This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See §When to delete a redirect for more information.)
Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.
Current and past redirects for discussion (RfD) discussions
Current discussions
Redirects that have been nominated for discussion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.
The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such as links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:
The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also§Neutrality of redirects.
It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.) The message template {{subst:not mentioned}} may be useful.
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
If the redirect ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page or a page performing a disambiguation-like function (such as a set index of articles). Speedy deletion criterion G14 may apply.
They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a copy or merge (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be retained in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Please tag these with {{R from old history}}. See alsoWikipedia:Link rot §Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "AttorneygateAttorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule are redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.
Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Save the page ("Publish changes").
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If it is an inline template, use |showontransclusion=tiny instead.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.
Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}~~~~
For this template:
Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}~~~~
If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.
To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template
may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.
Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.
The RfD of Artemis VI was closed as delete, and the same rationale applies for the higher numbers. WP:CRYSTAL, and no information about the proposed missions at the target. 9ninety (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
implausible that someone would only abbreviate half of the name (and also forget a space after the colon, i guess) consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:39, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
implausible that someone would only abbreviate half of the name I looked it up and it seems common enough for it to be abbreviated as Mario and Luigi PIT or PiT, so it isn't implausible. Examples: , , 9ninety (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the lack of capitalization throughout the whole title and the missing space make this implausible. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 23:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 12:00, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
No information about this algorithm or the acronym at the targets, or anywhere else on enwiki. The pre-redirect content says this was based on PageRank, and a claim needing citation said Google was thought to be using this, with no evidence to show. The article was BLAR'ed for being non-notable, however if reusing the content to merge to either target, we would need to show that this is significant to Google search or PageRank. Delete as not being helpful. Jay 06:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
KeepTopic-Sensitive PageRank, retargetTopic Sensitive PageRank and Topic Sensitive Page Rank to PageRank, deleteTSPR. This seems like a pretty obscure term, but while there is currently no information on target pages this could change. I tagged the two redirects to retarget appropriately. The acronym however does not even exist in the niche sources I found on the topic. Choucas🐦⬛ 13:50, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all as misleading. A person searching for these topics on Wikipedia would probably already have an idea on what PageRank is, and, since topic-sensitive PageRank seems to be a related algorithm or type of PageRank, a person searching for it would likely want info on TSPR in particular, and not just a general overview of PageRank. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 07:52, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
Retarget to List of computer security companies, which includes a list of computer security services (also known as cybersecurity services). It also includes a link to "computer security", where multiple mentions of "cybersecurity" can be found, leaving readers to not be surprised. LazyLune (talk•edits) 09:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
It's easy to find sources saying that "cyber service" means virtual volunteering, so if it is retargeted, we should add a hatnote. Disambiguation is an option. Oppose retargeting to List of computer security companies, which is certainly too narrow a topic (cybersecurity as opposed to online services in general). Neither of the titles under discussion mention security. —Mx. Granger(talk·contribs) 20:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
It's easy to find sources saying that "cyber service" means virtual volunteering It largely depends on the scenario here. In this case, cybersecurity seems more applicable here. Search results yield sources pertaining to said topic. In addition, "cyberservice" is a used initialism for "cybersecurity services". Neither of the titles under discussion mention security. May you provide some further context to this part of your rationale here? I'm having a bit trouble understanding what you're fully saying, as the articles I mentioned both cover security (although I will say that "Cybersecurity" is more informative about it than "List of computer security companies"). LazyLune (talk•edits) 23:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 16:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
@LazyLune: The two redirects under discussion are "Cyberservices" and "Cyber service". Neither of those are about security. Cybersecurity services are a small subset of online services in general, so it doesn't make sense to redirect either of these to a page about cybersecurity services. —Mx. Granger(talk·contribs) 21:59, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Do note that I explained my reasoning above. It appears that our search results are a bit different. LazyLune (talk•edits) 00:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Network service? Cyber and network (in this context) are roughly synonmyous so I can see the connection. Otherwise, I would think cyberservice, meaning "a service on the Internet", to encompass both e-commerce and virtual volunteering so both options are too narrow. --Tavix(talk) 14:52, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
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, Rosguilltalk 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)
WP:RDEL#D5: "Polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate" is a completely different compound to ethyl lactate. Per Special:Contributions/Dennis Schmitz, it looks like this redirect was created because Ethyl lactate can substitute as a solvent for Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate (PGMEA) in certain applications. The contemporaneously created PGMEA redirect was already replaced with a more appropriate redirect in 2014. Preimage (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
This oscar? No, that oscar! Whatever this is supposed to refer to isn't mentioned at the target, delete. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 07:26, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Delete per the RfD of Artemis VI that closed today as delete. I'm copying the rationale here: Artemis VI is not currently being planned by NASA and the article it redirects to says nothing about the proposed mission. Jay 21:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom and the Artemis VI RfD. Should've just been bundled. 9ninety (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per the rationale and arguments from the RfD of supxr that was closed today as delete. I'm copying them here: Nothing at the target dab appears to go by "supxr". There is also a musician by this name, but doesn't have an article yet, and per lack of reliable sources he may fail WP:NMUSIC. SUPXR was an article for a few seconds before being BLAR'ed as not notable. Jay 21:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as not an entry at the target; we have no information about this topic whether or not it is notable. ~ A412talk! 13:24, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
These were silently retargeted here per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 26#Shamone with the comment I'm redirecting the "ch" variants as well, despite both commenters not expressing an opinion on them. If there's any objection to that feel free to re-nominate them separately. Well, I object. It makes absolutely no sense for Wikipedia to have a redirect to Wiktionary from a term that Wiktionary itself doesn't have a page on; if the spelling variation were truly important, Wiktionary, which is supposed to have lower standards in this area than us, would have noted it. Suggest deletion. * Pppery *it has begun... 19:39, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
As original closer, no strong opinion either way. Rusalkii (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I'm usually skeptical of Wiktionary redirects, but as long as we do something for this phrase, it makes sense to be generous with the spelling. I'm not even sure there's an "official" one, and ch- rather than sh- is reasonable. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Chamone and cha'mone are both used at Bo' Selecta!, and clips from the show on YouTube also use "ch" spellings. The show may have contributed to the popularity of these spellings. However, Chamone is also an unrelated surname so traffic to that redirect may be from mixed sources. Wikipedia doesn't appear to have any articles about people with this surname, but there are few mentions in articles (eg. 9 Horses mentions someone called "Rafael Chamone") – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 21:23, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete both Term does exist, but does not seem to be that notable. In addition, this alternate spelling isn't mentioned on Wiktionary. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 20:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:37, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - Looks like I am the creator but have no opinion. Looking at the redirects history, they were listed at the target page at least at the time it was created. That list was removed by an editor in July this year. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 20:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
This redirect was created in 2015 when it was thought that the next UK election would be in 2020 under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, but an early election was called in 2017, so that an election was no longer expected in 2020. There was then a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 2#2020 UK general election, in which it was decided to retarget this redirect to Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011#2017 general election, because that section effectively explained why there was no longer to be an election in 2020. However, the target article has been extensively rewritten since the repeal of this Act in 2022, and the section in question no longer exists. Moreover, it is no longer the case that anyone is going to be wondering why there will not be an election in 2020, since that date has long passed without an election. It seems merely confusing having a reference coming up to a 2020 election in the search bar when there was no such election, and I cannot see what useful purpose this now serves. I would therefore propose deleting this redirect. Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 12:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
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, Rosguilltalk 20:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Onomatopoeia not mentioned at target. Should it be kept, retargeted to Ooga Booga, or deleted per WP:RETURNTORED? 9ninety (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - wikt:ooga booga exists (and covers the meanings quite well); preferable target over the capitalized game, if this is retained. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Creator here: I made this redirect in 2025. At the time, I was hurriedly making redirects that had even a minor chance of being related. I don't particularly care about this redirect anymore, though I will defend it slightly by saying that "ooga booga" is inherently tied to cavemen and (barring the occasional racist every now and then) most people will imagine a caveman. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Ooga Booga. Term ambiguously relates to cavemen, might as well redirect it to something with the same name. Go D. Usopp(talk) 13:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
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, Rosguilltalk 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)
These two redirects should have the same target, but I know nothing about the topic of radar technology, so I'm not sure what it should be. Or maybe the target should be Fan labor or Filk music? Or maybe Fan §Music? –CopperyMarrow15(talk·edits) 03:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the two ways to solve this would be either to make a disambiguation page, but I'm not sure there would be enough articles that relate to that title, and the option I personally like more is that both should redirect to the SNR-75. Feel free to correct me though on the topic of there not being enough articles to make a disambiguation, and then if there is like one or two articles, I would just add the for template to the SNR-75 article.
Actually looking at it again, I think the Fan-song should be a disambiguation page, even if there's only a few articles, and Fan Song to redirect to SNR-75 as that's the way the NATO reporting name of the radar is written. Thanks for noticing this and bringing this up by the way. 12030123O9 (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
redirectSNR-75 , because S-75 Dvina simply uses Fan Song, and is not a synonym or extra meaning for "Fan Song". --Altenmann>talk 16:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: would a move discussion be more appropriate first? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
(Re)target both, including Fansong, to SNR-75. It's the most direct article on the topic. --Tavix(talk) 15:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
So vague as to be confusing - any number of places have train lines known as line no. 3, 4, etc. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 23:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I didn't actually want to create these, earlier this year a new user began moving all Polish railway line articles to these ambiguous names, I was just moving them back but at the time didn't have the page mover right so redirects were created every time. I want to add that there are many more of such redirects under similar names. Fortek67 (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
If they are ambiguous there can be disambiguation pages similar to List of A1 roads. Peter James (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
If this suggestion is done, would a retarget to "Line X", X being the respective number, such as Line 4, be better as to avoid duplicating dab pages? These are used more for urban public transport lines though than for mainline railways. Fork99 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
What are the odds an actual reader types in "railway line no. 3" into search? Seems slim. --Joy (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
The Polish articles (and some Dutch and Japanese articles) use the line numbers as article titles. Peter James (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@Peter James, please see MOS:PLRAIL, Polish railway lines are not referred by line number. Fortek67 (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
also in MOS:PLRAIL: "and a redirect from the line number may also be created". Peter James (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Again, does that matter for an actual (English) reader? --Joy (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
If they are article titles, they are not "very obscure" which would be the only reason for deletion in WP:R#DELETE. Peter James (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
But they're not article titles? --Joy (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Not in English, but the line numbers are used in Polish Wikipedia article titles, and I don't think they would be if they were very obscure. Peter James (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Sure, but does that mean that the English readers will look them up in the same format? That they won't use railway line 3 or similar instead? --Joy (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirects in that format can also be created. Peter James (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I did notice that we have a "No. 3 Line" redirect, but I don't know how useful it is right now (pageviews stats website is temporarily broken). --Joy (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
We have separate naming conventions for flora and fauna, so I think this should be deleted as an x and y redirect. It's not clear why we should point readers to one naming convention over the other. I was surprised to see that this has over 100 page views, but on the other hand it doesn't have any internal links. I don't think this will be terribly missed. Chessenjoyer (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete it was at this title for less than an hour in 2009. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I don’t think there is a primary topic between the footballer and the YouTuber, a dab page would probably be better. The footballer has greater long term significance but the YouTuber is primarily known as “King Kenny” and not his actual name. There is also some Kings called Kenneth such as Kenneth III of Scotland, couldn’t find sources referring to them as Kenny though. Sahaib (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Convert to disambig page. GiantSnowman 08:51, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
It's probably bad that I’m Scottish as well. I’m not saying the King Kenny page should be moved, just wondering if a dab page would be better. Sahaib (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
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, ~ A412talk! 14:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
No mention of this term at the target. Should this be retargeted to the target of Idiot Savants which has a line Savant syndrome has been artificially replicated using low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation...? Or delete if there is no suitable target. Jay 12:29, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think the target is primary, considering Monisha Blessy and Monisha Kaltenborn. However, I'm putting this at RfD instead of RM despite the existence of Monisha (disambiguation) because that page isn't helpful, as the dab page doesn't mention other people with the given name. I am requesting that the redirect be replaced by a given name page listing all of the people with the given name "Monisha", with a see also to Monisha En Monalisa, and the links updated. If the target turns out to be the primary topic, though, Monisha (given name) should be created, so a given name page should exist regardless. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the disambiguation page. Note that Monisha (given name) was created as a redirect while the discussion was in progress. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Move dabpage. This should actually be a WP:RM discussion. No primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe this should be deleted. Doesn't redirecting users linking to alternative journalism to specifically left-wing alternative media in the United States seem both US-centric (it's the anglophone Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia) and biased toward the left-wing, but the article it directs to is a list with longstanding issues, not an actual article on the concept of phenomenon of alternative journalism (an important subject in our time, in my opinion). Of course, it could also be converted into an actual article on the subject, and the listicle it redirects to deleted (without prejudice). 1101 (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned at target. This is a plot element in a novel he wrote (KD Rebel). It's only mentioned here for 1 sentence, and it would be undue to describe it in enough detail to where this would be referenced. The book is notable, so if someone (probably me) makes an article on it it can be recreated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. {{R from fictional element}} can be okay directed towards a book, but is undue weight targeted to the author. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:42, 30 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. ~ A412talk! 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)
Dab works for me, too. pburka (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I would also be fine with disambiguation. BD2412T 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)
This is as likely to refer to an underdeveloped ear of corn, a small hill, a name or nickname, or a clitoris as to a supernumerary nipple. It should either be a disambiguation page or be deleted. 1101 (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate. I have started a draft disambiguation page under the redirect, and it clearly has the topics for disambiguation. BD2412T 12:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Dab per BD2412. pburka (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Terms not used in article, and as far as I can tell they were not when they were created (circa August 2011) either. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Character from a website (see fandom), not mentioned on target page. Previously targeted That Guy with the Glasses, until that page was deleted in 2016. Suggest deleting. pburka (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
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". ~ A412talk! 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)
The target section no longer exists, and the article does not mention Mondrian SoHo. The hotel has since been renamed NoMo SoHo, so the redirect sends readers to an unrelated West Hollywood hotel. Delete, or retarget to an article on the Mondrian brand if one is created. Keizers (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Support as nom of the last time, also noticed that suddenly there were many people using edit request instead of Request edit. It's pretty clear this will need to be redirected as well. Theeverywherepersontalk hereIn solidarity! 13:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Template names and aliases (redirects) should be intuitive. I would expect {{Edit request}} and {{Request edit}} to be the most generic or widely used type, not specifically COI. I don't work in this area, so I don't want to put my thumb on the scales, but this just seems odd to me. Also, any idea why this is happening? How are so many editors learning the wrong way to place or categorize these requests? —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
No. I have no idea how or why so many people are using the incorrect template, and the majority of these requests are some sort of COI request. To make sure that this doesn't cause more damage than the {{Request edit}} discussion did and if consensus moves against a retarget, I suggest that if we can't retarget, then we could program a bot to go through the open transclusions and those that mention COI could be changed. Theeverywherepersontalk hereIn solidarity! 15:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Or those that are on pages that weren't protected as of the date it was requested be changed automatically. meamemg (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
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}}. Theeverywherepersontalk hereIn solidarity! 13:55, 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.) Theeverywherepersontalk hereIn 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, ~ A412talk! 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)
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)
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, ~ A412talk! 17:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
There's a concept here somewhere, but it's not really discussed in enough depth to warrant a redirect. The sole mention at the target is the throwaway sentence Within a psychological context demons may be used as metaphors for inner psychological processes ("inner demons"). in the lead with no body support. Normally I would say "delete per WP:REDLINK", but the existence of Inner Demon (film) at a WP:MISPLACED title throws that off so I have no idea. * Pppery *it has begun... 23:24, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
This could still be deleted per WP:RTR (which I think is what you meant to cite?) and Inner Demon (film) moved to base title Inner Demon, leaving inner demon a redlink for someone to create. Surprisingly, there's no Wiktionary entry on inner demon to soft redirect to, even though it is mentioned at wikt:demon in one of the usage examples.
Wait, there's also inner demons, which is a disambiguation page... 9ninety (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
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, --Tavix(talk) 14:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per 9ninety. Harmless. BD2412T 16:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Harmlessness isn't enough to keep; there has to be some plausible utility to it, but it's hard to see how this would be useful. Not only that, as pointed out in the nomination, this one is harmful, getting in the way of the film (which should be moved to the base title anyway). –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 06:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
How is there not plausible utility, when a flood can, in fact, be a disaster? Of course, not all floods are disasters, so how else would you distinguish one that is from one that isn't except to use some combination of these words? BD2412T 12:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
It's unclear what anyone searching for "flood disaster" would want, or what we would send them to. As already pointed out, it's not how English speakers generally refer to floods, whether or not they're disasters, just like "earthquake disaster", etc. If nothing else, one can only assume that they're looking for something more specific, or different from, just flood, in which case, sending them to flood is unhelpful and even misleading. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 14:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Generic title for an album actually titled Classics II, whereas we have an article on a different album Classics Volume Two, also stylized as Classics, Vol. 2. Retarget to the album article, or make this a disambig?
The redirect page has merge content history, and many incoming links to the current target. Maybe move the redirect page to Classics Vol 02 (Era album), which doesn't have history, and was the prior title of the page, and fix the incoming links? If looking for an alternate move target, Classics II cannot be a redirect title, as it's an article on another album. Jay 18:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I may have added {{R with history}} incorrectly here, I just added it because there was history as an article, not because it was being used anywhere or was worth keeping for some reason. (If there is actually merge content history then never mind) – Mullafacation『talk』 16:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
Not mentioned in target. "Retard" is mentioned but not this particular usage. Go D. Usopp(talk) 10:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
It is nevertheless clearly related to it, cf. q:Tropic Thunder. Would you want to fix this by mentioning the phrase in the article text, or doing a soft redirect to Wikiquote, or? --Joy (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Ehhh, do not keep, since it's not mentioned at the target. It is mentioned at Oscar bait#In popular culture, which would be reasonable, but ehh. It's also the name (capitalized, with "The") of a couple songs that have brief mentions in other articles, but ehhh. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 19:38, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 14:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
DeleteWP:NOTCENSORED, sure, but I think it's reasonable to consider redirects with such terms more critically. Let search results suffice if readers would actually search for this without the suggestion. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per nom --Lenticel(talk) 00:41, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
According to Māori Maps, Mahuhu ki te Rangi is an alternative name for Te Riingi Marae, and the wharenui at the marae is also called Mahuhu ki te rangi. Māori Maps does not, however, spell it Māhūhū. Most likely the name comes from the waka, Māhuhu-ki-te-rangi, although that is speculation on my part. Paora (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The place is not fictional. Te Puni Kōkiri lists the Mahūhū spelling, as does the Ngāpuhi website (albeit for the wharenui). Māori Maps in te reo Māori shows the Māhuhu spelling instead of Mahuhu on the English version. Perhaps the article should simply be changed to Te Riingi Marae, with a redirect to Tautoro? Ladleduffle (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
The source also gives two different spellings for Mangakahia Road. Its low quality and full of errors and as you said thats the name given for the wharenui, not the marae.
>Perhaps the article should simply be changed to Te Riingi Marae
The article (Tautoro) is about a locality not a marae, so it shouldn't be renamed. Te Riingi and Te Riingi Marae are redlinks. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 14:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
The section that the redirect takes you isn’t in the article anymore. Fierycreature11 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
DeleteRefine The content was removed at this diff in January as "not sufficiently relevant content". Unless the content is restored, then this redirect leaves readers confused. per Tavix. I was so caught up in the diff/removal, that I didn't see that section. Casablanca 🪨(T) 13:46, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Refine to Forrest Gump#Novel-sequel where it discusses a screenplay that was written for a sequel and why it wasn't made. --Tavix(talk) 13:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Alternatively, it could be retargeted to Gump and Co. because the novel did get a sequel. --Tavix(talk) 19:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
MergeBatic (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)
There is no mention of "FUSE ZFS", "port", or "Linux" at the target. In addition, the target is a broken section link. Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
And Oracle ZFS refers to Oracle's proprietary version, which would only be available for Linux if Oracle had ported it. Most ports are based on the open-sourced OpenSolaris version, so ZFS would be a better target, although it also mentions FUSE only in the infobox and one table and doesn't mention any Linux port in any detail. But no page refers to this, so it's probably there just in case anybody searches Wikipedia for information about a FUSE-based port of ZFS to Linux, in which case just throwing them at the ZFS page would suffice. Guy Harris (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
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 07:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Ariana Grande is not known mononymously. Either redirect to Ariana (name), or plain outright delete as an implausible search term, and I personally lean to delete as there is no good anchor for the redirect at Ariana (name). Similar discussions: here, and here. Oh, and same target, but not quite similar discussion as it was about a shorter name, but here is another similar discussion. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
This kind of redirect is the type that I wouldn't recommend creating, but since it already exists, it's not worth the cost of deleting, or even talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Hmmm. There are other people named Ariana who are singers, but there is also another Trump (president) (Clifford Trump, former president of Idaho State University). Ariana Grande is without a doubt the most prominent singer with the given name Ariana. I say keep because it does appear that her fans affectionately call her by her first name, even if she isn't widely known mononymously. —An anonymous username,not my real name 20:33, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
it does appear that her fans affectionately call her by her first name, even if she isn't widely known mononymously. Do you have any sources to back this up perhaps? Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The weakest possible keep. While she doesn't perform mononymously, anyone searching "Ariana (singer)" is probably looking for an article on Ariana Grande. It's not hard to find examples of pop music fans referring to her informally simply as "Ariana" (e.g. , , from like 30 seconds of searching reddit). On the other hand, we also have Arianna (singer), about a singer who does perform mononymously as Arianna (note the double n), for whom people searching for Ariana (singer) could conceivably be looking. On the gripping hand, as Arianna-with-two-n's averaged only 8 pageviews per day last year, they probably aren't. And the article for Ariana Grande gets nearly seven times as many views as every other Arian[n]a listed as a singer on Ariana (name) combined. Given that it's only had about 200 uses in the six years since it was created, however, I don't think it'd be any great loss if it were deleted. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I've just come across this obscure and slightly spammy redirect created using domainRedirect, which is a good idea for organisations but not such a good one for people in general IMO, perhaps unless their website address is a core part of their brand or something. I rewrote the article last year (this is what it looked like before I got there ... the person creating the redirect was trying to help me with a related issue) and I can pretty much guarantee that the subject isn't known by their website name at all. Graham87 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I agree {{R from domain name}} for an individual is unusual, but I don't see anything wrong with it. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target talk. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 07:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Unless a domain is explicitly mentioned in an article (like as a matter of branding or something), domain redirects should never exist, especially not for random people. They lapse, they get squatted on, they get changed, etc. If there's no info about the domain (or a website under it), there's no basis to search for it. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 06:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Seemingly an obscure plot element, not mentioned in target. When searching I only see 6 results, of which one is its entry on Hammerfest (disambiguation). Recommend delete as likely confusing to searchers. ScalarFactor (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
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 06:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per nom, and don't worry about the pre-blar content. it was just a somewhat crufty synopsis with only a primary source, so there's nothing to restore consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Apparently refers to the "GS20 sequencing machine" produced by this company, which does not appear to have any WP:SIGCOV. An IP user also pointed out that this acronym might also refer to the Galaxy S20, but that is never used in reliable sources. The redirect averages about 4 pageviews each month and is not a useful one. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162 etc. (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. When I Google GS20 several other products show up much more prominently. No clear primary topic, so delete unless someone wants to dabify. pburka (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose changing this redirect to either going to Matriarch (disambiguation) or Elder (administrative title)#Matriarchs. Whichever is preferred, I'd prefer a link to the elder page. A Matriarch is simply an older woman in a position of authority, typically within some sort of kinship thingy. Meanwhile, Matriarchy is a largely unrelated pseudohistorical conspiracy theory claiming that the world was run by women for 200 thousand years through love, hugs and kisses. I did this change previously, but a user on my talk page insisted this must be a move request. It seems to me that's for changing a page title, so I'm doing this instead, maybe I'm misunderstanding GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Matriarchy is a pseudohistorical conspiracy theory claiming the world was run by women for 200 thousand years
Unless I'm missing something, that's just… not at all what's described by the article? 9ninety (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
The article is biased but regardless, they're still distinct, matriarchy is an obscure political ideology/pseudohistorical revisionism. I think Matriarch wikilinking to Matriarch makes more sense than Matriarch linking to anything else. Do you disagree with this? GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
matriarchy is an obscure political ideology/pseudohistorical revisionism
Again, that is not supported by the article, wikt:matriarchy, or Google search results. The §Paleolithic and Neolithic Ages section discusses prehistoric matriarchy, but I find no indication that this is a general usage of the word. According to Google, it just means "a social, political, or family system in which women hold primary authority, power, and leadership roles," which is pretty much also what our article and Wiktionary say. 9ninety (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
This isn't the discussion topic, so idc? I'm not here to debate your article or do some pedantic definition debate. I think Matriarch should link to Matriarch. Once again, do you disagree with this?GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by matriarch should link to matriarch. Are you suggesting to move matriarch (disambiguation) to matriarch? A WP:RM would be the correct procedure. I don't think your other suggested target is much better than the current target, as it seems to treat matriarch as an Elder title (and is also written in a very weird way and doesn't make a ton of sense), while matriarchy covers a broader sense of women in authoritative/privileged positions, which seems more appropriate and less confusing. 9ninety (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Collapsing long tangent; in short, the nominator proposes moving Matriarch (disambiguation) to the base title.
If you're suggesting Matriarch doesn't have a primary topic and should be a disambiguation page (for example, Mercury is a disambiguation page since it doesn't have a primary topic), you'll need to start a move request to move matriarch (disambiguation) to the base title. However, as I stated, I think matriarchy is an appropriate target, and clearly the primary topic over the movie, album, and other miscellaneous items listed at the disambiguation. 9ninety (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
That's not how it works. "X" can't redirect to "X (disambiguation)"; the disambiguation page would have to be at "X", with "X (disambiguation)" redirecting to it. So, you are proposing to move matriarch (disambiguation) to matriarch. 9ninety (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I see what you mean, I'll get on that then. Sorry, I literally was not aware of this rule, I've never done this before.GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I'll just say that I don't think it's a good idea to start a move request while this discussion is already open; this discussion could be used to first determine whether there is a primary topic, or the disambiguation should be moved. RFDs typically run for a week. 9ninety (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Addendum: now that I think of it, I have seen RFDs end in consensus to move disambiguation pages to base titles, so a move request is probably not actually needed; that's my bad. Need to remind myself that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy! 9ninety (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
'while matriarchy covers a broader sense of women in authoritative/privileged positions, which seems more appropriate and less confusing.' The vast majority of the page is about Matriarchy as a specific political/social system not individual women in a nondescript priviledged position, idk where you're getting this from even the categories show thats its about a unified political/social system. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
yes, matriarchy is a social system, and matriarch clearly refers to the women in such systems. It's not explicitly spelled out in the article, but I thought the implication was self-evident. It may not be the best target, but it is understandable. 9ninety (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
100% of Matriarchs have not lived in a Matriarchy, so this is not obvious to me sorry.GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Move the dab page / retarget. I agree that matriarchs hadn't lived under matriarchy unless in fiction or indigenous cultures maybe. Dudzcar (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 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)
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 vulcanidrisconsarn(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)
Almost everyone who uses this shortcut is actually referring to the usual "workshop discussion" before an RfC, not the alternative dispute resolution venues that should be attempted before resorting to the RfC process. I don't think I've ever witnessed someone use "RFCBEFORE" correctly in the wild, except for users discussing the shortcut's misuse itself. Just a few recent examples:
I think it's about time that we retarget the shortcut to avoid people mistaking it for a mandatory workshopping phase by analogy with WP:BEFORE. If anyone wants to link to the current target, they can use WP:RFCALT. The WP:RFC page would probably need to be changed as a result of this RfD (example), but I created an XfD to keep the discussion focused on the redirect itself and not what it means or what it is supposed to mean, since the latter has been discussedcountlesstimesalready. FaviFake (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep (unless a good compromise emerges). Its current target includes a sentence on prior talk-page discussion. There are still enough RfC’s that lack that simple step that RFCBEFORE is a useful shortcut. Maybe it’s worth creating WP:RFCDRAFT or WP:RFCWORKSHOP to refer to that admirable, but not required, step of a distinct discussion that comes after a first talk-page discussion and the RfC. Thanks for opening this discussion. Dw31415 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I've been thinking about turning it into a DAB page: You may be looking for...alternatives to try before an RFC vs how to plan an RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Although I think a {{redirect}} notice would be more than sufficient, I do suspect it will end up dabified. Which would probably create even more confusion in the long run. FaviFake (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
A DAB page doesn’t help us use the shortcut as a word. Just like the creation of RFCALT, I think creation of RfC DRAFT/WORKSHOP would create a word for that. Dw31415 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep The shortcut as it stands is exactly as I set it up in 2018, and is a capitalised contraction of its intended destination: Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the process. No other destination is logical or appropriate. I have explained the background to this shortcut at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#What to do about the RFCBEFORE shortcut. --Redrose64🌹 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I never said that the current destination was not logical or appropriate. It's clearly the most logical. The problem is that virtually every user of that shorthand refers to a completely different destination. FaviFake (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Strong keep it is important and useful to have a link to steps that can be done before an RFC. The supposed downsides really arent agreed upon by consensus of community and its not clear strong consensus was achieved in any of those discussions in wt:rfc either about what is misuse of the abbreviation User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 03:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Barely anything productive in this discussion. WalkingDisks (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Let's no rewrite history for 1.4K links? Just create a new one. CNCin solidarity (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
So... that's kind of the problem. We have a lot of editors using this to mean three different things, which I'll roughly summarize here:
Did you really need to start an RFC over this? Any Teahouse host could have given you the answer, if you'd just asked them first.
You didn't have a sufficient prior discussion before starting this. You shouldn't start an RFC unless you have slogged through a long discussion and concluded that it can't be resolved any other way first.
You're not supposed to boldly start an RFC. You're supposed to spend a few days negotiating the wording of the question with your opponents first.
The result is that we have 1,400ish links, but those 1,400 links aren't all saying the same thing. (See also the WP:UPPERCASE page, which is neither WP:SHOUTING nor WP:ALLCAPS.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
This is a lot of speculation. We don't know why RFCBEFORE has been linked 1.4K+ times by different editors, unless we conducted a survey and asked all of those editors, or a selection of them, which I very much hope we won't be doing here. If editors wanted to link to RFCBRIEF then they would of done so. CNCin solidarity (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - Please do not snow close this RFD. Please leave it open for a week. It is strongly trending toward Keep, which is probably the right result, but a valid question is raised that needs discussing. I think that the answer is to rearrange some of the guideline text that that the redirect points to, but this is an issue that needs discussing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the question was already raised on WT:RFC. I do think whatever the question we are trying to answer it needs a proper (ironically) WP:RFCBEFORE workshop. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 17:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I honestly think the last thing we need is an RFCBEFORE on RFCBEFORE, but if editors want to discuss that, then they are more than welcome to. Ideally not as this venue though. CNCin solidarity (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
There is a perennial conflict about it all throughout the years in WT:RFC.we should think about workshopping possible questions from previous discussions that could be addressed by an RFC: What does RFCBEFORE mean? Can you use it to call out a bad rfc? How should that be interpreted or is it nonsensical? What to do with closes for an RFC saying that RFC is premature due to this? Is it ever appropriate to close an rfc for not having had an rfcbefore? Do we need an rfc or is the lack of strict rules here actually useful for WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 18:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
All of your questions except the first are completely irrelevant for a RfD and should not be answered or addressed here. FaviFake (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Changing the meaning would mess up the context of those who have cited it in their comments. If changed, this would need to accounted for as well. Personally, it would be better to create a new redirect like WP:RFCALTERNATIVES for alternative options. (Would not be opposed to it becoming a DAB as that would likely not mess up past comments.) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
There's also WP:RFCNOT, which is things to not try to use an RFC for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Changing 'the' meaning can't be done, because editors aren't using it to mean a single thing.
One of the alternatives is to create a page like Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD, and point it there. Another is to create a dab page listing the common meanings, and telling people to pick the section of RFC most closely aligned with what fits the context. A third option is to create a section in the WP:RFC page to explain the related points (e.g., it's good, but not required, to have a prior discussion; it's good, but neither required nor typical to negotiate the wording of the RFC's question). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Does not seem helpful without a mention. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete This and a host of other redirects were created to Nicotine in April of 2011, despite practically none of them being mentioned at the time (see Old revision of Nicotine). They should likely all be deleted, and this should certainly be deleted. Campbell's Nico-Soap itself appears to be a trade name for a nicotine derived pesticide that is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia (however there is almost nothing on the internet about the product itself). I believe these redirects got created because they are listed as "Depositor-Supplied Synonyms" of nicotine on PubChem. Casablanca 🪨(T) 17:46, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
Target is a distinct item and does not mention green onions. ~ A412talk! 23:06, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Green onion dip sauce is an alternate type of French onion dip. -- Noah Tall (talk) 18:55, 20 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)
Best I could come up with is that this is an obscure meme/dogwhistle. Apparently this is a meme about the target. That been said, it's not documented in any sources and not mentioned at the target. ~ A412talk! 21:02, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, this isn't necessarily obscure; I see this very, very frequently in reference to the Christchurch shootings (particularly on TikTok). Beta Beta Beta - talk 06:20, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I believe you on the frequency; I'm not on TikTok. What do you make of the lack of sourcing? This is not exactly an intuitive target for a reader who searches for "-51". ~ A412talk! 07:03, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirects don't need to be well-sourced. Its quite obvious what this refers to, the question is whether this is a useful redirect. I'm going to lean towards no as it could mean other things and someone looking for the Christchurch shootings is unlikely to use this as their starting term. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 exterminationRace extermination, the meaning is clear enough that an exact mention isn't needed. Jruderman (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as implausible renderings. --Tavix(talk) 14:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete I doubt these are common search terms. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep all as logical search term combinations. Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all as implausible. "Nr" is not a common abbreviation for number in English, and we already have plenty of other similar but less implausible redirects (POTUS 45POTUS 45, 45th POTUS45th POTUS and the like) that are sufficient as search terms. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I have never seen "Nr" commonly used, (or at all) to abbreviate the word number. BlakeM27 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all. "POTUS" is short for "President Of The United States" and "Nr" is short for "number" and is rarely used. Very few people would be actually searching for this, especially because "POTUS Nr. 45 47" is even more implausible. —SimpleObjects-9ei 🎃 (trick or treat 👻) 23:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
term that sees roughly equal use to refer to shrinkflation, inflation, and mcdonald's inflation fetish art (i blame kaa for this). unmentioned in wikipedia, and generally too niche for a redirect anyway consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, this redirect contains multiple misspellings and has a nonstandard disambiguator. There is history, but the content is unsuitable for restoring as it is about as useless as the redirect title, for example containing no sources and being very short. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, I do not think the history is worth saving. If someone wants to create Threatened (Michael Jackson song), they can do it on their own without having it be tied to this redirect. --Tavix(talk) 19:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Quick search with ctrl-f shows no mentions, and presumably not notable. Was nominated before and survived, but consensus can change. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the target but with different capitalisation of Kris and without the punctuation. (Easiest thing is to search for the word "fuck" as that doesn't turn up in too many other places.) That's not to say that I'm !voting keep. The discrepancy in the punctuation counts against it and I'm not sure if a redirect is justified anyway. If the redirect gets deleted then anybody typing the phrase into the search should find the correct article without it so I don't think it is very helpful. I guess I'm neutral leaning delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: It is in the Reception section as the last paragraph. Seems like someone was trying to split the section up in December 2025 and January 2026 based on edits like this. No opinion on if the anchor should stay or not. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I added that to retarget the redirect to the exact paragraph in which it is mentioned for easier finding. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 13:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, there is a mention at the target. It's plausible for searchers to use different formats to find what they may be looking for. --Tavix(talk) 14:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
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 Ppperypointed 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)
These are a few implausible or misleading "minor" redirects which should be deleted.
"Transporting a Minor for Illicit Sex": Implausible, due to weird capitalisation. Online searching could not find any criminal statutes under this name.
"Internet-initiated sex crimes against minors": Misleading, article is about the people, not their actions.
"Minors in the United States military": Misleading. Target contains no information about the United States military at all.
"Minors detained in the War on Terror": Misleading. Target refers specifically to Guantanamo Bay.
"Minor suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict": Implausible. "Minor suicide bombers" is not a term used anywhere else and is a redlink. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all. Unhelpful redirects clearly with an agenda. Go D. Usopp(talk) 08:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I just completed merging content from this page, but I just don't see a way we can make this redirect neutral to both Clemson and Notre Dame. I would note that the unanimous decision in the deletion discussion was to delete, but the result was to merge. Although I, the nominator, originally proposed merging, I believe the more appropriate result would have been to merge then delete. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:MAD. The content has been merged, so the redirect must remain for attribution purposes. Yes, you do have to arbitrarily pick one of the team's season articles to redirect to, but I do think it makes slightly more sense to pick the victor. --Tavix(talk) 14:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
That makes sense. To be honest, when I performed the merge, I realized that I couldn't really find anything actually worthy of being merged except for a game summary, which I placed in the section for the Clemson game on the 2020 Notre Dame season page, but even then I question if that is "over-cluttering" that page. Considering WP:MAD now, I do wish that the discussion resulted in an outright deletion as everyone had voted for, but the closer did make a respectable argument in favor of WP:ATD after I consulted them about it. Red0ctober22 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I do agree with you regarding Spartaz's WP:AFD closure, it reads too much like a supervote. I appreciate the WP:ATD argument, but in that situation it's better served as a !vote rather than a closure—especially given the lack of explanation. --Tavix(talk) 15:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh I'm so sick of everything editors don't agree with is a super vote. I closed it that way because DRV expects closers to prioritise an ATD. If you think that's wrong participate at DRV and influence expectations. SpartazHumbug! 18:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Hmmm. If you don't want to be accused of supervoting, then perhaps don't make closures that give that appearance? Or better yet, if you're going to be finding in favor of a minority, explain why you're closing it that way? --Tavix(talk) 18:36, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to 2020 ACC Championship Game, which was also a 2020 Clemson vs. Notre Dame football game, and add more substantial content to that article about their earlier game that season, for which their championship game was a same-season rematch with the opposite outcome. It is frankly odd that the article on the championship game doesn't mention their earlier meeting at all. BD2412T 16:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Per WP:FORRED, Malaysian is not a common language in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Gorjestan is actually Persian, not Malaysian; the exonym "Georgia" does actually have Persian roots ("Land of Wolves"). The Persian name is mentioned at names of Georgia#Gruziya. 9ninety (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to names of Georgia per above if it’s also the Persian name for the US state. ~2026-56879-61 (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 22:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Names of Georgia where it is mentioned. I assume the TA above intended to write "it it's not also the Persian name for the US state"–it isn't, the state is called Jorjiyâ. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Names of Georgia §Gruziya. This can be renominated if the mention is later deleted. Until then, this helps with finding Wikipedia's coverage of this name and its cognates. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 08:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
vague between the gbc that has the only pokémon ever on it (which is mentioned and shown in the article) and the four pokémon games on the gbc (gold, silver, crystal, pinball); not really a plausible term for either. note that both have history as unsourced blars, but nothing came out of them consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 21:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per nom --Lenticel(talk) 00:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned at target or anywhere else, removed as uncited in Special:Diff/1354698694 ~ A412talk! 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)
Not mentioned at target, does not appear to be the full English name of anything. Search, books, and scholar give only PTMs. ~ A412talk! 19:57, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per nom. DDG search didnt turn up good info about this too --Lenticel(talk) 00:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Breeding grounds
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close
Delete - term not used in article. Was apparently some other work(?) that was a likely hoax per old VfD. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate; unless a better alternative can be found or consensus is established to remove the hatnotes and see also sections (the latter not necessarily being a great idea). Redirects, including soft redirects, do not contain any content. Link boxes are the exception because they are not content but navigational redirect aids in and of themselves. WP:TOU currently disambuguates between Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (in the hatnote), wmf:Policy:Terms of Use (the target of the soft redirect), and Wikipedia:Wikimedia policy (listed in the see also). WP:PRIV also does this in regard to two pages. Given the prominence of these pages, it is not a good to provide a poor example of a soft redirect (which can be an arcane subject of understanding) to so many (be it they seasoned or freshly minted). TOU, for example existed as non-redirect from 2004-2014, a proper soft redirect from 2014-2016, and was finally distorted in late 2016. Thus, while a disambiguation page (similar to e.g. WP:WMP) is not a perfect solution, it is an improvement. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:06, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Myceteae: I had imagined two separate technical 'disambiguation' pages, viz. Wikipedia:Terms of use & Wikipedia:Privacy policy. Whatever anyone finds appropriate to list on them is fine, such as WP:BLPPRIVACYWP:BLPPRIVACY & WP:PRIVACYWP:PRIVACY which you mention. They could even be converted to short information pages of sorts (or list, set index, etc.) if desired. I suppose my argument at its core is that these cease to be redirects. A redirect should not contain a see also section, hatnote, etc. (i.e. any form of disambuguating or other content); soft redirects are a technical solution applied when hard redirects are not able (intentionally or not software-wise) to function, but are still bound by the conventions of hard redirects (that is, no one would argue for content of any kind on a hard redirect—outside of an rcat or category which are entirely different beasts). If these are to remain as soft redirects, then the hatnotes, see also sections, etc. should be removed. Linkboxes or historical tags (the inclusion limit) are sometimes present—e.g. Wikipedia:Ambassador Program & WP:VAIN—as navigational relics and due to deprecation respectively. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:25, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
I find disambiguation rather silly. I don't see the point of marking (Tag: Disambiguation links added) to every edit that links to the terms of use and privacy policy Wikipedia pages. This statement refers to more than those two pages, but also any other soft redirects converted into "disambiguation pages", for example Wikipedia:Trolling where certain talk pages of politicians get tagged as disambiguation links added. Unhelpful "disambiguating" clutters recent changes pages filtered with the disambiguation links tag, and marking former soft redirects that have "See also" content or hatnotes as disambiguation pages isn't helping anyone who patrols the addition of disambiguation links. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Just noting (after pondering) that perhaps a good solution would be to purify the soft redirects (i.e. leave just the soft redirect template on the pages by removing any hat notes, see also sections, etc.). {{Legal policy}} could remain, or it could be converted to {{shortcut}} (and Category:Wikipedia policies, Category:Wikipedia legal policies, or both could be retained manually if desired).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:11, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
@Godsy, I guess the question is: Do we think the pseudo-dab setup is helpful? In other words, are readers who type or click one of these reasonably likely to expect to find a different policy/page than the redirect target? Or maybe readers don't know what they are looking for but are wondering if we have a terms of use or privacy policy. The likelihood that some disambiguation is helpful seems high to me but I don't know how people actually end up on these pages or what they expect. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
My rationale for the previous listing 5 months ago was just bordered to get them deleted, RETURNTORED or not! But now, never mind return to red, it is possible that since they are television channels that needed notability as they were in their prime in the 2000s and 2010s, that cannot be found outside press releases and primary sources. The page histories contain sources already incubated in the current target, so they're safe to go! Intrisit (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per the previous discussion. Your rationale is utterly incomprehensible—I can't tell if you want there to be an article on this subject or not. If you do, then feel free to restore the article in the history as was suggested last time. --Tavix(talk) 19:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
For some reason, "Broadcast satellite" currently has multiple hatnotes pointing to Broadcasting Satellite (Japanese) (→ Yuri (satellite)), but the three closer terms all pointing to the same other target have none...
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)
Game Watch
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Weak keep Potential miscapitalization, but I mostly just don't see a better target. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
weak retarget to game & watch as a plausible enough misremembering of the name. the one mention in the target is in the context of what would become a top tier in ssbu, and if confusions were to exist, the hatnote can have a reader covered consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 19:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
We could delete to facilitate searching instead (although I'm not sure if the lowercase version would interfere anyways...); the results include all of the proposed targets. There is no content in the history, just redirects (briefly Nelsonic Industries, and then Handheld electronic game).
Alternatively, if this is retargeted, the hatnote created by User:Tevildo at Handheld electronic game, {{Redirect|Game Watch|the Nintendo console|Game & Watch|the Nelsonic Industries product line|Nelsonic Game Watch|the IT news website|Impress Watch}}, should be moved to the new target and adjusted as appropriate.
Or we could could convert that into a DAB page, and perhaps tag it with {{broad-concept article}}.
I'll just repeat my comment from the last RfD that Nelsonic Industries is probably the best target, as their product is actually called "Game Watch" with that spacing and capitalization. But the status quo seems acceptable. Tevildo (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh, good point. If the orthography is a distinguishing characteristic, that is a valid argument as per WP:SMALLDETAILS. However, frequency of usage can override it; I'm not sure how to judge that here. Solomon Ucko (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Sollyucko Fair, but the stylization is inconsistent. At least in some Wikipedia references, the website is called just Game Watch, ditto in Template:Video game journalism. Granted, maybe the solution here is to fix things in the template and our citations? But it is, obviously, not an uncommon error. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Per Sollyucko, the website is GAME Watch, and Sollyucko's solution (with three different targets depending on capitalization) would probably work per WP:DIFFCAPS. Tevildo (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the lack of consensus and the recent discussion, I was tempted to just close this. Since it hasn't been relisted yet, though, we'll give it another chance. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Draft:Lula Da Silva
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
The targets do not talk about any such "beings". Some of them were articles that were BLAR'ed. Should they point to a common target? There is a section #Machine_consciousness,_sentience,_and_mind at Artificial Intelligence, that touches upon the philosophical aspect of it, and which in turn hatnotes to the main articles Philosophy of artificial intelligence, Artificial consciousness and Hard problem of consciousness. Or could they target robots or cyborgs? Jay 12:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. A search shows that the phrases seem to be used occasionally, but without any consistency as to what is being described. I suspect that attempting to provide a 'common target' would involve misdirection more often than actually helping the reader. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Per AndyTheGrump; too vague. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
The entire time this redirect has existed, 2nd Street was either not covered at the target article or was a blank section (essentially not covered at the article). It seems that this would be best deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 00:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The best solution is to add a section on the street, which I have done. (1st street was described as radiating in two directions from the Arch, which feels so St. Louis, so I kept that format for 2nd St.) --Tavix(talk) 14:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that. However, I note that there are also redirects for all the other numbered streets up to 25th. Of those, 4th, 6th-11th, 13th-17th, 19th-21st, and 24th are all unmentioned. I guess these should all be bundled here–unless there's anything noteworthy about them, of course. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
A description of those streets can and should be added to the article as well. --Tavix(talk) 14:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Rosbif73 @Tavix would either of you mind if I closed this early as keep now that there's content added? Casablanca 🪨(T) 20:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
No objection here regarding 2nd Street. I don't know St Louis but find it unlikely there will be something encyclopedic to say about all the other unmentioned ones, though those can be dealt with in a future RfD if necessary. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
No indication that he's called "Dave", either in the article, or any of the sources I spot checked. A web search finds nothing but a few hits for a different, non-notable individual who goes by Dave, so delete. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 21:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, Dave is a common nickname for someone named David. Non-notable people with the name are irrelevant, someone looking for a non-notable person won't find them whether or not this redirect exists. --Tavix(talk) 21:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Why keep though? While it's a common nickname generally, there's no real basis or need to create redirects of the form "Dave X" for every "David X" we have an article on. Such redirects should only exist for Davids that actually commonly go by Dave. Ditto other common nicknames. And on top of that, people still may be looking for a nonnotable individual. We shouldn't point them to someone who shares a similar, but different name, we should simply not direct them anywhere but search results. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 22:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
If someone thinks he's a Dave, it's a useful redirect. If someone is looking for someone else, they're also not going to be helped by search results so it feels silly to lead someone there. Slap an {{R from incorrect name}} tag on it if there's no evidence of him using the nickname. --Tavix(talk) 14:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
If someone thinks his name is Steve, then that would be useful too. But there's a limit to what sort of potential utility we're willing to offer, especially when that has to be weighed against other factors, like people being misled into thinking that's an actual nickname he uses, especially when you haven't provided any actual documentation of people making this error. If you think this sort of redirect is okay, you should head over to WP:BOTREQ and request a bot create "Dave" redirects for every "David" article we have. And while you're at it, you can add it "Bob", "Rob", "Bobby", "Robby", and "Robbie" for every single "Robert" article we have, the possibilities are endless! See just how much support your idea gets, then we can revisit this one. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 16:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
It's safe to assume a connection between Dave and David because Dave is a common nickname for David. The same is not true between Steve and David. The creation of this redirect is evidence that such an error has been made. And yes, I would support the bot request you mention. --Tavix(talk) 17:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The user who created that redirect has been blocked indefinitely for "Persistent addition of unsourced content" (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1000#h-Mozart834428196-2019-01-14T21:18:00.000Z for more details), so I think that is a very weak piece of evidence. I am voting delete unless you can show a reliable source that uses "Dave" to refer to the "English conspiracy theorist, author and a former semi-professional footballer, sports journalist and broadcaster" (it doesn't have to list all of that, just clearly identify the right person). (I might also be willing to accept a broad enough range of unreliable sources that are independent of each other. -- In this case, I think we should have the redirect without mentioning the nickname in the article, but make sure that the redirect's history documents that sourcing.)
I strongly disagree with having a bot create a large number of questionable redirects. I am tentatively okay with automatically creating common nickname redirects for disambiguation pages and set index articles, since then there's no claim that any specific person uses that nickname and there's a good chance that one of the people does, but not for an individual biography, unless it mentions the nickname and, if done with naive heuristics, its editors are notified so that they can react if the nickname was actually used to refer to someone other than its subject.
Adding an rcat is good, but my assumption is that only a very small fraction of users would click back to the redirect page to see it, so having such a redirect would still be misleading to the rest. In contrast, when Wikipedia searches for the entered phrase, that means 'we don't have anything by that title, but here are some guesses for what you might be looking for'. So as long as each David is at or near the top of the results for each corresponding Dave ... search, that seems sufficient to me.
@Sollyucko: I don't think the author's block is relevant here because the bar is attestation not verification. However, since you've asked for examples, here are a couple that I found in a cursory search: . --Tavix(talk) 19:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! I doubt either of those is an RS, but I think together they're good enough to keep the redirect, especially since they show such usage in multiple different topics. Solomon Ucko (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom and the guideline WP:RPURPOSE, which says redirects can be created for "Alternative forms of a name as found in reliable sources and common databases". A WP:GTEST I did for Dave Icke produced page after page for a famous businessman by that name and nothing by the time I stopped for David Icke the author and conspiracy theorist. 5Q5|✉ 11:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@5Q5: Did you miss the sources I provided above attesting that "Dave Icke" has been used for David Icke? Also, it seems you have a twisted sense of the word 'famous'. That guy isn't even notable by Wikipedia standards, which is a much lower bar than famous. --Tavix(talk) 13:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@Tavix: The first source offered above as evidence for Dave Icke > David Icke is an anonymous-authored, conspiratorial, antisemtic WordPress blog post that accuses Israel of master-minding 9/11 and only pretending Arabs were involved (these are words from the article). As such, it is fringe and not a RS. I can't get the WordPress domain to open on Firefox or Edge desktop browsers, but it will open on my phone. The second source is, yes, reliable and documents a use for 1968 when Icke was 16 years old playing sports. RPURPOSE requires plural reliable sources. If another RS can be found for "Dave Icke" beyond the one, I'll revise my vote. Maybe there's something buried in British newspaper archives? 5Q5|✉ 12:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
If you want to look for sources in British newspapers, be my guest, but I'm afraid you're missing the point. I needn't jump through so many hoops to prove to you that Dave is a valid nickname for someone named David. The sources I provided are to demonstrate that our David has been called Dave—you don't need to perform a reliability check for simple attestation purposes. --Tavix(talk) 13:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Leaning keep per Tavix. Use in the wild need not be flattering or even good to support the mere existence of a redirect from a common nickname. BD2412T 16:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Non-notable person not mentioned anywhere on enwiki (except in passing in a citation in Thais in Hong Kong), so I suggest deletion (without prejudice against recreation). Duckmather (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
Why should this be redirected instead of being... not a valid entry at all? Googling "underwear culture" turns up nothing. 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 18:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This redirect is unhelpful as a search term and too vague. Anyone looking for this season of a Spanish talent show is not going to do so by typing in the generic word "Season", a number, and a year. This was created from a page move, meaning the article was created under this extremely ambiguous title. Eman7blue42 (talk page|recent edits) 16:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It was at the old title for less than a couple weeks a decade ago. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 07:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per nom --Lenticel(talk) 07:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
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.
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)
Delete as there is no information about this program at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. It was removed 2 months back as a ..minor discontinued program. Jay 14:54, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
If this is indeed not mentioned anywhere, deletion seems reasonable to me. The redirect has no main-space links, and no history beyond this redirect.
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 takconsarn(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?
"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)
redirects from other languages which also have spelling mistakes aren't very plausible, even ignoring the lack of demonstrated affinity with persian consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 11:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Non-notable quote not discussed within the target article. Unlike other legitimate catchphrases and film quotes, this has no significant coverage and was only created with a WP:RECENTISM bias under the pretense that it is used as a purported "meme", but that does not make it notable in and of itself. This isn't Wikiquote, after all. —Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 10:59, 26 October 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)
Unhelpful redirect. No such instance of this name exists anywhere within the target article. —Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 10:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Upon further inspection, it appears that this term originated from this MCU Fandom Wiki entry that was established earlier this year, although it appears to be an editorialized coined term and nothing officially used, considering it is also not used at the MCU timeline article that was thoroughly vetted. "Prime Universe" is definitely an ambiguous term as it could be used to refer to Earth-616 of Marvel Comics, as quoted in Ultimates 2 (Vol. 2) #9, or Earth Prime and Earth-One from DC Comics, or Prime (Malibu Comics). —Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 14:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Neither iPhone 3G nor iPhone 3GS even mentions "crack" nor did so when this was redirected to each of them, so I don't see a legitimate reason for either target. The responsible user has been blocked for abusing socket-puppets, so it might very well be vandalism. They couldn't've gotten confused with the iPhone Duo, because it didn't exist at the time.
iPhone 3G use appears to be real: , . That being said, that use seems obscure, so retarget to iPhone Duo#Inner display cracking (Crackgate) as the dominant current-day use, and hatnotes can be added if a mention is added to the iPhone 3G or Rob Ford articles in the future. ~ A412talk! 07:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It's the name of the official website of the Cricket West Indies, not the team. Propose retargeting. Vestrian24Bio 08:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is the former official name for the team (CWI rebranded its representative teams to Windies in 2017, but that seems to have been reversed), as well its still widely-used nickname. The Primary Topic for "Windies" is the men's cricket team. Spike 'em (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
By searching through the history of articles at they seemed to drop the name in about 2019. Spike 'em (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. the nickname seems more applicable to the team than the parent organization. older ≠ wiser 10:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned in target. No independent sigcov that I could find beyond a screenshot on a PC Gamer article, which does not mention the meme in the actual article and hence does not count. Go D. Usopp(talk) 03:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep the ones with "and" per the acronyms/collective terms discussed at Maintenance §Definitions, or delete them as WP:XY if that would be too confusing. Retarget Repairer and Repairman to Handyman as those terms refer to a role or type of person rather than directly to the work they do. Note the bold synonyms at Handyman. Retarget the rest to Corrective maintenance as "repair" and its variations by themselves imply that something is broken and needs "fixing" or, synonymously, "mending". Maintenance is a much broader topic, and can include routine work to maintain continued function of things that haven't broken yet and as such do not need repair. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
This is a very big vote, but I think it makes sense to me for us to DisambiguateRepair with links to every pages the listed redirects send you to, and Redirect everything else to Repair. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Every? The redirects currently only go to two, one of which is a subtopic for the other, that subtopic being corrective maintenance, which states in bold that it is synonymous with repair. The only reason repair is mentioned at maintenance is because repair is a type of maintenance, but maintenance is not synonymous with repair so linking it at a a disambiguation page is not appropriate. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - First of all, IMHO, this RFD should be split into one entry per term, as this could become cumbersome. That said:
Since these are closely related, I do think we should discuss them together rather than fragmenting the conversation, even if distinguishing the subcases is a bit annoying.
I've removed DNA repair and Right to repair from the disambiguation page as partial title matches (PTM). They are never referred to as just "repair" by itself and it's not appropriate to list them on the disambiguation page except maybe in a see also. Repair and deduct may also be a PTM but I'm not sure; I'm not familiar with United States law I've left it. If it is a PTM, please remove it too. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 22:28, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - Would it be OK if we voted on the redirect destinations? If so, should someone create ten fifth level indenture sections, or should we relist each term in their own fourth level section? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 22:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Serbia and Montenegro men's national under-19 basketball team
I would like to delete this redirect. Serbia and Montenegro, including its former name FR Yugoslavia, have never played any under-19 basketball tournament. Maiō T. (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
This is more of a content issue, than a redirect issue. The target article does mention this team. Also, I just notified of this discussion at the target and creator talk pages. Jay 17:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The mention at the #New national teams section looks like general information about the countries, not their youth basketball teams. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I had closed this discussion as delete, but I am instead relisting following a request on my talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 14:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
Noting the comment on Tavix's talk page from Jay(talk·contribs): "All the links at the #New national teams section are for the under-19 teams, and that includes Serbia and Montenegro whose under-19 team is a redlink now." That's accurate for the bulleted list at that section. I should have been more specific: I was referring to the prose before that list, which indeed links to general country names, not sports teams of any sort. So I agree with his earlier comment that this is a content issue. My conclusion is still delete, though. Unanswered is the question of whether the country of Serbia and Montenegro ever had such a team. If it did, delete per WP:REDLINK. If it didn't, delete because it never existed. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
If it existed, which the target says it did, from 1992 to 2006, does it deserve an article, or is this redirect sufficient? If it didn't exist, and the target is wrong, the entry needs to be removed from the target, and this redirect deleted. However, there is an incoming link from FIBA Europe and I tried hard, but couldn't find where it is linked in that article. Jay 08:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:REDLINK. Serbia and Montenegro separated in 2006. Just one year later, Serbia hosted (and won!) the 2007 FIBA Under-19 World Championship. I think it's safe to say this team existed, brand new teams don't get to host and win major tournaments like that. --Tavix(talk) 16:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
And interestingly, there is no mention whatsoever of Montenegro on that page. The team may have just been representing Serbia after all, then. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Maiō T.: What would you like to do with the team entry at the target article? Jay 16:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Jay: Okay, I came up with something cool, click here. Maiō T. (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
The section is unsourced, but otherwise looks good! Jay 04:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts given the new content at the target page? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This term is not a widely used synonym for The Game and does not appear anywhere else in the article. Xoontor (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
return to red per previous deletion (where it's still unmentioned outside of the one incoming link, where it's not supported by the associated source), but also per creation
...well, at least i'll suggest doing that, but search results imply that usage of the term was limited to buffy the vampire slayer fans and somehow literally no other demographic before its deletion 18 years ago (eighteen! ah! ah! ah!), niche in that context back then, and has dropped significantly since then, so i wouldn't count too much on it consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 15:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to vampire lifestyle, as "vampirecore" as a term refers to aesthetics associated with vampires, so this is probably the most appropriate target. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Retargeting it to vampire lifestyle seems to be a good decision. Vampirecore is clearly an aesthetic connected to Vampires, and people who practice Vampiric lifestyle are the closest to it From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete "Vampirecore" is not synonymous with "vampire lifestyle". It could just be used to describe media that is heavily vampire-themed or glorifies vampires. Retargeting it would be an unnecessary amount of assumption about what the person is searching for. It should be sent back to the coffin deleted in preparation for its glorious rise as a notable article or to let the search function give people a list of possibilities without assuming they are searching for one of many potential definitions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget because the page mentions aesthetics and subculture. ~2026-55841-55 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts on ZXC's comments? How much weight should they hold here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 15:58, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
This was created in 2013 by a 13-edit account called "Wagger pagger bagger":) wikt:gagger does not mention hot dog. It seems to be either a machining term or a comedy term synonymous to gagman, so it should be disambiguated, but for the former I don't know what a good article would be to mention. --Joy (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget toDisambiguate with gagman and Hot wiener, for which this is a nickname according to sources such as this. A mention on that page would of course be highly desirable. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
OK but then we can start by moving this to e.g. gagger (food) and disambiguating gagger between that and gagman? --Joy (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Rosbif73 ping ^:) --Joy (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think we need a (food) disambiguator, surely we can simply transform the current Gagger redirect into a dab page. Indeed, I've just drafted one, and updated my !vote accordingly. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thanks! --Joy (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
what about gag? LIrala (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 15:56, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
@LIrala:what about gag? What about it? Are you suggesting it as an alternative target? Note that I've included a See also link to Gag (disambiguation) on the proposed Gagger dab page. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Wrong venue? This is a disambiguation page (per orange link setting), but it also has a redirect? I am confused. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@OneReaction5890: You are confused because the disambiguation content (including the template that makes the link orange) was added after this discussion began, which is a permissible step during a discussion where disambiguation is a possible outcome. BD2412T 17:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Given the human propensity to be human, there are almost certainly attestable meanings of this term in the realms of fellatio and bulimia. BD2412T 20:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
both of those would be better off retargeted to samus aran, but should it be refined to #design as well? consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 13:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Man, that's a bad picture of it there, though. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 15:00, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
i'd really prefer a sprite or screenshot, but that discussion is best saved for later consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 15:11, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose In the case of Morphing [sic] Ball, it is literally not called that in any other series game, AFAIK. Morphing [sic] Ball is a Super Metroid-only gameplay element. Morph Ball is heading to its proper place, an entry explaining its gameplay usage in the Metroid series.. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:44, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
why would someone who isn't a metroid fan know or care about the distinction? consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 11:32, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Why assume that someone searching for "Morphing Ball" is making a typo when it's more likely they are searching for Super Metroid? "Morph Ball" is by far the most common and widely known name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:36, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
for starters, there's a chance a reader wouldn't know what a morph ball was in the first place, and search based on not fully knowing what it is. being taken to a section that explains how it works in one single specific game could, among other stuff, lead them to believe that the morph ball is only in super metroid (which people familiar with, say, prime, dread, and prime pinball, would know might not be the case)
and just a little more importantly, the article outright refers to the form as "morph ball" and clarifies that "morphing ball" is just what that game calls it, so having different targets for both would make things surprising for a reader who, for whatever reason, decides to search a thing more than once, and has learned by at least the second time that it really is called "morph ball" consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 11:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 15:56, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
"Bad guy" can refer to villain, antagonist, or real-life criminal, yet it redirects only to villain. I think it may be better to retarget to the DAB page... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
retarget to Bad Guy dab page. There are good targets there to point the reader to whatever they want --Lenticel(talk) 00:07, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Ehhhh, keep I guess. First, per WP:DIFFCAPS, the dab page is capitalized, as every entry there (barring the intro note about the plain meaning) is a proper name. And antagonists aren't always the bad guy (just as protagonists aren't always the good guy). And the colloquial usage as villain is far more plausible a way to look that up than it is to look up criminal. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 00:14, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Antagonists aren't always bad, but "bad guy" can be more metaphorical than literal. I still believe its obvious target is not always villain - not enough for a forced redirect at least. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:37, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Retargeting to the disambiguation page, and formatting a common section at the top, seems like a good idea. A primary redirect is a bit too much on the side of WP:NOTDICT. --Joy (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Deacon Vorbis. Also worth noting that though the nomination implies that "villian" excludes real people, the article Villain explicitly includes both real and fictional people. It seems to me that the current target already encompasses the full breadth of what "villain" or "bad guy" means. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 12:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
While real people can controversially be called villains, as a whole it is not typically used to describe an actual person because it refers to a fictional antagonist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep The uncapitalized version is on the very top of the disambiguation page. To me, it seems that "Bad guy" in lower case almost exclusively refers to a villain. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think makes sense to retarget to the dab page, since it defines the villain meaning ("type of character in fiction and other narratives") as the primary topic at the top. Retargeting to dab would imply there isn't a primary topic, which contradicts the dab page. So, keep. I will say that I think the villain article should establish a distinction between the term and antagonist, as they're often colloquially used synonymously. 9ninety (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I think what goes unsaid here is that current WP:disambiguation page content is not gospel, and the proposal is to amend it as well, to make this ambiguity more explicit. Likewise we can choose to amend villain to explain it, because that's also not unimpeachable:) It depends on how much practical ambiguity there is. --Joy (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Bad Guy when the term "bad guy" doesn't necessarily mean villain, and this term isn't even mentioned on the current target page anyway. Even with an appropriate mention on article, let's not downplay how the phrase "bad guy" is often another way of calling someone a "jerk" or "mean—spirited". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:22, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 15:55, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Bad Guy "Bad guy" doesn't necesserally mean villain. If you saw some shoplifter stealing 2 packs of gum, he would probably be classed as a bad guy. no-one's gonna say he's a villain.Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 21:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
NuqneH
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Deletion is a dish best served speedily
Page can be deleted, as it was moved as soon as it was created, so redirect is not needed. Husskeyy (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
You can just tag it for speedy deletion with WP:G7 in that case. However, I think the original disambiguator (retail chain) is actually better than the new one (South Africa) in this case. Maybe there's a better one still, though. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 15:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Although it might have been an accident, I feel like this is a more reasonable title than the current one. Possibly worth taking to WP:RFM. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
There is also Game (retailer); that article should also be moved, and the titles with "retail chain" and "retailer" can be redirected to the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: RM is still open. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 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)
This is apparently an album from the target, but a Wikipedia search shows several people with the name, including Darinka, Princess of Montenegro, and I doubt the primary topic would be the album, which doesn't have an article. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate as is the case with people given names. Go D. Usopp(talk) 01:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
dabify per above --Lenticel(talk) 01:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Mathguy2718, Go D. Usopp, and Lenticel: Just for technical correctness, since this would primarily be a list of given names, the action would be conversion to a list. Lists of given names are not disambiguation pages. BD2412T 17:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm fine with lists if that's the outcome. --Lenticel(talk) 00:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I have drafted the list under the redirect. BD2412T 12:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
cf Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 October 24#Donald Trump criminal redirects. Utterly pointless redirect; it's a useless search term...it's longer than just the plain base title -- we don't make these for other people that have been convicted of felonies. It's also misleading since it doesn't point to anything specific about this fact, and even if it did, see the previous statement. Strong delete. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 00:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. How does WP:G10 apply? He was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records which makes him a convicted felon who has, e.g., lost the right to own, possess, or purchase a firearm under New York state and federal law. But we should avoid labels, and I doubt that anyone would ever type this as a search term, so I'm !voting delete. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:29, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as unlikely search term at best --Lenticel(talk) 01:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mgasparin (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, not per G10 due to factual accuracy, but due to being a highly unlikely search term. Bloated and Frozen (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Not inaccurate, but unnecessary and probably intentionally inflammatory. PotatoCow25 (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
This redirect is pointless, useless, unnecessary, and is in need of being deleted from this website. This family is not mentioned at the target. It seems as if the creator of this redirect misspelled the name of the family.Aneirinn (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh, the Goings and Goins family are the same family. They're often mentioned together, but I understand the cause for your confusion. If you'd like me to show you RSes showing this, there are many, feel free to ask. The spellings that last now are Goins/Goings, but there used to be Guyens/Goin/Goyen/Goyens, etc. I just include Goings as it's the only one surviving and mentioned often in RSes for modern people (other than Goins). Theevu (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I think this is better suited to redirect to Goings now that it has been created. Aneirinn (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Fine with me actually. Thanks for making this page! I might adjust it back later when I expand the subheading w/ cites to include the Goings/Going/Goyen/Goyens spellings too, but this is much better for now as - as you say - the Goings spelling isn't mentioned at the target. Theevu (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
There is also a yacht with this name, neither topic has any real detail and neither are notable. Suggest deletion to favour search results. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Multiple mentions on-wiki to different topics, none are notable and none have any clear claim to primary status. Deletion in favour of search results is more helpful here. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Unhelpful ' redirect. Go D. Usopp(talk) 16:32, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Neutral per below nomination. I don't see why inherently this is unhelpful. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 17:43, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Organhaver Wikipedia does not use curly apostrophes in article titles per MOS:APOSTROPHE. There are already redirects with the correct straight apostrophes, which should turn up on Google Search shall they be reviewed instead of the ones with curly apostrophes. Go D. Usopp(talk) 01:49, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Unhelpful ' redirect created as an error. Go D. Usopp(talk) 16:09, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Neutral. Seems to be one of the films in the series. If this was an error, could've been G6. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 17:42, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Organhaver Wikipedia does not use curly apostrophes in article titles per MOS:APOSTROPHE. There are already redirects with the correct straight apostrophes, which should turn up on Google Search shall they be reviewed instead of the ones with curly apostrophes. Go D. Usopp(talk) 01:49, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, that was quite unclear to me. I didn't know the issue was on curly quotes (and the symbol used in the rationale isn't even a curly one...?) ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 04:15, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
@Organhaver Took me a while to realize that I forgot to type the curly apostrophe there. Go D. Usopp(talk) 07:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
sort of similarly to prime 1, this is only plausible as a thing you say or a search term in contexts already about metroid (such as discussions about it). unlike it, it's a little too vague in terms of use for me to have found a fitting target, even ignoring the part where 4 isn't a prime number consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 19:04, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Prime (symbol), as it's an alternate name for a quadruple prime, which is more likely than people searching for Metroid 4. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:38, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm sort of neutral on keeping vs. deleting, but I strongly oppose redirecting to the symbol, as a wildly implausible search term, especially compared to the game. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 07:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 16:24, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
DeleteTrump (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. KeepInmate 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)
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 deleteTrump (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. RetargetInmate P01135809 to Mug shot of Donald Trump#Background, which mentions his inmate number, and to align it with the redirect P01135809P01135809 which also points to that same article. Redireditor(talk) 14:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I can't find "Shwovish" in Google Books. It seems an editor called User:Imersion started this in these 2022 edits. But "schwowisch" does appear in books, this does not, so it appears to be a WP:NOR violation. --Joy (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
I propose that this redirect be deleted. (1) This page was started as WP:OR. (2) It is very unlikely that someone would use the title of that page as a search term. ~2026-55400-49 (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete The "ANALYSIS" in the title pushes this into implausibility. The only reason I can see for why this might be kept is that it has history. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think it is really necessary to retain that page, regardless of the title. It looks like most of the contents copied from that page at the time are no longer in the current revision. ~2026-55440-76 (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or Move without leaving redirect? Also, there are 3 temp accounts in this discussion, and it's not clear if the 3rd is same as one of the prior two. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 08:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget/move per Solomon Ucko's suggestion, makes sense and page history can be kept. ...to my knowledge. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 17:28, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, unsure if the TA situation matters for this (?) It's okay if there's however many. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 17:29, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Canadiens
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
I am doubtful on whether French Canadians is the primary topic of the term "Canadiens" among anglophones at large. While there was a previous discussion for this specific redirect 12 years ago, it seems woefully deficient in multiple ways:
The discussion did not properly address whether the word "Canadiens" itself more commonly means either the hockey team or the ethnic group within the anglosphere, whether via arguments based on usage data, arguments based on where and how often would a general audience would be exposed to each meaning of "Canadiens" in daily life, etc.
It doesn't address properly how much "Canadiens" is even used by Anglophones anymore to refer to French Canadians after the emergence of e.g. "French Canadians". Statements in the French Canadians article like "referred to as Canadiens mainly before the nineteenth century" (emphasis mine) need to be addressed, because a problem arises if the usage of "Canadiens" for French Canadians turns out to be on its way out.
Global anglosphere reach of the meanings of "Canadiens" was not properly addressed. The fact that the Montreal Canadiens often play against teams representing faraway and foreign anglophone locations generally annually (and for a century now), and has sent multiple players to the Olympics (obviously a global event) gives the team a big headstart over the "French-Canadian" meaning (which I am not sure is even known in e.g. the southern or western United States, or even Western Canada) on these grounds.
Given these deficiencies, a fresh discussion is warranted. My first preference is a disambiguation page, by the way. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 18:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Should we add Canadien to this nomination as well? Having Canadien as a primary redirect, but not Canadiens, is not necessarily the best outcome here. 162 etc. (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
CanadienCanadien may be worth discussing but it's likely to be correct already, as the ice hockey team is referred to mainly in the plural and the other meanings aren't popular. (Parti canadien gets the second most views, one twentieth of French Canadians.) Certes (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not finding any evidence that "CanadienCanadien" is used in English to refer to French Canadians (except perhaps historically–if we are to believe the lead of that article; the usage is cited to an offline source that I can't verify), nor that there is any significant usage of the singular form referring to the ice hockey team, and would be strongly tempted to suggest moving the dab page to the base name. But that probably ought to be discussed as a separate RM rather than here. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to the disambiguation page and modify the led of the dab to mention the hockey team — in the Canada-adjacent anglosphere, the hockey team is one of the primary topics that comes to mind more commonly than the ethnic group. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Montreal Canadiens as primary topic for the plural, well ahead of French Canadians in all but historic use. I'm based in France and I would have expected a search for "canadiens" -wikipedia to bring up hits relating to Canadian people, but in fact even in this primarily French-language context all the hits on the first 10 pages (I stopped checking after that) relate to the hockey team and I had to add -hockey to see other uses of the term. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 08:22, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
This song is not mentioned in the target article or Polo G. However, this subject is mention in a list of songs in both Burna Boy discography and Polo G discography, but neither one of them have any context for this subject, as well as the fact that there are two potential targets, it is not clear why one target should be preferred over the other. Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as there is no secondary coverage of the song and it is most likely not notable enough to warrant a redirect. If there's a compelling reason to have a redirect somewhere, I would be okay with redirect to Burna Boy discography. (A quick Internet search quickly shows that it is Burna Boy's song and Polo G is featured on it.) I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 00:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Burna Boy discography#Singles. The song is credited as by Burna Boy with a feature by Polo G, so the Burna Boy discography article would be the more primary topic. मल्ल (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:02, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Nominator comment: I believe it would be more helpful for our readers if this redirect was deleted per WP:REDLINK rather than pointing to one article over the other considering both articles contain the same amount of information: Only naming the subject in a list without any sentences describing the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Burna Boy discography#Singles per मल्ल. The source there confirms that Polo G is the featured artist, so I don't see an WP:XY problem. Want It All (Burna Boy song) probably needs the same treatment, whereas Want It All (Polo G song) probably shouldn't exist (though I don't know offhand if there is a good precedent for it). --BDD (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For nom's later rationale of deleting per REDLINK. Or is the topic not notable enough? Also bundling the similar redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 07:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
No such section and no information about this software at the target. The section was added in January of this year, and removed in August as a minor and legacy subsection. There is a mention at another software - Kross (software) - where Dogtail is mentioned as an example, and in brackets, and wouldn't be a suitable target. Delete, and remove from the Dogtail disambig as well. Jay 06:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not mentioned significantly, and no other suitable targets. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 17:26, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete this redirect as it is not useful and not mentioned at the target. Aneirinn (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
new creation. To be deleted because it is misleading and clutter for enwiki database. "Estonian" refers to country Estonia Estopedist1 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2026 (UTC
It was simply a spelling mistake, my applogiesStrattonsmith (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Perhaps this could've been speedy deleted as R3. Anyways, does seem like a reasonable typo, and there isn't worry for "clutter" regarding redirects. Will change my !vote if other evidence for delete is presented. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 17:24, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a misleading misnomer. It was created there accidentally, and moved shortly after, It's an obscure topic, and unlikely that anyone's going to need this to find it. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 19:00, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The target shouldn't appear as one of the results when searching "Estonian". It was created in error, and there is no connection of the hotel to Estonia. Deleting the redirect will make the target no longer show up when making searches like "Estonian hotel" and therefore remove an irrelevant search result. Mathguy2718 (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:G6 and WP:G7 given the edit summary of the move and the comment from the editor who created/moved the article here. Not because of clutter and not because of a "misnomer" since redirects don't create those. Skynxnex (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
In Japanese, ending a title with ッ is unlikely. In this redirect, ド is missing at the end, so the correct form is "メタルギアソリッド". So in this case, this redirect is implausible and should be deleted. Note this is the only redirect ending with "ッ" besides "ッ" itself. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Implausible that this is an alternative name in Japanese. This is sort of equivalent to a redirect titled "Metal Gear Soli". Possibly a typo. Popcornfud (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above. Other-language redirects are fine, but adding on a misspelling makes it quite implausible. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 17:22, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Recently created by request. However, ambiguous with Parsec, also a unit abbreviated pc. Retarget to the PC dab page? Treat one as primary with a hatnote to the other? Delete as unlikely? pC and PC are also abbreviations for the units of picocoulomb and petacoulomb, respectively, although those start to get more unlikely. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 05:32, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation page. Pica is only four letters so not often abbreviated. No obvious primary topic. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate. PC is long and sorted by topic area, so there's no section there dedicated to units. ~ A412talk! 19:48, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
That's not a unit. Do you mean a separate dab page, or redirecting to the existing one? –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 20:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. If kept, I would still oppose creation of a new dab page that only disambiguated the units. If you want to re-jigger the current one to keep the units together, that's fine, but otherwise, this opens a pretty big can of ambiguous worms that we probably don't want. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 20:54, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Vague informal slang redirecting to a page about a specific medical condition. Could be taken as a jab at people with said condition by implying that they are "hangry" all the time. Seems like a WP:NOTDICTIONARY issue. Arguably fails WP:ASTONISH. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I feel like there's potential for an article here. I uncovered this within the first two pages of base google search, which makes me inclined to think there's more. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 15:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't like any of the targets so far, and would prefer deletion to encourage article creation over any of them. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 06:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
This still holds; I don't like the idea of a disambiguation page here, as all of the potential entries seem like weak DABMENTIONs. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 00:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to -gry puzzle#Answers, which does mention the word. I can also accept deletion to make room for an article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Another possible target might be the musical duo Hangry & Angry. pburka (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to dab page. No clear primary topic, and the term itself doesn't really seem to have garnered enough coverage to be used as an article topic. With a dab page we could direct to all the pages mentioned above, plus the "hangry" entry on Wiktionary. I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 22:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:03, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with the nomination that readers may be astonished to find this term linking to this article as it is only stated in a reference, not clearly in the article text itself. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Replace with Template:Wiktionary redirect. It's unlikely that anybody searching "hangry" is looking for an actual medical condition such as hypoglycemia. 162 etc. (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Do not keep the current target makes no sense and is arguably a MEDRS issue. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Skarmory. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate to catch all the suggestions brought forth. I have drafted one for your consideration. I'd even support tagging it with {{Broad-concept article}} to also catch Skarmory's findings. --Tavix(talk) 20:30, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the dab? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate is a fine outcome here. BD2412T 17:23, 29 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)
Relation to target unclear; not mentioned at target. ~ A412talk! 01:40, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Irrelevant and of no use. From Googling it, it seems that some people think it might have been his Wikipedia username. I have no idea whether that is true and nobody cares anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Those who have interacted with him while he was a Wikipedia editor (under a different username) do care. However, Delete per the below. Jay 06:14, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
That’s what Wikidata says as well, based on a tweet. Irrelevant trivia as he is not known as an editor. Dudzcar (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
Transbeman
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. GiantSnowman 19:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Restore. These were just redirected by the nominator the same day they were nominated. If you have a problem with them as redirects, then don't make them redirects. --Tavix(talk) 21:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Before they were redirects, they had no use as an article as there was barely any content and no references. They were also labelled as "(year) Dhivehi League", which was incorrect. As I stated above, the league was created in 2000. What I later found out was the years 1985–1999 corresponded with was the President's Cup, and what I can assume is that the content on those were referring to that and not the Dhivehi League. UnilandofmaTalk 17:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
If you come across an article that should be deleted, and the page would make a bad redirect, the correct course of action would be to nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD or use WP:PROD. --Tavix(talk) 17:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The current target hardly discusses the topic. There is a single paragraph about general court-martial, which wasn't what I was looking for because it only applies to the situation in Ireland. A more detailed discussion is found at Courts-martial of the United States#General court-martial, which was what I was looking for. Of course that page runs into the same issue (only covering one country). I suggest that we either change the target of the redirect, or add a hat note to Court-martial that explains that General court-martial redirects there, and where to find additional information about it (as it applies to the United States, or elsewhere). Renerpho (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The BushrangerOne ping only 18:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled General court martial here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 15:50, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
May also refer to mononormativity (discrimination against nonmonogamous people eg. polyamorous people) LIrala (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Neither polyphobia nor mononormativity mention the term "polyphobia" or explain that it should be interpreted to mean "bigotry towards polysexual people" and "bigotry towards polyamorous people" in each of those contexts respectively. The only mention of polyphobia anywhere on Wikipedia is at Mau5ville: Level 3 where it's the title of a song. A soft redirect to Wiktionary would obscure search results for the song. I think it's fine to let the search bar handle this one; there are only few results and Wiktionary appears besides the search results list. Note, Wiktionary doesn't list a definition for the anti-polysexuality interpretation. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 03:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
Song from the album Goodbye Blue and White, which is a redirect to the discography page; we have no information on the song anywhere. ~ A412talk! 03:21, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
There are only a few pages here that mention Wikipedia3 in this context, such as Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki (archive) and there was apparently plans for a Wikipedia4 that never happened based on meta:Wikipedia4 (proposal) and meta:Wikipedia4 timeline (proposal). (It might be more accurate to say that it was not released under that name given the switch to MediaWiki.) In any case, I don't see any links that use "Wikipedia4" that point to MetaWiki. Instead we just have this redirect for Wikipedia3 that points to MediaWiki. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 03:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
A retarget would probably need another section hatnote, but I think it's probably unnecessary to have a hatnote at the top of Nexus Airlines and again to the same article underneath a section heading.
If there's consensus for deletion, this was an {{R from merge}} but insufficient attribution can be repaired via dummy edit as there's only one significant contributor, being the page creator.
Weak delete: neither of the homonymous airlines has a separate destination list, and the UK one to which the pre-BLAR content related is likely not notable. There's no history worth keeping, as none of that content remains in the merged article. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
III Army Corps (Argentina)
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete
There's nothing on Wikipedia about this character. I did a fair amount of trawling through pages mentioning Abner, and there does not seem to be any matches of note at all. Casablanca 🪨(T) 23:04, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
While Dr. Abel is a Tekken character, he is not mentioned anywhere in a satisfying manner in this article, and it seems like the rest of matches for "Dr. Abel" on wikipedia are partial matches. Casablanca 🪨(T) 22:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a random typo, no exact matches anywhere on WP. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 18:09, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per nom --Lenticel(talk) 00:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
keep because it's a realistic typo, s is right next to d and there is no article that will be written on "Mohammes" (as far as I know). Educate me on the redirect policy if typos have to be deleted because I really don't know. -- LightningThrower (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The thing is, there are billions of these kinds of typos...And more when you throw in other kinds, and consider typos of redirects themselves, and the fact that people use different keyboard layouts. Creating redirects for all of them is untenable, and this one holds no special significance. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 22:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I had previously nominated this for WP:R3 but it was declined for being an "obscure variant" instead of just a typo. Not sure where that variant is attested myself, though. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all. With all content on these having been removed, there is nothing left that requires attribution. I maintain that attribution is not required for old revisions due to the disclaimer found at the bottom of those pages. --Tavix(talk) 20:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Said disclaimer is, in entirety: "This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, outdated information, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License." (relevant part in bold). All this states is the article may have been revised to remove content incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing. It does not state that Wikipedia's license has been revoked from any contributions to those revisions which are compatible with that license (or the 3.0 license Wikipedia previously required contributors to agree to, which has the same requirement for attribution). You're reading something into it that simply is not there. Not maintaining attribution for all public revisions means making revisions which previously were compatible with Wikipedia's license now incompatible with Wikipedia's license by unilaterally violating the terms which past contributors agreed to when they published those revisions. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 01:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, this is too ambiguous for even a disambiguation page as there's one of these (almost?) every season. --Tavix(talk) 14:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: This is indeed the initial designation of the first tropical depression to form in the eastern Pacific each season, prior to reaching the intensity needed to become a named storm (I assume the designation is effectively unused if the first storm of the season forms with sufficient intensity to be immediately given a name). The current target seems perfectly logical, though we should preferably add an explanation of this initial designation mechanism. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 20:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Skeleton Banging Shield
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete
I think its pretty unlikely that people are referring to the relationship between these two countries as "usrael". I haven't really ever seen this term used and it is more like a typo of Israel then it is otherwise. Justcgi (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
This originally targeted 1 Timothy 4, which was merged into First Epistle to Timothy, but much of its content was not merged in, including the section about 1 Timothy 4:10. Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
While this is a concept associated with SSDs, it is not mentioned at the target and the only other mention of a "1 MB partition alignment" is in passing on Disk partitioning without a helpful explanation as to what it is. This should probably be deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Ambiguous. I'm seeing a lot of different things this could refer to in search results, none of which are this specific slogan. It would be stranger to see two numbers and one letter with an unambiguous meaning. Delete as vague. —An anonymous username,not my real name 15:00, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
R3 requests on these titles undone by this now-expired TA ~2026-51624-17 because they were created via moves on 22 September 2006 (over 20 years old); hence also ineligible for G6 errors, since these title now has declined CSDs, so I've listed them here! Intrisit (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, harmless. There is no benefit to deletion and none has been offered. Yes, it's true they don't meet any CSD so leave them alone and move on. --Tavix(talk) 13:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete – No reason to keep these pages with unreasonable typos. Slothwizard (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, random typos, no more deserving of redirects than any other. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 22:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
In fact, speedy delete, G6 on top of the other reasons. Yes, way too old for R3, but unambiguously created in error, and moved to the correct titles minutes after creation. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 02:57, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
GRUB uses "PFF2 font format" bitmap fonts so the term is a related topic to GRUB. If I remember right, I created this redirect because I searched Wikipedia to find out what it was and found nothing. It took a bit of digging to find out what it was and GRUB is the main place were it was used. I'm unaware if it has an established use elsewise. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ A412talk! 00:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
This template name is a common typo for {{reflist}}, leading to XfD relist notices being displayed where they should not be displayed, with no indication that this is an error. I recommend that either (a) something clever be done to display an error message when this template name is used, or (b) this redirect be deleted and not recreated after all 100+ transclusions have been replaced (manually) with the correct template, and scripts have been updated as needed (I don't see any recent script-based placement of this template, but it might be hiding somewhere). – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
I note that none of the transclusions are in article or wikipedia namespaces (apart from a single occurrence in an old RfD); almost all are in user sandboxes or user subpages entitled "citing sources", created with the edit history "automatic post as part of sandbox guided tour". I can't quickly find where the sources for that guided tour live, but I assume that the typo existed in a previous version and has now been fixed. Assuming that to be the case, delete to avoid future recurrence.Rosbif73 (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I found the guided tour and walked through it. It recommends "Reflist" but may have had a typo in the past (it's run a bunch of JavaScript that I didn't have access to). Also, the recommendation in the tour required/requires new editors to manually type "Reflist" into the Visual Editor template selection dialog, which may have been subject to error. Without a bunch of further research, I don't know if the errors were caused by a typo in the JavaScript instructions or by editors making typos. Given the volume of errors, I suspect the former. In any event, "relist" seems like a likely typo for "reflist" and does not appear to be used by XfD, which is all or mostly script-driven anyway, so a shortcut template name should not be needed. [Caveat: This whole talk page post contains a bunch of guesses and surmises. Actual facts are welcome.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think the latter, people misreading "reflist" or auto-correct auto-correcting it. There are 43423 "User:*/citing sources" pages, and the ones having the typoed template don't seem to be clustered. Anomie⚔ 21:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete seems a very good and neat solution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
don't do anything yet, just so this gets relisted
then delete per above, including an extremely weak addition of the possibility of confusion in non-xfd uses consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 18:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I definitely welcome this RfD being relisted, if only for the comedy value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
The most policy-based way to do this would be to make all of our !votes conditional. We can say "Oppose unless this RfD is relisted". This way, the closer needs to relist the discussion, but then they can immediately close it because WP:RELIST says A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. So, as soon as the discussion is relisted, all our dormant conditional !votes immediately become valid, and therefore consensus is reached but only immediately after relisting. FaviFake (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nominator's rationale. Great and easy way to prevent these issues. Nobody uses that redirect anyway, everyone uses XFDcloser. FaviFake (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe disambiguate given Template:RM relist but I don't see a problem with the current target otherwise given WP:RELIST goes to the deletion meaning and typos probably shouldn't prevent actual spellings. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, they should if the template is virtually only ever used through a user script like XFDcloser. FaviFake (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I share the concerns expressed by those who !voted to keep this just one year ago. The idea of a dab was also shut down there. There are over 500 existing links to this (now redirected) template. Given that this template is substituted, we cannot actually say how common the use of this is (though I will admit that XfD closer likely does get the vast use-majority these days). However, we should not count on gadgets continuing to function in the future and let our plain old relisting system decay. No opposition to something clever to prevent any potential disruptions to the mainspace when this happens to be misinvoked once in a blue moon. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:58, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
we should not count on gadgets continuing to function in the future and let our plain old relisting system decay. What? Nothing stops us from creating a better shortcut like {{xfdr}} or {{rlist}}. Our plain old relisting system won't decay if this is deleted. FaviFake (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Those shortcuts are not better. This was the (15-year) original name of the template, which has existed for 20 years. Manual relisting will only be hampered if this cannot be substituted. Furthermore, people merely looking for this template for one reason or another may be severely set back. The benefit of deletion does not outweigh the boon of its retention. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:09, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, then I guess we just disagree. FaviFake (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Surprise! Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 01:47, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
I hope this is a joke relist? There are 5 "delete" !votes and one "keep" !vote... FaviFake (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
*Puts on serious hat* I think this is a good example of when a discussion should be relisted despite there being a consensus. For a litany of reasons, another week looks likely to change the outcome, and the outcome is reasonably important by RfD standards. J947 ‡ edits 02:29, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Godsy and arguments raised in the last RFD. I am persuaded by the arguments that the potential downside of deleting these redirects from longstanding former names for these templates is greater than the hypothetical benefit. This may be a common typo for {{Reflist}} but the error would be immediately evident in article space, which is likely why this is not a live issue. The erroneous usage in a few sandboxes is not actually harmful. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I genuinely don't have an opinion on the nomination, but as a reply to the "this shows up when people make a typo" folk - if this is kept, just set a namespace-conditional check so that if this template is not in the WP space (because as far as I am aware that is the only location the template should be used) it gives a more-visible error that directs the person to rethink their life choices. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@Jonesey95 or anyone else, would you be able to create such a warning, and categorise the page in an error category when it is shown? FaviFake (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I use this regularly, and have just now learned it was a redirect. (I did so long before the 2020 discussion that moved it.) I can try to get in the habit of using {{XfD relist}} instead, but I don't love the idea of such disruption just because someone elsewhere may make a mistake. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I'm convinced by BDD's user experience combined with Primefac's idea for a more-visible error message. --Tavix(talk) 16:41, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep and add an error message when used outside the Wikipedia namespace. It's probably not a good idea to delete a long-standing name for an important template because it could be a typo for a different template. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 03:27, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LIrala (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned at target, though the first of these was originally merged into it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LIrala (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
It stands for "CSX Intermodal". (see eg. , ) There are a few mentions of it around Wikipedia. Seems to be synonymous with "CSXT Intermodal". The pages mentioning CSXI all seem to be old, so it may be that there was some corporate restructuring. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 21:25, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LIrala (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
CSX has officially abbreviated CSX Intermodal as CSXI in the past, per some primary sources such as this press release even though their reporting mark is actually CXVZ. I'm not seeing some more recent secondary sources refer to them as that, but still leaning weak keep. TruenoCity (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I mostly agree with the nomination (2024 Iran–Israel conflict would be the way to go), although any of the redirects that specifically mention "Israeli retaliatory strikes" could potentially be confusing since Israel attacked Iran first on two separate occasions (technically, Israel retaliated in response to Iran's retaliation both times, but this subtlety is lost in redirect titles). Section links wouldn't work here since there were two separate sets of exchanges of attacks by the two countries. My verdict is redirect all except the "Israeli retaliatory strikes" (unsure on these) to 2024 Iran–Israel conflict. —An anonymous username,not my real name 22:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
In the current move discussion at Talk:Iran–Israel conflict, I am proposing reverting that article to a disambiguation page, which would undoubtedly mean targeting all of these at 2024 Iran–Israel conflict. Dekimasuよ! 11:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This originally targeted 1 John 5, which was an article, but that was merged into First Epistle of John in 2020 and the content around verse 20 seems to not be there or anywhere else of note anymore. This might be best deleted. Casablanca 🪨(T) 17:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - this redirect was initially created as an unintuitive link to an article about Jesus' name in the New Testament. It was subsequently redirected to a page for the specific chapter of 1 John instead. The redirect has only one incoming link in article namespace.--Jeffro77Talk 04:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I just notified of this discussion at the target talk. Jay 06:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
unmentioned... uh... work? some results imply that this may or may not be the actual title of a painting that may or may not exist and may or may not have been made by vinny (results are really inconclusive on which one it even may or may not be), his general palette(s), his literal palette, a work based on his literal palette, or a picture of his literal palette. seems to be one of many batches of those kinds of redirects from the creator, though why they're at different targets is beyond me
also the subtitle formatting on the latter two is implausible, but you don't need me to say it consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This is an unmentioned redirect that requires some explanation at the target in order to be helpful. This is a persona known for prank calls and parody songs that is apparently "frequently associated with" the radio show. I am unable to find reliable sources that would support adding content to the target. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
If someone searched "Ned Mandingo" they are expecting to find information about, well, Ned Mandingo. And we have none. When we don't cover a topic, we shouldn't have a redirect to nowhere that will only confuse, mislead, or irritate readers who've expected to find a discussion of the thing they've clicked on or searched for. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Then we should add info about Ned to the page and redirect to that, it seems to be a prevalent character considering 100+ videos in the playlist Avienby (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find any reliable sources. If you have better luck and suitable content is added and survives reversion, that should "rescue" this redirect. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Gigaleak
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate
No information about this summer camp for kids, at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was an unsourced stub from 2006 that lasted about 2 months before it was PRODed and merged. And the merged content removed within 2 months as part of a cleanup. Delete, and no need to retain the pre-redirect content. Jay 09:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete until there's a use onwiki that's something closer to a definition than a product being used as an example. ScalarFactor (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 07:41, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
(Creator) Good catch. Delete and let the search engine handle the query. Interestingly, the hatnote on ja:コロナ does not link to ja:トヨタ・コロナ (Toyota Corona). feminist🩸 (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Search results aren't that helpful because the majority of uses on English Wikipedia are in reference titles Traumnovelle (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Having considered the "retarget" comments below I reaffirm my support for deletion. Searching "コロナ" yields COVID-19 pandemic in Japan as one of the results, which is not contained on the Corona dab page. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Retarget to corona dab page, as there are at least two relevant Japan-related targets. Covid-19 response is likely the more primary topic over the Toyota, but considering jawiki's target, I think this a case of the term being too general to determine a primary. Search results wouldn't be very helpful if the redirect were deleted, as the word appears in the references of many pages. --Crimson Bleeding SouIIs (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per Soulls LIrala (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The two Japan-related entries are Toyota Corona, which features the katakana, and Corona (Takemitsu), which does not include the katakana. The Corona dab page does of course list SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 but of course does not list Japan or any other individual country's response. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Corona dab page. There are now several entries on the page where "コロナ" appears in the article. Ultimately, I don't know how helpful this will be to readers. Corona is a very long dab page and the katakana does not appear there so readers will have to hunt around. The association with COVID-19 pandemic in Japan is obvious but I don't think this is a reasonable way to search for this. The extreme global interest in the pandemic perhaps increases the plausibility but it is reasonably likely that readers would be searching for the name of one of the other Japanese topics with the native name "コロナ" as opposed to using a shortened form of the Japanese for "coronavirus". —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The Herekino Forest is to the north of Herekino as per the article, but this isn't a helpful redirect with similar descriptions at Ahipara and Pukepoto. Suggest deletion in absence of any suitable target. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Northland Conservation Park. It is part of that park & mentioned in the list of forests in the article. Nurg (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
So there are actually two forests with this name... one west of Manukau North that is a commercial forest that is leased by a Maori trust and the Herekino Forest conservation park you mentioned to the west
The retarget is a good suggestion, although I'm now unsure what to do given that there are two forests here. I feel a conservation forest is the more likely target than a commercial one but the commercial one has multiple archaeological reports on it. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I can't readily find anything on the web about a commercial forest called Herekino Forest. In any event, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in any WP article. So we can retarget to Northland Conservation Park for now and reconsider if the commercial forest ever comes up in an article. Nurg (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
It has several archaeological reports available on Heritage New Zealand's greenstone library. Although we could just add a footnote that mentions the commercial forest and that it isn't to be confused with it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I see, yes, the exotic forest is down on the north side of Herekino Harbour. I'm still comfortable with retargeting to Northland Conservation Park. I don't feel bothered whether a footnote is or is not added. Nurg (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
There is no indication in the article of why Mahoré redirects to Mayotte. There used to be a mention of "Mahore" in previous versions but not in the current version, and the word doesn't appear in the native-language article fr:Mayotte. fr:Mahore redirects to fr:Grande-Terre (Mayotte), so I suggest English Wikipedia does the same and we: retarget Mahoré and Mahore to Grande-Terre, Mayotte; add "also called Mayotte Island, or Mahoré in shimaoré) to the lead; and delete the hatnote at Mayotte. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
If you can find some WP:RS to cite, you can be WP:BOLD and make the change without asking permission. jnestorius(talk) 15:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. Grande-Terre, Mayotte is called Maore or Mahori according to its infobox. And here is a reliable source that calls the island Mahoré (e.g. "Opposition to independence on Mahoré was organized [...]" – emphasis mine): https://countrystudies.us/comoros/7.htmJoe vom Titan (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: in French, for which Mayotte of course has affinity, mahoré is an alternative spelling of mahorais, which translates as the adjective mahoran, i.e. either the demonym or the language; the alternative name for the island is usually spelled maoré. One solution would be to retarget to mahoran and add a mention of the French equivalents in the opening sentence of that dab page. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: multiple targets have been suggested Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 14:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Grande-Terre, Mayotte, I'm inclined to do as the fr.wiki do unless there's indication that this is outright incorrect or otherwise inappropriate on en.wiki in particular. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
This is rather confusing. SUSE LINUX is a disambiguation of which Suse linux redirects to and all of the other alternative capitalizations redirect to OpenSUSE. Does WP:DIFFCAPS or WP:DIFFPUNCT apply, and if so, which cases would it apply to? Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
RetargetSUSE linux and SUSE LINUX → OpenSUSE. It seems like OpenSUSE is the true successor to the original SUSE Linux, with the enterprise version being a slightly different tangential entity. So the majority of redirects above are already correct. There was a merger two years ago which took all content from the original SUSE Linux page over to OpenSUSE as well. —Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Confusing; maybe a disambiguation is appropriate? Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
No, a dab wouldn't be good as they're all related subtopics of Linux kernel. A WP:SIA would also not be good.
Suggest: redir all to Linux kernel#Scheduling and maybe put a section redirect hatnote (or see also) to RTLinux (although it is already covered in the article). Ideally a real-time section of the article would fix it.Widefox; talk 20:13, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate as this seems to be an ambiguous term. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Roundhouse (periodical)
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
Weak retarget, but where? While Handegg is an accepted alternative spelling of the Swiss village Handeck (see my reply to the nomination below), Hand Egg as two words (or hyphenated Hand-egg, which I've bundled into this discussion) would seem less likely to refer to that locality and more likely to refer to the slang term for a sport that involves handling an egg-shaped ball–though that usage of the term doesn't seem to be mentioned on wiki with the exception of the existing redirects for American handegg, Australian handegg and Canadian Handegg. Perhaps the generic Gridiron football would be a better target? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
On further thought, target both to Handeck and add a hatnote linking to wikt:hand-egg–unless a mention of the slang term is added somewhere, in which case target that mention.Rosbif73 (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Please merge this and the discussion below. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
The rationale for these is not quite the same as for Handegg (one word), so I think it's preferable to keep the discussions separate. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. As far as I know, no sources use the spellings "Hand Egg" or "Hand-egg" for the village in Switzerland. I think these spellings are only used for the joke about different kinds of football. But American football isn't a good target either – if a reader is trying to understand what the term "Hand Egg" means, the American football article doesn't adequately answer the question; instead the reader is likely to think they've ended up at that page by mistake. —Mx. Granger(talk·contribs) 22:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The nominator is referring to the their rationale for another (now closed) discussion, i.e. Shouldn't it redirect to American football or something similar?@Candidyeoman55: Please be wary of such references; discussions can easily move far apart through relisting and different closing schedules can obscure once prominent links. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:09, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Soft redirect to wikt:handegg per Mx Granger (changing my previous !vote as this seems a better solution for the two-word or hyphenated spellings, in the absence of a suitable mention on enwiki). Rosbif73 (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to American football: I've spent a lot of time over the past decade plus talking about American football online, and I don't like it, but this is a very common thing for people to call American football (in a mocking way). I genuinely believe that, if this search term were used, people would be searching for American football as opposed to the city. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget both to American football. Both "hand egg" and "hand-egg" appear to be alternate spellings of "handegg" when referring to American football. On the other hand, unlike handegg as one word, neither are alternate spellings of Handeck. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Firstly, why target American football when the term can also refer to Canadian, Australian and possibly even Rugby football? And secondly, the term isn't mentioned at the proposed target, potentially surprising a reader unfamiliar with the term. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to wikt:handegg where the term is explained. I oppose retargeting to American football as it's too narrow. Perhaps a local target could be Football (ball) where it describes which codes use an elongated (or egg-shaped) ball. --Tavix(talk) 15:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to wikt:handegg per Tavix and others. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep The current target looks like the best we can do. I considered Literary theory and even Philology. I like that the current target has prominent discussion of its relationship with literary theory. An equivalent to Literaturwissenschaft could be good, but in the meantime, I don't think there's anything wrong with the redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 20:11, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate - too many possibilities to be useful as-is. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 20:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The creation of a draft disambiguation page may help with consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
as a heads-up, massxfd can make the process of nomming multiple redirects at once a little easier, and avoid cluttering talk pages consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep most, as despite being made by a blocked editor a lot of these are uncontroversially reasonable spelling variations. It's trivial to find variation in hyphenation between "trans-saharan"/"sub-saharan" and "transsaharan"/"subsaharan" on Scholar and Google Books; redirects where this is the only difference are fine and are useful for both searches and internal linking. Variation between "Saharan" and "Sahara" also seems generally fine; eg. "trans-saharan slave trade" and "trans-sahara slave trade" both yield results on Google Books. Searching for "[the] Sahara slave trade" shows that the unprefixed "Sahara" is also plausible variation. Delete redirects where the hyphen is replaced by a space, as I don't see much evidence that this is common in my external search results and this isn't conventional for English in general. Seems more like an SEO technique than plausible language. Delete redirects which capitalise Sahara mid-word without a hyphen ("transSaharan", "subSaharan"). These are entirely unnecessary for searching (the search engine ignores case whenever possible and will redirect you even if no explicit redirect exists; try a search for TraNs-SaHaRan sLave trAde) and are worse than useless for linking as they're incorrect but appear in blue, making unintended use easier. I strongly suspect these titles reflect how sometimes hyphens get omitted in, eg, previews extracted from pages on Google Books, even when they're present on the actual page itself. This is something a machine would do. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete all relating to "Sub Saharan" (too lazy to list all, just spent a lot of time writing elsewhere): there were multiple slave trades south of the Sahara desert which could be discussed, including (arguably) the Atlantic Slave Trade, so the use of that namespace specifically for the one slave trade noted for crossing the Sahara satisfies confusion under WP:RDELETE.. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Then I reckon that needs review as well, as it just seems to be a strange attempt to attain "equivalency" with the Atlantic slave trade. But I'll agree that this might be a matter separate to the purpose of this specific nom. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all "Sub" redirects, all redirects with a space between 'trans' and 'saharan', and all CamelCase redirects. Keep the rest. --Tavix(talk) 15:00, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Scyrme: What is your opinion on the "Sub" redirects, as these arguments came after your !vote? Also, was sub-subsaharan a typo for sub-saharan? Jay 20:15, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
@Jay: Yes, it was a typo. I agree with 9ninety. I'll also add: Regarding there being multiple slave trades, sure there were many local slave trades in sub-Saharan Africa, but these redirect titles refer to the whole region implying a search for the wider network of slave trading. Practically speaking, it was clear that variations on "sub-Saharan slave trade" were being used in (at least most of) the results on Books/Scholar to refer to the trading of sub-Saharan Africans as part of the trans-Saharan slave trade. If HiddenHistoryPedia has access to contrary sources, then it would make sense to start a separate nomination focusing specifically on sub-Saharan slave trade and its variations, after all the implausible variations have been weeded out to keep the discussion from being derailed. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
This could've probably been closed as “delete the spaced and CamelCase redirects, no consensus on the other "Sub" redirects, and keep the rest”, instead of relisting again, since as Scyrme and HiddenHistoryPedia noted, a separate nomination for sub-Saharan slave trade would make sense, while the other ones had consensus. 9ninety (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep all except the ones without a space. Delete those. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete the CamelCase ones as implausibly rendered; keep all others as plausible search terms. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
As above, delete the CamelCase redirects and the redirects where the hyphen is replaced by a space, and keep the rest. 9ninety (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep all. None of there scream out to me as bad, per say, these seem helpful, but not entirely needed. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
There are two marae with this name, this could be a dab page but with only two topics, neither of which have more than a sentence I'm unsure how helpful it'd be. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep. There is no other marae called Te Iringa; perhaps you are confusing this with the wharenui called Te Iringa at Terere Marae on the outskirts of Ōpōtiki? Moreover, Kaikohe is the nearest township to Te Iringa Marae (less than 5 km drive from the marae to the edge of town, according to Google Maps) but you recently removed mention of Te Iringa Marae from the Kaikohe article, and reverted my edit when I reverted your removal. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Te Iringa Marae should be mentioned on the Kaikohe page, given its proximity to the town, along with the other two marae listed. As there is no other marae of the same name and hence no ambiguity, the redirect should be kept. Paora (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
>It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Te Iringa Marae should be mentioned on the Kaikohe page, given its proximity to the town, along with the other two marae listed
Any sort of mention in the Kaikohe article should be based on secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
That isn't a secondary source, its a primary source. The journalist probably got that information from Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
That's complete speculation on your part; the journalist is just as likely to have looked at a map! Paora (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
It was also mentioned on the Kaikohe page as a marae in the Kaikohe area until the nominator deleted it, and which I reverted. The nominator reverted my reversion, and I still believe that the marae is indeed in the Kaikohe area, being less than 5 km from the town. Paora (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
A claim which was unsourced in the article. What you believe is irrelevant, we base our articles on reliable secondary sources, if the user adding all this content in a robotic manner consulted such sources there wouldn't be all these errors. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
That's why I added it back in with references, and yet you still chose to delete it! Paora (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Plasma Workspaces
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
it's "2x2" (as in 2 by 2). someone writing the game's japanese name (or its romanization for whatever reason) would have to write too much stuff before forgetting to do that consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:41, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
I did find afewexamples of the name "Maria & Luigi RPG 2" being used, so it seems plausible and harmless, so keep. 9ninety (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Just specifically looked up "マリオ&ルイージRPG2", and it's actually not only the title used by the Japanese Wikipedia, jp:マリオ&ルイージRPG2, but also Nintendo's website, according to the search results, as well as other examples. 9ninety (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Mario & Luigi RPG 2 and the Kanji name, alternative name and useful redirects. Delete the romanization as it is unhelpful as a search term. Go D. Usopp(talk) 15:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep two per Go D. Usopp and 9ninety. Neutral on the other one. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 11:59, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
delete. from my admittedly quick research, this isn't a plausible search term for any of them. ironically, this one is the least implausible just due to not being a warioware game, but not by much consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 13:29, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to List of Wario video games, admittedly it would be better if there was a specific Nintendo DS section for the purposes of this redirect, but since it sees almost zero traffic this is good enough. Choucas🐦⬛ 13:39, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as ambiguous. I was considering retargeting, but no Wario games are called Wario DS. As mentioned, it has almost no traffic, and the list doesn't have a section for DS games. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
All Wario games released on the DS can colloquially be referred to as "Wario DS". If you want a nice neat section, you can hack that option by targeting List of Nintendo DS games (Q–Z)#W. --Tavix(talk) 14:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Better to let the search function take over, than anchoring it to an arbitrary game in the Wario games list. We have a search, let's let it do its job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:46, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think forcing people to browse through an entire list of Wario games is going to be helpful. Search function will help people significantly more. We should break the irrational obsession with forcing people to even the most utterly tangentially relevant page out of fear of sending them to the search. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:13, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
A curated list of games is much more helpful (and reliably so!) than search results, which are given at the whim of an algorithm. An "obsession" with giving a relevant and useful target for a given search term is never irrational. --Tavix(talk) 19:52, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
When I use Wikipedia search for "Wario DS", the first things that come up besides List of Wario games are: Wario: Master of Disguise, WarioWare: Touched! and WarioWare D.I.Y., all Nintendo DS Wario games. It is absolutely going to bring up more relevant games faster than forcing someone to look through a general list of Wario games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:33, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Search results are still forcing someone to look through a type of "general list", with the additional downside that the list provided is uncurated so it cannot be confirmed that all such games are provided. --Tavix(talk) 14:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
alas, i'm not the nom, and i fail to see what in that is per me consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 16:31, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 07:53, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
"Air Korea" is not mentioned anywhere on this page. Judging by the history, it was a placeholder name before the airline commenced operations, but was never used. In my opinion this redirect is confusing and unhelpful, its far more likely people would be looking for Korean Air although I don't know if that would be an appropriate target either. Cubnorth (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Following a bit of googling (e.g. ) Air Korea was founded by Hanjin Shipping and it looks like it became part of Korean Air. So pick your redirect! Certainly the existing redirect is not correct. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Looking at the page revision it does appear like it was the initial name of Jin Air but nobody is searching that now. I think a disambiguation between Korean Air and Air Koryo might be the best bet? Cubnorth (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
As the original creator of the redirect, I agree time has passed this by and making this a disambig page or straight up redirecting to Korean Air is the best option. Asamboi (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
dabify per above. Seems to be the best course of action. --Lenticel(talk) 03:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Why should it go to Hanjin Shipping? That makes even less sense. Cubnorth (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - none of the proposed targets have any meaningful information about "Air Korea" at this time. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
4 mentions on-wiki to 2 different topics. All mentions are trivial and none has any clear claim to primacy. Suggest deletion and let search results direct the reader to where they wish to go. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
KeepAhipara seems to be the only page on Wikipedia with Koroukore as an alternate name. Three of the results for Koroukore refer to Ahipara, while the other two refer to a Tainui woman with no page. I can't find much info on her, as almost all search results for "Korokore" refer to My Hero Academia. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Koroukore isn't an alternate name, but is instead a marae within Ahipara. Still, keep. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
This is why I feel these redirects are more harmful than helpful. Its not an alternate name of Ahipara. Its the name of a marae in Ahipara and the name is shared with the woman you mentioned. Neither of these topics have a standalone page and neither meet notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Traumnovelle. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
really vague name, and incomplete at that. blar from unsourced cruft twice!! consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 13:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. There's nothing else on Wikipedia with this name, so if someone is looking for something else they're not going to find it no matter what. I also think it's plausible to read "NDS Trainer Toolkit" as "Trainer Toolkit" for the NDS so I'm not convinced that it's an incomplete name. --Tavix(talk) 20:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - results online are predominantly for an unrelated Pokemon product. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Firewireless
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus
These redirects should point to the same target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Comment - Retargeting to SAR supergroup is my first instinct, but I notice this will create circular redirects on the SAR supergroup page. Someone with knowledge of the topic should confirm the intended destination of those [[TSAR supergroup|TSAR]] links.
I had the same thoughts. Neither article contains a lot of substantive coverage of TSAR but SAR supergroup is the logical place where this might be expanded. The brief mention at Diaphoretickes §Evolution just says that Telonemia [...] is sometimes resolved as the sister clade of the SAR supergroup, forming the hypothesized TSAR clade. That makes Diaphoretickes an improper target to discuss TSAR on the whole. The circular link at SAR supergroup can either be removed or it can be left as an acceptable circular redirect if editors think this has standalone article potential. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Support retargeting TSAR to Diaphoretickes. TSAR includes groups that SAR does not, and is fully included in Diaphoretickes, the nearest parent clade. Furthermore, its validity is still unknown, as the 'T' often branches with Haptista instead of SAR. The Evolution section at Diaphoretickes covers this information. For these reasons, TSAR redirecting to Diaphoretickes is preferable, and is a surefire way to avoid misleading readers into thinking SAR and TSAR are equivalent. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I think I initially misread Diaphoretickes, and did not bother to look at the taxobox. I do think the information could be presented more clearly in the article. I've followed the TSAR discussion from afar and my (limited!) understanding is that it is disputed but still felt to be relevant enough to cover somewhere. This is a bit beyond the scope of RFD but I do think the coverage could be improved while still kept fairly succinct. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
@Myceteae Agreed that coverage should be improved. I have added some more bits of info at Telonemid and will try to add something at Diaphoretickes itself. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Support.Jako96 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Target both to SAR supergroup per my reply above. I've notified WP:PROTISTA, WP:ALGAE, WP:PLANTS, and WP:TOL to get input from subject-matter experts and would be open to amending my !vote if there are factors I've not considered. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Snotelek that targeting the least inclusive group that contains TSAR is usually the best solution. But TSAR is sort of SAR sensu lato so might be a more natural place to discuss it. It's mentioned in the lede and the article could be reorganised to have a short section on TSAR that could be linked in the redirect. Likewise, Diaphoretickes could have a sections on TSAR/SAR and other component supergroups, but the article isn't organised that way. TSAR is mentioned but seems quite dismissive of the hypothesis. At the moment SAR seems a better target because the issue is addressed in the one paragraph lede. —Jts1882| talk 14:39, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
This was part of the thinking that originally led me favor SAR supergroup. Either target is justifiable and the coverage could be improved in either location to better support these redirects. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Telonemid, where there seems to be the most coverage of TSAR. I think this makes sense, as the difference between the TSAR and SAR would be the inclusion of Telonemia. --Tavix(talk) 17:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A new target has been proposed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
DisambiguateTSAR with Tsar and TSAR's current target, Retarget the other one to SAR supergroup. It seems plausible to me that someone looking up the first redirect could be looking for the Slavic title. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
DisambiguateTSAR per OneReaction5890 and delete TSAR supergroup to allow for search results, as it's covered on multiple pages. Second choice redirect the latter to SAR (clade), as being the least likely to WP:ASTONISH what with its clear reference to TSAR supergroups in the lead (which could then be further made bold). signed, Rosguilltalk 18:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
15:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 October 30#Monisha
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate
Disambiguation draft requested * Pppery * it has begun... 16:52, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus