 1999 given the year is not stated in a reliable source. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
If the amended text remains in the article and isn't deleted before the RfD ends, I'm comfortable with a retarget/refine to RuneScape §Development. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep/retarget per above if new edit remains. I'm not sure about the appropriateness of DeviousMUD in the version history - while it became RuneScape, I'm not sure I'd say it (or Castle GamesDomain ) was RuneScape. Though as much of what RuneScape launched with was drawn up during the DeviousMUD days, I certainly think it's worth a mention in the article. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't have much opinion about the phrasing, but I do think it should be mentioned there somehow. It might be good to include relevant information about Castle GamesDomain too, as long as it can be supported by sufficiently reliable sources. Solomon Ucko (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Electronic payment
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 09:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to List of cities in the United Kingdom, to sync with List of cities in England. The list there gives the names of every city in England as a sortable table. Admittedly the list also includes Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but it can be sorted by statistical region which groups them in a way that makes finding just the English ones straightforward. Seems good enough to me. If others would prefer something better, it wouldn't be difficult to add another sortable column to sort by constitutent country. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 09:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Interesting idea, but that list isn't limited to cities. It includes general geographical locations like Wellington Island, Devon Falls, and Victoria Peak, broad regions like Cameron Highlands and Middlesex County, Jamaica, as well as various small villages or towns. I suppose it wouldn't be surprising as a {{r from subtopic}}, but it does make it a bit difficult to navigate if the reader specifically wants cities. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:36, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Nearly everyone has suggested different redirect targets so aligning on one would be ideal. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
A delete vote of a strength between weak delete and normal delete Considering how almost everyone has proposed different targets, it seems like the term is ambiguous. However, it is also something I could see someone searching, but it might be best to just let search results guide them at that point. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure; all of the potential solutions mentioned above seem reasonable to me, including retargeting it to a relevant article, deleting it, or making it a DAB (which could list the relevant articles for each possible interpretation).
Another potential target could be the DAB at English, since it provides suggestions for what the ambiguous word in the title might refer to.
My guess is that this was made because the target said, and still says, "Cities are listed alphabetically by their current best-known name in English." Accordingly, I'm also fine with leaving it as-is, though I'd then prefer to move it to European city names in English.
which mentions that the "581th Volks-Grenadier-Division" was renamed "352th Volks-Grenadier-Division" one month after its creation. And the "352th Volks-Grenadier-Division" was the re-establishment of the "352nd Infantry Division" after its destruction in July 1944. Regards Filiep (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Filiep: That makes sense, but without any mention at the articles, these redirects can cause astonishment and be less than helpful. I know very little German; would you be willing to add cited mentions for these? Mdewman6 (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Regards, Filiep (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
That's better than nothing, but it would be best to add the name ("581st Volksgrenadier Division"), the reference for it, and an explanation of when the name was used, to the target article (352nd Infantry Division).
August 25, 1944: 581. Volks-Grenadier-Division created
September 21, 1944: renamed to 352. Volks-Grenadier-Division
Were the 352nd Infantry Division and the 352nd Volksgrenadier Division actually related, or did they just happen to have the same number? In the latter case, I think we should split those two articles... It might be good to check the various available sources, e.g. the citations of our citations if they're accessible, for more details and context to make sure.
@Filiep: see Solomon's comment above; the reference and mention needs to go in the articles that the redirects target, so that someone using the redirect understands why they were redirected there. Thanks for working on this. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Done. Regards. Filiep (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the previous RfD I am reluctant to soft delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 18:39, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Refine-_-;; to Emoticon#Korean per above, and add a {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to have the underscore. -_-; is plausible alternation of it, weak refine to the same target. Randi🦋TalkContribs 18:46, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs's list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs-related deletions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per nom; most readers would be WP:SURPRISEd at the current target. I also note that there's already a {{for}} hatnote from Rat Terrier to Ratter (dog), so any readers who are looking for the generic group will find it easily. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
For clarity, I (opener/requester) added the {{For}} hatnote from Rat Terrier pointing to Ratter (dog)after opening this request. I also added Working terrier to "Ratter (dog)"'s 'See also' section. Working terrier and Ratter (dog) have a lot of overlap; Working terrier is almost a subset of Ratter, but not quite. —sbb(talk) 19:41, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs's list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs-related deletions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
obviously retarget, this is unexpected qJ ☞ (c) 18:50, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep the Rat Terrier breed is rare outside of America. 'rat terrier' is a generic term applied to other breeds If someone used the term here I'd probably assume a ratting Jack Russell or Foxy before the American breed. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per WP:ASTONISH. If somone types in "Rat terrier" they expect to find "Rat Terrier". (Relatedly...why are dog breeds at "All Caps" still? There was a massive fight over bird names like that a time back...) - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relatedly...why are dog breeds at "All Caps" still? There was a massive fight over bird names like that a time back... see MOS:BREED:
The names of standardized breeds of animals, and formal cultivars and varieties of domesticated plants (as recognized by major national or international organizations) are capitalized. Examples: Manx Loaghtan sheep, Siamese cat, Napa cabbage, Labrador Retriever, Golden Retriever, Sanguinello orange, Calabrese broccoli.
Convert to dab page listing the generic meaning, the modern American breed, the Ratonero Bodeguero Andaluz of Spain and any other rat terriers we may have pages on. Per Traumnovelle the generic meaning is primary (and NB WP:SMALLDETAILS for the difference in capitalisation), but this should satisfy everyone. NB also that only one of the first ten results of this search is about the modern breed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
The current target essentially is a dab page, listing the Ratonero you mentioned (and 5 other Ratoneros), all the ratting Terriers, and also non-Terrier ratters (such as Schnauzers, Pinschers, Schipperkes, etc.). Having yet another overload of the term "Rat Terrier" doesn't add clarity, it only further steers actual searches away from the Rat Terrier page (which is very un-loved and poorly maintained, even compared to less popular and more recently-accepted breeds. And WP:SMALLDETAILS supports the proposed retarget:
The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes or disambiguation pages.
Having Rat terrier point directly to Rat Terrier (by the principle of least WP:ASTONISHment, which strongly implies that English-language searching "rat terrier" should lead to "Rat Terrier" simply because the searched term actually exists, perfectly in parallel with the other terrier breeds), with the hatnote that exists at the top of Rat Terrier pointing to Ratter (dog) is exactly the kind of minimizing the surprise of searchers, and minimizing the effort in getting to the likely asked-for information. —sbb(talk) 12:35, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 09:22, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, sbb, what is your evidence for the claim you make (that people typing "rat terrier" are looking for a modern American breed rather than the broad and long-established topic of rat terriers)? (note the nineteenth-century dictionary entries, mentions and indeed breed society in the first page of the Gbooks search I linked above). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
It's self-evident that people generally don't search capitalization-specific. I don't need evidence to show that people searching "rat terrier" are not expecting a different outcome from searching "Rat Terrier", just like I don't think I need to explain or prove that most people are not aware of WP's MOS:BREED rules of capitalization, nor that they adhere to such capitalization in their personal writing or searching in general. I think it's self-evident that consistency in our breed articles' capitalization and "alternately-capitalized" equivalent-text redirects should land people at the page they were most likely searching for, and use appropriate hatnotes to point people to the reasonable-but-less-likely targets like Ratter (dog) and Working terrier. You call it a "long-established topic of rat terriers", yet you linked to "ratter", and that article does not use the term "rat terrier" anywhere other than linking directly to Rat Terrier. And your Google Books search seems like rather poor evidence of anything, other than confirmation that Rat Terrier is a modern breed, and 19th and early 20th century terminology has shifted. That shift is certainly notable and mention-worthy in either article (or perhaps both), but retaining no-longer primarily relevant terminology should not override WP:SURPRISE. I'd aruge that this Google Ngram shows that since about 2004 or so, the term "rat terrier" is more popular and mentioned than ever, and that's surely due to its establishment as a unique breed. Even the term "ratter" seems to have a resurgence from about 2000 conciding with the popularity of "rat terrier". "Rat terrier"'s similarity in occurrence with "ratter" since 2000 shows it's a mentioned and documented term in its own right, in comparison to, and as a mentioned specific breed type of general "ratter". —sbb(talk) 15:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this film was released in 2005, however there is evidence that an unrelated, even more obscure and non-notable Canadian film with the same name was released in 2005, in which case the redirect should be deleted anyway for "causing confusion". I'm not G6'ing this thing because the article stayed at this title for more than three years. Redireditor(talk) 21:08, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The BushrangerOne ping only 18:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Apparently this film was released in 2002, then became available on DVD in 2005 (I hadn't noticed that latter info when I first nominated the redirect). That said, it's not ideal that the article makes no mention of the film's DVD release. Whilst I'm not fully convinced that this redirect is helpful (given the potential confusion I mentioned above), I will look deeper into my off-wiki search results to see if I can add a short 'Home media' section or even mention it directly in the lead. Redireditor(talk) 17:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The target article was created at this wrong title and moved within two days to its present title. No reason to keep the incorrect title. Per WP:PFILM the year should indicate the year of its first verifiable release. Jay 07:35, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not finding evidence that the target is also referred to as "Poland". It is not mentioned at either Poland (disambiguation) or the current target now or when this redirect was created. A Google search gives mostly results for "Little Poland, Connecticut", which is mentioned at Little Poland and links to New Britain, Connecticut §Polish community, though that would be a partial title match, so I think this redirect should be deleted. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment -- The name is real (compare , under "What's in a Name?"). It's a historical name, sometimes spelled Poole Land, Poland Brook, or Pole Land. There is still a Poland Brook Road in Terryville. Poland is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but it arguably should be covered in the (non-existent) history section at Terryville, Connecticut. Renerpho (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The BushrangerOne ping only 18:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Invest 91C
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
french for "toast", but only in quebec? why!? lack of affinity with quebec specifically aside, it's also vague with the feminine singular of "rôti" (roasted meat), which results imply is the very slightly more common use. with views being low and those results being insubstantial, i see no real use in having this around consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 15:58, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Cuisine of Quebec has a single mention, though only in the context of another food "often eaten... on roasted bread pieces called rôties". I'm not sure that's any better than search results. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Mario DS
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
Should they have a common target? Jay 16:01, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep the two correct ones University of Springfield. The fictional one from The Simpsons is named "Springfield University" not "University of Springfield", so these aren't actually ambiguous per WP:SMALLDETAILS. The list of former names for the College don't include any with "University". I've added a hatnote at Homer Goes to College in case anyone uses "Springfield University" as short for "University of (Illinois) Springfield". DeleteUniveristy. Unlikely typo. If not deleted, sync with the correctly spelled redirect and tag as {{avoided double redirect}}. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 16:45, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Lean Retarget Springfield University to Springfield (The Simpsons) §Colleges/universities per Iggy Swan (below). The hatnote I added can be moved if this is retargeted. If not retargeted, keep, per my previous arguments. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 02:03, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
There's more substantial information there about the University itself than at Homer Goes to College. However, the section has no citations so I'm unsure if the target can be expected be stable. Another editor may decide to redact the section for lack of sources. For now, tentatively support this. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 02:00, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
I agree that Springfield (The Simpsons)#Colleges/universities is more fitting. I also agree that this can be retargeted if content is expanded, removed, or reorganized, but the overview at Springfield (The Simpsons)#Colleges/universities is a sensible place to collect information about the university's appearances in multiple episodes and to place it in the context of other colleges and universities that have appeared in the series. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Retarget all to Springfield College (disambiguation), listing both "college" and "university" together. It seems really unlikely to me that a fictional topic is primary over a real one here. * Pppery *it has begun... 23:48, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Ah, I confess I was unaware of Springfield College (disambiguation). I may need to take a second look at each of these redirects separately but I'm now far less confident about the Simpsons target. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As things stand, the first item is likely to be retargeted, but we're unclear on where; the second might be deleted and might be retargeted to the disambiguation page; and the third might be kept or might be retargeted to the disambiguation page. Not exactly a WP:TRAINWRECK, but if this ends up no consensus, the third item should probably be discussed separately in the future. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget the first to Springfield College, keep the second, retarget the third to Springfield College (disambiguation). Despite "Springfield University" not being the real name of Springfield College, it is a university, and it's primary topic for "Springfield College". Compare, for example, to University of William and MaryUniversity of William and Mary. It's not uncommon for older US universities to retain historical "college" names. The "University of" name just seems incorrect for any topic. I suppose the current target is the single best one among full articles, but treating it as ambiguous seems better. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
keep There is a good deal of confusion with such names, and the date range is tecnically correct, because it did exist since 1957, only with different number, "38th Guards Tank Division". --Altenmann>talk 16:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree there is confusion about Soviet unit names, which is all the more reason we should have our redirects correct to avoid confusion. The unit did not have this title in 1957, nor was it formed in 1957 as the IP points out below. These should be deleted to avoid confusion, particularly to prevent linking to incorrect targets. When nominating these redirects and checking the back links, most were incorrect. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete Although Altenmann is technically correct, the division itself existed since 1943. If it is kept, then retarget to 90th Guards Rifle Division#Postwar. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 07:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even if confused about dates, it seems very unlikely readers would search for this, so keeping it as a suggestion doesn't seem worthwhile. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Tavix(talk) 14:39, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per all. Even if we go by Altenmann's argument of the alternate name, the start year would be correct, but the end year should have been 1965. The current numbering is a mishmash. Jay 16:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I would like to delete this redirect. Serbia and Montenegro, including its former name FR Yugoslavia, have never played any under-19 basketball tournament. Maiō T. (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
This is more of a content issue, than a redirect issue. The target article does mention this team. Also, I just notified of this discussion at the target and creator talk pages. Jay 17:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The mention at the #New national teams section looks like general information about the countries, not their youth basketball teams. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I had closed this discussion as delete, but I am instead relisting following a request on my talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 14:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
Noting the comment on Tavix's talk page from Jay(talk·contribs): "All the links at the #New national teams section are for the under-19 teams, and that includes Serbia and Montenegro whose under-19 team is a redlink now." That's accurate for the bulleted list at that section. I should have been more specific: I was referring to the prose before that list, which indeed links to general country names, not sports teams of any sort. So I agree with his earlier comment that this is a content issue. My conclusion is still delete, though. Unanswered is the question of whether the country of Serbia and Montenegro ever had such a team. If it did, delete per WP:REDLINK. If it didn't, delete because it never existed. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
If it existed, which the target says it did, from 1992 to 2006, does it deserve an article, or is this redirect sufficient? If it didn't exist, and the target is wrong, the entry needs to be removed from the target, and this redirect deleted. However, there is an incoming link from FIBA Europe and I tried hard, but couldn't find where it is linked in that article. Jay 08:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:REDLINK. Serbia and Montenegro separated in 2006. Just one year later, Serbia hosted (and won!) the 2007 FIBA Under-19 World Championship. I think it's safe to say this team existed, brand new teams don't get to host and win major tournaments like that. --Tavix(talk) 16:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
And interestingly, there is no mention whatsoever of Montenegro on that page. The team may have just been representing Serbia after all, then. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Maiō T.: What would you like to do with the team entry at the target article? Jay 16:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Jay: Okay, I came up with something cool, click here. Maiō T. (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
The section is unsourced, but otherwise looks good! Jay 04:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts given the new content at the target page? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: bundled with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 October 17#IPhone 18.
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate
Disambiguation draft requested * Pppery * it has begun... 16:52, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy pings: Finnfrog99, Tavix
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 October 24#ANALYSIS: McCune-Reischauer System and Revised Romanization of Korean