Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

XfD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 4 18 33 25 80
TfD 0 0 5 8 13
MfD 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 7 12 13 9 41
RfD 0 0 17 57 74
AfD 0 0 0 37 37

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.

Old discussions

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When to delete a redirect

Shortcuts

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Speedy deletion § Redirects

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

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

Reasons for not deleting

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

The exceptions to this rule 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.

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list

November 13

Tellu

I think "Tellu" here is intended to be a redirect from a given name, which itself is unusual. However, "Tellu" is ambiguous in the real world regarding subjects about which Enwiki does not have an article, so I recommend Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Grid education

Delete as vague, as Grid is ambiguous.Which of those meanings is this an education of? If it's of Grid computing, then the redirect would have to be titled unambiguously, and we need to show that "Grid computing education" is a thing. The target is a professor at Kent, and the redirect creation by the similarly named editor User:Frankwang, appears to be undisclosed COI editing. Jay 07:17, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Vagonka

Is the target really the primary topic? This is only mentioned once in the current target. However, Vagónka also exists, and it is likely someone would search "Vagonka" looking for that page. To be fair, that article is a very short stub, but as long as that page still exists, this redirect is currently problematic as it doesn't link to the article "Vagónka". Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

November 12

Chinese milk

I don't think the target is known as "Chinese milk". 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:56, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete don’t really see the point of this Sunshinezguy (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Robert Edward "Teddy" Turner IV

Not mentioned at target Kinopiko in solidarity with Esperanza 19:29, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Montgomery Ward Building (Oakland, California)

This is a notable subject on the National Register of Historic Places, but the page currently redirects to a listing with three words about this building. As such, proposing deletion per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation. Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: - For all the minimalism of what it redirects to, that still at least tells the user *something* about the building and shows them what it looks like.
As such, isn't even this pushing the spirit in which WP:RETURNTORED was intended?
And is making it red actually more likely to "encourage article creation" than the current setup?
I mean, is anyone who would otherwise have been willing to take the time and effort in the first place *really* likely to think "eh... good enough, won't bother after all" when they see what it already redirects to?
Maybe an eyecatching red link might get someone's attention... but similarly, how likely is is that anyone who would potentially have cared enough to write a full article wouldn't already have clicked on that link and noticed it was a redirect anyway?
The redirect was only created in 2016, yet no-one had bothered to create it in the 10-15 years WP had already been mainstream by then.
Making the link red again sounds (at best) like trading off something useful to most readers in an attempt to provoke engagement.
I disagree with that both on principle and because- for the reasons given above- I don't think it would be particularly effective.
Ubcule (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
@Ubcule, no, it isn't pushing the spirit of RETURNTORED as it does not help users navigationally. This redirect is linked from National Register of Historic Places listings in Alameda County, California, where it links back to itself, deceiving users into thinking it leads somewhere. The only other place it's linked from is Template:NRHP in Alameda County, California, which already has a link to National Register of Historic Places listings in Alameda County, California. There might be an argument for retention if the entire text of the linked entry wasn't "Demolished in 2001". Regarding your bolded comment, yes, there are people who are working on filling in red links. The existence of a blue link, even if it's a redirect, dissuades article creators like me who write articles to fill in redlinked gaps and skip over blue links. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: - I agree that the link that links back to itself... shouldn't. But in that case, wouldn't we normally just delink that one?
In an ideal world, *that* link would be red (or some other colour) and links from elsewhere would retain the existing behaviour. Not sure how that would work, though.
Regardless, you appear to be suggesting that the bluelink be made red for the convenience and/or encouragement of people who work a certain way, like yourself.
If one is already actively seeking out redlinks to turn blue, surely it should be possible to have a tool that spots and visually differentiates a redirect bluelink from a straight link (but only for those using the tool)? Ubcule (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
@Ubcule, although there is a way to highlight redirects using CSS, most users will not be aware of this. It may be a solution for me, but for a regular user, the existence of a blue link dissuades article creation. Wikipedia:Red link explains this in more detail, but essentially to quote from that page, "Good red links help Wikipedia. They encourage new contributors in useful directions and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."
There is no way to remove the link from the NRHP listing page at the moment, unfortunately (other than changing the target of the link to a red link). The template used to generate that link, Template:NRHP row, does not support that functionality. While it may be physically possible to put in an edit request to remove the link, NRHP sites are almost always notable per WP:GEOFEAT, so there'd be very little need to delink the row in any case. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

ICEAGE Distributed computing education Project

Delete as there is no information about this project at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was an article that was BLAR'd in 2011 as non-notable, no independent sources. This was about grid education, but Grid education is a redirect as well whose target has no relevant context on this project. Jay 18:32, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

PepsiCo Pakistan

Only country that seems to have a PepsiCo redirect, but no page move, and no indication the Pakistani branch is any way worthy of a redirect. Sunshinezguy (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Morné (given name)

I am confused by this redirect. Currently, it targets Morne, a disambiguation page, but it is tagged with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} for some reason. The target links to this redirect, so this is currently a self-redirect. There is also Morné (surname), though that page says it is a given name page. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Ty Pinkins

Pinkins was also a candidate in the 2026 Senate election. 42-BRT (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

May Lloyd

Not mentioned in the target, content prior to redirect was wrong. May Lloyd is a real person who had a small part in the series and bigger parts elsewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Centara Grand and CentralWorld

Accidentally misspelled the title of Centara Grand at CentralWorld while moving the page from Centara Grand and Bangkok Convention Centre. Also, can move the previous revisions to the current title please since is a Misplaced redirect. DvTor8303 (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

3322

There is no information about this number at the target. At first I thought to target it to 3322 BC as an WP:ATD, but that is a redirect as well, whose target also doesn't mention it. The year redirect was slightly better when its initial target was 34th century BC, but that was also made a redirect. There are a 1000 years in the 4th millennium BC and redirects for all of them are not useful unless something encylopedic happened that specific year. There are no incoming links - delete the year redirect.

Other than the year, the number 3322 with context represents an asteroid, a star system, a ship, the 3322.org domain, and house numbers in addresses, and a disambig page with WP:PARTIAL is not feasible. Delete to favour search. Jay 07:01, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete Just a number. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Datcher

Misplaced redirect; is there a primary topic? Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Linda Datcher Loury gets by far the most page views but does not seem to be commonly referred to by the surname Datcher alone (mostly Datcher Loury, sometimes just Loury), which makes it hard to envisage her as primary topic. And I can't find any use of "Datcher" except as a surname. So move the surname page to the base name. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Move the surname page to the base name, per Rosbif73. BD2412 T 16:28, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Move Datcher (surname) to Datcher over the redirect per the above. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Sea fruit

These alleged common names are not mentioned at their respective targets and were created by an editor that has since been blocked for sockpuppetry. They were created before the master was blocked, so technically they're not eligible for G5. I suspect that these were invented by the creator, so they should be deleted as obscure synonyms. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

"Sea tomato" is actually a legitimate common name: I can find this name casually used online and in a few academic publications (doi:10.3390/antiox9100945, doi:10.12873/452025supl1) to refer to Actinia equina, though it appears "sea tomato" is also used (though less frequently) to refer to Rosa × rugosa (doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8748-2). Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:04, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll withdraw Sea tomato, then. If Rosa × rugosa gets an article in the future, a hatnote can be used to disambiguate the two. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
@Chess enjoyer, Sea pomegranate (created by the same apparent vandal) was recently speedily deleted. I imagine these are also eligible. — An anonymous username, not my real name 18:38, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
I won't object if anyone tags them, but I don't think they meet the letter of G5. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TAV

I propose retargeting this to Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer, the main page about this permission. WP:TAIV, which is quite similar to this shortcut, already targets that page, and I think that anyone searching for or linking to "WP:TAV" would probably be looking for the main policy page. This is a relatively new shortcut with only 6 pages currently linking to it, so it shouldn't cause too much disruption if it is retargeted. Editor115138 (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Retarget; the nominator's points are convincing. —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
  • retarget per nom. make sense --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

November 11

WP:RSD

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily deleted

I'm back in the fucking building again

wait, hold on, lemme...

FRAUD /// THIRD
DISINTEGRATION LOOP

anyway, the fandubs are mentioned, but this quote isn't consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 20:42, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Commercial Televsion

Delete, because this redirect pairs a typo with unlikely capitalization, which makes it implausible. Xoontor (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

K. Tausif Elahi

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn by nominator.

Qinggang Railway Station

I'm not familiar with much Chinese, but there seems to be an ambiguity with Qinggang station here. It might be better to change the target and use distinguish hatnotes if required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Обсуждение участника:Orynbay.azamat

This redirect does not make sense. Suggest delete. Mathguy2718 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Note: The history here was a bit confusing to figure out. Though this is tagged as an {{r from move}}, that move was not to the present target. It seems there were two chains of history here beginning with two different titles.
  1. John Newhouse (journalist) → (moved) John Newhouse
  2. Обсуждение участника:Orynbay.azamat → (moved) Wilfred John Newhouse → (copy/paste move) John Newhouse (journalist)
Both titles were initially created by the same editor, Orynbay.azamat. John Newhouse (journalist) originally contained nothing about the named journalist, but Fabrictramp began a stub at that title. Meanwhile, Orynbay.azamat wrote an article at Обсуждение участника:Orynbay.azamat. The latter article was moved to Wilfred John Newhouse and and Orynbay.azamat appears to have pasted its contents over Fabrictramp's stub at John Newhouse (journalist). Wilfred John Newhouse was then BLAR'd to John Newhouse (journalist). All of this happened on the same date, 12 December 2016. When the (journalist) title was moved, the redirects leftover at Обсуждение участника:Orynbay.azamat and Wilfred John Newhouse were automatically retargeted by a bot to fix the double redirect. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:16, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
I think it's safe to delete Обсуждение участника:Orynbay.azamat. Doesn't seem necessary for attribution. The important history is at Wilfred John Newhouse. I don't know if anything needs to be done about the copy/paste move from the latter though. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:19, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Mojijiramimiji

It's unclear why these redirects have their current target. Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Terms aren't mentioned anywhere in any article on Wikipedia. Nowhere helpful to redirect to. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 16:46, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete Mystery terms, do not appear in online searches. Redirects created by IP who then vandalised two articles and did nothing constructive - likely nonsense. NebY (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Sparta, Laconia

The redirect Sparta, Laconia currently points to Sparta (modern city), but the ancient city of Sparta is also located in Laconia and is the primary topic. I therefore think the redirect would be more appropriately retargeted to the ancient city. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-59731-14 (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Information Note: The current target is also the subject of a current move discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:13, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    Link: Talk:Sparta (modern city) § Requested move 11 November 2026. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:18, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know anything about Greek geographical divisions, but I'm going to assume that this is more or less equivalent to "city, state" for US cities. And in that case, this seems like a fairly reasonable way of distinguishing the modern city. Even if the ancient city-state were there, it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to refer to it this way. I've even gone so far as to simplify the hatnote at the target to include only the dab page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:13, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    I've reverted the change to the hatnote as the WikiNav data (linked below) strongly indicates that it's helpful to readers. It seems a lot of people who end up at the modern city are looking for the ancient one, or at least want to read about ancient Sparta after having read about modern Sparta. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:53, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    I've changed the hatnote from an {{about}} to a {{for-multi}} to shorten it. It's obvious it's about the modern city from the title already, so trimming that off is reasonable. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:04, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak support. It's one of the possible alternative titles for the modern city, but would tend to be understood as the ancient city by many, perhaps a majority of searchers. It could go to the disambiguation page instead, but as most of the other Spartas aren't in Laconia (possibly one or two of them are in other Laconias), that seems less than ideal. This move was prompted by a discussion over the title of the modern city of Sparta (in Greece), so I'd like to know what NebY and Caecilius have to say about this proposal. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    Support what? Keeping? Retargeting? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:26, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    The proposed change. I assumed that was obvious, but I guess not. P Aculeius (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anyone searching for the ancient city will find it by typing "Sparta" without having to type anything more; there's no need for this redirect to point there too. Targeted to the modern city, this redirect currently has the minor virtue of being consistent with the names of the many other Spartas such as Sparta, Georgia, Sparta, Illinois and so on; having been created as the result of a page move, it is used in many piped links to give our article on the present-day city. There's no need to fiddle with it, making it less consistent and less useful. NebY (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Convert to disambig page: When "Sparta, Laconia" comes up in your search box, the chances whether you wanted the ancient or the modern city are probably equal. You need guidance. Andrew Dalby 16:50, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    @Andrew Dalby: Why do you say they are "probably" equal? Is this based on evidence or an intuition? As others have mentioned, the "city, region" format seems to generally be associated with modern place names rather than ancient cities. Additionally, why is a hatnote linking from one to the other not enough guidance? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:34, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    Intuition. Andrew Dalby 20:00, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    Regarding evidence, WikiNav data for Sparta (disambiguation) (September, 2026) shows that of all the cities list (in Laconia or not) the ancient city, Sparta, was the most popular outgoing destination followed by Sparta (modern city) in September. However, in August, the outgoing traffic favoured the modern city.
    WikiNav data for Sparta (September, 2026) has the modern city as the most popular outgoing destination above all the other links on that page in both September and August. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:44, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    WikiNav data for Sparta (modern city) (September, 2026) shows that Sparta, the ancient city, was the overwhelmingly favoured outgoing destination in both August and September compared to all the other links on the page. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:48, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    The percentage of outgoing pageviews from Sparta to Sparta (modern city) is ~9%; the inverse, Sparta (modern city) to Sparta is ~30%. It seems readers are much more keen to go one way than the other. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:58, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    There's already a disambiguation page, but only two out of two dozen targets on it are likely to be searched for this way. I think the ancient city is the most likely to be sought after under this title, since I'm not sure that readers are aware of modern divisional boundaries in Greece, but most students of history will be familiar with Laconia as a region of ancient Greece. P Aculeius (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    Well, most readers may not be students of ancient history. Ancient Sparta's known to children reading mythology, grownups watching 300 (film) or Odyssey (2026 film), people studying Renaissance thought or Nazi adulation, and so on, all with no need for them to ever hear of Laconia or for it to stick in their memories. NebY (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Snowbow

refers to... uh... hmm... the really messy history and pre-blar content (one unsourced sentence) and the wiktionary definition seem to disagree on what it actually is, and snowbows aren't mentioned in the current target regardless (however the hell it got there)

that said, there are moderately high views, so i'm torn between soft redirecting to wiktionary and deleting consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:37, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

on a note i'm pretty sure is unrelated but thought it'd be funny to note, the section this targets was removed in this diff, not a week after the last retarget consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:42, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

"Downtown Community School"

Per WP:UNNATURAL. Moved eight minutes after creation. -- Kapulakone (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  • "Delete" per nom. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:07, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Looks like a WP:G6 candidate since it was moved immediately after creation. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
    • G6 is not "anything you'd tag as R3 except that R3 specifically says you can't speedy it for multiple reasons" (age, and created by a page move). —Cryptic 01:46, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
      G6 explicitly includes Pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace, and redirects left behind after moves that promptly correct an obviously unintended title. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Terapontoidei

Most non-monotypic taxa and all species should have their own pages and shouldn't have redirects when there is no page yet. The presence of a redirect deters the creation of a page by knowledgeable editors, as from a glance it appears that the page exists. The redirect also makes it trickier to create the page. Also, there is Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons rule #10; Terapontoidei is scarcely mentioned on the target page. Bloopityboop (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

420 massacre film

Implausible search term...missing the / in 4/20 and oddly formatted with "film" just stuck on the end. Plus, it's just a random person that happens to be in it, which isn't helpful, delete –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:14, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  • On the contrary, I think this is a likely search term for someone looking for the film 4/20 Massacre. However, we don't have an article on the film , and the current redirect is to an actress in the film, so I support delete. Natg 19 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above. I agree that it's a potential redirect for a future article. --Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

World's Largest Artificial Crayfish

I assume this is meant to refer to a local landmark or something like that, but there appears to be no such mention in the article and Google search results for me are unrelated, showing results for real/natural Tasmanian and American crayfish, along with a crayfish sculpture in Qianjiang, Hubei, China.

Also note that the creator's redirect creation history has ~70 other similarly formatted "world's largest X" redirects that might be worth investigating. Fork99 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This would be Lobby the crayfish. I do not see any evidence supporting the claim that it's the largest in the world. That one in Qianjiang is bigger, although I'm not sure if it's a crayfish or something else to be honest. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Unsubstantiated claim._Marshelec (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete unmentioned and not a useful search term for Kaikoura. Traumnovelle (talk)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Networked and Electronic Media

The Media page was a primary-sourced 2-paragraph stub from 2006 to 2012, which was BLAR'd as non-notable, no independent sources. Delete as there is no information at the target, or anywhere else on enwiki. Also remove its entry from NEM (disambiguation).

Delete the lowercased media page as an WP:XY, as Networked media and Electronic media are independent topics, and there is no single target for the combination.

The related summit page was also a primary-sourced stub that lasted a few months in 2009, before being BLAR'd. Delete to favour search results, as there is no information at the target, but mentions in multiple other articles. Jay 04:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

FC Schlieren

Not mentioned at target even if currently involved in that league. Deletion could encourage article creation Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned there? Why did you decide to bring this here instead of adding a sentence to the target article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Because league standing is often temporary. It is better to delete the redirect and encourage someone to create the article. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:21, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete. There are various passing mentions in tables/lists for competitions (mostly the Swiss Cup) and in some biographies, but nothing substantial about the club itself anywhere that I could find. There's no strong reason to favour retargeting to any one mention over the others. If notable, return to red. If not notable, delete to allow the reader to find all mentions via the search results page, which is more helpful that being redirected to one of many similar passing mentions. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 00:14, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The German Wikipedia article for the league confirms this team is there, at least, but the club doesn't even have a German article. We really ought to at least give a list of the current teams, though. --BDD (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. GiantSnowman 07:26, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Pearl (wine)

There is no mention of "Pearl" in the article and no obvious reason why it redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

A quick trip to my favorite web search engine indicates that this is the English name for Perlwein (a category of sparkling wine). It's linked in Sparkling wine production#Pressure and terminology, which confirms this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Mini Image

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Mini Image was merged to the target in 2011, and I just tagged it as {{R from merge}}. Jay 18:32, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to No-disc crack. Color me surprised. In many such cases, the merged content doesn't last long, but in this case, it did for over a decade. I agree the history is worth preserving, then, though there's no point in having them redirect to a page where the concept isn't discussed. The simplest solution is to retarget all, though it doesn't look like the camelcase version (#2) would be much of a loss. The content in the current target was not capitalized, but Mini Image is the one with the history. So I would also be fine with deleting #2 and #3, then moving #1 to Mini image without leaving a redirect (and retarget to No-disc crack). We'll also want to remove the then-circular redirect at No-disc crack. --BDD (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Sexual disinterest

Not the same thing. The closest I could find was maybe Hypoactive sexual desire disorder, which is where "reduced libido" (and probably other things) redirect. Is there better? Is it too vague? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 07:24, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

The first thing I thought of was asexuality (the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity). It's probably too vague. 9ninety (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
retarget to Sexual phobias which must set index all of these ~2026-58391-74 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Sexual disinterest doesn't imply a phobia. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 22:13, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Phobia is a pretty loose term. Homophobia, arachnophobia, and rabid hydrophobia all have the same suffix despite being very different concepts. 🌲ThePinewall🌲 21:16, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
None of which are relevant. It's not a prejudice. It's not a pathological fear. It's not a behavioural symptom of an infection. Sexual disinterest deoes not imply a phobia in any sense, even if you're being broad about it. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 21:18, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can find a better target than these suggestions. I don't think "disinterest" implies someone has a medical condition. I don't think it implies someone is ace either. Disinterest in sex can be transient. I'm not sure it's an encyclopedic topic, but if it is then this seems like a return to red situation. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 22:19, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
what about sexual inhibition? Dudzcar (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Inhibition implies you are interested in sex but are suppressing it. Someone disinterested in sex isn't inhibiting anything. They're actually just not interested (either not at all or just not at the moment). – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:46, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete in accordance with Scyrme's reasoning. The abssence of an interest in sexual intercourse (if that is what "sexual disinterest" is supposed to mean – it could also mean low libido more broadly) can be present for a wide range of reasons – sexual orientation (asexuality), lack of attraction to specific persons (so a specific sexual disinterest), low libido, psychological or organic pathologies, a reasoned moral or practical decision... I don't see how it could be targeted to an article on any single phenomenon. A red link could indeed stimulate the production of a broad-concept article, if there are RS out there that discuss all the different reasons together. §§ In solidarity, Leg.Fun. §§ 08:58, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague and ill-defined. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

General court-martial

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 Bushranger One ping only 18:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment The redirect General court martial should be handled the same way. Renerpho (talk) 15:53, 17 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)
  • I don't think the hatnote suggestion reflects how hatnotes are meant to be used. Are there other countries that use this specific terminology? If not, then retargeting would seem fine. If there are, then perhaps this should be returned to red. — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:18, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate: Since this terminology is used in both the US and Ireland (and maybe elsewhere? unsure) and we have info on both, it seems like a good use case for disambiguation. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A disambiguation page would be great, but in the meantime, let's clear it out. --BDD (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to allow for a potential disambiguation page to be drafted and/or clarify what exact pages we're disambiguating with.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Euros

"Euros" currently redirects to "Euro" (the currency) instead of the "Euros" disambiguation page based on a 2006-2007 consensus. There is no talk section on the "Euros" page, but according to the edit history comments in 2007, a redirect to the plural form of the currency was considered harmless since the "Euros" disambiguation page was bare, and I'm bringing this back up for discussion since one of the foundations of that consensus is no longer true. Twenty years later, there are several people and other links where "Euros" is the singular form. I discovered this issue looking for a specific moth genus- so I'm not completely unbiased- and that's when I realized how difficult it is actually is to find the Euros disambiguation page. At the time, it wasn't readily clear to me whether or not any information existed on the moth genus by searching its name, and I don't think that's in the spirit of WP. It's also unclear whether anyone involved in the initial discussion was familiar with the MoS for currency or if the MoS was updated since the initial 2007 discussion because it was not mentioned anywhere that I can find. However, I think recognizing that a majority of links to "euros" (as a currency) are either double redirects that should be fixed or they should not be linked at all per the MoS for currency: "Do not link the names or symbols of currencies that are commonly known to English-speakers ($, €, £), unless there is a particular reason to do so". Sesamehoneytart 20:15, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there is an established standard to follow here. For example, 'dollars' redirects to the Dollar article, 'pounds' redirects to a disambiguation page, while 'yens' redirects to an article about the Swiss town. Why am I saying this? Because we need some compelling reason to change the current status quo with the 'euros' redirect. The 'euros' disambiguation page is easily reachable via the current hatnote on the Euro page. Vgbypw (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
For comparison, the page views for Yen and Yens show a fairly consistent picture, where the plural is a blip in comparison to the singular. Still, we don't have a statistical redirect in the hatnote at Yens so we can't count these clicks. The clickstreams in the last year show no appreciable amount of clicks from Yens to Yen. A Google Books search for yens seems to mostly show me French sources, so I'm not sure what to make of that. --Joy (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
There is a standard established in the Manual of Style specific to currency, but it is not commonly followed or enforced. There is another MoS policy that I can't find to save my life before I have to leave for work, but it's something like *there should be no link to plurals, put the 's' outside the link*. While we look at the standards used between various currencies, I think we also need to address how many of these don't follow the manual of style and at what point the /established standard/ overrides the manual of style, likely done by people who mean well but aren't familiar with what the MoS says about how currency specifically should be handled. Sesamehoneytart 17:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
All of that concerns editors, but in matters of navigation, the readers should be our primary concern - is there a chance that either navigation layout is going to surprise anyone, or what is going to be the most useful to the most readers. You effectively want to change what happens when a reader types in "euros" in the search box, so you need to make an argument based on WP:CRITERIA / WP:D, not editing style. --Joy (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree with you, and as I mentioned in the header, but WP:PLA is currently a problem and is precisely the reason I've brought up this discussion. The current way it is set up creates a problem for anyone trying to navigate to anything where "euros" is the proper singular form of the term, including me, and I've been an editor since 2000-something. I drafted a page for "Euros (genus)" before I discovered that "Euros (moth)" already existed because I got lost trying to navigate the hatnotes. I feel like you are only considering people searching one definition of the term, and I think we should consider all users, not just those interested in the currency, regardless of percentage of users that is. Sesamehoneytart 19:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The issue with disregarding the percentage of the users is that WP:PTOPIC is normally judged based on usage and long-term significance. The level of usage is a conventionally important factor, one that can't be set aside, it has to be weighed together with others.
The issue here seems to be that the Euro page has three hatnotes, and the Euros one is the third one. We don't have really good research on the effectiveness of hatnotes and the nuance of volume and positioning in that regard. It might be that there's more banner blindness than we know.
As the situation isn't clear, and we might be confusing the readers looking for sports and biology, I'd be happy to test if we can have the disambiguation list at the base name, thereby making the readers looking for finance click again, to see if this can be a good compromise. --Joy (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm currently going through the list of pages that link to "Euros" and aligning them with the MoS. If anyone has noticed the number of links dropping, this is why. I hope this will give us a more realistic picture of the actual traffic. I haven't found any consistency in usage for numbers, symbols, or layout, and I only just found out there's a Template:Euro that has a "link=yes" option with inconsistent usage across the site. I don't want to use a bot for this, because sometimes the link to Euro is relevant and just needs the 's' outside the brackets and sometimes "euros" is being used as a shortened form of a European tournament: "XXX football player made it to the Euros before deciding he wanted to be a Wikipedia editor instead idk". Steady progress, but I'll drop a note here when I've addressed them all (if this hasn't closed yet). Sesamehoneytart 21:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
BTW, what you're looking for about putting s outside the link is documented at MOS:PIPESTYLE. --Joy (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
YAS! Thank you Sesamehoneytart 00:10, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Looking at the comparison of page views between the euros redirect and the euros disambiguation page, it doesn't look like most readers who arrive at euro through the redirect reach for the navigation aid.
Special:WhatLinksHere/Euros shows 474 incoming links at this time. These may be by and large meant for the plural, and they might be inflating the statistic beyond what is actually natural.
The page views stats do sometimes shows spikes in interest and that's when the difference narrows. In the recorded history of the last eleven years we had about six, maybe seven such major events.
I checked the WikiNav view of clickstreams at the disambiguation page and it's mostly about the football event. I checked the meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive history and that is indeed the pattern.
Is that enough to declare there's no primary topic by usage? I'm not sure.
A Google Books search for "euros" does mostly bring up sources about the currency, I see nothing else in the first two pages of output.
Still, it wouldn't be a bad idea to disambiguate, because it would lead to making those links unambiguous, and allow us to see the clickstreams specifically for euros (something we can't have with the current layout). It's easy enough to restore a primary redirect afterwards once we have a couple of months of better data. --Joy (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Just a procedural note, that if the current status quo is changed, Euros (disambiguation) should instead be moved to Euros to prevent a malplaced disambiguation (per WP:NOPRIMARY). My personal feeling about this is that Euro the currency is a primary redirect, but have not given this enough research yet. For full disclosure, the nominator of this RfD changed the target to the dab page in August, and I reverted and suggested bringing this here to RfD. Natg 19 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
    Fully agree. I also haven't researched the question, but if "Euros" is found to not have a primary topic, it should indeed be the title of the disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
    Euros has several primary topics. This is something that has changed since the 2007 consensus and the reason I brought this back up for discussion. Sesamehoneytart 20:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
From a Wikipedia disambiguation perspective, there is either a single primary topic, or none. Your argument is that there is no primary topic, therefore, the base name should be the disambiguation page. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) and WP:NOPRIMARY. Natg 19 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I didn't realize /primary topic/ was a defined term. My argument is that it is difficult to find certain topics by typing them into the search bar with the current structure, but out of the two possibilities, I think /no primary topic/ is best fitting. Sesamehoneytart 22:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
On that note, maybe next time suggest using WP:RM, because the automation there places more banners to alert editors. Though I do think we'll already have reached most people with the post to Talk:Euro. I did just now post some {{please see}} notices to a few more related talk pages just in case. --Joy (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that the nomination was malformed, showing that Euros (disambiguation) was the current target, when it is actually what the nominator is proposing to retarget to (though see remarks about WP:MALPLACED above). I've fixed it here with the relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Per Joy's stats, it seems unlikely that most people who end up at Euro via Euros is clicking away to look for the sports tournament. On my end, all my front page external search results are for the currency. The currency is a daily part of life for anyone in Europe, and the euro is one of the world's major currencies. I don't see a reason to think the currency isn't the primary topic. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 05:07, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment At the time those stats were posted, there were about 600 double-redirect links to "Euros". I've manually gone through about 80% of them, and most were fixed with a simple MOS:PIPESTYLE. The weirdest one so far was a pound sterling symbol that linked to "euros", but that's beside the point. My actual point is that even if these double redirect links aren't skewing the statistics already (full disclosure- I don't know how those tools actually work), there is an assumption that hatnotes will be clicked on if someone is looking for a different subject. But the hatnotes on the page are a mess, so the statistics alone don't tell the whole story because those hatnotes aren't exactly WP:PLA. Case and point, my own search for the moth genus Euros would register as a "user looking for the currency" if it's just measuring whether or not a user clicks on the hatnotes because the triple hatnote layout confused me and I ended up opening a new browser window and googled "wikipedia euros lepidoptera" to find the article I was looking for. Setting "Euros" as a disambiguation page would not only clear one of these hatnotes (since anyone looking for a subjects where "Euros" as the singular form will land directly on a disambig page), but navigation will be just easy for those looking for the currency as well. There is a lot more going on here, and hyper-focusing only on what the primary topic should be instead of what would work best for *all* users (not just the majority that you are personally familiar with) is the reason it became this way in the first place. If this issue were as simple as "The currency is the primary topic. Next question!" then this discussion would have ended weeks ago. Sesamehoneytart 09:02, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    There is no solution that works best for all readers. All redirects to primary topics are inconvenient to those not looking for the primary topic because it puts them at least 2 clicks away from the article they're looking for. We still redirect to the primary topic because it better serves most readers. If we redirected to the disambiguation page, all readers would be inconvenienced by being placed at least 1 click away from the article they're looking for.
    The Wikinav data suggests that the moth and people are the topics which are by far the least likely to be what readers are looking for. The only topic which might be enough to tilt the scales from "the currency is primary" to "there is no primary" or "something else is primary" is the football tournament. My assessment of the evidence (external search results, coverage in publications on Google Books, Massviews and Wikinav stats) is that the currency is probably still primary. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 13:06, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    If more data would be helpful to assess whether large numbers people who end up at Euro actually want the football tournament but are too unfamiliar with disambiguation pages to know to click there, I'd suggest keeping the redirect as the long-standing target but adding the tournament to the hatnotes explicitly since it's much more likely than other entries at the disambiguation page and it would save those readers a click. If the stats later show in a couple months than large numbers of readers are clearly clicking away from Euro to UEFA European Championship, then this can be renominated to propose retargeting to the disambiguation page or to the tournament.
    Until then, I see no strong, clear case to change the very long-standing, stable target of this almost 2 decade old redirect. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 13:14, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    The hatnote addition sounds logical to me, too, but I do have to say that I don't expect great results from that, either.
    Most of our navigation is pre-filtered by search engines, so we will never actually see most readers trying to explain the name of tournaments here, because they will have been brought by Google Search etc to something like UEFA European Championship directly already. We just can't really realistically track that here.
    Likewise, it's not even just about the plural "Euros" - the term "Euro" in the singular is also used to refer to the football tournaments named Euro. IOW some readers will be arriving here to try to explain the name of tournaments in both singular and plural, and it affects both hatnote use cases.
    BTW, if we did change any of the hatnotes, we should use a {{R from statistical redirect}} for that hatnote link, to improve tracking, such as it is. --Joy (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
As this was relisted, we can update our stats.
Sesamehoneytart has whittled down the incoming link count to only 120.
Page views for October show the statistic largely unchanged, the ratio between redirect views and disambiguation list is still at 2.7 : 1, IOW if all of these were hatnote clicks, it went up to ~37%. The clickstream tsv file for October says:
clickstream-enwiki-2026-10.tsv:
  • Euro Euros_(disambiguation) link 87
  • total: 87 from 1 identified sources
So 115 - 87 = 28 are unaccounted for, and could have come from the outside. In earlier months, that does sometimes get registered.
Still, it should be noted that Sesamehoneytart only started reducing those hundreds of ambiguous links at the very end of October, and it's not even over yet, so the impact of that will not be noticable until a month from now, or even two. I know people tend to be allergic to long-running discussions, but if we want to do this right, we should measure this. We could also close this RfD and re-engage after January 3 (when the November and December clickstreams will have been generated). --Joy (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
I got so burned out on clearing these; I could use some help. But I agree that closing this with the intention of re-evaluating it later wouldn't be a bad idea. Sesamehoneytart 09:04, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
If this is revisited later and people look back on this RfD at the next one, I ask that the please make sure that the tournament has not been in the news at the time.
Popular sports topics often experience spikes in popularity due to fluctuating relevance. Fortunately, the Championship isn't scheduled until 2028 so revisiting this in January should be fine unless there's some football-related corruption scandal or something, as sometimes happens. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 13:19, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
Absolutely, it doesn't make sense to also have to battle WP:Recentism effects in these complex situations.
While we're at it, this actually reminds me of my recent proposal at Talk:Miles (disambiguation). Over there, the countable meaning is also currently redirected from plural to singular. --Joy (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
As it happens, not a lot was left, so it's done now :)
From the last dozen or so that I fixed, most indeed were referrences to the currency (supporting the status quo of the primary topic). Two sports tournament articles mentioned "Euros" and "EUROs" elsewhere referring to sports events, resp., and one of these in a news reference name. --Joy (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
Thank you so much for helping me clean those up. I just changed the hatnote on "Euros" to use an "about" template, so it looks cleaner and is less confusing, and that's all I really cared about. If one solution doesn't work, there's always another. Thank you for taking the time to actually read and understand the initial nomination- based on all the responses here, I feel like you're the only one who actually took the time to read and understand the issue. I now consider this problem solved and I plan on withdrawing this nomination when I get home. Sesamehoneytart 00:45, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

RPN NewsCap

"RPN NewsCap" is mentioned at few other pages including NewsWatch (Philippine TV program) and The Game Channel. Delete to encourage to article creation per WP:REDYES. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RPN NewsCap in 2023, each resulting in redirect. The article was created by now-blocked as sockpuppet. ~2026-56282-06 (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Redirects should be targeted where most information is about them, and all three targets here have by themselves very minimal information (so, no suitable target, hence my delete !vote). ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't think REDYES is a good argument. The article has a long history, and was tagged for notability since 2015 and redirected as not notable in 2023. Jay 05:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Fried oyster

Retarget to Oyster#Dishes Delete per the comment on the redirect's talk page and what links to it? Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink's list of WikiProject Food and drink-related deletions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete under WP:RETURNTORED. Good timing, I have plans to write fried oyster as a standalone in the coming weeks. Whonting (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and RETURNTORED. Not the primary topic. Noting, of course, that converting this redirect to an article could still occur even if this had not been nominated. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

November 10

Andrey Gyurov

I am not understanding this redirect. The individual is not mentioned at the target article, search did not come up with anything, and there is an individual by that name with an article (alternate spelling present in that article and was recently moved a few times.) Propose redirecting to Andrey Gurov. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:27, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

This has an unusually large amount of edit history for a simple redirect. I see the person who created it (all the way back in 2003!), Cyp, is marginally active. Perhaps they can explain why this was created to begin with. — An anonymous username, not my real name 00:41, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • See the recently closed Talk:Andrey Gurov#Requested move 2 November 2026. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:58, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • It looks for most of the redirect's history, from creation up until 10 November 2026, the title was "?". During the time, there were many test edits mostly by unregistered or inexperienced users, and reverts. This isn't surprising since "?" is naturally a magnet for test editing. While the redirect was also briefly moved to a Draft:Move/ subpage on 19 October 2026, but it was moved back a minute later, probably due to an error (see Special:Permalink/1381035787#Requested move 12 October 2026; Template:IndyCar Series seasons was not actually moved). This is actually not related to the issue currently at play. Then, this several moves happened on 10 November 2026, which I will list in a separate comment so the events can be easily linked to if referenced for any reason. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • This series of moves occurred on 10 November 2026, all without leaving redirects except #4:
  1. 21:16, 10 November 2026: ? → Draft:Move/?-cd4da93d (history is about punctuation symbol)
  2. 21:16, 10 November 2026: Andrey Gurov → ? (history is about sport shooter)
  3. 21:17, 10 November 2026: Andrey Gyurov → Andrey Gurov (history is about politician)
  4. 21:17, 10 November 2026: Draft:Move/?-cd4da93d → Andrey Gyurov (history is about punctuation symbol)
  5. 21:20, 10 November 2026: ? → Andrey Gurov (sport shooter) (history is about sport shooter)
Also, the page "?", now seemingly a "recently created page" (see WP:MOVEREDIRECT), was retargeted to Question mark, but Andrey Gyurov (which, as of 11 November 2026, holds the history of "?", but that may change in the future) was not retargeted. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Andrey Gurov as r from move and r from alternate spelling, no comment on what to do with the mess of the history. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Here is my suggestion: delete ? (probably per WP:G6 using {{db-move}}), then move Andrey Gyurov to ? without leaving a redirect, and finally recreate Andrey Gyurov as a redirect to Andrey Gurov as primary topic. This may not be a perfect solution, but it does move the history of "?" back into the right place (which is currently at Andrey Gyurov because of all of the page moves that happened). Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Support the delete, move and create actions suggested by @Mathguy2718 in the previous comment. In addition, we should probably move-protect (admins only) the restored redirect page "?", because the root cause of this mess is that sloppy insufficiently careful users of Move+ just click "perform move" (or whatever it's called, I don't use Move+), even if the RM contains "?" as the target. Both recent moves (19 October 2026 by 1isall and 10 November 2026 by NomanPK44) were due to this. Move-protecting "?" will probably prevent this Move+ mistake in the future. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    P.S.: There might be other placeholder targets besides "?" people tend to use in RMs when they don't propose a specific target. I checked TODO and TBD, but they don't seem to be affected by this Move+ problem. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Oturu

There is an unrelated locality of this name which is presumed notable under NGEO, where as the marae is unlikely to be notable. Should be deleted per WP:RETURNTORED Traumnovelle (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Copying over some relevant ip comments from the redirect talk page:

but there is a person with this surname

not sure this makes sense ~2026-24112-43 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree. The redirect should go to the name of the player. Daniel Oturu--~2026-55546-44 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

SpyNet

Is the show known by this capitalisation or is Microsoft SpyNet the primary topic for this? 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:32, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Image generation ai

A string of search-engine keywords without proper capitalization or punctuation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Deathstar

Death Star (disambiguation) has multiple terms spelt this way while the current target is not. I think correct spellings are usually preferred over misspelt titles. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:38, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

The Looney Tunes Movie

These could either be deleted or retargeted to Daffy Season. If delete is chosen for all of these, do not salt any of them, because in the event someone wants to create a draft on the general concept of untitled films, these titles should remain available for use. The Media Expert (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

H:

Implausible redirect target, even considering Ḧ no one is going to type H: to try to get information on Ḧ. A more useful target would be Help:Contents because H: is a pseudo-shortcut to the help namespace. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:22, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Template:2015–16 Hong Kong Reserve Division League table

This existed as a redirect to 2015–16 Hong Kong Reserve Division League as its contents were merged there; however, that article was itself turned into a redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Hong Kong Reserve Division League where the result was redirect. Unless this needs to exist for attribution purposes, it might be best to delete this redirect as the current target does not have the 2015–16 Hong Kong Reserve Division League table. Casablanca 🪨(T) 18:55, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Lock-out device

Term is not used in the target article and gets less than two hits per day. This item is more commonly called a "buzzer" and is used on game shows other than Jeopardy!, and not all of them feature a lockout mechanic, so having another page link to this and then redirect to Jeopardy! is misleading. Furthermore, Google searching for "lockout device" finds devices related to lock and key, not game show buzzers. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 17:34, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Reinstate article or delete: Don't see how the two titles are related in any way. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 22:59, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

HAL Labratory

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: tag

X-1 X-ray source

1. I have never seen Scorpius X-1 referred to as this, this seems like a really weird way to refer to an X-ray binary.

2. There are other X-ray sources with "X-1" in the name. On English WP alone, there are all of these: Cygnus X-1, Hercules X-1, Aquila X-1, M82 X-1, Vela X-1, Monoceros X-1, Circinus X-1, LMC X-1, NGC 300 X-1, IC 10 X-1...and I know SMC X-1 is a thing and isn't on the encyclopedia yet so I'm sure there's more.

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)

X-1 is already a disambiguation page that lists some of these objects; others could be added. Either delete or retarget to X-1. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I've added the sources mentioned above to the X-1 disambiguation page. The deletion candidate can be redirected to the appropriate section there.--agr (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
If no one objects in the next two days, I plan to change the target to "X1#Astronomical X-ray sources" and remove the RfD tagging.--agr (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
I object to you doing that. We have a process for closing discussions. Let it run -- don't try to preempt it. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:56, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where to retarget? Or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 15:04, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

1 MB partition alignment

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 15:01, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

14W

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)

It is a storm indicator in the first 20 results. The current topic comes in the next 20 results. What are the other different things you saw? If it's only these two, and if we know whether it was the name of a storm or a general storm code, and there is a good article to point to, this can be made a disambig. Jay 10:56, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Your search results are obviously very different than mine; I'm only seeing various non-notable companies and occasionally 14W as a size (often for women's clothing). What Wikipedia article would you have this redirect / be disambiguated to if it really does have meteorological significance? Even when I searched "14W storm indicator" the results were sparse and inconsistent. — An anonymous username, not my real name 16:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
I believe search results for "14W" would be same for all readers. Unless you are referring to external search results like Google, which is locale-dependent. In my first 20 results on enwiki, I got tropical depressions of 2000, 2007, 2010, 2014, 2016, 2022, and 2025; storms named Lawin, Dolphin, and Ben; typhoons of 1949, 1952, 1979, and 2026; typhoons named Winnie, Bebinca, and Muifa. Other than these, there is unit of power, and in a page citation. In my next 20 results, I got storms named Lucy, Mirinae, Nanmadol, Bebinca, Ferdie, and Gladys; typhoons of 1979, and 2019, and typhoons named Nabi and Faxai. Other than these, there is the current target, unit of power, astronomy code, dress size, a table tennis term, an investor of Co-Star, and in a page citation. Oppose keep, and prefer Delete to favour search results, if it cannot be made a disambig. Jay 11:14, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
We can link search results from the disambiguation page see also, there's templates for it. It's not very streamlined (it's less easy than just {{in title}}), but it works. --Joy (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's bolded as an attested abbreviation in the current article and no other articles have been presented for ambiguity (eg: it's not mentioned at clothing sizes or storm). -- Tavix (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
    @Tavix, the fact that the abbreviation is used is rather meaningless when it's uncited and entirely unmentioned outside of the lead. — An anonymous username, not my real name 18:24, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
    Im not concerned about sourcing obvious abbreviations. -- Tavix (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
    ...good for you, I suppose. Do you really think the majority of readers searching a simple alphanumeric combination are looking for a white supremacist slogan that is not commonly abbreviated in this way? It's a bit of an odd look for Wikipedia if they aren't. — An anonymous username, not my real name 19:07, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jay. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:14, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 14:30, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm pretty certain far more people think this stands for "14 watt" than any storm or whatever it is being directed to now.Spitzak (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I'll start a draft on the page. Potential meanings include:
The racist slogan is referenced in the article, The Mercian Sphere. BD2412 T 14:12, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure the items on here (besides the slogan) fall within the scope of a disambiguation page. Any thoughts, @Jay? — An anonymous username, not my real name 14:57, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
They meet WP:DABMENTION, that is sufficient. BD2412 T 15:28, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
  • As there are no incoming links, and it's clearly ambiguous, the drafted disambiguation page seems fine. --Joy (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

"vermicular rustication"

Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. This redirect was moved to Vermiculate-rustication four minutes after creation, and the more natural redirect Vermicular rustication already exists. -- Kapulakone (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Tilix

There's a mention of the terminal emulator Linux-related software in the list, but not actually in the linked article. There's a mention of a Linux distribution, but likewise in a list. This needs to be restored to the wilderness of WP:RED. --Joy (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Fancy toasts

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: deleted

Pass through disk

Delete as there is no such section, and no information about this disk at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. There used to be a mention of "pass through mode" in Virtualization, however that section was purged in 2020 as Removed second half of text that read like a first draft that was never intended to be published. Jay 06:39, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, if someone uses this opportunity to write about it in virtualization or similar, it should be kept and mentioned in Passthrough, otherwise delete. --Joy (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Gredia Project

Delete as there is no information about this project at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was a 3-paragraph stub from 2006 to 2011 that was BLAR'd as non-notable project. It was a possible undisclosed COI-editing by WP:SPA User:Gredia. Jay 06:16, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Update-grub

Delete as there is no information about this file / utility at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. Mention was removed 10 years back as .. (Wikipedia is not a HOWTO guide), please see the WP:NOTHOWTO guideline. Jay 05:52, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

NNEdPro Global Institute for Food, Nutrition and Health

Unnecessary redirect created by UPE editor. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 16:39, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on pre-BLAR history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 05:04, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Waima Valley

This is a separate locality to Waima per https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/46093 Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. Pat Hohepa in A Maori Community in Northland, which is entirely about Waima, treats Waima and Waima Valley as synonymous. He defines Waima as extending to all of Waoku Rd in the south and to all of Mission Oak Rd in the north. Nurg (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    Such a definition would include Moehau, another locality. Looking at old maps Waima Valley has been recorded separately since 1979. Its possible the definition is the based on the parish/survey district? Which includes a large area. Looking at maps there is certainly a geographic distinction and both settlements have their own hall. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Ōhākī

There is another marae with this name in the Bay of Plenty. Also plenty of marae with the name Te Ohaki, which just means 'the'. Suggest deletion in favour of search results. If someone thinks a dab is worthwhile I won't oppose it but none of these topics have a stand alone article and none are likely to be notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Support. Agree, the word has a number of uses, so delete. Nurg (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Ngāwhā

Ngawha and Ngawha Springs are separate localities see https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/32590

Ngawha is a redlink appropriately and the macron form should be a redlink too. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Support. Nurg (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now - I agree that they're separate localities and should be separate articles, but until an article for Ngāwhā is made I think it's fine that it redirects to Ngāwhā Springs. You can add Template:R with possibilities to the page, or even create the page yourself to resolve it. Turnagra (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
The issue is that such a redirect will mislead readers into believing they are the same thing, which already has happened given the presence of content (that I have removed) that related to Ngawha not Ngawha Springs. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
The solution to that then is to create a page at Ngāwhā. But in the absence of that, a redirect here is perfectly reasonable. Turnagra (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Brisbane's

Delete's per MOS:POSLINK precedent. Side note, I checked a few Australian geographical articles along with the creator's page creation history and this is the only one I could find. Fork99 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Sea pomegranate

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

The United States Courthouse (Davenport, Iowa)a

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

2nd Pennsylvania Battalion

not mentioned at target. Delete unless an explanation can be provided and a sourced mention can be added. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Abundance (economics)

I don't believe "Abundance" in economics means quite the same thing as "Post-scarcity" (a circumstance where scarcity of resources ceases to factor into economics), since there can be individuals who live in abundance even during times that are scarce for others. I therefore think this redirect is standing in the way of an article existing on the narrower sense of abundance. BD2412 T 00:58, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

This redirect comes from a page move to Abundance (Technocracy). That page was turned into a redirect, but it should probably go to Technocracy movement, not Post-scarcity. The move happened in 2007...perhaps it's been long enough that this can be deleted now? Redirects from page moves tend to be kept forever, but this one has also been listed on the disambiguation page Abundance, so its meaning has been muddled.
"Abundance" and "scarcity" when used as terms of art in economics do not mean "there's a lot of stuff" and "there's not a lot of stuff"; they mean "there's enough stuff at low or zero effort so everyone can have as much as they want" and essentially "we can't make everything everyone wants so we have to decide what to make and how much". Looking at Scarcity, Post-scarcity does indeed seem to be the right place to link to for this meaning.
In recent years an abundance movement has started; that redirects to Supply-side progressivism. This usage blurs the lines between "having enough stuff at reasonable prices" and post-scarcity.
I rewrote the economics section of Abundance; that might be a good target for this redirect, or it could become a disambiguation page for Post-scarcity, Supply-side progressivism, and the Abundance book? -- Beland (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
@Beland:, while I do appreciate the work, I don't know that this is the solution, or even if it will stick, particularly given the manual of style for disambiguation pages, which sharply limits what can go on them. I think the subject needs its own article. BD2412 T 14:06, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
An article could definitely work. I'd say you should just go ahead and create that if you have something in mind. -- Beland (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
I suppose I should just go ahead and create a Draft:Economic abundance, then. BD2412 T 15:14, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

November 9

Discrimination by birth

Surely, "discrimination by birth" would encompass sexism, homophobia, most forms of ableism, etc. If this had to stay, I'd argue that Discrimination based on nationality is the most plausible intended meaning. However, given the inherent ambiguity, I'm leaning towards deletion. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:51, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom; too vague. I would have suggested retargeting to Discrimination, but that doesn't seem useful given that this redirect is not currently used anywhere. Helpful Cat🐈 22:51, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Mario Party Wii

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Similar to the last nomination, there are multiple Mario Party games for the Wii (MP8 and MP9). What has changed are the sections. These games are fragmented between the "2002–2007: GameCube, Game Boy Advance, Wii, and Nintendo DS" section and the "2012–present: Nintendo Cube" section. I would disambiguate. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 19:58, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

United States of Israel

not sure if this redirect is necessary since this was deleted on AFD before per WP:SSRT BengalMC talk 15:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not a soft redirect anymore. This refers to United States support for Israel in the Gaza war but not necessarily in Gaza, see wikt:United States of Israel. LIrala (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 19:56, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Given its use as a pejorative, I'd expect anyone searching it is looking for information about the phrase itself. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:03, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Mario party switch

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Should probably be disambiguated, as the Switch has 3 Mario Party games (SMP, MPS, and SMPJ). However, looking at the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 18 § Mario Party 3DS, I'm not so sure. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 19:28, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Mario Party 3DS

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Broken section redirect, and Island Tour isn't the only 3DS Mario Party game. Should probably be disambiguated or retargeted to Mario Party § 2012–present: Nintendo Cube, where both Island Tour and Star Rush are mentioned. However, the section has Mario Party 10 for the Wii U in the middle, fragmenting the section. I would go with disambiguating. Note that Mario Party (3DS) was created as a result of a move. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 19:25, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

10 zeptometre redirects

The content on 10 zeptometres was removed at this diff with the rationale "doesn't list anything, just wastes the reader's time". With this being the case, there is no longer a good target for these redirects, so they are likely best deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 19:11, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Academy of Dijon

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:48, 30 October 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 18:40, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Broadcast satellite

These redirects have confusingly different targets. @Fgnievinski: retargeted the first from List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit leaving a redundant hatnote there, so there is some housekeeping to do. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Retarget both redirects to Broadcasting-satellite service. fgnievinski (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Broadcasting-satellite service seems like a reasonable target to me, despite its terrible ranking in a search for the keywords in article titles.
Should these also be included?
Solomon Ucko (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:32, 27 October 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 18:23, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Ace (Suikoden III)

Not mentioned at the target Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The redirect page has some content in its history (Special:Permalink/55702341), so we should make sure that that version would qualify for deletion and that none of the text is currently copied elsewhere.
It might be better to follow Ace (Suikoden) (which also has content history, at Special:Permalink/96513800) in targeting Suikoden § The 108 Stars of Destiny, though that doesn't actually have a direct mention either.
This character was also previously listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=108_Stars_of_Destiny_(Suikoden)&oldid=753286932 and detailed in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_Suikoden_III&oldid=676700091#Ace, before both were WP:BLARed.
The tables in Special:Permalink/753286932 and 108 Heroes are inconsistent as to which of Ace and Queen (Suikoden) correspond with Zhang Shun vs Zhang Heng (Water Margin), but if we can figure out which one is correct, it might be a viable target, especially if we add a mention to it, as long as such a statement would be acceptable there.
Solomon Ucko (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 18:17, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Despite my best efforts, here we are. The capitalized title case version should refer to any of the ambiguous topics listed at the dab page, not the uncapitalized sentence case Latin phrase: si vis pacem, para bellum. However, my RMTR request has now been declined twice for no apparent reason, so here we are. Do we retarget to the phrase, or keep (my choice), which necessitates a move of the dab page over top per WP:MALPLACED? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:32, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

DIFFCAPS says that "small details are often sufficient to distinguish topics." It does not say that "we automatically disambiguate a very obvious and notable primary topic because a rock band made an album six years ago." 162 etc. (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
WikiNav view of clickstreams at the presumed primary topic shows 90 clickstreams last month towards the hatnote destination (at #8 there). All-time monthly page views comparison between the three shows the trend line mostly matching between the lowercase and the views of the disambiguation page. The redirect gets very few views, at the same time, it's pretty long, so those seem intentional. Hard to tell if it matters. WikiNav view of clickstreams at the disambiguation page doesn't show search engines navigating a lot of people there independently, and of those who come via the hatnote, there's not a huge amount of interest in the album compared to going (back) to the presumed primary topic and filtered clicks. With so little traffic there, I'm not sure we can make much sense of that.
I don't think either outcome is particularly bad, because it affects a miniscule population of readers. If we have to turn on logarithmic view to see anything, it's hard to make any hard claims about the bottom part of the graph. We might as well see what happens when we disambiguate. --Joy (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Glissandra species

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Wikipedia:Wikipedia3 documentation

The purpose that this serves is unclear to me. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: According to meta:Special:Diff/5043, Wikipedia3 is a software program hosting http://www.wikipedia.org/. It seems that the name MediaWiki didn't exist from until August 2003 according to meta:Special:Diff/10328, where Wikipedia3 is changed to MediaWiki. (meta:Overall timeline seems to confirm this.)
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, ~ A412 talk! 03:07, 23 October 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 16:30, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • The retarget suggested by Pppery is an acceptable outcome in my book (it certainly seems better than the status quo). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:12, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Real function

Should Real function redirect to Function of a real variable or Real-valued function. I don't have any opinion on this, since both seem to be equally reasonable.

Edit: A relevant point to mention would be that "real function" can also refer to a real-valued function of several real variables. Mechanikin (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment. Accordong to function of a real variable, a real function is a function of a real variable whose values are also real. There are quite a few redirects based on this usage, so if this is changed to something else, it would involve some collateral cleanup. Encyclopedia of mathematics defines a real function consistently with ours, although one can find different meanings in other sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • comment: @Mechanikin, the nom was malformed, so i had to fix it. ideally, you should read the rfd nomination guide found at wp:rfd, or use twinkle (which i'm pretty sure is compatible with mobile web stuff) consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 17:29, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
also, the rfd notice goes on the target's talk page, not the redirect's, but that's probably besides the point consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 17:30, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Tropical Depression One-E

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, ~ A412 talk! 20:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I would in principle agree with Rosbif73 but this naming scheme isn't even mentioned at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:54, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 15:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Mary-Belle Kirschner

Delete as a WP:BLPPRIVACY violation. Subject's birth name is not widely published by reliable sources; the only relevant sources I found were the deprecated New York Post and the only marginally reliable Vice. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment. No opinion on the merits of it, but the birth name was in the article until just before this nomination, when it was removed by the nom here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:26, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Comment this is a hobby-horse of mine, but please actually read the discussions on Vice before blindly repeating the marginal reliability present at WP:RSP (I've read them thrice!). Per past community consensus, the article there is almost certainly a WP:HQRS, especially as its author has a long-record of employment at New York (magazine). No comment on whether that meets the widely published aspect of BLPPRIVACY. 1brianm7 (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Riemann space and Riemannian space

Riemannian space points to Riemannian geometry but Riemann space points to Riemannian manifold. fgnievinski (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Ganada redirects

"Ganada" is the Korean equivalent to "ABC". Online search suggests it can be sung like the English The ABC Song. Of these only Ganada has pageviews which suggest regular use. I'm less sure about how plausible the others are. However, it also seems to be ambiguous with some spellings of Ganhada, a clan or tribe of the Nisgaʼa nation.

Should they be retargeted to the main article, Hangul alphabetical order? Should a hatnote be added to Ganhada? Should any be deleted? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 13:17, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Sophie Leigh McBurnie

Delete as a WP:BLPPRIVACY violation. Subject's full legal name is not widely published by reliable sources; most news outlets merely use the name "Sophie McBurnie" ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Actually I do not care, do as you want. But I noticed, that Piriioio, who claimed herself to be the person in question and edited the article heavily to throw out things she considered unimportant, did not throw out the name Leigh – apparently she was OK with the name in the article. Taivorist (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

P-Tex

Not mentioned at target; an explanation exists at Snowboard#Board_construction. Note that PTEX has a different target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:40, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Croydon train derailment

Not a train derailment. Sahaib (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Redirects don't need to be accurate, they just need to be a plausible search term. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Probably qualifies as a {{Db-error}}. This was left behind after a move for which the creator gave the edit summary "I mispelled the first redirect article name". – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 13:26, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

ㄱㄴㄷㄹㅁㅂㅅㅇㅈㅊㅋㅌㅍㅎ

The first, ㄱㄴㄷㄹㅁㅂㅅㅇㅈㅊㅋㅌㅍㅎ, gives a list of initial consonants in an alphabetical order, but it omits the double consonants and places ㅇ immediately after ㅅ not at the end, so it matches neither the North Korean nor South Korea order at Hangul § Alphabetic order. It does, however, match the order at Hangul alphabetical order § Unified Hangul Orthography orders exactly. As of writing, it had only 68 all-time total pageviews since it was created on 31 March 2018.

The second, ㄱㄴㄷㄻㅄㅇㅈㅊㅋㅌㅍㅎ, was apparently created by mistake by the same user less than a minute earlier. It combines the ㄹㅁ and ㅂㅅ into single characters.

Are either of these really plausible search terms? Should they be retargeted to Hangul alphabetical order § Unified Hangul Orthography orders or deleted? (or something else?) – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 11:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

I think things like this should be deleted. WP is not a search engine, it is an encyclopedia, so anything someone looks for should be interpretable as a topic, to which it can be redirected. OTOH, I give up. ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYX turns out to be a redirect to the classical Latin alphabet, which is wrong. No, none of these things are "plausible search terms", except in some dystopia in which WP-plausible (etc) have meanings unrelated to the real English words. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Sounds like it should just be deleted, the user had two dozen edits many years ago, newbie experimentation is hardly gospel :) --Joy (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

While this is the film's official extended title, it's commonly referred to as just Julius Caesar, plus I feel that those using this search term are more likely to be looking for the actual play rather than this specific adaptation. Mr slav999 (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep (for now at least). The article was at the short title from 2005 to 2022, when it was moved to the longer title. Nominator just moved it back today. Given the length of time and how recently it was moved, I don't think any change is warranted. Given the back and forth moves, I'd also suggest an WP:RM to get wider input on the article title. Either way, this is an implausible search term for the actual play. Only two such other plays have similar redirects, a bunch for Romeo and Juliet, but those all redirect to the Baz Lurhman film, for similar reasons, and one for Hamlet, but that should probably be deleted too. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:52, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
    I didn't do an RM because I thought this would probably be an uncontroversial move. Mr slav999 (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak move to Julius Caesar (play) . The redirect is called "WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S Julius Caesar.". Did Shakespeare make the 1953 film? Absolutely not. Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 13:37, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
    Well, the film is called William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, even though he didn't make it. Frank Herbert's Dune wasn't made by Frank Herbert either. 9ninety (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
    Did you mean a retarget instead of a move? Again, this is reasonable as a name of the film (and until the nomination, it actually was the name of the article), but we generally don't make redirects of the form "X's Y" for a work Y by author X. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:55, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Julius Caesar (play) and add a hatnote to the film. External search results are overwhelmingly for the play. Internal Wikipedia search results for the exact phrase "William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar" are also overwhelmingly mentions of the play (see search results). The play is the primary topic here by both usuage and long-term significance. The title is a plausible {{r from natural disambiguation}} for the play in article text, as demonstrated by the search results. It could, then, be helpful for internal linking, particularly where Shakespeare himself has already been linked earlier in the article, making it unneccessary to link his name again in the phrase William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.
    Its usefulness in search as a natural disambiguation for the play is somewhat mitigated by its length. If someone were to naturally disambiguate using the author's name while searching, they'd be more likely to try the shorter Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (which I'd suggest creating and synchronising with this redirect after the RfD settles on a target). So, for search purposes, there's still a case for it going to film. Overall, I still lean towards prefering the primary topic. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:47, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep for now per Deacon Vorbis due to the recent move, without prejudice for a future renomination, as it does seem appropriate as a WP:NATDAB.—BrechtBro (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Julius Caesar (play) as the clear primary topic, with a hatnote to Julius Caesar (1953 film) (which should appease the historical concerns of those above). Frank Herbert's Dune was officially named that, while this was merely described that way on-screen (taking the information present in the article at its word). No reason to pass the buck to requested moves when it is well within our purview to address the matter here. It is very common for titles that have been one way for a decade or two to change their content, where they redirect, be deleted etc.; for that reason, the argument to maintain this because of the circumstances is not compelling. This is also not particularly implausible, given the magnitude of the work in question. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:28, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Pirh

pretty sure this is the right holiday for this

slovene for "easter egg". no affinity, and the term is primarily associated with some brazilian water treatment thing consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 19:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Egg decorating in Slavic culture § Slovenia. Slovenian pirhi (singular pirh) are discussed there. Brazil's Plano Integrado de Recursos Hídricos (PIRH) uses all-caps, so I don't think it's very relevant. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:36, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Retarget as suggested above Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Susie (actress)

There's more than one people named "Susie", and this Susie isn't that notable, anyways; at most this should be a disambig, but I just find it unnecessary. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 18:02, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Are there other actresses named Susie that use the name mononymously? -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep unless ambiguity is proven. Being "unnecessary" isn't a reason to delete a redirect, and this could be helpful to readers who only know the actress by her nickname. If the target isn't notable, then this can be deleted under G8 if the article is deleted. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Pink run it

Unmentioned at the target, no clear connection, delete. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  • It is a repeated interjection line in the song which is all I remember of it. Sojour (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
    And so a very plausible search term, and the result will make sense to people who search for it. I therefore recommend that we keep it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
    For the bajillionth time, unmentioned lyrics (or lines from anything) are inappropriate redirects. Someone who already knows what it is doesn't need it, and someone who doesn't won't know why they're sent where they are. There's no end to what someone remember of a song or a movie, and we we're not a lyrics database. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
    Someone who knows what the lyrics are but doesn't know what the name of the song is actually does need this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
    And there's no confirmation they've even landed at the right spot, or source for the claim. Even still, there's no end to the particular lyric or line or way it's rendered that someone might know and want to look up. Wikipedia is not a song lyric/movie script/etc search engine/database/repository. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:15, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Disappointment Room

Unmentioned at the target, no apparent connection, delete. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I am referring to the 2016 film The Disappointments Room Sojour (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Then shouldn't it target The Disappointments Room instead? 9ninety (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
It's linked from that article: "...a secret attic room in her home used to conceal a disabled family member from elite society, otherwise known as a "disappointment room"."
While a sick room was a standard element in large houses in the 19th century, and these may have been used to confine some disabled people (attic rooms and bedrooms were), Google Books shows me only fiction for the name "disappointment room", and all of that postdating this film. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
That link has since been removed by Deacon Vorbis as a WP:EASTEREGG, and I agree with that assessment. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 21:26, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete, not a particularly plausible way to search for The Disappointments Room, with two differences. There are some sources attesting the use of "disappointment room" for the type of room, and we previous had a draft at Draft:Disappointment room, but we have no information about this currently onwiki (unmentioned at disability abuse, sick room is red). Second-choice retarget to The Disappointments Room. ~ A412 talk! 17:12, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per WP:SMALLDETAILS given the capitalization and the fact most things officially called with "The" are often searched without "The". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
    It's also missing the plural -s, which seems less plausible than dropping "The". – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 00:36, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:58, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Talking Heads - Psycho Killer

Delete as an WP:RDAB with WP:PANDORA implications. This isn't how we title or disambiguate song names on WP. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:35, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep, anyone using this format will definitely be looking for the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
    Maybe they are, maybe they're looking for something else related to the song. But either way, its existence gives the false expectation to readers that searches of the form "Artist - song" will redirect people to the song, which we shouldn't be giving. On the other hand, Wikipedia has a built-in search engine, which deals well with situations like this. Compare this first example that popped into my head, where lo and behold, the search feature comes back with the song as the top result, and some other potentially related articles near the top as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:04, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
    The solution then would be to create more redirects, not delete helpful ones. That's ultimately why WP:PANDORA is a bad argument. Redirects are better than search results—they take searchers directly to the article they are looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
    "The solution then ...." No, it wouldn't; that creates a massive amount of work to do, adds an extremely large maintenance burden, and is better handled within the search engine itself. "Redirects are better than search results—they take searchers directly to the article they are looking for." An extra click is not a large burden, and search results are often better, because we don't always know what the user was looking for...an oddly formatted search is often an indication that the user isn't sure either, and is helped by search results. The more redirects you have, the harder it is to find your way to those search results, and the more cluttered the dropdown search box gets, also hindering utility of that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:33, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
    Redirects of this sort do not have a maintenance burden. Once put in place at the correct article with the correct RCATs, no further maintenance is needed. Ever. A bot run is hands off, so really the only actual work would be to code it. If someone types "Talking Heads - Psycho Killer", they are definitely looking for the song by the Talking Heads. The other topics named Psycho Killer, a film and a video game, have nothing to do with the Talking Heads. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
    Not a good task for a bot.. There are way too many edge cases to do this with a bot. Regardless, any massive expansion of the scope of redirects like this would need some pretty big consensus to implement anyway. And yes, every redirect incurs a small maintenance burden...1 is low, but the hundreds of thousands or millions we'd likely get start to add up significantly. There are now that many more vandalism targets, that many more future ambiguities of artists that re-release songs, that many more discussions because a song article got deleted or merged or whatever. We have titling conventions for a reason, and we don't need redirects to subvert those conventions. Again, the search feature works just fine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:05, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Lifetime pageviews are nil, demonstrating it is an implausible search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:58, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

William Shakespeare's Hamlet

Delete. This is the title of a non-notable album, PRODded a year-ish before the creation of the redirect, resulting in a red link, which was then incorrectly targeted to the play. As I mentioned elsewhere, redirects of this form are generally inappropriate, both because of PANDORA implications, but also because people tend to title specific adaptations of works like this, such as William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (the one under discussion now), William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Frank Herbert's Dune, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:04, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to William Shakespeare's Hamlet: A Murder Mystery as the title without a WP:SUBTITLE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is very common to refer to works as "(author)'s (work)", and Hamlet is certainly the primary topic over the obscure video game. WP:NOTPANDORA. people tend to title specific adaptations of works like this Unless there actually is a prominent adaptation known as William Shakespeare's Hamlet, the original work is primary. 9ninety (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
    It may be common to refer to works like this in running prose, but that by itself isn't a basis to make these sorts of redirects. A typical reader is going to understand that Shakespeare is the author, and Hamlet is the work they're looking for. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
    We don't need to look for a basis to make these sorts of redirects. The one in question isn't inappropriate, because it is an unambiguous way of referring to William Shakespeare's Hamlet. There are also editions of the work titled this way. Note that the video game is based on Hamlet (1996 film), which is titled this way on the poster, so it would make much more sense to retarget to the movie rather than the game. However, the original play is still clearly primary over the movie. 9ninety (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Updating to weak retarget per Crouch's find above, not sure how I missed that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, keep, or retarget to Hamlet (disambiguation) or Hamlet (1996). William Shakespeare's Hamlet: A Murder Mystery is not PRIMARY for this phrase, a number of adaptations of Hamlet have been marketed as "William Shakespeare's Hamlet", in particular Hamlet (1996 film), from which the computer game itself is a derivative work, adopting the title. I don't have a strong opinion here otherwise, hence the equally weighted options.—BrechtBro (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - The current target is the clear (and useful) primary topic. Hatnote it as desired. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:32, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The play is the primary topic, and overwhelmingly most mentions of this phrase on Wikipedia (see search results) refer to the play. It also seems sensible to synchronise it with the shorter Shakespeare's Hamlet which redirects to the play. The hatnote there takes care of anyone looking for adaptations. My second preference would be to make a disambiguation page like the one at Bram Stoker's Dracula if we know of multiple adaptations with articles which were explicitly titled William Shakespeare's Hamlet. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 12:12, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Special character

I think this should probably target metacharacter instead or be a dab, but maybe someone has a better idea? Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks like a Humpty Dumpty word [pair] that "means whatever I want it to mean". Without a context, as a generic term, it is meaningless.
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Wikipedia has a native keyboard named "Special character", and it includes various scripts including decorated Latin letters. LIrala (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of reader usage, also in books, so it's plausible readers might try to search for it, so it makes sense to keep it but disambiguate. --Joy (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Since nominating this I've come to think it's fine, actually. I think most of the time when somebody looks up special character they are looking up a term that means "nonalphanumeric characters", which is what the current target covers. And then a section hat note to metacharacter (which are also called special characters) could be added. No prejudice against rerefining it or retargeting to something that's still about the sense of special characters I just discussed. Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Specials (Unicode block), as this redirect would probably suit this article better.Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 08:52, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Inventive! But I sincerely doubt this is the ptopic for "special character". Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
(And also, I might add, technically correct — which is the best kind of correct.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Only weird afficiandos like me know about the Unicode Specials block, but "special character" is written on half of all password forms etc. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:50, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

"natural vitamin e"

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Mala hotpot

I suggest retargeting to Mala xiang guo as the natural target. I didn't do it boldly because this redirect is the result of a merge. Helpful Cat🐈 06:47, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguate. Seems like it's probably ambiguous in English. The Chinese Wikipedia's articles for both Chongqing hot pot and Mala xiang guo both use 麻辣 mala. The only difference is if they're huǒguō or xiāngguō. "Hot pot" is a natural translation of "huǒguō", since "huǒ" literally means "fire". Wiktionary translates the latter, xiāngguō, as "stir-fry pot", and at least 1 of the references in the article agrees, but at least 3 references given in the article actually do use the word "hot pot". I doubt there's a primary topic between the two. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:01, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Mr. Veto

Not mentioned in article; retarget to a Donald Trump article? 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 06:10, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep (or retarget to related page); maybe dab later The nickname for Molotov is mentioned on United Nations Security Council veto power, United States and the United Nations, and in multiple RSes I found on Google. (Although, it does seem like a fun fact that could just be an urban legend that gets spread around, if you really want to know my opinion.) It's also attested for Trump of late, although I can't say it seems like a moniker with longevity to me. If we get some coverage of the Trump sense of Mr Veto at some point a dab could be in order. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, given that the surname Vető exists and the diacritic is easily left out, and any male with that surname could be called "Mr. Veto". BD2412 T 02:22, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Jaso redirects to Hangul

All were created on 30 June 2023 by MPGuy2824 and tagged as being made through Articles for Creation. I assume this was because Hangul § Letters previously contained the text: In typography design and in IME automata, the letters that make up a block are called jaso (자소) (unreferenced). The text is no longer there, so the target no longer explains the term. There does not appear to be any coverage on Wikipedia except a listing at the disambiguation page Jaso. The listing was added by Kjoonlee on 11 February 2023, who also added the mention to Hangul in the first place on the same date.

The Korean Wikipedia uses jaso as its title for its version of the article Grapheme (see ko:자소 (언어학)), while jaso is not used at its article for Hangul (see ko:한글).

One redirect, Jaso (character)), was created in error and has a double end bracket "))". Jaso (character) was intended but has not been created since. I suspect it would qualify for {{db-g6}} but I'm nominating it anyway as I'm unsure if the correct redirect should be created to replace it.

tl;dr – Suggest deleting all for lack of a suitable target. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 05:49, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete all I too don't see a current suitable target. If a Korean speaker tells us that "mo" and "so" are interchangeable in the language, then we can think of other options.
I also agree that the redirect that can be G6'ed should be left as-is till this RFD closes.
P.S. Jaso also has a mention of this which can be removed. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Please don’t touch the jaso disambig page. --Kjoonlee 12:26, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

I reinstated the mention of jaso in the Hangul article and left a citation. --Kjoonlee 12:11, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

자소 was also added to ko:한글#자소. --Kjoonlee 12:16, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
I don’t mind the redirects being deleted, but please keep the jaso disambig page as is, as we now have a cited anchor for it to link to. --Kjoonlee 12:26, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
@Kjoonlee: Does the source you referenced have a URL that others could look at to verify? Is this it? If not, where did you find this source? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
It is. Added, thanks. --Kjoonlee 15:53, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Super Grub Disk

Delete as there is no information at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. Mention was removed 15 years back with comment Unless these have third-party sources showing notability they are WP:UNDUE here, and the external link was removed two years later. Jay 05:09, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Super Grub Disk certainly exists, but unless encyclopedic content on Wikipedia about it exists, it should be deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:51, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

RINGrid

Delete as there is no information about this project at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was an article from 2006 to 2011 which was BLAR'd as ..non-notable, no independent sources. The pages which are are possible undisclosed COI-editing by WP:SPA User:Ringrid, was for next-generation grids, and are not the same as GridCC, another remote instrumentation grid project that was part of the same target. Jay 04:39, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

AI hacking

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

November 8

Dutch people in Japan

Tagged by a temp account with the reasoning article where this redirect does not discuss the topic at all, better delete it so it becomes a red link and maybe someone will write an article about it but never properly listed. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:54, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

한

한 is one of the two hangul syllable blocks in the South Korean name of the script, 한글. However, by itself 한 han does not refer to the script. It has several meanings (see 한 on Wiktionary), among them being "Korea" or the Korean people as short for Han'guk or Hanminjok (see etymology for 한국 Han'guk on Wiktionary).

Suggest retargeting to Samhan which discusses the three Hans to which the 한 han in Han'guk refers, as discussed in the § History section. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:03, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment this is also the original spelling of Han (Korean surname) and Han (cultural). I don't think Samhan is the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; compare ko:한, which is a disambiguation page. Retargeting to Han (disambiguation) or deleting to show search results may be better options. ~2026-59164-84 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
    Good catch! I support a retarget to Han (disambiguation). Prefer this to deletion as the search results bring up a lot of partial matches which aren't relevant. On the other hand Han (disambiguation) is a bit long and includes other languages which aren't relevant. Still, they could always Ctrl+F for 한 and it's organised by topics like "Places" and "People" so seems easier to navigate than the search page. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:35, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Han (disambiguation) as a catch-all for things called 한. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:17, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

鮮

鮮 is one of the hanja (Chinese characters) in 朝鮮글, the North Korean name for hangul. However, 朝鮮 (Joseon/Chosŏn) is actually just the name of Korea in the North Korean dialects; it has no connection to the script specifically. On its own 鮮 is an ordinary word in the Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and (as chu Nom) Vietnamese languages with various definitions, see 鮮 on Wiktionary. Under any meaning, it has no specific affinity for any topic in English. Delete to allow unimpeded searches for use of this word. per WP:FORRED. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 17:49, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Buck Rodgers time

Unclear what "time" at the end is supposed to represent, as "time" isn't found in the target article, even at the time of redirect creation, so suggest delete. Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Looking at the creator's contributions, they were heavily into space, so this was probably meant to redirect to Buck Rogers. With that being said, there is no "Buck Rogers time" in that article either, so delete. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

CASPAR digital preservation project

Delete as there is no information about this project at the target. This was an article from 2006 to 2011 which was BLAR'd as ..non-notable, no independent sources. The entry at Caspar (disambiguation) should be removed as well. At Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute, CASPAR with its expansion is mentioned in the context that HATII was a partner in the project, but there is no further information about CASPAR itself. Jay 10:34, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Alevi massacres

It's not a great idea to redirect to category space. Is there somewhere better this could go, maybe Alevism? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Alevism is not a good target for this topic. There is no article on Anti-Alevism or Persecution of Alevis in general, only for Ottomon persecution specifically. A set index might work, though my concerns are (1) are these actually referred to as "Alevi massacres" in sources? and (2) what counts as an "Alevi massacre"? Should it cover all the massacres in the category or only those which targeted exclusively Alevis (unlike the Maraş massacre, which also targeted leftists)? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:51, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete as there is no information about this file or a menu list at the target. It was removed when the target was updated to GRUB 2. There is a mention at EasyBCD, but that won't be a suitable target. Jay 07:05, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

H:IF

This is a recently created redirect (less than 2 weeks old) that is inconsistent with Help:If (targeting Help:Conditional expressions#if), a much older shortcut (unedited for 13+ years). Should this redirect be retargeted to be consistent, or should hatnotes be added instead (as is done for H:R and Help:R)? Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment - Inconsistency between projectspace titles is not a major concern. Variations of shortcuts (though only one is traditionally pure), are not uncommon. That aside, I do not necessarily take issue with retargeting the one created just two weeks ago (consistency is arguably a positive when it can easily be achieved); however, the title in question was unused and thereby 'claimed'. Thus, I am weakly leaning towards keep. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Analytic idealism

Delete, to free the title for an article. Bernardo Kastrup has a philosophical framework called analytic idealism, and that is the sense readers mean by the term today. This redirect instead goes to A. C. Ewing's work, which was described as "analytic idealism" in a footnote quoted by Beaney, a narrow and old use, so a reader who clicks the link in Bernardo Kastrup expecting Kastrup's framework lands on a page about someone else. Because the title is occupied, the concept cannot have an article of its own. Deleting the redirect leaves that existing link red, which, per WP:REDLINK invites the article to be created. Eduardo7z (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is preposterous. Since when have we started prioritizing self-published, non-academic philosophy over peer-reviewed academic philosophy? Omnipaedista (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
    Oh, seems like I didn't do my due diligence before creating this, I thought there was some more broad discussion on the topic; also I thought the redirect was preventing the page from being created, I'm still unfamiliar with these aspects of wikipedia, so yeah it can be kept, sorry Eduardo7z (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, not a valid deletion rationale. I have no opinion on the relative primary-ness of the two topics, but the presence of this redirect doesn't prevent someone from writing the article in question. If it's written, it can either be moved over top of the redirect, or it can be done directly at the desired page title, or it can sit at a disambiguated title. Whichever way, there's nothing to do until then. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:09, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - It seems much of the nom's qualm can be resolved by unlinking the term at Bernardo Kastrup. Anyone is, of course, free to write on article on any topic (if they can demonstrate notability and muster the sourcing) and supersede a redirect (or use a disambiguated title in some cases); nothing is being prevented by the existence of this title in its current form. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:02, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Real-time linux

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, CycloneYoris talk! 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note the second redirect has 100 incoming mainspace links and the third redirect has a BCA in its history (link).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 05:09, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

The Two Time

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 7#Two Time (not bundling since it's on a different day now). Same problem though, not mentioned, may or may not be referring to the same thing, but who knows. Delete, regardless. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:24, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment I believe the article did mention him being known as the "two time" or some variant at the time, which is why I created the redirect. I performed a cursory search and discovered several blog publications referring to him as "the Two-Time" and it apparently is connected to his claim that he was a two-time Blockbuster Video Game world champion back in the 90s. So it is an established part of his character's lore and was documented in the article before, but whether it warrants inclusion as a redirect today, I am unsure. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Willy Wonka (film)

Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Suggest delete retarget per below as ambiguous with Wonka (film). Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Abstract types in Haxe

Not currently mentioned at the targeted article and not covered comprehensively in any other article. Unless content is restored to Haxe about abstract types, this redirect should be deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

FTR, here's the edit that removed the target section: Special: Diff/1273183937. Solomon Ucko (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
  • I just notified of this discussion at the target. Jay 15:10, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:51, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, removal was ~2 years ago for being unsourced and/or undue weight, and seemingly nobody has objected since. ScalarFactor (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Po tak

the confusion is kinda fair, because they're pretty similar, but it's still a different soup that seems to be notable separately from how similar it is to thomas tasty. also not to be confused with tom yum po tak consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 14:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd retarget at least tom yum po tak to point to the "Selected types" section, where "Tom yam po taek (Thai: ต้มยำโป๊ะแตก)" is mentioned, assuming this is just a variant transliteration?
What is "thomas tasty"?
Solomon Ucko (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
refined that one, then consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 17:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:49, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Radical veganism

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)
"Radical" and "militant" seem fine for retargeting. "Fundamentalist" is a bit weird because the term is generally strongly associated with religion. "Fundamental" (without -ist) seems like a grammatical error on top of already questionable phrasing. — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, sure, but "fundamentalist" also sometimes used in a broader way for particularly "preachy", uncompromising, or strict adherents to an ideology or philosophy. See, eg. Market fundamentalism or Scientism § Strong and weak scientism. The "fundamentalist" ones should probably be tagged explicitly as {{r from pejorative}} as I'm not aware of those ever being used by adherents themselves, unlike "radical" or "militant".
I don't object to deleting the redirects that drop the -ist/-ism from "fundamentalist/ism". You're right that those are unlikely. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
The terms include vegan antivaxxers so there is overlap with religion. ~2026-56879-61 (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
This seems like a reach; I don't think it's true that all anti-vaccine people are religiously motivated. — An anonymous username, not my real name 12:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think they were implying that all antivaccine people are religiously motivated, but I agree it's a reach. The "fundamentalism" in "vegan fundamentalism" isn't literal religious fundamentalism. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:24, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:31, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Aaron Ford (disambiguation)

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

This is what you get for fucking around with yakuzas! Go home to your mother!

Another random movie quote. It was soft retargeted to wikiquote, but I don't think that's ever a good idea...there's no end to the quotes that could be sent there, and this one isn't even mentioned there either (and having to monitor what gets added/removed there isn't reasonable either). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:55, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per Deacon Vorbis. This actually is mentioned at Wikiquote (you should find it if you search for "with yakuzas" within the page), but this doesn't meet the requirements of WP:SSRT. This quote has no internal links and has not been repeatedly recreated. Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
    Oh, I just ctrl-Fed for "this is what", and got nothing...missed it because they added hyphens for the pauses. Struck that note. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:51, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - It could be refined to wikiquote:Kill Bill: Volume 1#The Bride. However, this treatment should be reserved for particularly prevalent quotes that are not covered for one reason; this instance may not meet that bar and the redirect was created very recently. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:04, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

November 7

Yu-ri

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The previous discussion was in August, but its close doesn't really make sense because we're now sending a fairly specific spelling to a generic, long list. If a reader types in the hyphen, they probably did it for a reason, and it's not in reference to e.g. the Russian name. In the meantime I asked at User talk:Steel1943 about it, and investigated some more, and found plausible references to other East Asian names like this, as well as Yu Ri. The latter is now a short disambiguation page where this can be retargeted if it really is ambiguous. --Joy (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm conflicted about retargeting to Yu Ri or Yu-ri (Korean name). As far as I can tell, the hyphenation is only relevant for those Yuri entries which are shared with Yu Ri. However, are the Japanese names ever actually spelled "Yu Ri"? Yuri (Japanese name) doesn't list any hyphenated examples, and, as far as I know, the Japanese name "Yuri" is a single word. Same goes for the name of the genre, which is derived from the English word "lily".
It seems only the Korean name is ever hyphenated or spaced. Maybe Yu Ri and Yu-ri should both redirect to Yu-ri (Korean name)? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 16:03, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Exactly, those are the two options, and while I don't know which is better, both of them seem at least a bit better than what is currently there. I'm hopeful someone who knows how these terms are used in sources can chime in and pick the best one. If it's ambiguous, disambiguate it accurately, and if it's not, point it to the place readers actually expect. --Joy (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
(Note: I've notified the Talk pages of WikiProjects Japan and Anthroponymy. Maybe they can help.) – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:29, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • redirect, together with Yu Ri to Yu-ri (Korean name), seconding Scyrme. I am not aware of cases when Russian or Japanese words are hyphenated or separated. --Altenmann >talk 17:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Support redirecting Yu-ri to Yu-ri (Korean name). Typing a hyphen like that is pretty intentional. Some1 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Thinking about it (as I didn't give a specific suggestion in the previous RfD), I would suggest disambiguating between Yu-ri Yoshida, Yūri (which someone could plausibly type "Yu-ri" since typing u- is much easier than typing ū), and Yu-ri (Korean name). Yu Ri appears distinct; it looks like someone's full name, not just part of a name, and is mentioned at Wu Yue (actor)#Television and Kingdom 3: The Flame of Destiny#Cast (they appear to be distinct). Someone looking for "Yu Ri" may not be looking for the same thing as someone looking for "Yu-ri", so that is why I suggest a separate disambiguation. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I agree that it is plausible that someone would type "Yu-ri" instead of using a macron. They would probably either not use a diacritic (if it's not important in context to distinguish the long vowel), use a circumflex accent (often used as a substitute for the macron), use an acute accent (used in some languages and transliteration systems to mark long vowels, though not usually Japanese), or double the vowel (a common convention for representing long vowels when appropriate diacritics aren't available). I've seen all of these used (in general, not necessarily specifically for Japanese). I've never heard of a hyphen being used to substitute a macron. Just because I've not heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it seems especially unlikely to be done for Japanese, where hyphens are regularly used in romanisation for other purposes. Do you have evidence that hyphens are regularly used to substitute macrons in Japanese romanisation? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 03:23, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
    In practice, it is quite common. For Japanese topics, "Yūri" and "Yu-ri" are equivalent; they are usually not distinct. This is plausible since the hyphen is connected to the Japanese chōonpu (ー), which indicates a long vowel. In addition, yu-ri is exactly what would be typed to get ユーリ, which is mentioned at Yuri (Japanese name)#Yūri. Also, since Yu-ri Yoshida, a Japanese actress, exists at its title, the hyphen is sometimes even the common form (with other forms like Yūri Yoshida appearing in searches as alternative forms). Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks! In that case, maybe the best solution would be to swap the disambiguation page at Yu Ri to Yu-ri? Both the Korean and Japanese names can be hyphenated, but not spaced.
    That would leave a redirect behind at Yu Ri. Looking again at the Korean names, none of the names there are actually spaced. Everything for an in-title search (All pages with titles containing Yu ri) seen to be hyphenated too, except Yu Ri itself. On the other hand, Korean names often do display variation in spacing vs hyphenation (compare Kim Jong Un and Kim Jong-un) even if none of the titles for the Korean name Yu-ri are currently spaced instead of hyphenated. So either Yu Ri should be deleted or retargeted to the Korean name. Neither seems like a good option as the basic, inexact search for Yu Ri yields many irrelevant results so isn't helpful, but the Korean name seems like too narrow of a target since it excludes the Chinese names someone might be searching for. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 06:02, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
Comment: @A412, Grapesurgeon, LaundryPizza03, IShowSami, 4meter4, and Mdewman6: Pinging participants of the previous discussion (who have yet to participate in this discussion) in the event they wish to participate in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Move Yu-ri (Korean name) to Yu-ri, as I indicated in the previous Rfd. If there is agreement that the Korean name is the primary (or only) topic for this specific spelling, that page should be moved to the base name rather than having the base name redirect there (see WP:MISPLACED). Not sure what to do with Yu Ri, but that can be addressed later/separately if needed. Links via hatnotes/see also entries to related pages can be added for disambiguation/navigation purposes. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
    @Mdewman6: As Mathguy2718 noted, the Japanese name is also a relevant topic. I don't see a reason to think one is primary over the other. Do you have a reason to think otherwise? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 12:47, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Move per Mdewman6, nothing else uses that exact spelling. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:33, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
    Maybe you missed it, but someone above found Yu-ri Yoshida. --Joy (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
    I've added her article to the name list and edited the disambiguation at Yu Ri to link directly to Yūri which is the relevant Japanese name. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 12:50, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Weapons of Japan

retarget to Firearms of Japan? Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep: Why should we retarget this, @Thepharoah17? Firearms are only one type of weapon. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
    I don't think redirecting to a list of lists is very helpful for readers. Another option then could be to retarget to Category:Weapons of Japan Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
    That would be better than Firearms of Japan (what about swords?), but I don't see what's wrong with the current target. It directs readers to more specific lists of weapons, and the category is already linked to in the see also section if that's what they want. Then again, the list of lists is in the category, so a retarget wouldn't be that bad, either. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
    Cross-namespace redirects are generally discouraged (WP:R#D6). – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 16:13, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
    Which is why keeping is still my first choice. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no problem with retargetting to a list of list when multiple lists are relevant and there's no broad concept article. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 16:07, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Japan is known for weaponry that is quite exclusive from firearms. In particular, the katana comes to mind. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Japanese rearmament

suggest delete since this seems like an astonishing target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Two Time

Fictional character not mentioned at target; removed in Special:Diff/1353562342 ~ A412 talk! 20:23, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

David Smith (Samaon rugby union)

Misspelled disambiguator (Samoan -> Samaon), so I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete, either an unlikely spelling error or a random typo anywhere, but especially in the disambiguator. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:53, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. ScalarFactor (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Walt Disney Japan

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Per Japanese Wikipedia, Walt Disney Japan is the Japanese Disney office handling movies (The Walt Disney Studios Japan/Buena Vista International Japan), tv networks (Disney Channel, Disney Jr., Dlife) and consumer products (DCP), not just home video (BVHE), but Disney closed its Japanese video office in 2024 and moved everything to Happinet. In this case like we have pages for Disney France and Disney Italy is it possible if we can either create a page for Disney Japan or something else... SBF2004 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment - Would it actually take that long to create a stub article here using the Japanese Wikipedia article's text and 31 citations? Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:33, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
    Probably… SBF2004 (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

2020 UK general election

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

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)

  • Retarget back to 2017 United Kingdom general election. The previous RfD resulted in no consensus, the retarget happened subsequent to that discussion. I !voted to keep in that discussion because that page explains that the date of the 2017 election was originally scheduled for 2020. That explanation remains: Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 an election had not been due until 1 May 2020. -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:08, 30 October 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 18:28, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Just delete There was another general election in mid December 2019 which is arguably more plausible for what someone looking for a 2020 election has in mind. Rather than mind reading, let's remove the problem altogether. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Cordua's Ranch, California

I don't see any evidence that Marysville was ever known as "Cordua's Ranch, California". As mentioned in the article, there was a ranch in Marysville owned by someone named Thomas Cordua, so Cordua's ranch could work as a redirect, but I don't think the entire city was ever called "Cordua's ranch". I suggest deletion unless someone has a compelling explanation otherwise. Duckmather (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

SUSE Linux redirects

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)

There is also SUSE Linux distributions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:30, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget SUSE 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, CycloneYoris talk! 08:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget all to SUSE LINUX and move SUSE LINUX to SUSE Linux. I've never seen Linux stylized in all caps. While openSUSE might be the true successor, I do think someone searching for this term could also be looking for SUSE Linux Enterprise. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 17:33, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
It's generally out of scope for an RfD to propose moves, but the suggestion to move the disambiguation page at SUSE LINUX to SUSE Linux does seem non-controversial given none of the entries there render "Linux" in all-caps, only "SUSE".
SUSE Linux has history including a two-directional merge where its contents was divided between two destinations: SUSE S.A. and OpenSUSE. However, that the content was merged to the latter doesn't mean that the title should remain a redirect to it. It should only redirect there if OpenSUSE is the primary topic out of the two entries at SUSE LINUX.
(If not primary) If it's not the primary topic, I would agree with ~2026-48129-52 that the disambiguation page should be moved to that title. This should not be done by deleting SUSE Linux to make way for a move, as this would delete the attribution for the merged article content. A technical move could be done to swap the histories of the two titles, though this would mess up any notices and edit summaries that state that content was merged in from the title SUSE Linux, not SUSE LINUX. Seems to me that the best solution would be to cut/paste the disambiguation page over to SUSE Linux, leaving a {{Copied}} note to show where the disambiguation page's prior history is located. These redirects would then be retargeted to the disambiguation page now located at SUSE Linux as minor variations on the same title.
(If is primary) If OpenSUSE is the primary topic, the solution is simpler: move the disambiguation page to SUSE Linux (disambiguation) and retarget all these titles to the primary topic. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:08, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Post-Christian democracy

Not mentioned at target or anywhere else, removed as uncited in Special:Diff/1354698694 ~ A412 talk! 20:01, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The point is that, for example, Ursula von der Leyen and her European People's Party are not guided by Christian principles, so what they represent is probably more "post-Christian democracy" than "Christian democracy", am I right? IgnacyPL (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
A trend of secularisation among Christian-democratic parties is discussed at Christian democracy § 21st century, but the term "post-Christian" isn't used and it's followed by a discussion of minor Christianity-democratic parties reacting against that trend and re-emphasising traditional Christian values. Before the discussion of these trends there's a paragraph discussing the waning popularity of Christian-democratic parties in democratic Europe, which is another plausible interpretation of what the term could mean. Is it "(post-Christian) democracy" or "post-(Christian democracy)"? There's nothing at the target to suggest which of these two interpretations is the intended one. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
or cultural Christians. Dudzcar (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 17:18, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Tony Stark was able to build this in a cave! With a box of scraps!

Non-notable quote not discussed within the target article. Unlike other legitimate catchphrases, such as "I am Iron Man", this has no significant coverage and was only created under the pretense that it is used as a purported "meme", but that does not make it notable in and of itself. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 10:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: I notice that the Vulture ref () is titled "'In a Cave! With a Box of Scraps!': How an Iconic Marvel Cinematic Insult Came to Be", which suggests this is a notable quote. ~ A412 talk! 13:31, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
    @A412: That article is an interview with actor Peter Billingsley, who portrayed the character that this line was directed to in Iron Man. Billingsley talked about that line in an interview promoting another Marvel film he appeared in. The subject topic of one interview article does not meet WP:GNG, and there are no suitable alternative targets to point this redirect to because this quote in particular is not covered or discussed anywhere on this encyclopedia. Wikiquote would be a far more appropriate avenue for this quote to be included, but not here. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 03:28, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
    I was not asserting that the quote is wiki-notable, just challenging the assertion in your nom that "this has no significant coverage only created under the pretense that it is used as a purported "meme"": I think this could plausibly be written about (example sources: , ). That being said, we have not chosen to do so, delete as an unmentioned quote. ~ A412 talk! 03:36, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
    I don't really have an opinion on this, but I did want to note that redirects do not have to meet GNG. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:30, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah, I brought it up as the principle for if it were included with adequate coverage. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 11:37, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 17:12, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a memorable quote and maybe it's also notable, idk, but the target doesn't discuss it so it's not a helpful redirect. Someone searching the quote probably wants information about it (eg. its cultural impact) or about the scene its from. If they were only looking for the film they would be more direct. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:35, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
    Soft redirect, per Godsy (below). – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:41, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
  • weak keep. I have boldly added the quote to the plot summary. I feel it is a significant part of the film's legacy. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
    I have reverted this addition because it is not appropriate to add quotes to plot summaries, per FILMPLOT, especially for the sake of retaining a redirect without proving encyclopedic value. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 11:35, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect as {{wikiquote redirect}} to wikiquote:Iron Man (2008 film)#Dialogue (or add an anchor there for better refination, given the length of the section). Given the debate about the significance of this quote above, this seems like a reasonable move. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:56, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
    I would not be opposed to this. Seems better than inserting a quote into the article just to justify the redirect. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete – Note a notable quote. Lacks significant commentary on the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Ochimono

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)

Retarget to wikt:おちものパズルゲーム (via {{Wiktionary redirect}}) or List of puzzle video games § Falling block puzzles (matching falling block puzzle game (Q10308060) => Falling block puzzle game). Solomon Ucko (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 22:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't imagine this would have enough use to justify a Wiktionary redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 5 November 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 17:07, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

2026 No Kings protests

Need disambiguation as now there are two No Kings protests in 2026, or simply redirect to No Kings protests? A1Cafel (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to No Kings protests. 2025 No Kings protests already redirects there, so this would maintain consistency. And that's probably the best place to send readers, because that way they can find any specific protest or date that they are looking for, since each of them is blue-linked in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to No Kings protests per both above. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

PFF2

Not mentioned at target. Unrelated passing mention exists at Mechanical_filter_(respirator)#Other_standards_(KN95_and_others). 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:17, 14 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, ~ A412 talk! 00:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 16:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Duel Monsters

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current, proposed and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 16:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Computational Rationality

No information about this term at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. It is unclear what this term (with or without the uppercase R) is supposed to mean. There was no mention of this term even when the redirect was created 15 years back. The creator is now blocked.

I also tried looking for words rational and rationale. The target uses a term "computational morality", and there is a See also for Computational intelligence. There is a section #Computationalism_and_functionalism that hatnotes to its main article Computational theory of mind. There is also Rational agent. Delete if the redirect term is not a definition, synonym, or has no primary topic. Jay 09:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

The uppercase R is probably here just because it's using title case, which is not ideal. Computational theory of mind is a different topic. I propose to either redirect to Rational agent or delete. Alenoach (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Rationality is possibly used in the sense of wikt:ratiocination, referring to the data process as computer thinking by themselves, as if they have its own life. Dudzcar (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 16:12, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Stadtteil

WP:RLOTE: I see no particular affinity of the target to German-speaking places. If someone wants to stub this thing, I have no objections. Paradoctor (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2026 (UTC) Retract Just realized that this is actually an {{r from subtopic}}/{{r from hyponym}}. Paradoctor (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Where it is used, it is talking about a quarter (urban subdivision) of a German (or previously-German) town or city; effectively it's the German equivalent of arrondissement. I'm not sure there's reason to delete the redirect until-and-unless there is a stub created. (I created the redirect in 2007, when I was doing a lot more editing on early-modern European history.) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk). I support Wiki Workers United ✊🏼 17:54, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

ISSeG

Delete as there is no information about this project at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was an article from 2006 to 2011 which was BLAR'd as ..non-notable, no independent sources. There is nothing relevant at Grid computing or Grid Security Infrastructure as well. Jay 08:36, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

1st mi

Seems like a rather vague and potentially confusing or ambiguous abbreviation for the target. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep Web search indicates "1st MI" to be the primary topic for this term. Potential other meanings can be hatnoted. The only one that comes to mind is first mile, but I found no instances of this. Paradoctor (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Birdie Silverstein

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Anna Lake

No lake with this name is listed at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:46, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • There are actually three lakes named Anna listed at the target: one in Crow Wing County, one in Otter Tail County, and one in Stearns County. That said, retarget to Lake Anna because there is a notable lake with the name Anna. -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Alexis Read

Alt name not mentioned at target (and Alexis Reed points elsewhere) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:12, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

https://catalansdragons.com/membres/alexis-lis/ Fleets (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

LXVIII Army (Germany)

Target was a corps, not an army. Delete this to avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Readius

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:11, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Eye Care Professional

Capitalization doesn't really matter at this point.

snowc

Give em the bidness!

22:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a harmless {{R from other capitalisation}} and is already tagged as such. No need for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 11:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. If someone links from some other Wikipedia article to Eye Care Professional and there's no redirect, they won't be redirected to eye care professional. This particular redirect is a perfect exaple of why it is important to have redirects. It's not just about redirecting them from something they entered in a search box; it's about links from a Wikipedia article to an incorrectly capitalized title. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RPURPOSE: "Likely alternative capitalisations (for example, Natural Selection redirects to Natural selection)". This is also an old redirect, from 2009, so it's possible that some external/non-wiki sites link directly to this redirect. Zzz plant (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
  • keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Due to an incompletely reverted closure, this redirect has not been tagged since November 3 and was only retagged a few minutes ago. I suggest we leave this open for a few more days to balance things out. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Chess enjoyer notes, this discussion was not properly tagged on the redirect page. Relisting to give the redirect's viewers a fair chance to provide further commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Speedy keep: Capitalization doesn't really matter at this point isn't a reason to delete a redirect. As CycloneYoris notes above, this is a cheap, harmless redirect. --ABx11 (she/they) 23:26, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep This is often rendered in this form in general eyeglass and contact lens advertising and it's already properly categorized and templated. Harmless. Nathannah • 📮 01:32, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Battles 2

other things with "battles 2" in their titles exist, though somehow, btdb2 might actually be the primary topic for the entire text string as it is, so consider this a weak nom consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

"btdb2 might actually be the primary topic for the entire text string as it is" This was what I had believed when I created the redirect, yes. Its official subreddit (as in, staffed by actual Ninja Kiwi employees) and the update notes posted on the Steam page shorten the game's name that way, for instance. I am under the impression that there needs to be evidence that other products are shortened to "Battles 2" as is for there to be a problem. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 14:21, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
gratuitous space battles and great naval battles' sequels which apparently exist seem to be distant seconds, with movie battles 2 (with the disgusting roman numeral) as a somewhat closer third consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 14:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Again, there needs to be evidence that those sequels are referred to as simply "Battles 2". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 14:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

November 6

Teacup Dogs

"Teacup dogs" redirects to Toy dog. However, there is an article under the title of Teacup dog. It would be best if the plural of "teacup dog" actually linked to that article rather than "toy dog". BorealFox (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Retarget you could have just made the change yourself as its uncontroversial/obvious. The redirect predates the teacup dog article. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Device Orchestra

Does not seem to be used — Ultimate Ultimatum (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Support: Never seen this term used in my Rube Goldberg machine research (though, that is a funny name). Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 02:44, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: Device Orchestra is a YouTube channel that uses everyday electric and electronic devices as instruments. The videos don't depict Rube Goldberg machines (due to lack of chaining), so wouldn't make sense to mention there. If it's worth mentioning anywhere, Found object (music) is a better choice. Jruderman (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Future American Empire

Ambiguous- seems likely to assume that any passing reader would think this is referring to a hypothetical "American Empire" that would appear in the future from now, which is inappropriate regardless as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is a disambiguation with the name American Empire, but that doesn't contain the redirect's target as of the nomination. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 20:18, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

delete, "Future American Empire" is not mentioned in the target page. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Lil Phat

I came across this organically, linked from Tanya Miller. The redirect is a result of an AfD with minimal participation. Search results show other uses. With 31 incoming mainspace links, I recommend restoring the article. BDD (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

weak restore. Presumably the question is if RSes can be found, rather than how many incoming links there are, but that seems fairly plausible to me so we might as well give it a shot. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Martin Stadium

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy disambiguate

MineField Browser

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion as the subject of previous AfD / RfDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 17:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out in the previous RfD, "Minefield" was not a browser in its own right, but the early codename for Firefox's nightly builds from the development trunk, subsequently renamed "Firefox nightly". Firefox version history would have been a potential target if secondary sources could be found. However, these redirects are all rather implausibly worded, so delete all. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
    I did find one independent source mentioning Minefield, CBS News: , which could be included in the version history article. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 22:38, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for that pointer, which which led me to a more specific reference at Ars Technica that I've used to add a mention. I'd now support retargeting Mozilla Minefield to Firefox version history#Minefield; still delete the other two as implausible. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Continuous mathematics

Delete because its mention in the target article was recently declined. fgnievinski (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment. I did a literature search on "continuous mathematics", and did not find any support that it is synonymous with mathematical analysis, nor that it is a distinct field of study suitable for its own article. In most of the sources I looked in, continuous mathematics was characterized negatively as the complement of "discrete mathematics". That is, mathematics about continua as opposed to discrete structures. Laslo Lovasz makes the point that there is no clear distinction between these subjects. Von Dieck's Algebraic Topology descrives continuous mathematics as a subset of general topology. For my own part, a lot of discrete mathematics involves mathematical analysis, so analysis is not neatly characterized as the complement of discrete mathematics. (This is similar to Lovas's point, but a bit more general.) In any case, it does not seem like "continuous mathematics" is enough of a thing for a clear topical redirect, but a more plausible target could be continuous function, because rather than naming a subject within mathematics, it could be that the reader intends continuous (mathematics) or similar. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for looking into this! Seems like continuous (mathematics) (or something similar) would be our best bet, then. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
    retarget per above Dudzcar (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Discrete mathematics is a real term (although there is no formal definition of it), and is not the opposite of mathematical analysis. Euclidean geometry seems like a decent example to refer to, since most people would agree that it falls into neither discrete mathematics nor mathematical analysis. Mechanikin (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Bastille in other languages

No affinity between the Bastille in Paris and these spellings which appear to be used in Finnish (Bastilji) and various Slavic languages (Bastilje or Bastilja). Rosbif73 (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Athena Keen

There is no mention of this person at the target article. If deleted also remove entry at Athena (given name) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Disney Channel Asia: Premieres 2009

This title had original research tendencies in is article contents that made it easy for redirection. Since this was something that happened in 2009, so over a decade ago, sourcing or references could be a issue for this title and it had mentions in the target removed since then. Intrisit (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Disney Channel's Halloween Events

No mentions of this at the target as at now! Intrisit (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Disney Junior Hong Kong

The section that mentions something about this title is there no more. Intrisit (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I-maestro

Delete as there is no information about this project at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was an article from 2006 to 2011 which was BLAR'd as ..non-notable, no independent sources. Maestro I was an unrelated project, and I would not see it as an alternate target. Jay 10:12, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Bowmanville Nursery School

Not mentioned in target and I don't think it has notability to warrant adding to the article. Suonii180 (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. मल्ल (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Turn of the 20th century

"Turn of the 20th century" could refer to pretty much anything that happened around the year 1900. To attach it to an American historical term is overly simplifying it, especially when it has been used in the context of other countries as well. KhokcheHendi (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Should this redirect to the article turn of the century instead? Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for sharing. I have gone back and forth on this, but "turn of the century" was originally an abbreviation of "turn of the 20th century." So I guess it would make sense to retarget in that specific context. We should not make redirects for other centuries, though. KhokcheHendi (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Walt Disney Television (Production Company)

"Walt Disney Television (production company)" exists and its page has the miscapitalisation rcat, but I'm listing it here due to redirects like this getting deleted here because the disambiguator looks "OFF" visually with Wikipedians. Intrisit (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep, harmless. -- Tavix (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Different Types of Reserves

These are not reasonable as redirects. They were originally two articles created by the same user, but were redirected (the first one being revdelled). However, the unusual use of "Different Types" and strange use of title case makes the redirects implausible. The redirects also artificially make the target pages show up higher when searching "different types". Note that other pages the same creator (probably, based on the user talk page) created, Different Types of Companies and Unrealized reserve, were deleted. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Inflation in the United States

The redirect target is too specific for such a broad topic. There have been several inflationary events that occurred throughout US history. AlphaBeta135 talk 05:05, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to either retargeting the redirect to Economic history of the United States or splitting the said article to form a standalone article. AlphaBeta135 talk 05:09, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Strangely enough, there is a Russian Wikipedia article on this topic: Инфляция в США. AlphaBeta135 talk 06:23, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it warrants a separate article. Inflation is not a purely historical concept, nor can it be tied to a single event in the US. KhokcheHendi (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with the points: too specific, and the subject is not only historical. ---Avatar317(talk) 01:20, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

April (band)

This is a leftover redirect from an article move in 2018. Ambiguous; retarget to April (disambiguation)#Music. 162 etc. (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

List of films in Vietnam

Unclear to me why a "list of films" article for a country would redirect to a list of films banned in that country. The phrase is already ambiguous (c.f. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 October 20 § List of films in toronto), so I would recommend delete. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Vietnamese films. Seems close enough. (NB: I just cleaned that list up a bit.) pburka (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
    @ScalarFactor, PARAKANYAA, and Pburka: I created it by mistake; the title should be "List of films banned in Vietnam." Jarble (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
    The question here is: what should List of films in Vietnam target, or should it be deleted? pburka (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
    I still lean delete (especially with creator support for a G7), it's a bit awkward grammatically even if it does make sense - and there's still the problem of a potential 'films set in vietnam' list, which does not exist right now but could in the future, which sets up an WP:XY problem. ScalarFactor (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, grammatically awkward, per my rationale at the other RfD this isn't a common titling convention. ~ A412 talk! 06:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambiguous between "viewable in Vietnam", "set in Vietnam", "filmed in Vietnam", and perhaps "made by filmmakers based in Vietnam". Created in error (G6) and not a good title for a disambiguation page. Jruderman (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Vietnamese films per pburka. I have added a hatnote there to distinguish from List of Vietnam War films. BD2412 T 12:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate with the current target, List of Vietnam War films, and List of Vietnamese films. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 15:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
    Dab works for me, too. pburka (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
    I would also be fine with disambiguation. BD2412 T 20:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per past RfD, since the terms between "films" and "in" are ambiguous. Also not a good target for a redirect without the word "banned" in it. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🎃 (trick or treat 👻) 16:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:54, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per the other deleters. Awkward, unclear, unidiomatic, and outside the scope of a dab page, which are for articles which could reasonably share the same title, but nothing could reasonably be titled this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:38, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to List of Vietnamese films. AlphaBeta135 talk 06:26, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

U.S. Newswire

Nominating to restore article with the possibility of sending the restoration to AfD after. Content of previous article seems to make reference to a different company with the same name, further proven by no mention of this company at the current target. In solidarity, Jalen Barks (Woof) 19:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Procedural close as incorrect venue, go to AfD. This was an article until 28 October, when it was redirected, challenged, and re-redirected. Per the note at WP:BLAR, "most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting". ~ A412 talk! 07:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • actually, just delete. there was nothing actually worth restoring in the pre-blar content, with one source being primary and the other being promotional and mostly irrelevant. if someone wants to write an article, it's best done via a draft, meaning this would just be a case of returning to red. taking something like this to afd would just be a waste of time, as i've got way too many discussions to cite as examples consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect to PR Newswire. U.S. Newswire was historically a separate business, but that alone does not establish the need for a standalone article. The sources presented so far do not demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources as required by WP:NCORP. Its history and acquisition can be summarized in PR Newswire#History, with this title redirecting there. If sufficient independent coverage is identified, a standalone article could be reconsidered. Pomisthebest (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
    This does not address the fact that the history of the article brings mention to a completely different company under the name "PR Newswire" with a completely different history from the company we have an article on. It would make zero sense to redirect to something completely irrelevant. In solidarity, Jalen Barks (Woof) 05:13, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
    this would first require a mention, which would first require an article about the other pr newswire, and would also require secondary mentions of us newswire to add in the first place, which- oh yeah, have you noticed that the timeline alleged to exist in the pre-blar content largely doesn't match what its already unusable sources and site's history imply, such as the "merge" with medialink being an acquisition?
    it's too many problems that would otherwise be left unaddressed, and i've been unable to find suitable sources now
    also, was this ai-assisted? what sources were "presented so far" as of you writing that? consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 17:23, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:54, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
come to think of it, wouldn't g8 apply here, since the page as is is a redirect to the wrong article, and the right target doesn't exist? i'm already not sure the pre-blar content would avoid a g11 by a whole lot... consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:26, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
@JalenBarks as a sort of heads-up, i'm not actually entirely sure that that text is ai-generated. it might've been ai-assisted, or written with an ai-generated analysis as its point of reference, but without knowing what they did, i'd probably play it safe regarding that consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 23:54, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Template:Edit request

Redirect to Template:Edit COI For consistency and for the same reasons as the discussion on template:request edit (See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_October_8#Template:Request_edit meamemg (talk) 18:32, 20 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. Theeverywhereperson talk here In 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. Theeverywhereperson talk here In 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)
    The answer appears to be "AI". See Template_talk:Request_edit#Vague_redirect? meamemg (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
    And that, my friends, is why you should always double-check your sources. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Myceteae, and suggest that the whole batch of similar names be in one RFD rather than doing this piecemeal (as the history indicates they were sorted at a prior time altogether). I am unsympathetic to supporting AIs on this point. If pages are ending up the wrong request queue that is easily sorted just by changing the relevant template where it occurs. Izno (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
    It is. If we don't change the redirect, then we could simply make its own template with different results. I suppose it has the syntax (for use in source code mode) of {{edit request|protection=(protection level)|answered=(yes/no) where 'protection' is whatever the protection level i. If a protection level is set, then it shows the correct template. If it is left unused, then it's displayed as a COI template. It would also be added to the correct queue. COI could also be a valid answer for a COI request, and we could have AnomieBOT or something clean up any requests with no mention of having the COI by auto-closing with the template {{subst:ESp|hr}}. Theeverywhereperson talk here In solidarity! 13:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
    Oh, typo fixes: i--> is, I suppose it has --> I think it should have. Theeverywhereperson talk here In solidarity! 13:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
    Something like this seems reasonable. This would still allow it to serve as a handy way to identify probable AI-generated prompts while sorting the current rash of these into the best category and having a logical name for editors who might stumble across this in the future and would, reasonably, not expect a generic name like {{Edit request}} to apply to the narrow COI use case. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah. I think that it was a good suggestion on my part for the AnomieBOT auto-close for unprotected, non-COI requests as it kind of encourages new editors to be bold in their edits. I think here we could close as 'made it's own template', and someone could volunteer to code it. (someone needs to relist this. We're probably not done, and need a couple more opinions.) (When assessing my position, it is to make it its own template, not retarget.) Theeverywhereperson talk here In solidarity! 14:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Templatify (or turn into a template, whatever you want to call it) – if we're getting a lot of use of this specific template, we probably shouldn't just target one of the edit request levels. I like the idea of turning it into its own template and either making a maintenance category that editors can patrol or having it auto detect protection levels. I lean towards the former, as if this is mostly being used for COI requests, it may flag some COI requests as protected requests because the article is protected at some level. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 17:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Maybe make it a new template with a "reason" parameter that can be "coi", "semi-protected", "ec-protected", or "expert-requested". It could show a red message if the parameter isn't filled in, so requesters can tell if they're making a mistake. Jruderman (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
    I support this idea (and think I suggested it in one of the previous discussions). I have no idea if there are too many complications regarding getting everything into the right list of pending edits, having the edit request helper tools work, etc, that would make this feasable or not. meamemg (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • If I'm not mistaken, this should be a keep. Doesn't Template:Edit protected, as well as all the others like {{TPER}} and {{FPER}}, automatically sense the protection level of the subject page? If I'm right, then the Template:Edit request redirect is okay as is. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I checked and all of the _PER templates show "template protected" on a template's talk page. So does template {{Edit protected}}. However, template {{Edit COI}} does not and is its own type of beast. So no, this redirect should not be retargeted and should be kept as is. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
No. It doesn't seem to show on the documentation page. The majority of uses of this template are on non-protected pages, so I think Edit request should best be it's own unique template. Theeverywhereperson talk here In solidarity! Theeverywhereperson talk here In solidarity! 05:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
It appears that the /doc pages need some tweaking. Template {{Edit request}} is a general redirect that targets a general "edit protected" template, which does automatically sense the protection level of the talk page's subject page. So this redirect should stay right where it is. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:53, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Why should {{Edit request}} and {{Request edit}} go to different places? meamemg (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Both {{Edit request}} and {{Request edit}} should redirect to the {{Edit protected}} template. This RfD is only about the {{Edit request}} redirect. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:41, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
However, I've noticed that it should convert to a COI request if the page is not protected, because for some reason it defaults to semi when it's not. Theeverywhereperson talk here In solidarity! 05:22, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
I'm so sorry; I don't understand why, if a page is not protected, then it should by default be considered a COI issue? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:35, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Because that's what the case most likely is, unless the syntax I developed there can be reconstructed in order for it to just not show at all (making the one I added named 'protection' mandatory) The syntax, once again, is:{{edit request|protection=(protection level)|answered=(yes/no)}} Theeverywhereperson talk here In solidarity! 14:46, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
This is all very cryptic to me. Because that's what the case most likely is, which implies that there are cases of unprotected pages that ARE NOT conflicts of interest. Also, the defaults are for semi-protected, because no one expects anyone to add a protected request template on the talk page of an unprotected page. The COI template isn't about protection, it's about asking someone else to do an edit you can perform, but you shouldn't perform because you have a COI. As I said, COI is a totally different beast. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:49, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Yes they are. I think it should show a message if it is unprotected, suggesting COI if you do, partially-blocked as well if that's applicable, and if neither are applicable, just being bold. Theeverywhereperson talk here In solidarity! 10:44, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • DABify. Isn't the problem that the name is too ambiguous to point to any one template? Sounds like a job for a DAB page, as opposed to creating a new template with machinery that disambiguates via a parameter. ⇌ Synpath 12:47, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Templatify because if we just change the target it will cause issues going the other way. I say that because I found this discussion by typing in "TM:Edit request" to get to "TM:Edit protected", and I did not remember what the latter template was called off the top of my head. Intuitively one would expect {{Edit protected}} would be something akin to {{Protected page}}, not a way to request edits. People are going to use "edit request" to request edits of all kinds, so make a template that can handle both editors intending to use {{Edit protected}} and {{COI edit}}. –Maltazarian ᚾparley∨investigateᛅ 12:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. I just found the redirect useful and that means it is a very plausible search term. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Flood disaster

Awkward/implausible search term. Compare tornado disaster, hurricane disaster, etc. Note that Flood Disaster (film) exists and is WP:MISPLACED * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I feel like "flood disaster" is more plausible/natural than tornado disaster or hurricane disaster, and indeed it is actually used a couple of times in the flood article itself. The North Sea flood of 1953 is also known as the Flood Disaster according to the lead (and there's a redirect from Flood Disaster 1953), and the term is also used at Flood Disaster Medal and several other places like flood management (3 times), 1931 Chinese floods (translated name), Clydach Vale § 1910 flood disaster, Wakayama Prefecture § 1953 flood disaster, Santa Paula Airport § 2005 flood disaster, and David Idris Zacharias § 2012 flood disaster.
Therefore, this seems like a plausible term to me, and should probably just be kept, with a hatnote to the film. 9ninety (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

kenny james

let's try again!! actor only mentioned in passing as being bowser's voice actor for most stuff that exists, but he's had other roles (primarily in anime), apparently including some directing roles. that said, there don't seem to be a whole lot of reliable sources about him, so maybe this isn't a case of return to red yet consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

also, note that the first one was subject to an afd which was closed as merge, but despite the redirect and target's histories both implying so, i couldn't find evidence of the merge part of the merge actually happening, especially between the closure and blar, so it seems nothing was actually done and editors just said that the merge was done a month later
and funnily enough, he has only two non-bowser roles that predate the previous rfd, so it actually was true that he pretty much only voiced bowser then consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 14:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

November 5

Different types of toilets

Article section it redirects to just mentions flush toilets. Unclear if it'd be best to just redirect to toilet or be deleted entirely. ~2026-51399-40 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article actually does contain information about different types if you scroll down one or more sections. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, adding "different" to "types of" anything crosses the line. This was just some bit of juvenile stuff from way back that never got flushed properly. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:50, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, was considering retargeting to Toilet (disambiguation) which shows the different uses of "Toilet" (that page needs washing, though), but that would be silly. Types of toilets redirects to the same place, though the addition of "different" makes the target a bit less intuitive, and the redirect also makes the target show up unnecessarily high up in search results for "different types" (and search predictions as well). Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - Types of toilets is sufficient; no need to keep the alternative title with an adjective around. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:47, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

ESPN Original Entertainment

There doesn't appear to be any actual sources from what I could find to demonstrate the stated reason for this redirect's creation from back in 2008, that ESPN Original Entertainment became ESPN Films. Therefore should be removed as a redirect. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

To add context, I have found two sources mentioning ESPN Original Entertainment (EOE), A 2006 Variety article covering it (so we know it existed) but also a 2007 The Hollywood Reporter article talking about how it was folded into a general "content development group" headed by the person who'd a year later launch ESPN Films. However this wouldn't support the redirect's implication that EOE is ESPN Films or that ESPN Films came out of it which would appear to amount to WP:SYNTH. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to ESPN#Programming where it's mentioned. That section can use a bit of restructuring, and would propose using ESPN: The Making of a Sports Media Empire as the source. Starting at the top of page 123: Shortly after Mark Shapiro left ESPN in 2005, EOE was folded into ESPN Content Development... These activities culminated with the 2008 development of ESPN Films, a subsidiary that focuses on documentaries. That confirms they are two separate things, separated by a few years. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
    I would agree with this. Thanks for finding the source Tavix. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Start Meridian

Seems refer to Prime meridian rather than the 180th A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. I cannot find any attestations that this term refers to a specific meridian at all. The only uses I find use the term in the sense of selecting a meridian for starting a process. Delete as vague and obscure. ~ A412 talk! 14:13, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete? retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Grey tribe

"Grey tribe" appears to be a neologism to describe a specific political ideology (, ) that could be construed as an example of political syncretism, but is not a synonym and is not mentioned at the target. ~ A412 talk! 18:36, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Possible retargets are rationalist community, apparently the ideology being described, and Slate Star Codex, the blog of the coiner, but the term is also unmentioned there. ~ A412 talk! 18:39, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

3D panorama

The content relating to 3D panoramas was removed in 2020 at this edit diff with the edit summary "RM section, it's misleading - not real 3-D, and citations do not corroborate statements". While 3D panoramas are mentioned in many articles, none of the explain what they are in any detail. This redirect should be deleted unless a proper article to retarget to can be found. Casablanca 🪨(T) 17:39, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

DaDA

only not capitalizing one letter implies some sort of acronym where the first a stands for an article like "a", which isn't implied in the target consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 17:14, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep because it would not necessarily be a stretch to count this title itself as an example of Dadaist art. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:51, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
    what consarn (what) (what) 11:19, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
    Note the mix of capitalized and uncaplitalized letters, e.g. here. Thus—it is not outside of the realm of possibility that one might see the term in the art itself and search it that way etc., which makes this not entirely useless in this particular case. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:40, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
    that's a stylization which, if taken at face value and out of the context it exists in, would make every possible capitalization "plausible", along with stuff like different characters that look alike. it's as much an argument for this redirect as it'd be for a 1337 writing (like "|}4ĐД"), or for "mispronunciations" of "youtube poop" from sentence mixing consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:17, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
    But it need not be taken out of context. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:34, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
    in context, those issues aren't absent either, so pandora or not, claiming that this might be an example of dadaist art or a plausible stylization is still a massive stretch when it comes to whether or not it should exist as a redirect consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:38, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Extended standard theory

There is no mention of anything called "standard theory" at the target article. When this redirect was created, there was an unsourced section about Standard Theory at the target page, but those sections were removed by User:Botterweg, a frequent contributor to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I think this title is generic enough that would serve better as a disambiguation page, considering topics like "Standard_Theory_(Egyptology)" and the Standard Model in particle physics which is also called "Standard Theory". There are likely others in fields I'm not familiar with, but considering there's at least three possible meanings of the term- each may seem the most important to people familiar with that particular subject- so I think a disambiguation page is more appropriate. Sesamehoneytart 20:30, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't have any deep feelings about this. The terms do exist in generative linguistics, but they refer to models that were superseded 40+ years ago, so I felt they were inappropriate for a general overview article. Something as generic as "standard theory" would probably make more sense as a disambiguation page rather than a linguistics-specific redirect. Botterweg (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I do intend on creating some of these redirects as articles some time in the future, but they are indeed not so helpful right now. I of course also wouldn't mind getting the creation credit for some of these, but that's beside the point. Kisseran (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Requesting a draft disambiguation page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 16:41, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

List of jungle and drum'n'bass record labels

blar from a merge. list not present in the article, and wouldn't be very plausible to remake due to being two overall different genres. despite the blar summary, i couldn't find info on it actually being merged, and the article it was supposedly merged to (drum and bass record labels) never existed, so it seems the merge discussion also didn't consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 16:38, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Hiragana/

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

22nd Infantry

Looking for input with how to handle [ordinal] Infantry pages such as these two. A majority don't exist, but a minority either redirect to a disambiguation page or are primary redirects to a specific unit (often U.S. Army), like the two here. While "28th Infantry" is a valid short name for "28th Infantry Regiment", and in some cases could be a primary topic, there are numerous other infantry regiments as well as infantry brigades, divisions, battalions, etc. with the same number to which such redirects could refer, and the hatnotes necessary for a good primary redirect are usually not in place (and would be cumbersome, with links needed to several disambiguation pages). Redirecting to the appropriate regiment disambiguation page doesn't seem appropriate either, as one cannot assume the user seeks a regiment rather than an infantry division or brigade. I have handled these pages thus far by creating disambiguation pages like those at 11th Infantry or 17th Infantry which merely link to other disambiguation pages; though Pppery pointed out that perhaps this isn't the best solution, given WP:PTM. (Note that older disambiguation pages exist at 4th Infantry and 9th Infantry that are probably out of date and incomplete.) The advantage of a disambiguation page is that it discourages creation of such potentially inappropriate primary redirects that may inhibit users from reaching the page they seek or lead to astonishment. So, should such pages optimally be disambiguation pages, be primary redirects, or be deleted to defer to search? Or perhaps there are other possibilities. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 14:04, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Component Validator for Environmentally Friendly Aero Engine

Delete as there is no information about this validator at the target. This was a 3 paragraph unsourced stub that was BLAR'd as ..non-notable, no independent sources, and the pre-BLAR content needn't be retained. The entry at CLEAN can be removed as well. There is a one-word mention as CLEAN, not the expansion, at Rolls-Royce Trent § Research, and I wouldn't see it as a potential target. Jay 12:54, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Bradford Dale

The redirect currently points to River Bradford, but we also have an article on Bradford Dale (Yorkshire). Should we keep it as it is or turn it into a disambiguation page? --~2026-58917-03 (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate given neither appears to be primary per Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
  • dabify per User:Crouch, Swale --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GAC

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Orace

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Campbell's Nico-Soap

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

-51

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. ~ A412 talk! 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". ~ A412 talk! 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:01, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete or potentially Speedy Delete under G1 or G3 per @SimpleObjects-9ei | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 15:53, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
  • delete seems to be a non-notable meme associated with the event per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Uždaroji_akcinė_bendrovė

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)
  • Redirect to List of legal entity types by country#Lithuania. Renata•3 23:32, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A new target has been provided, but has not been address by those who support deletion. Another week of discussion should come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Casablanca 🪨(T) 17:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still split between deleting and retargeting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Ethnic annihilation

Leftover redirect from pagemove vandalism in 2023, and also unmentioned at target. (Though this term could be somewhat accurate depending on how you look at it) | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 16:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Genocide. "Ethnic cleansing" usually means expulsion while "genocide" usually means killing. Annihilation is complete destruction. As with the redirect Race extermination, the meaning is clear enough that an exact mention isn't needed. Jruderman (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Barbara Bingham

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

American Ghanaians

Not the same thing. An "X American" is generally understood to be an American of X heritage/ancestry, while "American X" would be the converse -- an X with American heritage. Unless there's a more appropriate target here, it should be deleted as misleading. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:41, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete per rationale of nom. Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Interpretation of demonyms mashed together appears to be an WP:ENGVAR issue. See e.g British Nigerians, Burmese Indians, or Malaysian Chinese, which all follow the opposite of the "X American" convention mentioned by the nominator. A few WP:RS using American Ghanaians as an alternative name for Ghanaian Americans: . Whether it's common enough to mention in the target article, or so rare that it should be deleted as a WP:R#D8 "obscure synonym", is another matter, but it's not misleading. ~2026-59164-84 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Fake restaurant

No mention of this at the target, and unclear what it even means. Delete. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:37, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget Fake restaurant to The Shed at Dulwich (a quite notable hoax restaurant where their comrades faked everything to later be the #1 restaurant in London) and Delete Knock-off restaurant. Googling "Fake restaurant" will throw results for the infamous hoax restaurant, and https://www.google.com/search?q=Knock-off+restaurant googling] "Knock-off restaurant" will throw results for something else. Both redirects were created just yesterday and their targets don't mention "restaurant" by much. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🍂/🌰/🤗 (see talk) 16:23, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both, oppose retarget. We have no information on fake restaurants in general, fake restaurants are a plausible article topic, search results return many examples of fake restaurants, and redirecting to a specific example would be inappropriate per WP:RSURPRISE and WP:REDYES. ~ A412 talk! 19:03, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget Fake restaurant to Virtual restaurant, they have been called that by some sources. -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

53-AAA-g

Not a plausible search term due to the relative obscurity of Linguasphere and redirects are not found with other such codes 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:15, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

We do link others, but via their article names. This one doesn't have an article name, so when we say "SC is part of 53-AAA-g", how is the reader supposed to understand that? Or doesn't it matter that they don't? — kwami (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Piped links. No need for a redirect here. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:59, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

November 4

Networked European Software and Services Initiative

Delete. There's no mention of "Networked European Software and Services Initiative" in this article, or any other. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 30 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 22:00, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete the info can always be recycled at DRV, the primary sources and "promo" notices really don't do it justice. Good luck anyone getting some pre-2010 sources to resurrect this article. Else, from what I'm seeing here .... Intrisit (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Biblical "LiIith"

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

War dog

"Dogs in warfare" is not the obvious primary topic. It can also refer to a soldier or mercenary, as stated in the dictionary. It should redirect to War Dogs instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:46, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to War Dogs per WP:DIFFCAPS. Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep both per WP:DIFFCAPS and add {{wiktionary}} with a link to wikt:war dog at the current target. I disagree that DIFFCAPS is an argument to retarget this to the disambiguation page; in fact, I believe the exact opposite (i.e. it shows why this should be kept). This is seemingly the primary topic for this capitalization and spacing. It might be appropriate to retarget wardog to War Dogs, but that notion is one best left for another time if the desire to raise it tickles the fancy of those to come. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:27, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
    It is not "seemingly the primary topic". It can just as equally mean soldier. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:51, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

The CW Corporation

Editor (same editor who created redirects at previous recent RFDs , , ) creating more redirects with original names for non-existent media company combinations, studios, divisions, and app tiers ("Gold," "Forever"), not found in any reliable sources. They're all invented and speculative; delete all of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedical (talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Trainwreck. There are way too many redirects to properly evaluate in one discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Procedural keep all per the below comments indicating that discussion is going to continue as is. The fact that these were created by one editor is not rationale to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I strongly disagree with sentiment that they're equally problematic. At a glance, I see several of these as useful. -- Tavix (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
I did not change my stance regarding trainwreck. In fact, your !vote helps illustrate why this is a trainwreck: you're blindly !voting to delete all without going though the ones that are helpful and should be kept (in some form). -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Of course, helpful to you. But I'll be honest: all this was created in the heat of the vibe of the emergence of Skydance Corporation following the WBD merger, else I would have sided with you and gone for keep. If all this was created before this year, why not? The timing impacted my vote here! Intrisit (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Regarding the other redirects, I do not have the time to read the entire content of the articles involved, but I will default to Tavix's comment above. And since I have zero interest in being responsible for turning this discussion into a trainwreck, please interpret my "refine" !votes as "Second choice keep without refining". Redireditor (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Bruce Locke

not his only role; might not be the most popular either, as that seems to be ōtomo in robocop 3, with shang tsung in conquest and i guess a role in squid game as close-ish seconds. outside of that, i couldn't find much to suggest notability, so it seems best deleted

also, note that it was deleted in an afd a few months prior to this redirect's creation if you want, but for once, i don't think that's too important consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 16:18, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Russian cake

The target is an English desert, not a Russian one, and there is no discussion about a Russian variant in the article. Search results are better, so I suggest delete to reveal search results. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  • List of Russian desserts seems like a decent target. Only a couple of the entries are specifically identified as cakes; annotating more of the entries would help. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
  • retarget per BDD --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

The Barnyard Olympics

No source the film was ever called "The Barnyard Olympics". Not a plausible search term redirect. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Barnyard Olympics which discusses this short specifically; the original title does not seem to have included the "The". I've edited the current target to add a link to the specific article. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
    @Rosbif73 it would be misleading to keep the redirect since it is not a plausible alternative name redirect. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
    In what way is it not plausible that someone might misremember whether or not the title starts with a "The"? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

List of Lolita characters

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Massacre of Bani Umayya.

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Confessions of a White Widowed Male

There is no mention of this title at the target. The pre-BLAR content says this title was considered by the book's second fictional writier, John Ray. This is also a title from the soundtrack of All God's Creatures. Retarget to there or Delete? Jay 13:37, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

This is the frame story mentioned in the first line of the novel proper, so it may actually be worth mentioning in the article. I assume the soundtrack reference is a reference to this? ScalarFactor (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Iranian drone attack on Israel

Retarget to Iran–Israel conflict#Direct conflict (2024–present)? LIrala (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 13:06, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment LIrala, you do know that the section linkage in your rationale doesn't exist as it's a DAB page? Intrisit (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete vague, as more than a single drone attacked Israel long before 2024. Had to get that line above out before voting. Anyone else, lecture me otherwise if I'm wrong. Intrisit (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Argument by appeal to the wisdom of Peter

Current section target broken and I couldn't see an obvious retarget either in this article or another one. It could be retargeted to Saint Peter as I'm assuming that's who the title is referring to but I don't think it's a likely search term. Suonii180 (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

November 3

Knicker

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Persicaria coccinea

Accepted species according to Plants of the World Online ( https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:190787-2 ) should not be a redirect to another species. Proposing deletion. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Apparently, there's some interesting history; see here (probably not RS, but it's still a good summary). Regardless, delete per nom. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:55, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for the link. I found it an interesting read. It will be interesting to see how the taxonomy shakes out over the next five years or so. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why not just turn it into a stub with info from that POWO ref? It's what I would have done if I'd stumbled on it and it wasn't tagged. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
    • I am opposed to creating stubs. I agree with Denis Diderot who wrote, "What is the point of giving the name? It leaves the ignorant just as they were and teaches the rest of us nothing. If all the same I mention this plant here, along with several others that are described just as poorly, then it is out of consideration for certain readers who prefer to find nothing in a dictionary article or even to find something stupid than to find no article at all." I think redlinks are superior to stubs. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
      This is my philosophy as well, and it's nice to see that I'm not alone. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDYES --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Paramount Skydance Warner Bros.

A few editors created numerous speculative redirects about the merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery, some are almost comical, using numerous made-up name combinations. But none are backed by sources and are original inventions. "Cartoon Nick" and "Cartoon Nickelodeon" are the combination of Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon. They also created redirects for speculative streaming services like "Skydance Plus" and "Skydance Premium," which are similarly not named in verifiable sources. They're more confusing than helpful; delete these. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment I see the name combinations as a way to describe the merger rather than made-up name combinations. As such, perhaps those could be retargeted to Acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Skydance. Cartoon Nick and Cartoon Nickelodeon should be retargeted to Nicktoons. -- Tavix (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
    • They're original inventions though, not found in sources. Creating redirects for every name combination of Paramount Warner Bros. Skydance is absolutely unnecessary, no one is searching for "Skydance Warner," and the non-existent app names/tiers like "Skydance Premium" are absolutely made up. "Cartoon Nick" and "Cartoon Nickelodeon" are similarly speculating new names for the networks presuming they'll be merged (which there's no verifiability they will be). -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
      • They're descriptors of the merger, plain and simple. I'm not claiming they're names of the company. Nicktoons is a simply a portmanteau of Nickelodeon and Cartoons. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
        • Nicktoons is a brand name and trademark used by Nickelodeon. Cartoon Nickelodeon is the same as Paramount Warner Discovery or Warnermount: the editor was certainly combining company names involved in the Skydance merger to create new possible brand names – the intent of the redirect was not descriptive. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
          • I don't care what the intent of the redirect was. I see them as useful when viewed as descriptors, so they should be kept. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
            • "Skydance Warner Bros." is not a real company though. Neither is "Paramount Warner Discovery." They're novel name creations that do not exist, are not likely mispellings, and can absolutely cause confusion. Invented company/brand names do not fit any of the purposes of redirects at WP:RPURPOSE. I'm also a little confused: didn't you recently nominate the editor's previous HBO redirects at RfD for this same reason? -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Golden Snitch

It's surprising for this term to target a nebula (for which it's used as a nickname in a single book) instead of an article about Harry Potter. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

  • What article related to Harry Potter would you have this target? Unless this specific phrase appears in some context related to the series, and for which a Wikipedia article exists, the current target seems most appropriate. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:58, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, used and sourced at the current target. There are no articles about Harry Potter that use the phrase "Harry Potter and the Golden Snitch," so there should be no such surprise. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm now wondering if the more common "Wizard Nebula" is based on the Harry Potter nickname and not the other way around as I had assumed, since 2007 seems to predate most uses of "Wizard Nebula". Still seems likely that someone searching for this is looking for Golden Snitch, which targets Quidditch#Game progression. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
    I cannot imagine why someone who wants to read about the fictional item would search for it using the phrase "Harry Potter and the Golden Snitch". Maybe one might type something like "Golden Snitch from Harry Potter" or "Harry Potter Golden Snitch" (as a sort of unnecessary disambiguator), but the use of and in this specific redirect wouldn't imply this. — An anonymous username, not my real name 18:20, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The mention has been removed from the article. There was a source, but I was unable to access it. Even so, a quick scan of G Scholar found 0 results for this. I'm not sure how legit this actually is. With that out of the way, it's also an implausible search term for anything to do with the book...it's capitalized as if it's the name/title of something which doesn't actually exist. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
    The mention has not been removed from the article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
    Oh, I mis-saw what happened...apparently it got moved from the first sentence to the very end of the (short) article. Still, I'm unable to access the source, but would be more comfortable if I could...and there's no page number anyway. Either way though, if this is just some what some guy called it, and it hasn't really gained widespread use, I'd be hesitant to include it at all, and even more to make a redirect out of it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
    Per Google Books, it's on page number 526. -- Tavix (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
    The fact that a redirect was not worth making (which I would still disagree with here) does not necessarily mean that it should be deleted. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
  • May as well keep it since the target links to the relevant Harry Potter articles now. It's just such a weird redirect. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - Mentioned & sourced at the target, and seemingly unambiguous for the time being. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:36, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Window's live messenger

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2D memory access pattern

While this article mentions 2D spatially coherent memory access patterns, my research has made it unclear if that section is an appopriate target for this redirect. Oddly, this redirect was created before the target was somehow despite targeting the target the entire time. I'm not sure what to do with this. Casablanca 🪨(T) 18:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RemoveRedSky [talk] 16:50, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete or potentially Retarget to HDD. The only example of something like this is those old hard drives that rotate. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 18:27, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Tankbuster

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft redirect

Klandorf

Is this most likely going to refer to Călan (the original target from 2009 to 2019, a place in Romania that is sometimes called Klandorf in German), Schorfheide, Brandenburg (the current target since 2016, a municipality in which Klandorf is a village, tagged with {{R from more specific geographic name}} for whatever reason), Căianu (another place in Romania that is sometimes called Klandorf in German), or Kalle Klandorf (who has the surname Klandorf)? Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have mixed opinions for this one. Google throws more results for a person called Kalle Klandorf, with other BLPs as well, and it DOES get tight after navigating 7 pages. There are actually results for the village itself if you switch the language to German and the region to Germany, and reliable results start to appear. Redirecting to Kalle does not sound plausible as it uses a bare surname, since there are (at least?) 5 persons with this surname and there needs to be a primary topic. Maybe we could expand this since an article about it already exists on the German Wikipedia. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🍂/🌰/🤗 (see talk) 19:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Former BC Unnumbered Highway (Pseudo routes)

BC revised its unnumbered highway designations in 2022. The List of British Columbia provincial highways#Unnumbered routes was revised to reflect the new designations, new redirects were created, and all linking pages were updated. I'm looking to have the old, orphaned redirects deleted. MuzikMachine (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

  • The old designations should be noted in the table, no? -- Tavix (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
    They could, but as the designations are unsigned, administrative designations by the BCMoT so the general public would likely be unaware of their existence unless they did some research into archived BCMoT documents. The segments (last four digits) are also subject to change if they are re-surveyed. The public would better know the routes by their name. MuzikMachine (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
    If you have to dig deep into documents to find administrative designations, why include them in the first place? -- Tavix (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep Doesn't seem bad to me, and I don't want to make an admin suffer through deleting or retargeting all of these. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 18:24, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
@OneReaction5890: WP:XFDCLOSER can automatically delete or retarget any redirects as part of the closure, so there'll be zero suffering no matter what the result is. -- Tavix (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
oh. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 20:38, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete all unsourced ~2026-54336-68 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
"Unsourced" is a bad argument given they were sourced in past revisions. -- Tavix (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Ivan Timofeev

This redirect is being used for different individuals. Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan#In contemporary Russian chronicles and sources references a 16th century Russian clerk (Ivan Timofeev Semyonov), while Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (July–December 2017)#October refers to a living individual named only Ivan Timofeev related to the Valdai Discussion Club. What should be done in this case? ―Eduardogobi (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Based on the fact that the dyak (clerk) Ivan Timofeev has a whole ru Wikipedia article on him (which I do not understand because I don't speak Russian), I think he's probably the PTOPIC for "Ivan Timofeev". The link should point to a page/section about him or wp:RETURNTORED. The other Ivan Timofeev should get a parenthetical disambiguator in his link, like: [[Ivan Timofeev (Valdai Discussion Club)|Ivan Timofeev]]. Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Carolina Reyna

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

List of unusual articles

Inappropriate WP:XNR ~ A412 talk! 03:29, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled the other two redirects as requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:17, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep per both the rationales of FreeStater27 and Wittylama which I both agree with. Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all three as cross-namespace redirects. Xeroctic (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete most Google results are for Wikipedia but it isn't Wikipedia specific. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I note that the inbound links for all three have no mainspace/article links. See , ,. This indicates that there is no confusion - and (especially with Unusual_articles) a lot of userspacelinks indicates it's a common shortcut. This is referenced in "Arguments for keeping CNRs" number 1 and 9.
Also, and probably more importantly, I believe that the "arguments for keeping CNRs numbers 3 and 4 are applicable. That is "Many CNRs are very unlikely search terms when looking for articles anyway" and 4 "newbie users for whom these redirects are useful", respectively. Because all three of these redirects use the self-referential word "articles", and the page Wikipedia:Unusual_articles is structured as a beautifully curated page (imitating a real WP list article), people know and expect a self-referential page. WP:Unusual Articles is a popular place to send newbies as a bit of a showcase of our variety.
Finally, the combined pageview analysis of these three redirects shows a daily average of 13, with a single-article daily peak of 28. This could be an argument for deletion (they're not needed) or against deletion (they're not harming), so I provide this final point merely as information. Wittylama 12:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a popular list among casual users who are unlikely to know about namespace rules. The redirects keep it accessible without much possibility of confusion. FreeStater27 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Wittylama. It's also a plausible search term for those casual readers interested in these types of things. EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 03:03, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - We should display one of these on the main page each day for reader retention—it would, though the bar is low, be better than afi. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:43, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Nexus Airlines destinations

Not sure if this should be deleted to aid search results or retargeted to the primary topic of Nexus Airlines#Destinations.

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.

Also note Talk:Nexus Airlines#Requested move 14 October 2026 led to the current situation, and there's also doubt whether Nexus Airlines (UK) meets WP:GNG, but so far no one has formally gone ahead with merging, redirecting or a deletion proposal. Fork99 (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • Retarget to Nexus Airlines#Destinations to take advantage of the primary topic. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexus Airlines (UK) resulted in a redirection, so there is no need to bother with a hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:12, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Usrael

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)

soft redirect to wikt:USrael or retarget to United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. LIrala (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
You should probably make it clear that you created the redirect. — An anonymous username, not my real name 15:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I didn't hide but ok. LIrala (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:10, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Dr. Abel

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)

  • Keep. I think the mentions are enough. One would learn that Dr. Abel is a mad scientist who is looking to build a cyborg army, one of which was Bryan Fury. Dr. Abel later abandons Fury. Dr. Abel also destroys JACK-2. -- Tavix (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:10, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Australia (bottom)

This redirect doesn't make sense to me, because I don't see any connection between the word "bottom" and the political landscape of Australia. This was a standalone template for a day in 2006 before being redirected, but no merger ever took place (and it was almost exactly the same as what "Template:Politics of Australia" looked like at the time), so there is no need to worry about merge-and-delete type problems. I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Bottom is because it goes at the bottom of the articles, as opposed to Template:Politics of Australia sidebar. Dudzcar (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:53, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Development of Wardogs

Clear Pandora's box situation, are we going to have "Development of" and "Gameplay of" redirects for every video game in existence? This is unnecessary as it does not demonstrate any sort of specific necessity for such a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

  • UH OH, you said the P word! But yeah, delete per nom; this is exactly the sort of case it argues well against. Subtopic/subsection redirects like this tend to be especially WP:COSTLY too due to their fragility. Articles get reorganized; sections get added; sections get removed, and dangling redirects are the result. This isn't even exclusive to video games. Any article can have countless redirects like this created, but we don't do that, because of the above reasons, and because a typical reader isn't going to be so hyperspecific with a search; they're just going to go to the article and get what the need directly from it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 07:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless, since anyone looking for such information is going to look at the article first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wardogs has well developed sections on its development and gameplay so these are useful redirects. I see no issue with "Development of" and "Gameplay of" redirects for every video game that has such information, so this would be a Pandora's Box worth opening. -- Tavix (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
    I certainly do. They are tremendously unlikely searches for a normal person, who would just search for the title of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:08, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
    Redirects are not created just for a "normal person" (whatever that means), but for everyone—including those who search differently than yourself. These redirects are specifically catered for people looking for development or gameplay, which is a noteworthy topic given there are fully fleshed out sections on this. The advantage to searching in this fashion is that it directly takes someone to the relevant section of the article rather than the searcher having to hunt for it within the larger article. -- Tavix (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
    You're basing your reason off what MIGHT happen. You never know what someone could search to get to the article, and searching "Development of" and "Gameplay of" is very common. Also, a lot of franchise articles have these redirects (I know they are franchises, but the same applies as they're all articles) ReelCosmix (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. No actual reason provided for deletion; WP:NOTPANDORA. Considering we do have "Development of video game" articles, it is a logical redirect to have. Deacon Vorbis is right that articles do get reorganized, but I doubt Wardogs will cease to have sections about its gameplay and development in any reorganization. 9ninety (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:53, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, established titling convention and plausible search term. ~ A412 talk! 19:03, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Jenna Lewis

Possible alternative targets are List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (seasons 1–20), Survivor: Borneo, Survivor: All-Stars, and Survivor 50: In the Hands of the Fans. Indeed, the current target has been recently split into sub-lists and then relabeled as a set index. Personally, List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (seasons 1–20) should do if Survivor: All-Stars isn't the best target possible. George Ho (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Is your preference to retarget or delete? Rusalkii (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Why "delete" again? The page was a former article per prior logs. I favor retargeting, but I think the All-Stars season represents Lewis more than her Borneo debut... Well, she was campaigning against previous winners, and she finished third. If the sublist that I mentioned represents her more, then... okay. George Ho (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Ned Mandingo

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)

I don't know much about this show but there's a YouTube playlist with over 100 Ned Mandingo videos associated with Bubba, as well as Apple Music and an IMDB page where Ned is a featured credit for a Bubba related project. I don't see why this redirect is unneeded Avienby (talk) 12:13, 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)
  • Delete until or unless a mention is added. -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Koroukore

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)

Keep Ahipara 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, CycloneYoris talk! 01:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Traumnovelle. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Trainer Toolkit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

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)
  • Delete - results online are predominantly for an unrelated Pokemon product. signed, Rosguill talk 19:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • I just listed the previous RfD. Jay 19:47, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Wp media viewer

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Klaudia

Misplaced redirect. Is this more likely to refer to the place in Poland located at Klaudia, Greater Poland Voivodeship (which should not be at this title, since Klaudia, Poland is unambiguous regardless) or the given name located at Klaudia (given name) (in which case it should be moved to the base title)? At time of nomination, there are 42 people listed at the given name page with the given name Klaudia, though a search finds a few more others, but the article about the place in Poland is referred to as just "Klaudia" while all of the people have surnames that readers can include in searches to get the person they want. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm Polish and I've never heard of this town until now. The given name is definitely the primary topic, so the article about it should be moved to the base title. Mr slav999 (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
We can check if anyone is clicking at the hatnote at the WikiNav view of clickstreams at the presumed primary topic - and there's little indication of that. I checked the meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive for the last 12 months and there are no identifable clicks to the hatnote in any of them. So moving the given name list to fix WP:MALPLACED seems like the right way to go. --Joy (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Sylvania g netbook

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Snausage(s)

Quick search with ctrl-f shows no mention at target. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 00:39, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

November 2

Cronaldo

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Big White Taxi Service

Historically used as a nickname for UK ambulances, usually by NHS staff. It was merged in 2008 but is now no longer mentioned and I couldn't find an alternative article to retarget it to. I've had a look for sources and I don't think it's notable enough to readd to the article. Suonii180 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

1-Nonylnaphthalene

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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

MIPSel

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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Concert massacre

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ulyanova

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Here lies andy peperony and chease

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

President Bill

Probably an implausible search term instead of a more plausible President Clinton, especially considering "Bill" is such a common name. Like President of what? The United States, another place or organization? Similar RFDS: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 17#President Donald, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 26#Donald President, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 26#President Joe. This is also probably less plausible, and even more ambiguous as the others as some could be searching for presidents better known by the common full name for "Bill" ("William") like William Henry Harrison, William McKinley, or even William Howard Taft, which I was able to find a source supporting his nickname as "Big Bill", even if one of them was unreliable: , . Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, here are the results I get from https://www.google.com/search?q=%22President+Bill%22+-%22President+Bill+Clinton%22 (adding additional exclusions as I go) before it descends into finding random coincidences (e.g. "[...] president. Bill […]"):
  • The brand name of a series of CB radios (see e.g. , , , , ), presumably named after Clinton
  • The redirect page we're discussing
  • Multiple webpages describing Bill Johnson (university president)
  • Another university president, this one without a Wikipedia article:
  • After about two pages of links, mostly to CB radio websites, eventually some direct mentions of Clinton: ,
  • President Bill: a Graphic Epic by Brown, William L.: (see also )
  • Illustrated pretend currency, e.g. ,
  • A webpage about William H. Sanders, yet another university president
Note that I am in the US, which likely biases my search results.
Solomon Ucko (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:24, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Special character

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 9#Special character

FC Luzern (women)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2STNBGC

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

November 1

XXV Indian Corps

This redirect is the result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XXV_Indian_Corps which redirected the unsourced one line stub. It's unclear to me if the XXV Corps described at the target was ever known as "Indian" or was considered part of the British Indian Army. Either include a mention of the term at the target, or delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

.rc

These feel like they should redirect to the same page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  • I have looked at both pages and think both have a kind of meh amount of coverage of the concept. However, whatever we do, Rc file should be refined on whatever page it lands on, since the top of neither is appropriate. (As far as my knowledge goes.) Probably also so for .rc. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

William Shakespeare's Hamlet

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 9#William Shakespeare's Hamlet

Subjugation

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Subjugation was recently changed to a Wiktionary soft redirect from the original target of Slavery. However, the related words Subjugate and Subjugated still redirect to Slavery. Should they be made consistent? Note that "Subjugation" can also refer to a song from The Avengers (soundtrack), and "Subjugated" can also refer to a song from One Shot (album). Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Retarget. It's definitely not ideal for these to redirect to a term that is a type of subjugation but only one of the types. I don't have any particular opinion about the songs by those names. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Blk-mq

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Katie Jones (web entrepreneur)

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Game (retail chain)

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)
  • move back per above lmao consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 16:40, 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)
Talk:Game_(retailer)#Requested_move_21_October_2026. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Game_(disambiguation)#Brands_and_enterprises if the RM proceeds as proposed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: RM is still open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 02:07, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete I'm sorry, what "retail chain" is exclusive to South Africa? Either way, too ambiguous. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Retarget See GameStop — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-54336-68 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:10, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Game (disambiguation) #Game_(disambiguation)#Brands_and_enterprises. Agree with the rationale of LaundryPizza03. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Jarona

Split off from WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_October_12#Giasfclfebrehber; I propose retargeting this to Gerona as a homophone and plausible typo.In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete, or alternatively weak keep. I was nominator for the previous discussion, and my original rationale was delete for this since it was unmentioned at target.
Now, I would say that the suggested target is not good. "Jarona" already has an entry in the page, and it's not the best to redirect a non-vague term to a disambiguation page. For that, if there is no consensus to delete, I would prefer the status quo. If anything, we can add a hatnote to #Flowery. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:15, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. "Jarona" is a very commonly used word in the Deltarune community, and I could absolutely picture someone who is not in the community looking it up. I don't believe Gerona is a reasonable target for this redirect, and I can't see it being reasonable, even if the word "Jarona" did not exist. While there are people with the surname "Jarona", none of them currently have an article on Wikipedia, so there would be no reasonable target. At most, Gerona could be linked on the Flowery section of the target article. Ksp-atlas (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Wrap the first mention of Jarona in Deltarune#Art, character design, and writing with {{visible anchor}}, then retarget to Deltarune#Jarona. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 12:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
+1 ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:42, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:59, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

The Captain’s Christmas

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mama’s New Hat

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Donald Trump criminal redirects

Delete both. Non-neutral and extremely unlikely search terms. I'd argue that many, if not most, redirects to Donald Trump range in utility from questionable to nearly impossible, likely due to the WP:TRUMPCRUFT effect, but I'm not going to nominate them all at once in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. ~2026-51743-41 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete Trump (convicted felon). Trump's status as a convicted felon is verified and is hence a plausible redirect, but it should be Donald Trump (convicted felon) instead. Surname is pointless as a redirect since there could be other people with the surname who committed felons and are convicted, regardless if they are related to Donald in anyway. Keep Inmate P01135809 as it is a plausible alternative name with sufficient coverage. Go D. Usopp (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
    Trump is a convicted felon, but he's not particularly notable for it. Someone searching for these terms would be more likely to be searching for information on Trump's criminal charges, which is present on his page, but so is a ton of other stuff. ~2026-51743-41 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
    @~2026-51743-41 redirects do not need to be notable, which is why their requirements to be kept are much less stringent than articles and even drafts. If it relates to the article's content and is relevant, its sufficiently notable for a redirect. Go D. Usopp (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Redirects can have POV (WP:RNEUTRAL). For Trump (convicted felon) keep as R from non-neutral name, shortening, and other disambiguator, and keep Inmate P01135809 per above. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:40, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both. The disambiguator is a wildly implausible way to search. Mayyyyybe if it pointed somewhere very specific, but even so, without a first name, it's completely pointless. The second is random trivia that is, again, wildly implausible. That anyone would need either of these to find the target is laughable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:58, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Trump (convicted felon) per this comment in another RfD from 25 Oct. While this redirect is neither "abusive" nor an attack page as Trump's felony charges are well-documented in his own article, I do not think it is a plausible search term for anyone but the most chronically online RM and disambiguation regulars. Retarget Inmate P01135809 to Mug shot of Donald Trump#Background, which mentions his inmate number, and to align it with the redirect P01135809 which also points to that same article. Redireditor (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget Inmate P01135809 to Mug shot of Donald Trump#Background per Redireditor. -- Tavix (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • keep and retarget per above.~2026-58054-99 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:58, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete "Trump (convicted felon)" as an implausible way to look for either Trump or Trump's conviction/mugshot. Weak retarget the other one per Redireditor. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:18, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both The titles may amuse some but they are not useful and Wikipedia should not be used to make a point. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete (convicted felon) has minimal pageviews considering how popular the target is. Not convinced this redirect is helpful/useful despite being technically plausible. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget the second redirect to Mug shot of Donald Trump#Background per Redireditor. Xoontor (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Maraeroa (Rangatahi whare)

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)

Its mentioned at List of marae in the Northland Region. I'll let others decide if they consider that a helpful target. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:57, 1 November 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)

  • Retarget to Canadien (disambiguation), or possibly split that dab with its plurals replacing the redirect. Montreal Canadiens gets four times as many page views as French Canadians, and ten times as many page views as the other entries on that dab combined, so a primary redirect doesn't seem justified. Certes (talk) 20:12, 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)
  • Retarget to Montreal Canadiens, by far the primary topic, especially as referred to by English speakers. This one feels like a no-brainer. If, one day far in the future, the team no longer exists, maybe this could be revisited, but for now and the foreseeable future, this is what it refers to in English. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to DAB it looks like the previous discussion result was because the nom wanted to make most term point to teams but in any case there is also Canadians. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
    But there needs to be evidence that "Canadiens" is used synonymously in English to refer to Canadians (the people of modern Canada, the country). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 17:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:57, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Montreal Canadiens. I feel like it is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And considering this is the English Wikipedia, most English speakers searching for French Canadians would just type in the article title or something like that. I would also like to note that on the French Wikipedia as an example, Canadiens is a redirect to Canadien, which is a DAB page, and the article on Canadians (titled in French: "Canadiens") is titled "Canadiens (peuple)" which would translate to "Canadians (people). Evidence: , , . In French for example, I don't see a primary topic due to the significant French population in Quebec, but I do see a primary topic for this spelling in English speaking communities which I think is the Ice Hockey team. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

メタルギアソリッ

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pc (unit)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Bobr kurwa

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Acute brain syndrome

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Erfurt feces disaster

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Erfurt poop disaster

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Xfld

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

William Shakespeare's

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 31

El Cheapo

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 9#William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

Pearl (wine)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 11#Pearl (wine)

Pirh

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 9#Pirh

P.E.A.R.L. Awards

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

FC Schlieren

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 11#FC Schlieren

Susie (actress)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 9#Susie (actress)

NNEdPro Global Institute for Food, Nutrition and Health

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 10#NNEdPro Global Institute for Food, Nutrition and Health

Action-comedy-horror film

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sum 41 noots

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Pink run it

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 9#Pink run it

FRIDAY THE 13TH: A NEW BEGINNING

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Disappointment Room

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 9#Disappointment Room

Cronin the mummy

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hydro line

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Talking Heads - Psycho Killer

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 9#Talking Heads - Psycho Killer

Celestial rift

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Elevated comedy

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Artemis 8, 9, 10, 11

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mario and luigi:pit

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Topic-Sensitive PageRank

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)

Keep Topic-Sensitive PageRank, retarget Topic Sensitive PageRank and Topic Sensitive Page Rank to PageRank, delete TSPR. 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, CycloneYoris talk! 07:52, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:53, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This is a gap in Wikipedia's coverage so should appear as such to encourage filling it, rather than being masked by a redirect that goes nowhere helpful. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 00:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Restore original article that was wrongly BLAR'd, redirect all others to it again, and nominate it for AfD if you wish. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:36, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
The original article referenced only primary sources by a single author, who it solely credits with first developing TSPR. Not sure it has any hope of surviving AfD, though if others disagree I won't object. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 12:59, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Link to the relevant revision, for anyone else who wants to give it a look. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 13:01, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
IDK if it has any hope of survival, but if the BLAR didn't bother adding any info about it to the target, it was a spurious BLAR and should be reversed. The person who did the BLAR should just have PRODded it or AfD'd it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:10, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Cyberservices

Neither of the targets mentions this term. Online service redirects to Online service provider, so that might be an alternative. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:50, 19 September 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)
    • Retarget to Network service per Tavix. After having read the new comments here, I can agree that this is a bit of a mess; however, I am convinced by the reasoning Tavix has provided. My second choice would be to delete this redirect to allow search results to handle the term. LazyLune (talk • edits) 21:06, 5 November 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)
I read your reasoning, but I don't agree with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 31 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)
  • I don't really like any of the possible options here; internal search results also turn up Cyber and Information Domain Service, Cyber Internet Services and Cyber force, but both of the current targets are also plausible and don't seem to be well-covered by search results if the redirect is deleted. On the other hand, this would make for a sprawling mess of a disambiguation page. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 30 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, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I think that we should keep "cyber service" (with the space) pointing to virtual volunteering.
About "not mentioned": The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". Redirects should not be deleted if the connection to the subject is obvious to most people, or if the redirect is correct but not appropriate for inclusion in the article, such as {{R from brand name}}.
In this case, I think we can safely assume that ordinary internet users will not think that "cyber" is "a novel or very obscure synonym" for "virtual", and that they will not be confused by "service" referring to "volunteering" (especially if they grow up in a school that requires them to perform hours of Community service). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Pray 4

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kamikaze (soccer formation)

No such section and no information about this formation at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was an article from 2008 to 2009 before it was merged to the target. The section was removed in April 2024 as failing verification, with associated talk page discussion Talk:Formation (association football)#1-6-3. See related RfD discussion #1-6-3, into which I didn't want to bundle this. Delete, and remove the entry from Kamikaze (disambiguation) § Sports as well. Jay 08:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

That Oscar

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sexual disinterest

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 11#Sexual disinterest

1-6-3

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)

It appears this was at the target article for over a decade, but was removed in April 2024 as failing verification, with associated talk page discussion Talk:Formation (association football)#1-6-3. ~ A412 talk! 18:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Dead fuck

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Te Ngaere

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Motuti

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Tamatea (whare)

This is also the name of the Otakou marae meeting house. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle are you suggesting deletion, retargetting, or disambiguation? Rusalkii (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
Lean deletion as I think a dab for unnotable topics that get few pageviews isn't very helpful but I won't contest a DAB if someone think its useful and is willing to write it. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

October 30

Academy of Dijon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 9#Academy of Dijon

Eye Care Professional

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 7#Eye Care Professional

Artemis 6

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

SUPXR

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cha'mone

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, CycloneYoris talk! 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Vault (software)

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete three and retarget two

2020 UK general election

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 7#2020 UK general election

Ooga booga

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)
  • Soft redirect to wikt:ooga booga with a hatnote to Ooga Booga. The Wiktionary entry demonstrates that it's usage is wider than simply caveman speech—it's also used for imitations of people who speak foreign language(s) or may be stupid. -- Tavix (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Tavix, is putting a hatnote on a soft redirect allowed? I agree that's the best option if it's the case. There have been a few other RfDs wherein I've felt the best primary target was Wiktionary, but thought that targeting there would preclude linking to disambiguation; so, would be useful to know if soft redirects can have hatnotes. 9ninety (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@Tavix and 9ninety: Soft redirects, including specialized soft redirects, are still bound by the conventions of regular redirection (especially in the mainspace). Thus, they should not contain any content except the redirect itself (soft redirects should not even have rcats, which make them more restrictive than regular redirects). All that being said, it would not be appropriate to have a hatnote on a soft redirect (as that would make it a pseudo-dab). If any such redirects currently exist with hatnotes, they are {{wiktionary redirect}}s (by far the largest group of soft redirects to sister sites; I am unaware of them but have not sorted through that particular subgroup) and exist technically in error. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:00, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I feel like this calls for an WP:IAR exception. With a normal redirect to another Wikipedia page, the you can have a {{redirect}} hatnote at the target. However, this is not possible for a cross-wiki redirect to Wiktionary. So, there are cases where the best primary target is Wiktionary (or another site), but you still need a hatnote to a dab page or another target. I think it should be acceptable to include a hatnote on the soft redirect in these cases, as including it at the target is not an option. 9ninety (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy ping @Godsy. 9ninety (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@9ninety: I am afraid I must disagree as someone who works in the space of soft redirection quite heavily. If IAR is indeed necessary, then the page title should be redirected to the local target and a hatnote to wikt: should be added there. Local targets always take preference if they are worthy in actuality. A {{wiktionary}} template can already be added to any article in the appropriate place. 'Franken-dabs', if you will (which also suits the current holiday), are never a good idea. Of the first 200 wiktionary redirects (of ~2,200) in the aforementioned category, only 6/200 incorrectly contained hatnotes. That is 3%. Assuming that trend were to hold (If I had to guess, I would say that is slightly higher than the actual rate), it is certainly not something that should be perpetuated through explicit endorsement here. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@Godsy: It wouldn't be a 'franken-dab'; it would be a WP:primary redirect with a hatnote; ideally, the hatnote would be at the target, but in the absence of that possibility, placing it on the redirect seems like a reasonable compromise. Yes, redirects normally don't contain any content, but I don't see the point in indiscriminately enforcing this in cases which could reasonably warrant an exception. That's why we have the IAR policy. Also, wrt endorsement, the general principle of WP:NOTPANDORA applies. 9ninety (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@9ninety: Soft redirects exist for cases when technical limitations prevent us from a true (i.e. hard) redirect. There is also an arguable case to made that it is a good idea to let a reader know when they are being directed to a sister site (hence the expanded text from {{soft redirect}}, which itself is unused in the mainspace). That excepted, we would hard redirect this if it were possible and a hatnote would then be untenable anyway. If a hatnote to a local target is warranted, then the page should not be soft redirect to a non-local page but rather a hard redirect to the local target itself. The nature of a primary topic (and thereby primary redirect) only applies to things with an encyclopedic scope; redirects to sister sites inherently imply a less-than-enyclopedic scope, meaning they do not factor into that consideration. This is the same reason that we would not convert it into a true disambiguation. Given that the lowercase version is a distinct topic from the capitalized incarnation, a soft redirect to wikt: without a hatnote may be due.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
  • I agree to soft redirect to Wiktionary with hatnote per Tavix. It's the best way to get users where they're trying to go, rules be damned. Alternatively we could just delete it or retarget it to Ooga Booga, in which case the hatnote I added there would serve the same purpose, albeit with a greater surprise factor. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 01:45, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
(nominator) On further thought, since a soft redirect and a hatnote both require the same one click to get to Wiktionary, I think the best solution is to retarget to Ooga Booga with a hatnote (added by CopperyMarrow15). 9ninety (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Fan Song

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)
  • redirect SNR-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)
Keep Fan Song and add a hatnote at the target for Fan#Music, and retarget Fan-song to Fan#Music. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
You cannot retaret to a page that does not use the term. --Altenmann >talk 21:54, 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Railway line no. #

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)
@Joy pl wiki does it this way, e.g., pl:Linia kolejowa nr 99 Fortek67 (talk) 17:25, 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)
Or we could just leave it to the search engine.
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)
Pageviews comparison is back. The intricate redirect there is very rarely used. --Joy (talk) 08:16, 26 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)
@Fork99 sounds good Fortek67 (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
We have Railway lines of Poland. Fortek67 (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Retarget Railway line no. 3 to Line 3 and Railway line no. 4 to Line 4; keep others per Tavix ~ A412 talk! 13:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Cauchemar

The current target is not the best choice because it is not mentioned here, but I don't know where this should target instead. "Cauchemar" is the French word for "Nightmare" and as such it is the name for a handful of French films and other literary works. It is also associated with the idea of sleep paralysis (see the lede image). I've also found a Vladimir Cauchemar and a handful of other assorted mentions on the English Wikipedia. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora and fauna)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Martinez Refinery

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft retarget

King Kenny

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)
  • @Go D. Usopp: based on what? I'm not into football, so the YouTuber is what first comes to mind to me. Sahaib (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
    @Sahaib I misread, apologies. Go D. Usopp (talk) 13:48, 16 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)
  • Keep per 162 etc. The current set-up with the hatnote seems to work just fine. The major disadvantage to setting up a separate disambiguation is that nobody is directly taken to the topic in which they sought. In the status quo, if you want the footballer you've already arrived at the correct article. If you want the YouTuber, you're one click away via the hatnote—exactly the same distance away that he would be in a separate disambiguation page. -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, move, or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 14:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Dabify: No primary topic. Similar situation to Skeppy, which was turned into a disambiguation page. TansoShoshen (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Dabify: I can't help the feeling that this is a WP:NWFCTM situation between Scottish football fans and people who've heard of the social media personality. Certainly the two possible targets have comparable pageviews , and only a few of Dalglish's pageviews come via the King Kenny redirect. As they're notable for totally different things it's difficult to assess relative long-term significance. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
    I've drafted a potential dab page, FWIW. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Battles 2

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 7#Battles 2

Chocohero

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Artificial Idiot Savant

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 03:26, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Monisha

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Move dab page

Alternative journalism

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

October 29

Kinsland Defenders

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of films in Vietnam

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 6#List of films in Vietnam

Nubbin

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Enganchista

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chester A. Bum

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

U.S. Newswire

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 6#U.S. Newswire

Steve Smith (sandpaper)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

Mondrian SoHo

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:Edit request

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 6#Template:Edit request

MineField Browser

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 6#MineField Browser

More rectification redirects

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Inner demon

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Flood disaster

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 6#Flood disaster

Classics Vol 02

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)

Note that today Scyrme moved Classics II to Classics II (George Canyon album), and turned the remnant Classics II as a disambig page with all the three albums I mentioned in the nomination. Jay 04:54, 12 November 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see evidence that any of the old content was merged, and the title is an unlikely and ambiguous search term. pburka (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree that this appears to have been a blank and redirect, not a merge, so there are no attribution concerns. This doesn't seem like it's especially helpful as a search term with its leading zero. The articles that mention this album don't call it that, they call "Classics II" or "Classics 2", as do most online mentions (eg. Apple Music uses "II") and the album art (which uses "II").
    @Mullafacation: Tagging a redirect with {{r with history}} is not incorrect. As long as there's substantial history, it doesn't hurt to tag it. It provides a reminder to other editors to look more closely at the page history to double check it's not in use anywhere before considering deletion. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 22:51, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
    Oh OK thank you. That's good to know. – Mullafacation『talk』 22:53, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Full retard

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Māhūhū ki te Rangi Marae

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

kenny james

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 6#kenny james

Forrest Gump 2

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Batić

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

A previous RfD about this was closed early as the targets had inverted the diacritics. However, the situation isn't as clear cut as that (as discussed at the closer's talk page): we have at least three possible targets named Batić with a C-acute (Batić Mirković, Olgica Batić and Vladan Batić, none of whom stand out as a clear primary topic – Vladan does have more page views than the other two, but not to the extent needed for WP:PT1) and potentially two targets for Batič with a C-caron (Stojan Batič and Lacemaker (Portrait of Štefka Batič), though admittedly the latter is a bit of a stretch). I'd suggest retargeting both to Batic (disambiguation), especially as non-Slavic readers are likely to confuse the two diacritics, and perhaps also merging Batic (surname) into the main Batic dab. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Turn Batic (surname) into Batic (name) and retarget both to there Essentially this could best be handled by turning Batic (surname) into Batic (name) (c.f. Aja (name)) with a given name and surname section. Then both redirects can target there. Casablanca 🪨(T) 13:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Batic (surname) into Batic and retarget the versions with diacritics and multiple uses to that page, given that most users of en.wiki are using keyboards where diacritics are not readily available so will search on the plain letters for any of these people or the village. Given that there is only one non-name usage for "Batic", it is not necessary to have a name page separate from the disambiguation page. PamD 08:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • They can all just get their own little disambiguation lists that are navigatable from the diacriticless version, as the WP:SMALLDETAILS difference has a meaning in pronunciation that we can document. We have this elsewhere with e.g. Simic, Pusic, etc. I'll go draft that. --Joy (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
BTW I wouldn't agree that Štefka Batič is a stretch, as the eponym of the portrait, it is an obvious search term for that painting article. In addition, I should probably mention explicitly that sl:Batič shows a lot of WP:POTENTIAL for the expansion of Batič. --Joy (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note also that there appear to be no online sources identifying Polly Batic with either Batić or Batič - it could be either, because both Slovenes and Serbs might have brought the surname to Vienna. She shouldn't be listed together with the others until we can verify the etymology of her surname. --Joy (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the reader is best served by a list where all names spelled "Batic", with or without diacritics, are listed on one page so the reader can easily scan to find the poet or politician they are looking for. It might be useful to split that list into the different spellings (ie diacritics), especially if there is sourced content about any of the names. PamD 00:09, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree there's an issue with having people click more for a small return. At the same time there's a bit of consistent nuance - the one that ends with č is Slovene (hard ch), the one that ends with ć is Serbo-Croatian (soft ch), and the Austrian one I don't know, the same as hard k probably. I'm also fine with nested lists, but we don't have a standard guideline for combining disambiguation lists and set indices (nothing came out of the last RFC about that) and I fear people would just flatten it and dumb it down completely (contrary to the educational purpose of an encyclopedia). --Joy (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
It seems to me that a single dab combining all the variants is more helpful to most readers; only a minority will be familiar with or even aware of the difference in diacritics. In cases like Simic and Pusic, there are enough people to justify subpages for each diacritic, but here we only have a handful of targets and I don't see the benefit of the split. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
I'd just like to remind voters that carons in certain languages actually matter: Batič, Batić and Batic are for most Southern Slavic languages three distinct family names. I believe we're doing a disservice by conflating all of them into a page without diacritics, especially if we'll write them "the English way" without č and ć.--A09|(talk) 22:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

FUSE ZFS port for Linux

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Ariana (singer)

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

felixhell.com

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Hammerfest L1

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

GS20

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Matriarch

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)
'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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412 talk! 01:43, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: A matriarch is a woman in a position of power or authority, regardless of whether that is the norm in the society in which they live (i.e. whether that society is a matriarchy). The current target conflates the two notions and is clearly problematic. Unfortunately we don't seem to have any content on enwiki about matriarchs in non-matriarchical societies; about the only alternative would be a soft redirect to wikt:matriarch. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
    @Rosbif73: What about Matriarch (elder) (a redirect to Elder (administrative title) § Matriarchs)? It covers women in authority in a sense that isn't limited to matriarchal societies. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 02:04, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not particularly keen on that "administrative title" disambiguator, nor on the fact that "elder" semantically excludes younger matriarchs, but I guess this is the best relevant content we've got, so I could get behind retargeting there. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
    @Rosbif73: I've started a RM as I wasn't happy with disambiguator either. An alternative to retargeting directly there would be targeting the disambiguation page and tagging that page with {{BCA}} or {{disambiguation with potential}} to encourage making a more inclusive article, as 9ninety suggested below. The disambiguation page already links to Wiktionary, so fulfills the role of a soft redirect while not obstructing access to the coverage Wikipedia does have. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 17:41, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep Plausible search term.
I would also like to inform you, @GastonN'estPasBon, that your remark, "Matriarchy is a pseudohistorical conspiracy theory claiming the world was run by women for 200 thousand years" is extremely misogynistic and bound to offend someone. Please, practice self restraint. Not trying to be uncivil, just remember this for future notice. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 14:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
strictly speaking, it's only not true because that's lowballing it. women have ruled the world at least since the cretaceous, seemingly starting with the vulcanidris consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 15:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I didn't say it was incorrect, though it probably is, and I think the statement was only referring to human women. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 14:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • move the dab to this title, essentially per nom. this term as is doesn't seem to have a clear primary topic, so i doubt an article could take its place consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 15:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Move dab to title, per above. pburka (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wikt:matriarch per Rosbif73, with a hatnote to matriarch (disambiguation). 9ninety (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
    @9ninety: I'm not sure why you would want this as there's a link to Wiktionary at the disambiguation page and going straight to the disambiguation page saves readers an extra click if they want an article not the Wiktionary page. If it were a hatnote at the soft redirect they'd have to first click to go to the disambiguation page, then click again to go to the article they want. If they do want the Wiktionary page, it's one click either way. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 01:59, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
    @Scyrme: Good point. Moving the dab page seems like the better option. However, it would prevent the creation of an article at the title. Maybe we could tag it with {{broad-concept article}}? 9ninety (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
    Is a BCA needed? Together, Matriarchy and the section Matriarch (elder) redirects to seem to cover the encyclopedic senses (namely, "leader(s) of matriarchy" and "woman/women with authority in families, clans, and communities", the latter not being limited to matriarchy). – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 05:08, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Give its own article It seems to me that 'Matriarch' is a kinship/clan concept where an older female figure is in a position of authority. An article on this concept and how it is reflected and dismissed/dominant in different cultures would be appropriate. 'Matriarchy' I see as a separate concept - the system of norms, procedures and cultural attitudes in which female perspectives and attitudes are the dominant authority. It is a feature in many societies although it may not be as historically widespread as the patriarchy. In the Western nuclear family, there is always a patriarch and a matriarch - eg the most powerful female figure such as the grandmother, mother, etc - but it is often not a matriarchy as the patriarch's attitudes prevail. It's a different concept with different (although at times overlapping) set of norms, theories and attitudes. It may make sense, therefore, for it to have its own article. A redirect could work but I think there's a lot of interesting cultural facts to lay out about specifically a woman in a position of authority as matriarch - because this is often independent of being in a matriarchy. Squid45 (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
    @Squid45: Unless you or another editor volunteers to draft an article before the RfD closes, this isn't actionable. With redirects from titles that have potential to become an article a judgement has to be made whether it's best to delete as WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation or tag the redirect as {{r with possibilities}}. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 01:18, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
    The topic you're describing sounds like Matriarch (elder), so perhaps what you're looking for already exists (though as a section not a separate article)? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 01:36, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: Matriarchs, the plural, exists as a redirect to Elder (administrative title) § Matriarchs as an {{r with history}}. It was previously a separate disambiguation page, but was merged by the nominator to Matriarch (disambiguation). It should have been bundled, as there's no obvious reason why they should not be synchronised. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 01:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just wanna apologize for how I wrote this. Looking back idk why I wrote it like this. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
    worry not, for we can just blame twitter!! consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:29, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

October 27

Gorjestan

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

pokémon game boy color

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus to delete; retarget to List of Game Boy Color games#P * Pppery * it has begun... 03:23, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Post-Christian democracy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 7#Post-Christian democracy

Loco Reef

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

Breeding grounds

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

List of Lolita characters

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 4#List of Lolita characters

Lolita Method

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Terms of use

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)

Note: An announcement of this discussion has been left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:29, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
  • This is an odd one but your suggestion to disambiguate makes sense although I'm curious what others think. Assuming these would be combined on a single dab page, what would be the appropriate title? The little 'Privacy policy' link at the bottom of the screen links to wmf:Privacy policy, for what it's worth. Also, WP:PRIVACY is a redirect to Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information and WP:BLPPRIVACY targets Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources. These should be included on a dab page. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:30, 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:BLPPRIVACY & WP: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 agree these should not be redirects. The set up you suggest is reasonable; an alternative for the privacy policy(ies) page might be Wikipedia:PRIVACY (disambiguation), with Wikipedia:Privacy policy redirected there. The PRIVACY/Privacy policy dab page should also list the historical page Wikipedia:Privacy and, possibly under 'See also', the dab page Wikipedia:Private correspondence. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 09:08, 11 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
  • DABify. This is the best solution offered so far and essentially preserves the state that the page is currently in, but does so in a more typical manner, rather than having soft redirects with hatnotes and 'See also' sections. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • I personally use WP:TOU to reach the Terms of Use. I'm surprised others may have used the shortcut for other purposes. Special:Permalink/1377713566 is perfect in covering these additional accidental uses without putting too much emphasis on them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I've gone over this a few times, and it just seems like much ado about nothing. I suppose I have no objections to removing the hatnotes or see-alsos, though because the redirects are soft, I don't see how this helps anyone. Contrariwise, disambiguation seems unnecessary and an overengineered solution. --BDD (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
  • I've personally linked WP:TOU at least twice from block logs that I can remember. Our local policies are not terms of use, and I can't figure out whether the hatnotes and see alsos stuck on the page are intended for non-editors, or new editors, or veteran editors. —Cryptic 01:03, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Animal Planet Asia

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Grand Theft Auto: London

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Broadcast satellite

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 9#Broadcast satellite

Game Watch

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Draft:Lula Da Silva

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Digital Being

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Development of Wardogs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 3#Development of Wardogs

II Army Corps (Argentina)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Template:Politics of Australia (bottom)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 3#Template:Politics of Australia (bottom)

2nd Street (St. Louis)

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 October 25

#invoke:Navbox