Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:RFD (disambiguation).

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	40	68	108
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	1	2
FfD	0	4	31	16	51
RfD	0	0	0	4	4
AfD	0	0	0	4	4

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.

• 13 April (Monday)
• 12 April (Sunday)
• 11 April (Saturday)
• 10 April (Friday)
• 9 April (Thursday)
• 8 April (Wednesday)
• 7 April (Tuesday)
• 6 April (Monday)

Old discussions

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

• Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Wikipedia:Speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When to delete a redirect

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

See also: Wikipedia:Speedy deletion § Redirects

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

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

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

STEP I.	Tag the redirect(s).   Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page. Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]. Please do not mark the edit as minor (m). Save the page ("Publish changes"). If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page. If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If it is an inline template, use |showontransclusion=tiny instead. If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP II.	List the entry on RfD.  Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries. Enter this text below the date heading: {{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~ For this template: Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=. Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=). Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating). To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects: {{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}} {{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}} {{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~ If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.	Notify users.   It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template {{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~ may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]. Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

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

Current list

April 13

Someday or One Day(film)

• Someday or One Day(film) → Someday or One Day (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created as a result of a page move; does not qualify for WP:R3. Would qualify for WP:X3. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 05:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, G6, leftover from page move confusion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Holomorphic Fok space

• Holomorphic Fok space → Oscillator representation#Holomorphic Fok space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The spelling "Fok" is not commonly used in English for things named after the scientist. Sesquilinear (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Redirects are cheap, but the editor also moved Fock space to Fok space, which I reverted. And "Fok space" can be found in the internets.--Altenmann >talk 04:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Alleged attempt to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh

• Alleged attempt to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh → Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Alleged plot to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh → Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Brett Kavanaugh alleged assassination plot → Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Draft:Alleged plot to kill Brett Kavanaugh → Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Draft:Alleged plot to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh → Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fails WP:X or Y Too ambiguous, could refer to other threats made by different people. These namespace's may also be needed again. Mysticair667537 (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• keep. Nothing ambiguous and difinitely not XorY. Do you know any such "different people"? --Altenmann >talk 04:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: "In 2024, An Alaska man was charged with threatening to torture and assassinate six Supreme Court justices" [1] Mysticair667537 (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • If the event proves to be notable, move to Brett Kavanaugh assassination plots and expand. --Altenmann >talk 05:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

April 12

Herscu

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

This could also refer to Jonah Herscu, who is the head coach of Rip City Remix. I would suggest setindexifying it. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 23:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Conventionally, only articles matter for set-index purposes. There's only one article with "Herscu" in its title, so this redirects there. Nevertheless, there's a case here that search results are more helpful. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I did see a few set-indexed pages having redirects, so I thought there could be a chance that Jonah has a redirect, and then Herscu can be turned into that type of page. He is mentioned at a few targets on here, which means creating a redirect does seem possible (if I'm understanding this correctly). There's a chance "Herscu" may come off as confusing, as Jonah appears to be the more common topic here. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 04:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    • That's a good idea when there's lots of mentions able to be included (though again, a bit unconventional). If it's a stretch to include more than George and Jonah, then a hatnote will suffice. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Jonah Herscu is mentioned on a number of pages but none are suitable redirect targets since they are passing mentions with no substantive biographical information. There's also Herșcu Aroneanu mentioned and red-linked at Francisc Rainer, People's Party (Romania, 1918–38), Barbu Lăzăreanu, and N. D. Cocea. Search is better here and will help readers locate these and the other one-off Herscus I found mentioned in other articles. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep for now, see my comment below. --Altenmann >talk 19:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment : Herșcu/Herșco is a Romanian-language diminutive for the name Herschel or Hersh when belonged to Romanian Azhkenazi Jews, similar to Hershke. It can also be used as a surname. It produced patronymic surname Herșcovici, akin to a bunch of other, see Hershkowitz. Not to say about Hershko. Possibly I will write a "given name" article for all this. --Altenmann >talk 19:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 23:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Pope Trump

• Pope Trump → American expansionism under Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word Pope is not mentioned. People may also be looking for relationships between both, such as in Holy See–United States relations § 1984–present or Rationale for the 2026 Iran war § Religious criticisms. Skemous (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose deletion fwiw, but would support a redirect change if there's any consensus for such. Btw, this is obviously a reference to this heretical AI slop Yacàwotçã (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Greater America

• Greater United States → Manifest destiny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Greater America → American expansionism under Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Bundling separately from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 9 § United States Expansionism. They should have the same target. Skemous (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Third Gulf War

• Third Gulf War → Gulf War (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gulf War III → War in Iraq (2013–2017)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Third Persian Gulf War → Iraq war  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It appears sources are now sporadically using this term to describe the current Iran war ([2], [3], [4]), and it seems reasonable to accordingly retarget this redirect there. I could see how this might look like recentism, but it's unclear what else would be the "Third Gulf War" if not this. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, at least for now. Based on the target, there are at lefourtast four conflicts that could be regarded as the third gulf war. At present I'm not seeing a primary topic for the search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf, if you're referring to the DAB page, most of the entries are from before the original Gulf War. There's one that took place in the immediate aftermath of the First Gulf War, but it seems dubious that this internal Iraqi conflict was ever described as a "Gulf War" (no source is provided for any of the entries). In any case, "Second Gulf War" is overwhelming understood to refer to the war that began with the 2003 US invasion, and this recent conflict is the only one listed that has occurred after the "Second Gulf War". — An anonymous username, not my real name 14:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  That assumes that everyone searching for this term is also familiar with what people mean by a different term, and I don't think we can be sure of that, especially as Second gulf war also targets the dab page (Second Gulf War targets Iraq War though, so see separate nomination shortly). Regardless though of whether the "Second" has a primary topic, it's clear from search results that the "Third" does not (yet). Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at sources from between the invasion of Iraq and this recent war, I see three specifically using this term to describe a hypothetical war with Iran (one during the buildup to the current conflict, one in the context of the Twelve-Day War (describing a hypothetical escalation), one from several years earlier). The National Interest has been using this tag on articles on similar scenarios for years. It seems rather uncanny that they all essentially describe this conflict before it even happened — and of course, there are a great many more using this descriptor now. As a sidenote, I cannot imagine that the Iraq War wouldn't be the primary topic for the Second Gulf War, but I suppose we'll see. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Making it explicit that I believe Gulf War III and Third Persian Gulf War should be retargetted to the disambiguation page. That three different redirects for variants of the same term have been created with three different targets strengthens the case for there being no primary topic imo. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Seems like fairly niche use so far to me, considering the breadth of coverage of the conflict. The Iran-Iraq war is sometimes referred to as the first Gulf War, so there would need to be much more widespread use to make the current war primary topic. Need for DAB is clear. —BrechtBro (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reason as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 6#Second gulf war. A bunch of Google Scholar results that refer to the Iraq War by this term. There might be some influence from other languages, as German calls the 1990/91 Gulf War the second one. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep with no prejudice to retarget in, say, a few weeks' time especially if more countries get involved. Passengerpigeon (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note I've just added Gulf War III to this nomination as it should have the same target as Third Gulf War, regardless of what that target is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Third Persian Gulf War redirects to Iraq War. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I've added that redirect to this discussion as it should have the same target as the other two. We should pick one as primary and mark the other two as {{R avoided double redirect}} of it to keep them in sync in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note comments above saying "Keep" refer to the first nominated redirect only. @Passengerpigeon, 1234qwer1234qwer4, BrechtBro, and An anonymous username, not my real name: Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Target all to Gulf War (disambiguation) —BrechtBro (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep because the name is relevant. SavagePanda845 (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting following User talk:Thepharoah17#Third Gulf War.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: where should these all target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note While this discussion was reopened, from the initial close until now these redirects were not tagged for being at RfD. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 14:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Just disambiguate them all by retargeting the outliers to Gulf War (disambiguation). --Joy (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Minor Dalek variants and terms

• The Klade → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The God of all Daleks → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Dalek language → Dalek  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Dalek Language → Dalek  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Dalek Lieutenant → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The Dalek Prime → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• New Dalek Empire → Dalek#Fictional history  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Red Dalek → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Psyche Dalek → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Scout Dalek → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Rel (dalek time) → Dalek#Measurements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Marine Dalek → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Marsh Dalek → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Dalek agent → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Rel (time) → Dalek#Measurements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The New Daleks → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The Abomination (Doctor Who) → Dalek#Conception and design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These are minor or unclear Dalek variant redirects leftover from the recent consensus to redirect Dalek variants to Dalek. These are minor variants unmentioned in major sources that don't currently have a place to be sent to, and thus are better off deleted for the time being. There are also some terms in here without much place elsewhere. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete all apart from New Dalek Empire which could be retargeted to Dalek#Revived Era as the rebuilding of the empire is mentioned there and The New Daleks which could be retargeted to Dalek#2010s and redesigns. Suonii180 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Terrell Carter

• Terrell Carter → Beauty in Black  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The actor is listed as a cast member but there is zero biographical information at the target, nor would this be an appropriate place to expand coverage. He is mentioned in numerous articles about other TV shows, movies, and plays he has appeared in. Terrell Campbell is also listed as a song writer at multiple articles including Tevin Campbell (album), MK (record producer), and others. There are also student athletes named Terrell Carter, who I think are different people, listed at several articles including 2014–15 Fresno State Bulldogs men's basketball team, 2020 Southeastern Louisiana Lions football team and others. The actor–songwriter is potentially notable, in which case WP:RETURNTORED applies. Either way, redirecting to his most recent role is arbitrary and obscures the breadth of coverage about his work across Wikipedia. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Basically, you demonstrated it needs to be a dab page, not a deleted page. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

What would go on the dab page? There is at least one Terrell Carter, mentioned in dozens of articles, but who has no article of his own. There is also one or more college athlete with the same name. They are less likely to be notable and also don't have their own articles. A list of Terrell Carter's credits, none of which are works titled Terrell Carter, would be totally in appropriate for a Terrell Carter dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You said it:

Terrell Carter may refer to:

• Playboi Carti (born Jordan Terrell Carter, 1995 or 1996), American rapper
• Terrell Carter, an actor that appeared in Beauty in Black
• Terrell Carter, songwriter who co-wrote "Another Way" by Tevin Campbell
• Terrell Carter, who competed during the 2014–15 Fresno State Bulldogs men's basketball team
• Terrell Carter, who competed for the 2020 Southeastern Louisiana Lions football team

Such pages are not forbidden. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I intentionally didn't mention Playboi Carti, who to my knowledge is not referred to as "Terrell Carter" alone. Terrell Carter the songwriter/vocalist and Terrell Carter the actor are the same person. Why associate Terrell Carter with only one of his credits and not all the others that have articles? A performer with dozens of credits should not be arbitrarily linked to just one on a dab page. Deleting would reveal the breadth of coverage in 40+ articles and may encourage article creation per WP:RETURNTORED and WP:REDLINK (although incoming links would need to be reviewed and many more could be added to the numerous articles where the performer is mentioned). Also, the two non-notable college athletes are listed in more than one article, for different seasons, so I'm not sure what basis there would be for selecting one article over the other for each of them. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the best solution is after some researching. Google searches showed mostly results about the actor. However, searches throughout Wikimedia projects showed that it mostly refers to the basketball player: see in Italian Wikipedia, in Russian Wikipedia, and on Wikimedia Commons. Wikidata has two items, one for the basketball player and one for the actor. All links in articles refer to basketball, probably for the basketball player mentioned. WP:RETURNTORED may not be a good idea since it's hard to tell whether someone who eventually comes to create an article about someone named "Terrell Carter" would most likely write about the basketball player (for consistency with itwiki, etc.), the actor (first results from searching), or someone else. There might be a way to work this out, but I'm not sure and don't have an official suggestion yet. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  There are just three links from articles, all referring to the basketball player—I assume the same former college player but I haven't verified this. However, the actor/vocalist/songwriter is mentioned in many more articles and could/should be linked. Mass-linking him now might be disruptive and may create a need for major cleanup depending on how this closes. But I don't think the small number of incoming links tell us much other than the association made by one or a handful of basketball readers. This redirect had zero views in the last 90 days, until yesterday when I started looking into this, so there doesn't appear to be much organic search interest in "Terrell Carter" and the basketball links don't drive traffic, despite some of the articles receiving a lot of pageviews. WikiNav for the basketball articles does show that they drive traffic to other player articles. I take your point about WP:RETURNTORED, but the linking appears to be an artifact of the basketball player being listed in a few articles where every player name is linked, and not reflective of actual usage in English-language sources on or off en-wiki. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  I feel like the main issue is that the basketball player "Terrell Carter" is already used in a few places. People who play sports are more likely to be linked than actors, but this isn't the only place where "Terrell Carter" is involved. Since the Italian Wikipedia has an article about the American basketball player (emphasis on American, so affiliated with English language) at it:Terrell Carter, and Wikimedia Commons has a category about the same person at c:Category:Terrell Carter, it may possibly be confusing for different Wikipedias to have different people with the same name since it's possible for someone to think these people are the same (even though they aren't). Even though the actor Terrell Carter is more popular, we have more information on the basketball player on Wikidata. This only adds to the confusion on what the purpose of the page Terrell Carter should be, which I'm unsure what it should be. Mathguy2718 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  The only sensible thing to do is delete. Articles can be created for either Terrell Carter at any time and, in the event that they both end up with articles, they can be disambiguated appropriately. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. As it is now, this redirect just gets in the way of the search engine. If there are two or more possible topics, and two or more possible targets for each but nothing substantial at any of them, it's misleading to point readers to just one when the search engine would give readers multiple choices. The ideal solution would be to create stubs at Terrell Carter (actor) and Terrell Carter (basketball), at least, assuming they're notable, and then make Terrell Carter a dab page. Station1 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:00, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Anna Kang

• Anna Kang → Katherine Anna Kang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RETURNTORED. There's a children's book author named Anna Kang (see You Are (Not) Small) who is likely notable. There's no indication that Katherine Kang goes by Anna. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems certain these are different people. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  I should have mentioned that up front. They are different people. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep due to that is how media has referred to her: "announced his engagement to Anna Kang, the ex-director of business development at id" [5], headline: Anna Kang Talks Orcs & Elves & Diamonds. Pmsyyz (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Iphone 4.0.1

• Iphone 4.0.1 → IOS 4#4.0.1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think Iphone 4.0.1 is needed because there are 0 page views [6] and its a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 15:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Conflating iPhone 4 and iOS 4 can only lead to confusion. No articles mention this version of the phone. - Eureka Lott 18:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Conmhaícne

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

This redirect and all other redirects with 'Conmhaícne…' titles

• Conmhaícne Mheáin Maigh → Máenmag  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Máenmaige → Máenmag  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Mheáin → Máenmag  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Mara → Conmaicne Mara  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Angaile → Conmaicne Angaile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Ceara → Conmaicne of Carra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Cúile Ceara → Conmaicne of Carra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Cúile Carra → Conmaicne of Carra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Carra → Conmaicne of Carra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Dúna Móir → Conmaicne Dúin Móir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Cenél Dubáin → Conmaicne Dúin Móir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Cenéoil Dubáin → Conmaicne Dúin Móir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Cluain Conmhaícne → Cluain Conmaicne  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Cúile Tuired → Conmaicne Cuile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Cúile Tolad → Conmaicne Cuile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Cúile Tuiredh → Conmaicne Cuile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Cúile Tuireadh → Conmaicne Cuile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Cúile → Conmaicne Cuile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Cuile → Conmaicne Cuile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Luacháin → Cenel Luacháin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conmhaícne Cenel Luacháin → Cenel Luacháin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

See talk:Conmaicne. These are all misspellings originating from Wikipedia and many are completely unattested interpretations/plain misinformation by the same user. Additionally, redirects which should be included in this mass deletion are:

• Conmaicne Cúile Tuiredh → Conmaicne Cuile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ], unattested and made up by user (MUU)
• Conmaicne Cúile Ceara → Conmaicne of Carra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] MUU
• Conmaicne Cuile Carra → Conmaicne of Carra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] MUU
• Conmaicne Cenel Meic Eircce → Conmaicne of Carra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] MUU
• Conmaicne Cenel Dubain → Conmaicne Dúin Móir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] MUU, grammatically inaccurate
• Conmaicne Luchan → Cenel Luacháin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] spelling
• Cenel Luachán → Cenel Luacháin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Inconsistent accents
• Cenéoil Dubáin → Conmaicne Dúin Móir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] grammatical error
• Conmaicne Dunmore → Conmaicne Dúin Móir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] not a term, though, I’ll probably create Conmaicne of Dunmore as a redirect
• Conmaicne Máenmaige → Máenmag  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] MUU (Máenmag was not a branch of Conmaicne)
• Conmaicne Cúile Ceara → Conmaicne of Carra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] MUU, accidentally moved to this title by a user during recent move request

Once these are deleted I will create any required redirects e.g. accented vs unaccented forms, modern Irish spellings, etc. Though there will likely be a bit more clean up. Saighneánach (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: tagged the other pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Saighneánach: you need to tag all the pages with RfD templates. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts: I think that’s sorted now? Saighneánach (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 15:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Control commission

• Control commission → Alcoholic beverage control state  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Control Commission → Alcoholic beverage control state  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not discussed at the target, and there are plenty of different "control commissions", many of which are not related to alcohol in any way: All pages with source code containing ""control commission" ". Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I bundled Control Commission. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This is misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Score (magazine)

• Score (magazine) → The Score Group#Score  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Currently this is a redirect to a publisher of a niche American porn mag of unclear notability; the target section no longer exists. The name is more likely valid for a Czech video game magazine: cs:Score (časopis) which seems notable (dozen refs; over 20 years of history and still ongoing).This should likely be a red link until the magazine entry is translated from Czech _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

55 Cancri h

• 55 Cancri h → 55 Cancri#Possible planets  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_2#55_Cancri_i. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Bruce Perreault

• Bruce Perreault → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants#Seasons 41–50 (2021–2026)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

IMO, should be redirected to Survivor 45, where his role was bigger there as a returnee. In Survivor 44, he was the first out... well, medically evacuated due to injury. Also, the 45 article mentions his prior 44 gameplay adequately, IMO. George Ho (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-decidable

• Semi-decidable → Undecidable problem  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Semidecidability → Decidability (logic)#Semidecidability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Semi-decidability → Decidability (logic)#Semidecidability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Semidecidable → Computably enumerable set  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Semideciding → Computably enumerable set  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These should lead to the same target. Some discussion has previously occurred at Talk:Semi-decidable. For comparison, Undecidable is a disambiguation page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 20:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• Create a disambiguation page at semidecidable or semidecidability (the spelling with a dash seems to be less common), retarget all others to it. The disambiguation page should have links to Decidability (logic)#Semidecidability, Recursively enumerable language and Computably enumerable set (but no other pages; Undecidable problem isn't appropriate). These three are related but separate subjects. I think none of them can claim to be the "main" kind of semidecidability. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  I hope it's ok if I ping a few users who seem to be around and have contributed to these or related articles: @D.Lazard, @David Eppstein, @Jochen Burghardt: What do you think? (I bet there are many others, but I'm not very active in that area...) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  As I just wrote on the talk page: I don't understand what distinction is being made here. Decision problems (as specifications of which inputs should have the answer yes and which no), languages (sets of strings, the strings for which the answer should be yes), and sets (maybe of natural numbers rather than strings) are all equivalent formalizations of the same concept. Why do we have three different link targets, none of which clearly state that these are all equivalent ways of thinking about the same thing? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  I replied at Talk:Semi-decidable#What is the best redirect target? — Chrisahn (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaving a note for WP:WPMATH asking for input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate Semidecidable as Chrisahn suggested, retarget all others to it. Even if there's a primary topic, we currently don't have an article about it. I think Semidecidable is the best title for the disambiguation page because:

1. Semidecidable has the most incoming links (7, second place belongs to Semi-decidable with 4).
2. This is used much more commonly as an adjective than as a noun in our existing articles, in a hypothetical article about semi(-)decidable problems, and, according to Ngram, in books.
3. The variants without a hyphen are the only ones used in the current link targets. We should either hyphenate this everywhere or nowhere.

As D.Lazard pointed out here, it would be good to have an article on Semidecidable problem, and once we do, it might become the primary topic. If that happens, we can move the disambiguation page to Semidecidable (disambiguation), retarget everything to Semidecidable problem, and include a hatnote there. Personally, I'm against this idea. Anyone who uses the search box for "semidecidable" will immediately see Semidecidable problem thanks to the autocomplete, and these redirects could cause editors to link to the wrong article by accident.

David Eppstein and Chrisahn noted here that we could at some point turn Semidecidability into an article about the general concept, and maybe even merge some or all of the link targets into it. If that happens, obviously we should retarget everything there. Streded (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguation draft requested (done) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• wikt:semi-decidable: (computing theory) Of a set, such that there is a deterministic algorithm such that (a) if an element is a member of the set, the algorithm halts with the result "positive", and (b) if an element is not a member of the set, (i) the algorithm does not halt, or (ii) if it does, then with the result "negative". Synonyms: recursively enumerable
  wikt:recursively enumerable: (computing theory) Of a set, such that there exists a deterministic algorithm which will list all the items in the set and no others.
  The distinction between these synonymous definitions, both in computing theory, seems problematic to me. I could see a need for disambiguation if, e.g., we had Semidecidable (sports): a game which goes to overtime, where the game could either result in one team winning, or a tie (neither team winning). But, that's not the case here. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• How to disambiguate these uses? My sense is that they're mostly just looking for a dictionary definition of the term. I have trouble understanding exactly what these sentences are saying, which makes it hard for me to disambiguate them (mind you, I studied multiple semesters of calculus in college):
  • First-order logic: "Although the logical consequence relation is only semidecidable, much progress has been made in automated theorem proving in first-order logic."
  • Groupoid: "If we relax the reflexivity requirement and consider partial equivalence relations, then it becomes possible to consider semidecidable notions of equivalence on computable realisers for sets."
  • Topology: "In this context, Steve Vickers... characterizes topological spaces as Boolean or Heyting algebras over open sets, which are characterized as semidecidable (equivalently, finitely observable) properties."
  • Knuth–Bendix completion algorithm: ...is a semi-decision algorithm for transforming a set of equations (over terms) into a confluent term rewriting system."
  • Satisfiability modulo theories: "Since full first-order logic is only semidecidable, one line of research attempts to find efficient decision procedures for fragments of first-order logic such as effectively propositional logic."
  • Computable analysis: "Semidecidable sets are analogous to open sets."
  • Satisfiability: "...it is a co-RE-complete problem and therefore not semidecidable."
  • Unification (computer science): "It is said that unification is semi-decidable for a theory, if a unification algorithm has been devised for it that terminates for any solvable input problem, but may keep searching forever for solutions of an unsolvable input problem.
  • Foundations of mathematics: "(it is only semi-decidable as given by the completeness theorem)"
  • Ambiguous grammar: "At least, there are tools implementing some semi-decision procedure for detecting ambiguity of context-free grammars."
  • Formal proof: "...the problem of finding proofs (automated theorem proving) is usually computationally intractable and/or only semi-decidable, depending upon the formal system in use."
  • Dependence logic: "The inconsistency problem of dependence logic is semidecidable, and in fact equivalent to the inconsistency problem for first-order logic."
    Not quite an exhaustive list, but I'll stop here. A dozen examples should be sufficient for seeing the problem here. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  They're all referring to the same thing, as do all three proposed redirect targets: problems for which there is an algorithm that, when the answer is "yes", will always terminate with the answer yes , but when the answer is "no", might not ever terminate. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for draft of DAB page and to remove from old log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 15:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Draft started at Semidecidable. David Eppstein, maybe you can help clean it up. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  So now we have separate content forks at semidecidable, recursively enumerable language, and computably enumerable set, all of which concern the same topic? How is creating yet another content fork an improvement? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  Recursively enumerable language is the original article, which has history dating to June 2002.

  Computably enumerable set was started by Michael Hardy @1 October 2003.

  On 9 November 2004, User:MathMartin did a "Complete rewrite of recursively enumerable language. Most content in the article was not directly relevant and is better covered at recursively enumerable set".

  Q. what's the difference between recursively enumerable language and a recursively enumerable set?

  A. (ChatGPT) Short answer: there’s essentially no difference—they refer to the same idea, just from slightly different viewpoints.

  Core idea: Both terms come from computability theory and describe collections of objects that a Turing machine can list or recognize.

  A recursively enumerable set is:

  • A set of objects (usually strings or natural numbers)
  • For which there exists a Turing machine that:
    • Enumerates all elements in the set (possibly with repetition), OR
    • Accepts any element in the set (halts and says “yes”), but may run forever if the element is not in the set

  A recursively enumerable language is:

  • A set of strings over some alphabet
  • With exactly the same property:
    • There exists a Turing machine that accepts all strings in the language (and may loop forever on non-members)

  So what’s the difference? It’s mostly terminology and context:

  • “Set” → more general (could be numbers, encodings, etc.)
  • “Language” → specifically a set of strings (used in formal language theory)

  In fact: Every recursively enumerable language is a recursively enumerable set, and vice versa (if you encode elements as strings).

  Think of it this way:

  • A language is just a set of strings
  • “Recursively enumerable” describes how that set can be generated or recognized

  So the two phrases describe the same property, just applied to slightly different types of objects. The real conceptual jump happens in how this differs from decidable (recursive) languages. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  It is not appropriate to redirect this page to "recursively enumerable language", since that is not what "recursively enumerable" usually refers to, and is only a special case of a more general idea. – Michael Hardy 20:52, 30 September 2003

  Should we merge these articles to Recursively enumerableRecursively enumerable or Semidecidable? wbm1058 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it's important which name we choose as primary. There is actually a conceptual difference between semidecision algorithms (which answer yes or no and might not ever halt if the answer is no) and enumeration algorithms (which take no input and list the strings for which the answer is yes) but the sets they define are the same because one kind of algorithm is very easily converted into the other (as a merged article should discuss). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  Q. What's the difference between "recursively enumerable" and "semidecidable"?

  A. (ChatGPT) There’s no difference in meaning—the terms are equivalent, just emphasizing different viewpoints.

  In computability theory:

  Recursively enumerable (RE) focuses on generation:

  A set/language is RE if a Turing machine can

  • enumerate (list) all its elements, possibly with repetition, possibly never halting overall

  Semidecidable focuses on decision/recognition:

  A set/language is semidecidable if a Turing machine:

  • halts and accepts when the input is in the set
  • may run forever when the input is not in the set

  • If you can enumerate elements, you can check whether a given input appears in the list → accept if it does (semidecision) – “Recursively enumerable” = “I can eventually list all members”
  • If you can semidecide, you can run the machine on all possible inputs in parallel and output the ones it accepts → enumeration – “Semidecidable” = “I can confirm membership, but might never reject”

  – wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: fifth relist to hopefully resolve this. @David Eppstein & @wbm1058: The page that's drafted at semidecidable is not a DAB. If you want to create an article, you can do that separately from RfD, but I can't close this as disambiguate without an actual dab draft.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts: You can't close this as disambiguate, because there is no consensus to disambiguate. The guys you should ping are those who suggested disambiguation. They need to explain how they would disambiguate all the links I listed above which would require disambiguation if this was closed as an ambiguous topic. I don't really want to create a new article; I think articles should be merged, so I guess the way forward may be to close this as no consensus, and then put two or three articles up for deletion with the hope that we can figure out how to merge them. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Q. what's the difference between recursively enumerable language and a recursively enumerable set?

A. (ChatGPT) Short answer: there’s essentially no difference—they refer to the same idea, just from slightly different viewpoints.

Recursively enumerable language is currently an article. Recursively enumerable setRecursively enumerable set redirects to Computably enumerable set.

Q. what's the difference between a recursively enumerable set and a computably enumerable set?

A. (ChatGPT) There's no difference—the terms recursively enumerable (r.e.) set and computably enumerable (c.e.) set refer to the same concept in computability theory.

The difference is purely terminology and historical preference:

• Recursively enumerable (r.e.)
  • Older term, coming from early recursion theory.
  • Emphasizes definitions using recursive functions.
• Computably enumerable (c.e.)
  • More modern term.
  • Emphasizes the notion of computation (algorithms, Turing machines).

Q. what's the difference between a recursively enumerable language and a computably enumerable set?

A. (ChatGPT) In practice, there's no real difference in computational meaning—the distinction is about what kind of objects you're talking about.

• “Recursively enumerable language”
  • Used in formal language theory and automata
  • Elements are strings (like "1011")
• “Computably enumerable set”
  • Used in logic / computability theory
  • Elements are numbers (like 42)

A recursively enumerable language is just a computably enumerable set viewed as strings instead of numbers. Same concept, different viewpoint. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

If you don't really want to create a new article, why did you draft one? I'm very confused by what's happening in this RfC. The ChatGPT conversations are not helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Trump and Zelenskyy

• Trump and Zelenskyy → 2025 Trump–Zelenskyy Oval Office meeting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear why readers would be looking for 2025 Trump–Zelenskyy Oval Office meeting specifically; Trump and Zelenskyy have had plenty of other notable interactions (one of which led to an impeachment). Not opposed to retargeting if there's an article that talks about their relationship in general terms, but otherwise this is just a WP:XY redirect that should be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:RETURNTORED; should there be reliable sources (which I assume there will be lots of involving these two well-known politicians' relationship), an article can be written, albeit at Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy and leave the redirect in question as a redirect to that title. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 16:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Ukraine–United States relations where both events are mentioned. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Seoul.

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

WP:UNNATURAL, unnecessary dot A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. UNNATURAL is based on the idea that redirects ending in a full stop are very unlikely search terms, so their maintenance burden outweighs their helpfulness. Given the popularity of its target, this redirect receives 50 views a year, which is perfectly normal for a redirect. So this one should be kept. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:UNNATURAL. J947's reasoning is incorrect. We have over 7 million articles, every one of which could have a redirect like this (a lot more when you consider that redirects could themselves have the period-augmented version). 50 views of the redirect in a year for an article this popular is background noise. Any article with high view counts is going to see sporadic usage of redirects to it, simply by them existing, and those 50 could easily have come from editors and not readers. If I search for "toronto.", surprise surprise, the very first hit from the search results is Toronto, taking me where I likely wanted to go from such a search. Keeping millions of such redirects really is a maintenance burden, especially when it's just not needed.
  This was a WP:BLAR from way the hell back in 2003 that lasted for all of 3 whole minutes from someone trying to "set the record straight". It was never even intended as a useful redirect, but just as a shortcut to deleting an obviously bad article. Now that we're here, let's just get this over with and do what should have been done 23 years ago. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  Any article with high view counts is going to see sporadic usage of redirects to it, simply by them existing: yes, that's precisely why {{R from modification}}s that would be a burden to most articles are helpful to high-viewed ones. I think you know that. The logical conclusion of the unlikely idea that the viewers are editors is that 50 editors have viewed this redirect in the last 23 years but only the 1150th one decides to send it to RfD. That's more than a touch unlikely (or demonstrative that the vast majority of editors think this redirect helpful). J947 ‡ ^edits 02:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  Copy-edited 21:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC).

• Delete no useful history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Regardless of whether you think people should be using this search time, the evidence is that a significant number of people do. There is no justification for making it harder for people to find the content they are looking for when, like here, doing so will result is absolutely zero benefit to the project. I also agree with J947. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I wouldn't go around creating Animal. or Canada., but this redirect in particular is getting used, and is unambiguously going to the right target. That makes it useful, if only to ~50 people a year (and I really doubt that those are all just editors going through "What links here"). It would be harmful to delete this, and I don't see any benefit that outweighs that harm. WP:UNNATURAL is part of Wikipedia:Redirects are costly. I'd like to remind editors that sending redirects to RFD is costly, too. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Law

• Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Law → Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Act  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

As for Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Law, the current title is Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Act, so this redirect is useless. Unilandofma^Talk 12:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: These are three unrelated redirects so I'm splitting up the nomination. To clarify matters, the original nomination has be split into three and Katiedevi's comment has only been copied to the Jalaaluddin nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 21:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as sites like the UN OHCHR or adhadhu.com have referred to this law as such Duckmather (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The Liverpool Post

• The Liverpool Post → Liverpool Daily Post  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Liverpool Post → Liverpool Daily Post  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Possible disambiguation here? The Mill (newspaper) also lists the Liverpool Post as one of its (existing) titles - see https://www.livpost.co.uk/ GnocchiFan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The same goes for the redirect Liverpool Post, FWIW. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to bundle Liverpool Post
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Since there's only two options, I'd suggest adding a hatnote to Liverpool Daily Post instead for readers that are looking for the sister publication of the The Mill (newspaper). Katiedevi (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 21:39, 4 April 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) 03:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep with hatnote, per Katiedevi. – Scyrme (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget both to The Mill (newspaper). An ongoing concern https://www.livpost.co.uk/ seems to be the primary topic over a partial title match to a newspaper that ceased in 2013. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites

• United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites → 2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites was moved from this title in early March following the beginning of the recent conflict, which has indeed included United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. However, the fact that this term still redirects there means there is little difference in practice. I think the earlier event remains the primary topic for this specific phrase, as it is still the only instance of United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites with an actual article. I would vote for the original title to be restored for the time being, with a hatnote to 2026 Iran war (List of attacks during the 2026 Iran war would be better in theory, but it does not specifically discuss nuclear sites). — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• To clarify, the reason why this wasn't done as a simple RM is because I think DABifying would be the second best option, with total inaction being my least preferred result. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose move, Support for change from redirect to disambiguation page with two options (2025, 2026). There is no primary topic here. To rename the 2025 article use WP:RM process. Teterev53 (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  United States strikes on Iran is already a disambiguation. Ingolar (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Noting there is an RM open for that disambiguation page to broaden its scope. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:42, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 21:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Member of the House of Lords

• Member of the House of Lords → List of current members of the House of Lords  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Lists of members of the House of Lords (or just House of Lords)? Note that every peer's infobox links to this redirect. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I would keep if as it links to current members only. ~2026-18008-96 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep this as this redirect had been around for 20 years ~2026-18008-96 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as is or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 19:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Lists of members of the House of Lords as we cannot assume someone using this search term is only interested in current members. If the link in the infobox is intended to refer to only current members then it should be updated to link to that article directly. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

96-gon

• 96-gon → Polygon#Naming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Enneacontahexagon → Polygon#Naming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned; might be better to retarget to Approximations of pi. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to approximations of pi (where Archimedes' use of the regular 96-gon to approximate pi is mentioned), per nom. Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment two other possible targets are Chiliagon#Philosophical application and List of polygons#List of n-gons by Greek numerical prefixes (the latter of which I am slightly leaning towards on the grounds of it being a systematic list). Duckmather (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

New Xbox

• New Xbox → Xbox Series X and Series S  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this be kept where it is, or should it be retargeted to Xbox#Fifth generation: Project Helix? TNstingray (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. A nonspecific collocation and the "moving target" issue: Each new xbox is a new xbox. --Altenmann >talk 17:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I imagine "Project Helix" or even just searching "Xbox" by itself would be more likely search terms for someone who vaguely knew of next Xbox products but wanted to learn more. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget either to Xbox#Consoles or Xbox (disambiguation)#Consoles. The former is where someone will find information in prose form about both the most recent and, when such information is available, next Xbox. The latter however is in list format (we don't have a separate List of Xbox consoles) that is likely to be more useful to someone quickly searching, however it doesn't include the in-development console codenamed Project Helix (I am open minded about whether it should). Both destinations will be far more useful to readers using this plausible search term and will bypass the moving target issue. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 07:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RELTIME. --~2026-22178-33 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's a guideline about article content, not redirects. Redirects using words like "next" and "new" are fine when we have content that cover that phrase or, like here, are time independent. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Some ambiguous redirects

• Pro-Independence Movement → Independence movement in Puerto Rico  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Movimiento Pro-Independencia → Independence movement in Puerto Rico  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Independista → Independence movement in Puerto Rico  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Independenista → Independence movement in Puerto Rico  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Independentismo → Independence movement in Puerto Rico  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Independentistas → Independence movement in Puerto Rico  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Independentista → Independence movement in Puerto Rico  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

They're really ambiguous. Retarget "Pro-Independence Movement" and delete the rest. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Tagged redirects since they weren't tagged by the nom. @Candidyeoman55: Please note that you need to add the RfD tag to each redirect before nominating them here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  I forgot to do it, sorry. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  No worries. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  So what's your opinion then on the redirects? Should they be retargeted, deleted, or neither? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  I actually agree with your proposal, but I think all of them should be deleted, since they're clearly ambiguous. So delete all per nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  Pro-Independence Movement should be retargeted Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Mixed -
  • Retarget Pro-Independence Movement to Separatism as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Pro-independence movement. I can see an argument for targeting both to List of active separatist movements but both capitalisations should lead to the same place.
  • Retarget Movimiento Pro-Independencia to Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PSP). The Puerto-Rican movement is the clear primary topic for this term in English results, and the PSP article seems to be where we have the most detail about the organisation with this name.
  • Delete Independentismo. This is unambiguously a WP:FORRED case, very nearly all results I'm seeing are in Spanish, principally relating to Catalonia (none of the hits on the first three pages of Google were obviously related to Puerto Rico).
  • Disambig? Independista, Independentista and Independentistas are complicated. These are used for basically any independence movement in a Spanish- or Catalan-speaking country, with Catalonia and Puerto Rico the most prominent. I think treating this as a WP:FORRED issue is best. The first two have no primary topic, but the final one does - unambiguously Puerto Rico. The latter two are used at Independence movement in Puerto Rico#20th century to present but I don't think that would make a great target. There might be scope for a set-indexy type article about these and the one below given they are used in English. It would link to the Catalan and Puerto Rican movement articles and either Lists of active separatist movements page or the sub-articles there. Transcluding Template:Secessions by country may also be good.
  • Maybe disambig? Independenista. In contemporary British usage the primary topic here relates to people active in the Scottish independence movement, perhaps originally used as a derrogatory term it might be being reclaimed? In contemporary US usage it seems to primarily relate to Puerto Rico, in older usage on both sides of the Atlantic Cuba seems to be the most prominent. I might argue for a soft redirect to Wiktionary but there isn't any content there. Maybe include it on the same page as Independentista?
    I wasn't intending to make this into a train wreck, but my research revealed it was a lot more complicated than I thought! Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 04:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Security minister of Israel

• Security minister of Israel → Ministry of Defense (Israel)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Suggest delete since there is Ministry of National Security (Israel). Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Instead of deleting, couldn't we just redirect it to Ministry of National Security (Israel) then? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Ministry of Defence (Israel) 'oversees most of the Israeli security forces', making the article an intuitive candidate for the redirect. On the other hand, Ministry of National Security (Israel) was formerly the Ministry for Internal Security, also making it an intuitive candidate for the redirect. I'm leaning towards the Ministry of Defence (Israel) redirect. Katiedevi (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral on keeping, oppose retargeting. As noted in the article, "Ministry of Security" is the literal translation of the Ministry of Defence's Hebrew name. In Israel, the word "security" is associated mainly with military matters. However, the official (and widely used) name of the Ministry of Defence in English doesn't contain the word "security" and the name of the Ministry of National Security does. Streded (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Disambig. This is a very plausible search term, there are at least two plausible targets and no obvious primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting this is an {{R from move}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 04:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Conical Peak

• Conical Peak → Boundary Cone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was created in 2010 when the page was moved due to the title being incorrect. Conical Peak is not an alternate name here. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Disambig. I can't find evidence that this mountain is called "Conical Peak", although others are. We have very limited content about Conical Peak (Philippines) (mentioned in the infobox at Masbate Island), Conical Peak (New Zealand) (mentioned at Horse Range (New Zealand)#Conical Peak), Conical Peak (Montana) (list entry at List of mountains in Park County, Montana) and the generic Conical hill (to which I'll create the redirect Conical peak shortly). A see also to Conical Hill (disambiguation) and Cone Peak wouldn't be out of place either. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Conical Hill (disambiguation), which I've expanded to cover places named "Conical Peak" in preference to a separate dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Octave twelve

• Octave twelve → Vox (company)#Guitars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Back in September, Vox Mando-Guitar was moved from octave twelve in an RM due to me failing to find any proof that the instrument was ever called an "octave twelve". However, the page was redirected to Vox (company) only a day after the move, leaving this double redirect behind. I still can't find any proof that the Vox Mando-Guitar was ever called an "octave twelve", and this redirect gets far less than one hit a day, so it's an unlikely and vague search term with no foreseeable use. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. It's difficult to assess how many hits this actually gets because the stats include the article previously at the title and it hasn't been a redirect for very long. I was able to find some mentions of this name used in reference to the guitar (eg. reverb.com, which mentions it's "sometimes" called an "Octave 12"). This link, or one like it, could be used as a reference to provide a mention, however they're not the best quality sources (for example, reverb.com is principally an online marketplace, though it has "news" page). If this were Octave 12 (with a number, making capitalisation irrelevant) or Octave Twelve (capitalised as a proper noun), then I might consider a redirect appropriate (after adding a referenced mention). With this capitalisation, I favour deletion.

I considered retargeting to Scientific pitch notation, which includes a table of numbered octaves, however that table only goes up to octave ten and even if octave twelve were added it would exceed the limit of human hearing. No instrument would have twelve octaves on it (a piano typically has five), and none would have their octaves tuned so high as to include the twelfth octave as numbered by the table (except perhaps as some sort of weird avant-garde performance, playing music no-one can hear).

If this is not deleted, I'd suggest retargeting instead to Octave, in reference to an octave typically being divided into twelve notes, but honestly even this seems like a stretch.

The only similar numbered octave redirect I was able to find was first octave, which links to a section at octave which appears to have been deleted and was leftover from a merge. Others like octave one, octave two, second octave, etc. don't seem to exist. – Scyrme (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I have retargeted first octave to Helmholtz pitch notation, the target of Contra octave which was created as a redirect to first octave when it used to be an article. Jay 💬 08:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• What are your thoughts on Octave twelve-string guitar, Octave twelve-string acoustic guitar, Octave 12-string guitar and Octave 12-string acoustic guitar, all created on the same day by the same creator last year, as redirects to octave twelve when it used be an article? Should they also be deleted? Jay 💬 07:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Dark Oak

• Dark Oak → Sonic X#Season 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

People searching for "Dark Oak" could reasonably be looking for the Minecraft wood type. The Minecraft article doesn't mention the block, however. Bold suggestion, but perhaps a disambiguation page could be created at Dark oak (lowercase "oak") and then this redirect can be retargeted to there? Newbzy (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. People searching for "Dark Oak" could reasonably be looking for, you know, Oak of a dark type. While there is no specific "Dark oak" subspecies, there are numerous Black oak subspecies. BD2412 T 21:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
• dabify per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested. Left guide (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Can I ask, has this request been placed at a specific page or category for someone to fulfil it from there, or is it that people in this discussion should work towards creating the dab page? Newbzy (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  It's placed it in Category:Pages where a disambiguation draft is requested. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Sonic X#Metarex which is where the discussion in this article is located. Don't understand the suggestions to disambiguate. The Minecraft wood cannot be included on the disambiguation page. So we're left with the current target and an unusual capitalisation for the amorphous concept of "dark oak" wood: that's patently not enough for disambiguation. Maybe the real-life wood warrants a hatnote – but to where? J947 ‡ ^edits 23:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Look, a Google Books search for 20th century hits for "dark oak" returns dozens of results; obviously the primary historical meaning is oak (wood) that is dark. BD2412 T 17:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's a popular concept, sure. But it's a vague one. Lacking any content about "dark oak" as a class of oak, directing the reader to oak is a bit duh, and black oak, while slightly better, is only a related topic. Besides, a disambiguation page can't link to both of those concepts, but a hatnote can. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:43, 6 April 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) 02:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

SpinCo (company)

• SpinCo (company) → NBCUniversal#Restructuring and spin-off of certain assets  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Two reasons why this need to be deleted; one is that name is already given as Versant and the other is that this then-target doesn't exist. Intrisit (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Versant, where "SpinCo" is mentioned as a valid ATD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Or you could rather re-target the unDABbed SpinCo itself to "Versant" and leave this to be deleted. At least I haven't bundled it here or listed it here. Intrisit (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at Google Books, "SpinCo" seems to be used as a common placeholder term when discussing hypothetical spin-offs ([7], [8], and [9]). So I think the unDABbed version is at the right target. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Ram Singh Pathania

• Ram Singh Pathania → Pathania  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Individual not listed on this page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Second Anglo-Sikh War as he's mentioned there. Suonii180 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:42, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

US invasions

• US invasions → Lists of wars involving the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• United States invasion → Lists of wars involving the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• American invasion → List of invasions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• American invasions → List of invasions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of invasions of the United States → Attacks on the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Invasion of the United States sounds ambiguous (eg: Invasion of the United States to Afghanistan), but at least this could be kept.
The others should have the same target. Which? Abesca (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Most of these are ambiguous between invasions of the US and by the US. I'm not sure what to do here. Ideally, we would have lists or set index articles at Invasions of the United States and Invasions by the United States, and then a disambiguation page at US invasions could link to both lists. Then again, how often has the United States itself been invaded (as opposed to attacked in some other way)? – Scyrme (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American invasion decided for deletion and redirect. But at least one editor was in favor of WP:TNT, so it could exist, if well formated. Abesca (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

No it couldn't because the outcome was delete and redirect not TNT. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Then TNT means draftifying? And I never said that was the result. Abesca (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

go back and read what you wrote and my response. No, TNT is not draftifying. TNT says the subject is notable and can be recreated from scratch. In this case the consensus was not to have an article at all. That one votir thought TNT might apply does not a consensus make. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if "Country invasion" and "Nationality invasion" are supposed to mean the same thing or need to point the same place. For some examples, Iraq invasion redirects to 2003 invasion of Iraq, while Iraqi invasion is a disambiguation page; Israel invasion and Israeli invasion both redirect to List of wars involving Israel; Turkey invasion redirects to Turkish invasion; Ukraine invasion redirects to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, while Ukrainian invasion redirects to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine; and both Venezuela invasion and Venezuelan invasion redirect to Proposed United States invasion of Venezuela. Two out of five pairs have different targets. Out of these two pairs, the ones for "Ukraine" both refer to Ukraine being invaded; for Iraq, one is on Iraq while the other is from Iraq. Based on this, "Country invasion" may be distinct in that it involves an invasion in that country, as opposed to "Nationality invasion", which would describe the invasion as from that nationality. This pattern may vary though. That being said, title search for "United States invasion" shows exclusively invasions made by the United States. I'm not sure what the best target(s) is, but I'm just saying this isn't consistent for every country. Mathguy2718 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  United States invasion of Venezuela is a dab. Abesca (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep US invasions, United States invasion as {{r from subtopic}}. Any invasions both of and by the United States would be listed there, though as far as I'm aware only the War of 1812 with the occupation of Maine might qualify for the former.

Retarget American invasion and American invasions to Lists of wars involving the United States. While "[country] invasion" and "[nationality] invasion" don't necessarily need to share a target, "American invasion" implies an invasion by the US and that list is where such invasions are listed. If someone drafts a disambiguation page for American invasion, then I may reconsider, but it doesn't look like anyone's interested in attempting that. Until then, the list seems like the best place for it. The current target is far too broad.

Delete List of invasions of the United States, no such list exists and as far as I know the United States hasn't been invaded often enough for such a list to exist. If not deleted, retarget to List of wars involving the United States, which is a list which includes the war of 1812. – Scyrme (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep US invasions, United States invasion; Retarget American invasion and American invasions to Lists of wars involving the United States; Delete List of invasions of the United States. I agree with Scyrme's assessment. While there may be some ambiguity, I read US invasion as meaning invasion by the US of some other country. (Obviously, a sentence can be written to indicate the opposite.) American invasion is perhaps more ambiguous. But I agree that the US has not been invaded enough times for there to be a list, so that leaves List of invasions of the United States as the only plausible target. An "attack" is not an "invasion", so that is not a suitable target for any of these. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 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) 02:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

SL-3

• SL-3 → Vostok (rocket family)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; according to the creation summary this is a shorthand of the US DOD. I have created SL3, so that would be an alternative target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 07:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Maybe retarget to Skylab 3, the only entry at SL3 named SL-3. Jay 💬 06:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to SL3 as {{R from modification}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

20th Century Fox Consumer Products

• 20th Century Fox Consumer Products → Disney Experiences  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This title was subject to an AfD which resulted in a delete and redirect which I've not heard before as either an ATD or AfD result. Pinging Trivialist who enacted that AfD to explain why his is the earliest edit recorded in the page history of this title. Also, Eureka Lott and Pppery, since you're admins, a plea to like dig into the archives why this isn't showing anywhere in the title's logs as any HM has/had happened because the diffs and edits I'm seeing in here makes this title worthy of a listing here! Intrisit (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• The page log appears to be complete, and I don't see any evidence that a history merge was performed. Are you seeing something unexpected, @Intrisit? - Eureka Lott 21:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Then I need to hear from JJMC89 who closed the AfD to inquire if there was any history for this title prior to the AfD listing. Maybe something is missing in there.... Intrisit (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

JJMC89, I'm waiting for your input! Intrisit (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Mediabistro

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

Retarget to Mediabistro (website). This redirect currently points to Mecklermedia, a holding company that liquidated in 2015. The Mediabistro brand and platform continued operating independently and now has its own article. Anyone searching "Mediabistro" is looking for the active job board, not a defunct corporate entity. The Mecklermedia article itself notes the brand continued under separate ownership. Disclosing per WP:COI that I am affiliated with the current parent company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MENTR1977 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 20:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment if the Website is the primary topic it should be moved over this redirect (c.f. WP:MISPLACED) but I'm not sure it is. Most of the incoming links are in reference sections where it appears to be used in the Publisher field for sources like Adweek and TVSpy. I'm wondering if primary disambiguation, linking to the website, Mecklermedia and any other relevant article is the best here? Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Black mirrors

• Black mirrors → Claude glass  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Black mirror → Black Mirror  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Black Mirrors for the plural one (or hatnote) and probably Black Mirror (disambiguation) for the singular one? (or even move dab to that title) Abesca (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget both to Black Mirror (disambiguation) ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Point both to Claude glass per WP:DIFFCAPS and add a hatnote there. It's the only lower-case item on the disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 20:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget Black mirror to Black Mirror per WP:DIFFCAPS ("And a well-known concept may still be the primary topic for a variant styling or incorrect spelling, even if a much less well-known subject uses that spelling"). Retarget Black mirrors to Black Mirrors per nom and add hatnote to Black Mirror (disambiguation) NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Realized I said retarget for Black mirror when it is already targeted at Black Mirror; I meant that as Keep. Also updating my vote on Black mirrors to Keep with the addition of a hatnote to the disambiguation page—I think that makes more sense based on page views per Myceteae and Mathguy2718. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep both. Searching up "black mirror" gives mostly results about Black Mirror. This is supported by the TV series getting about 75-100x more views of claude glass. On the other hand, searching up "black mirrors" gives mostly results about actual mirrors. Black Mirrors gets about 10-20x less views than claude glass. See this pageviews analysis (best in logarithmic scale). Hatnotes would be useful for both cases. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Google does not detect differences in searching decapitalizedly or not. Abesca (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't really matter since both nominated redirects are in all lowercase and most people search in all lowercase, so looking at Google results is reasonable here. Also, "decapitalizedly" isn't a real word, so not sure of the meaning here. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep both. I agree with Mathguy2718's assessment based on pageviews. I disagree with the application of WP:DIFFCAPS suggested by Eureka Lott. DIFFCAPS applies in situation where capitalization is assumed to most often represent a deliberate choice by readers to refer to a specific topic. This most often applies with the inclusion of capitals, not their omission. It is a common practice online to type in all-lowercase, especially in search bars. Unlike Wikipedia, most web searches are not case sensitive and readers often 'lazily' omit capitals when searching. Given the overwhelming popularity of the show Black Mirror, it is likely that this is the intended target for the vast majority of readers searching black mirror. The plural is a different story. Readers are less likely to pluralize the proper name of a TV show. Hatnotes should be added to Claude glass pointing to both Black Mirror (disambiguation) and Black Mirrors just in case. WikiNav also supports the current setup. WikiNav for "Black Mirror" shows that the dab page is not in the top 10 pages readers navigate to. This indicates that a large number of readers are not landing here on accident. WikiNav for "Black Mirror (disambiguation)" shows that most readers do arrive here from Black Mirror but Black Mirror and Claude glass are neck-and-neck for the #1 destination. Overall, these redirects are consistent with typical practice with respect to capitalization and plurals and are supported by pageviews and navigation stats. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  I have the impression that article titles ending with "(disambiguation)" or parentheses in general typically have less views than disambiguation pages without title disambiguators. And the search tool avoids showing disambiguations at the top, probably because of wikilinkings. Abesca (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure. But it makes sense to me that '(disambiguation)' pages are de-prioritized. Dab pages are super helpful but are usually not what readers are hoping to find when they search for a word or topic. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 20:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget both: "Black mirror" -> "Claude glass" per WP:DIFFCAPS; it's the only lower-case match we have. "Black mirrors" -> Black Mirrors; although this one doesn't match the case, the pluralization is a big hit against it, and this is the only match of the actual plural form. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep 1st as the series doesn't appear to be in the plural but retarget 2nd to the DAB as a compromise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 3 April 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) 02:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

2025 CAFA Championship squads

• 2025 CAFA Championship squads → 2025 CAFA Nations Cup squads  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target page and the official name of the competition is 2025 CAFA Nations Cup. Qby (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 20:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep CAFA Championship redirects to CAFA Nations Cup, where it is mentioned, and seems to be an alternative (or former?) name for the competition. Nobody using this search term is going to be mislead. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf. GiantSnowman 20:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

ScanScope Virtual Slide

• ScanScope Virtual Slide → TIFF  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not seem useful without an explanation at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Let's add an explanation at the target rather than deleting the redirect. A single sentence to the effect that "ScanScope Virtual Slide" format is another name for TIFF is what I am thinking. The harder part if finding a citation to show that we've verified that. I'll give it a try... but if you have such a citation handy, please post it here. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  I've added TIFF § SVS. Please critique or improve. Hopefully, this is enough of a start to justify keeping the redirect currently being discussed, either as a redirect to TIFF or to TIFF#SVS. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 20:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I've reverted the addition mentioned above. Not only didn't the source back up the sentence added, but it seemed to directly contradict it, that this is some sort of unrelated proprietary file format. Even if it were related, it's an obscure proprietary format used by a specific piece of hardware and has no business being mentioned at the target. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the feedback. In case it helps ... having done a bit of medical image work for universities, using open source software such as openslide, it is my experience that SVS is not simply some commercial product nor simply some obscure product, but rather is both non-commercial in its use patterns and widely used. That's not much for the rest of you to move forward with, but it is convincing to me.

  Also, I fear that it's not terribly encyclopedic but a source that highlights the strong connection between SVS and TIFF is this one, which includes An SVS file is a Tiled TIFF image that has a few additional pages (images) that include the slide label, overview image, and a few smaller, scaled copies of the scanned slide..

  I fully acknowledge that I haven't yet located a good source to back these common-enough-for-Wikipedia and SVS-is-TIFF statements, so that's on me. But FWIW, I continue to be confident that these statements are true. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  In case it helps ... I've used tiffdump to examine SVS files. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Disney Channels MENA & Europe

• Disney Channels MENA → Fox Networks Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Disney Channels Europe → Fox Networks Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects was created via this (shall I say) convenient move here by copyvio-blocked Ridwan97 in the heat of the aftermath of the acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, maybe anticipating a folding of these regional divisions of Fox Networks Group into Disney Channels Worldwide, hence these titles. They were reverted via a unanimous consensus at this RM. Apart from Disney Networks Group Asia Pacific, which was the last non-TV channel remnant to remove the "Fox" name and doesn't really exist, these titles here are akin to the titles below and may I say they don't need to exist anymore. Intrisit (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Disney Channels Asia Pacific

• Disney Channels Asia Pacific → Disney Networks Group Asia Pacific  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The rationale for this nomination is the same as the above bi-nomination, except that this particular one was re-targeted a third and then-final time to this then-current target, because this compromised account, Fanofbfolders, thought that this division (if it ever existed) oversaw the Disney channels and networks prior to the 21st Century Fox acquisition, which are/were not proven or cannot be proven. Intrisit (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Fox Networks Group redirects

• Fox Networks Group Benelux → Fox Networks Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fox Networks Group Middle East → Fox Networks Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Judging by the page histories of both titles, there is near-unanimous consensus that they barely meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE to have articles themselves, despite little sources they have/had, which have since been incubated into their then-current target for more "flesh" and "beef-up" of/for the latter. The Latin American one was just a few days ago retargeted to its current target despite its initial creation as just a redirect to Star Channel (Latin America) around this time the previous year. Since both page histories are more detailed, regardless of how well sourced/unsourced they are/were, they may split the community into two as to what to do with them, hence why I'm listing them here for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Discovery Japan

• Warner Bros. Discovery Japan → Turner Japan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This title was created via this move log by ValenciaThunderbolt and was reverted by JSH-alive 3 months later upon sight and action. It seems like unlike other regional divisions and subsidiaries of Turner Broadcasting System that got folded into Warner Bros. Discovery, this is the odd one out, kinda like Yahoo Japan (maybe Hulu Japan also?), so I'm listing it here for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: @Intrisit: Going by the Japanese Wikipedia page of the article, it suggests it was renamed to Discovery Japan... which is rather odd if you ask me. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, JSH-alive wasn't to know that; that's why he did what he did. He could be wrong, if proven. Whichever name given for WBD's Japan company, I want this redirect deleted! Intrisit (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Timeline of X

• Timeline of X → X (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target doesn't mention Timeline of X (social network). Abesca (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Too vague to redirect to Timeline of X (social network), and no mention at target. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Move Timeline of X (social network) to Timeline of X. Nothing else named 'X' has a timeline article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  It's just generally a confusing title, though, and readers don't know that there isn't any other timeline article with X. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  There's nothing confusing about searching for "Timeline of X" and being directed to a timeline of a product called 'X'. If someone is looking for a timeline of a different X, they wouldn't find what they were looking for no matter what so there's no need to cater to them. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  It would be significantly more clear if, in the title, what X was is specified. "(social network)" does this. The disambiguator is needed. "If someone is looking for a different X, they wouldn't find what they were looking for no matter what so that doesn't matter" is ridiculous to say. We don't want to inconvenience readers... 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 19:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  If you don't want to inconvenience readers, then it's ridiculous to want to delete this redirect. Anyone searching for "Timeline of X" is going to be helped by this redirect if they are looking for a timeline for the social network. Deleting it makes it harder to find that content, and is thus an inconvenience. As for the title, it's not the job of the title to explain the article—that's the article's job. Including "(social network)" is unnecessary so long as there is only one Timeline of something named X. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  It could refer to X#History, but that doesn't add any timeline I guess. Abesca (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Another redirect that is malplaced currently is Middle Eastern crisis. Abesca (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Why is that relevant here? – Scyrme (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  it's incorrect as some are suggesting about retargeting Abesca (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't understand. How is that redirect relevant to this discussion about Timeline of X? Did you intend to post this as part of a different discussion? – Scyrme (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Abesca:  Fixed. (I coincidentally resolved that before seeing this discussion.) –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 00:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Move the Timeline of X (social network) article to this title per @Tavix. RfD would usually be an incorrect venue for such a proposal, especially when an RM discussion for the relevant article recently took place, but this proposal would actually align with the outcome of that discussion. @InfiniteNexus moved the article to its current title after the discussion was closed. Alternatively, if the article remains at that title, my preference would be for this redirect to be retargeted to the History of X page, which would become a disambiguation page, perhaps with the following entries:

• History of Twitter, a social network now known as X
  • Timeline of X (social network)
• History of X (letter)

Also, deletion of this redirect, as proposed by @Organhaver, is not an option in this case, as WP:MISPLACED explains.

–Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 00:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Move Timeline of X (social network) to Timeline of X per Tavix and Gluonz. This title also reflects the general consensus around this article title and where different versions of this redirect have pointed in the past. Add a hatnote pointing to X (disambiguation), which is where History of XHistory of X points. I'm sympathetic to the ambiguity concerns but we have other timelines for the other X's. Timeline of (letter) strikes me as an implausible search term, certainly far less plausible, anyway. Timelines of companies and technologies are fairly comomon on en-wiki. History and timeline are sufficiently distinct that they don't necessarily need to point to the same target. Most, if not all, of the entries at X (disambiguation) contain at least some history but only this article is structured as a timeline. We can certainly monitor WikiNav and Pageviews and reconsider if there is evidence of navigation problems, or if another timeline is written that could compete for the base title. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm reminded of a similar discussion recently regarding Outline of JavaOutline of Java, which redirects to Outline of the Java programming language even though the primary topic for Java is the country. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Don't retarget to the timeline of Twitter, because readers will reasonably expect it to be a timeline of the subject of the X article. I'm leaning toward retargeting to X#History, because it's the closest thing we have to a timeline about X. Preferring Twitter over the letter of the alphabet is just as bad as (or worse than) if someone created Timeline of Apple and preferred Steve Jobs' company over a kind of fruit — one is a company created well within living memory, and the other is a basic concept that was known millennia ago. Nyttend (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Noting Timeline of Apple should be the timeline of the company. The fruit's version would be Timeline of (the) apple. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• The only reason "X (social network)" has a disambiguator is the letter's existence (I assume). I would be shocked if readers searching up "Timeline of X" intend a timeline of the letter's history (why?). Additionally, the social network receives ~9 times the views of the letter. From a redirect standpoint, the vast majority of readers will be intending the current target. But I think there's a strong argument it shouldn't be the article title. This argument has been very recently litigated. Notifying relevant parties of this RfD: UltrasonicMadness, OmegaAOL, DankJae, Jack Frost, InfiniteNexus. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps a hatnote could be used, with links to X#History or History of the alphabet, and maybe X (disambiguation) as well. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Trials of the Nazis

• Trials of the Nazis → Nuremberg trials  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous; cf. Category:Nazi war crimes trials. Not sure if there is any good target discussing this more generally (The Holocaust#Criminal trials is rather specific, and does not have as much information). This gets around 2 pageviews a month so it might be best to just delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Hmm...this does feel ambiguous, but, OTOH, the Nuremberg trials are probably the primary topic here. List of Axis personnel indicted for war crimes is another possible target that is more comprehensive. But I'm leaning keep based on the likely primacy of the current target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete no good target at present or likely to be in the future because Nazi trials could include not just war and holocaust-related trials but also such events as the Trial of Neumann and Sass and Beer Hall Putsch trial. (t · c) buIdhe 13:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, but create a disambiguation page listing the other possibilities and link that in a hatnote. BD2412 T 15:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  What exact content do you envision being listed? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  The phrase "Trials of the Nazis" can be read at least two ways, one being trials in which the defendants were Nazis, already discussed in this thread, and another being trials conducted by the Nazi German government in support of its aims (see Law of Nazi Germany#Legal system for some discussion of this). BD2412 T 21:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep with hatnote to disambiguation page, as suggested by BD2412. The current target is the primary topic, and the redirect is useful for readers who are aware that leading Nazis were put on trial at Nuremberg, but don't know or recall where those trials happened. – Scyrme (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hatnoting an ambiguous redirect getting single-digit pageviews per month on an article with six-digit pageviews is entirely excessive. If anything, the "disambiguation page" (actually, probably set index article) should be located at this title. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  You're right. A set index at this title is probably a better solution.– Scyrme (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Category:Nazi war crimes trials as a valid WP:CNR. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Category:Nazi war crimes trials * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Disambig (or set index, I have no preference between the two) per BD2412. While the category is more helpful than the present target, a disambig or set index will be more helpful still. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 01:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguation draft requested. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not convinced. "Trials of the..." is not a normal way to start a search term for a country's justice system. We're overthinking this. --BDD (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  But there were other 'Nazi war crime trials' Traumnovelle (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Nazi Germany#Legacy. The first paragraph is devoted to the Nazi trials and has statistics for number of trials, convictions, etc. There's prominent treatment of the most noteworthy of them, the Nuremberg trials. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 01:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

April 11

Jetix Arab world

• Jetix (Arab world) → Jetix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jetix (Arab World) → Jetix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Jetix (Arab world)" was subjected to AfD scrutiny that was decided as a merge to "Jetix" itself. I'm calling for delete both per WP:RETURNTORED on the count of wanting them to have the same treatment as Jetix (US), though the latter was instead at AfD. Intrisit (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Jetix Play, which was the name of the channel in the Middle East, as a valid ATD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Largely unused redirects to R from unnecessary disambiguation

• Template:Redirect from unneeded disambig → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:R from extra disambig → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect from extra disambig → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:R from added disambig → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect from added disambig → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect ud → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect undis → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect from additional disambiguation → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect from additional disambig → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:R from additional disambiguation → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:R from superfluous disambig → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:R from extra dab → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:R from excessive disambig → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:R from unneccessary disambiguation → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:R unnecessary disambig → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:R from unnecessary disambiguator → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:R from UD → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect from ud → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect from UD → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect from unnecessary disambig → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect from unneeded disambiguation → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect from extra disambiguation → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:R from added disambiguation → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Redirect from added disambiguation → Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} currently has 48 incoming redirects (though this count is currently broken by the RfD notice), which seems highly excessive to me. The redirects listed here have fewer than 3 uses, most commonly 0. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I made R from unnecessary disambiguator because that's how I kept typing it in before having to go and look up what it needed to fix the redlink, it just makes sense. It's a title with a disambiguator clause, so the R temp says its because of the disambiguator. It's also very recent. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep all - no reason for deletion stated in nom, so keep by default. BugGhost 🦗👻 21:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

My logic was similar to a recent RfD on hatnote group redirects, namely that redirects that are low in use (but not unused) can result in subtle vandalism down the line that's difficult to detect. Apologies if that wasn't clear from the nom statement. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep all per BugGhost unless there is any evidence that any of these are actually (not just theoretically) problematic in some way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete the ones with "added/additional" as those redirects could easily refer to {{R to disambiguation page}}, which applies to redirects that have "disambiguation" added to their titles to indicate they are intentional links to disambiguation pages. Lean delete the rest (except maybe {{R from unnecessary disambiguator}}, which looks plausible and similar enough) as to discourage use of muchly unused and unprotected redirects to a template that currently has 46,000 transclusions. If there is an emerging need to have a template redirect, it could be recreated but creating a template redirect and not using it is unhelpful. Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

UK house

• UK house → House of Commons of the United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Uk house → House of Commons of the United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I expected this term to refer to houses in general in the UK as they are much smaller than North American ones, and that the UK has a housing crisis despite building over 200k every year. Therefore, I think this (and the Uk house, which I will include shortly as Twinkle doesn't offer the option to do multi-noms) redirect should be deleted. JuniperChill (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. They are really vague. And 'UK House' is not shorthand for the House of Commons. Katiedevi (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have never seen the term "UK House" used to refer to the House of Commons, nor can I find an example in any verifiable source. SamWilson989 (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete most Google results don't appear to be the for the House of Commons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why are Google results compared to how they are searched within Wikipedia? George Ho (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per above. I expected this to be a subgenre of House music (c.f. UK garage) but google results suggest it is not a specific thing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Worth noting that the topic @JuniperChill was expecting is at Housing in the United Kingdom, but I don't think this is a good search term for that article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Age (social construct)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close as wrong forum.

Rwamda

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

Uncommon misspelling per Google trend A1Cafel (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Lean keep. External search results show it does occur naturally outside Wikipedia and the traffic stats since it was created indicate around 90 total uses, so it doesn't seem useless. I can't comment on the Google trend evidence because all I'm getting is a "new version coming soon" page. – Scyrme (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Qubeck

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

Uncommon misspelling per Google trend A1Cafel (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Lean delete. Searching externally indicates that this does occur as a misspelling of Quebec, however, results also indicate that this is also the correct spelling of a surname some people have. The surname appears in some news and Google Books results, so some the very few uses the redirect has had (as indicated by the traffic stats) may have intended to find a biography or surname article. – Scyrme (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Voiceless uvular approximant

• Voiceless uvular approximant → Voiceless uvular fricative  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See [Δ 1316464235]. Sixaxis^Yes 14:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

(Soft) Delete: my crass edit summary aside (I should have used kinder words…), the single source the mention comes from is by no means reliable and the claim is uncorroborated in any reliable one. But others may argue that because it is mentioned somewhere, it may be worth keeping. ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Classical art

• Classical art → Ancient Greek art#Classical  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Classical Arts → Ancient Greek art#Classical  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target is a subsection of a section specifically about monumental sculpture, on an article about specifically Ancient Greek art. Classical art could encompass art from any culture in classical antiquity (eg. Roman art) in any medium, not just monumental sculpture, such as the classical literature, mosaics, etc. Perhaps arguably, "classical art" could also refer to traditional creative arts more broadly, not just art from classical antiquity (as in, classical music, classic literature). Better targets might be History of art § Antiquity or Ancient art (as {{r from subtopic}}). I lean towards the latter, as the former links it as the {{main article}}. – Scyrme (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Japanese civilization

• Japanese civilization → Nihonjinron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Was an article (poorly written) before being converted into an rd with minimal participation. I find the target, an obscure literary genre, to be entirely inapt. The better targets here would be Culture of Japan or History of Japan. Gotitbro (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to History of Japan, as the lead section discusses the introduction of agricultural civilisation to Japan in the second paragraph. While Culture of Japan wouldn't be too surprising, the only explicit mention of "civilisation"/"civilization" is in the title of a reference. – Scyrme (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Paleo-Nazism

• Paleo-Nazism → Nazism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not discussed at target. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete the term does exist and is used in reliable sources, e.g. [10], [11], [12], seemingly to specifically identify that the referenced ideology is distinct from Neo-Nazism. Whether that means the ideology is (approximately) the same as that of WWII-era Nazism or to ideologies that predate seems to differ by source. We probably should have something at this title, but what that something is I'm not sure but a redirect to a page that doesn't use the term seems unlikely to be it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  either weak refine to Nazism#Origins/weak retarget to Early timeline of Nazism. it's a common prefix. Skemous (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  It is totally unmentioned, though, and there is no one meaning in the sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Harvester Press

• The Harvester Press Publishing Group → Linden, New Jersey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Harvester Press Microform Publications → Gale (publisher)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No relevant content at the targets. Place Clichy (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The solution is to expand the article then, not delete the redirects. I also believe Harvester Press was acquired by Simon and Schuster (http://www.eerpublishing.com/about.html), though I don't know if it that's where it remains. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete unless or until an article is expanded to accommodate these redirects. Until then, the cart is before the horse. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Jack Nichting

• Jack Nichting → Survivor: Island of the Idols  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently retargeted the page to Survivor: Island of the Idols. Found out just now that he's married to Elizabeth Beisel, another Survivor castmate. Either Island of the Idols or his wife Elizabeth. George Ho (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho are you suggesting we delete this redirect, retarget to Elizabeth Beisel, or ... ? Rusalkii (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Not delete. Actually, torn between Island of the Idols and Elizabeth Beisel. Don't wanna re-target back to the list, however. What do you think suits best for the page? George Ho (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

IMO keep as is, Beisel's page doesn't have much more information on him, Island of the Idols is what he's known for, and given a choice to frame someone in the context of their actions or their marriage I'd choose the first. Rusalkii (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Oru Kadhiyin Diary

• Oru Kadhiyin Diary → Oru Kaidhiyin Diary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo. No incoming links from the mainspace anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, there's some attestation of it which makes me think that it may actually be an alternative transliteration (eg: [13] [14] [15] [16]). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  Except for Baradwaj Rangan's WordPress, none of the sources are acceptable. This appears like a case of WP:MIRROR from 2007. In fact, the wordpress too isn't acceptable in this case since it's a user comment. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm showing that the spelling is attested by other people, this isn't a notability test. The only thing required to show attestation is that it's a spelling used by a person (and not a bot/program). User comments are actaully one of the best ways to demonstrate this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• From Tavix's references, this does look like a slip of the finger typo, and not a misspelling (or alternative transliteration). It's not clear why the creator created this as an article at an incorrect title, just 3 minutes after creating the properly titled article with the same content. Delete, and correct the wrong of a newbie editor from 2007. Jay 💬 19:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

N4zi

• N4zi → Nazism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I fail to see the usefulness of a leetspeak redirect here, especially on a topic as severe as Nazism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Because the topic is so severe the term tends to be censored on various platforms. The leetspeak variant is therefore employed to get around the censors. If someone encountered this not knowing what it was, the redirect gives the answer. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  What platform censors the word "Nazi"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  YouTube demonetizes Nazi, for example. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't mean censoring the word Nazi. Plenty of Nazis don't use the word Nazi and they are censored anyway. Plenty of left-wing people use the word to discuss Nazism and they aren't censored. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not a common name/misnomer/replacement. Everyone will censor things differently anyways. See N@zi vs N4z! or N*z1. Also, doesn't our search feature accommodate this (allowing one "misspelling")? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 02:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  The easiest way for someone to find the article they're looking for is with a redirect. If you're directed to the search results, they may or may not be helpful. Involving non-letter characters in the middle of the word could cause the engine to not parse it as one word with a special character but as something else entirely, causing search to be even less reliable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. This redirect is already pointing to the right place and is useful for readers wanting to know what "N4zi" means. It gets 130,000 hits on Google. Most of these uses refer to Nazi. Also, we have N*zi Germany, which is useful because that is the first result when searching N@zi. I'm not sure what tags would go on such redirects though. Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmentioned at the target. Redirects aren't there to identify meanings; they're there to help find articles, and it's implausible to think that anyone who sees this isn't going to realize what it's referring to in context, and even if they don't, it's far more likely they just want to know what it means rather than read the actual article. On top of that, a search for "N5zi" already comes back with related articles, so even without the redirect, anyone can reasonably infer what they need already anyway. On top of all this, there are tons of articles that include "Nazi" in their title in some form, and we shouldn't be making this (or any number of other censored variants) redirects for each one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Nazi per Tavix. Someone using this search term wants to either (a) know what the term means (e.g. because they've seen someone use it), or (b) wants to read the encyclopaedia article about the term "Nazi" (perhaps not knowing that we don't censor article titles). In both cases the redirect takes someone directly to the place where they will find what they are looking for. Deletion would mean that they would have to navigate via search results, which may or may not contain the article they are looking for, and may be up to several clicks/taps away (depending on multiple factors), which is significantly inferior for the reader and would not bring any benefits to editors or the project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per above comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Graham Foster (2017 character)

• Graham Foster (2017 character) → List of Emmerdale characters introduced in 2017#Graham Foster  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a redirect from an incorrect disambiguation, and is not used by any current article. All relevant articles currently use "Graham Foster (Emmerdale)". I suggest deletion. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep for now. This redirect had an average of 76 views/month in the last 12 months. There was a massive spike in January 2026 (362 views), with 56 in Feb and 68 in March. There were 38 views in the last 10 days. Perhaps these links were recently removed or replaced in articles or perhaps readers are accessing this article section via external links or (far less likely) manually typing the URL. Deleting this now would be disruptive with no clear benefit to the project. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  While cleaning up Emmerdale pages in the last few days I've replaced this redirect in the handful of pages that made use of it. The lion's share of traffic for this character has always gone via "Graham Foster (Emmerdale)". My main concern is that we also have "Graham Foster (EastEnders)", a much more popular target, and the presence of "Graham Foster (2017 character)" in search results may be confusing for people searching for one or other character without knowing the date of introduction. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  Gotcha. That's a helpful detail to have. I may reconsider, but presently it looks like Graham Foster (2017 character) is a well-used redirect. I anticipate views will go down as links have been updated but we can't predict the future. This redirect also appears ambiguous, although '2017 character' is an unusual way to identify a subject and it is certainly an implausible search term. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  Incidentally, I've noticed that when I enter "Graham Foster" into the search box, I'm presented with a dropdown list of articles:

  Graham Foster

  Graham Foster (EastEnders)

  Graham Foster (2017 character)

  Graham Foster (American football)

  Graham Foster (rugby league)

  Graham Potter

  etc.

  but not Graham Foster (Emmerdale). Do you have any idea why this might be? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  My results are similar. Search displays the name of the target article, e.g List of Emmerdale characters introduced in 2017, but takes me to the appropriate article section for the redirect, List of Emmerdale characters introduced in 2017#Graham Foster. The active redirect Graham Foster (Emmerdale)Graham Foster (Emmerdale) is the reason "List of Emmerdale characters introduced in 2017" shows up. The reason Graham Foster (2017 character) shows up separately is because it is currently tagged for this discussion. It is treated as a distinct page and not a functional redirect for the duration of this discussion. If this redirect is kept, then the Emmerdale article should only show up once. At least, that is my understanding. I think once this discussion is resolved and the {{rfd}} tag is removed from this redirect, this will be resolved. Were you seeing this before you tagged this for RfD? For both of us, the EastEnders character list/redirect is the second article that shows up, so I don't see that this is actually obstructive. But I don't have a deep understanding of so I may very well be missing something. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:35, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Abū Manṣūr muwaffaq ibn ʻAlī al-Harawī

• Abū Manṣūr muwaffaq ibn ʻAlī al-Harawī → Abū Manṣūr Muwaffaq ibn ʻAlī al-Harawī  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

'Muwaffaq' should be capitalized since its a proper name. I moved it to the correct title, so this redirect should be deleted. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep – something being an {{r from miscapitalization}} isn't much of a reason to delete it, especially when it's existed since 2018. And redirects usually shouldn't be moved, anyway. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Jlwoodwa. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

BBC Radio Sessions

• BBC Radio Sessions → The Bluetones  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are 100s of albums and EPs ([17]) called "BBC Radio Sessions", as well as the sessions themselves, which have been run since 1967 at least. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding: this might be better as a dab page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree its a stock phase used on multiple albums. Maybe redirect to List of Live at the BBC recordings and add a section there listing all the "BBC Radio Sessions" albums. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 13:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete unless and until suitable, reasonably comprehensive coverage is added somewhere. This could be a dab page, list article, or a description of these sessions at Lollipop's proposed target or elsewhere. The phrase appears on 90 pages, sometimes as part of a proper album title and sometimes generically. This band is not the primary topic. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Myceeae. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-BLAR page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

This can safely be deleted. The pre-BLAR content was a stub plus a track listing with no reference. The track listing can easily be found online if for some reason this needs to be recreated. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Yogut

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7

Othello World

• Othello World → Othello (1986 video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article erroneously conflated Othello for the Game Boy with Othello World an entirely different Game Boy game, producing a misleading redirect. Delete as WP:RETURNTORED Whipmywillows (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games#O, where the super famicom game Othello World is mentioned. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per Cakelot1 --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

IPhone 15 Ultra

• IPhone 15 Ultra → IPhone 15 Pro  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a common name, and there are barely enough page views. [18] ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 00:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: as far as I'm aware, there is no product named the "iPhone 15 Ultra", I thought that ultra name belongs to the Apple Watch. If my suspicions are correct, then this redirect name is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: It is not a common name, and since the iPhone Ultra will be a device going to be created by Apple Inc and, it will not be confused with it once it is announced. It was also thought that "iPhone 15 Ultra" would be the name for the iPhone 15 Pro. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 00:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Bolded !vote struck, your nomination counts as a deletion recommendation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

April 10

How to Train Your Dragon 2 (video game)

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

Robert Raymond Fustero

• Robert Raymond Fustero → 2006 Maryland county executive elections#Montgomery County  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Robert Fustero → 2006 Maryland county executive elections#Montgomery County  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Tom Angelis → 2006 Maryland county executive elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neither of these people are mentioned at the target article. I had to check the page histories to confirm my hunch: they were candidates in primary elections for positions listed, but neither was a general-election candidate. Fustero is mentioned at 2002 Maryland gubernatorial election, where he's labeled a perennial candidate, so retargeting him there would at least be an improvement, but there's no substantive description, so I favor deletion there as well. I'll also add that no other names redirect to this page. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

There are some sources that could be used to add a bit about Fustero to the 2002 article, if retargeting the redirect.[19][20][21][22] —ADavidB 21:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget Fustero – I went ahead and added reliably sourced Fustero-related content to the 2002 Maryland gubernatorial election article and believe his redirects should point there. —ADavidB 03:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete Angelis – The only mainspace link to Tom Angelis is within a disambiguation article for the surname; that entry and his redirect should probably be deleted. —ADavidB 11:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Agree with ADavidB above. Asteramellus (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

BonEcho

• BonEcho → Firefox early version history#Firefox 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bon Echo Alpha 1 → Firefox early version history#Firefox 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bon Echo Alpha 2 → Firefox early version history#Firefox 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bon Echo Alpha 3 → Firefox early version history#Firefox 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"BonEcho" (or variants) is not mentioned at the target, making these redirects confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget BonEcho to the dab at Bon Echo where context is given. Delete the others as we have no content about those specific releases, nor are we ever likely to. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf:. It's not for the disambiguation page Bon Echo to provide context: "Bon Echo" is not mentioned at Firefox early version history to where Firefox 2 redirects. That disambiguation page should be redirected to Bon Echo Provincial Park if this RfD is closed as delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

    There is nothing wrong with providing context on a disambiguation page - indeed it's absolutely normal for links to be accompanied by a bit of text giving context for search terms that link to it. We should always do what is the best for our readers, if that means the dab page guidelines have to bend then so be it. In this case retargetting the redirect to a dab page that allows readers to find either of the targets they are looking for is the most helpful we can be. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

    There is something wrong with a disambiguation page entry pointing to an article that does not mention the term: MOS:DABMENTION. It's an entirely circular argument to say the first redirect in this batch is OK because the term is mentioned at a disambiguation page that links to a page that doesn't mention the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

    Once again you are prioritising internal guidelines above what is best for the reader, which is the exact opposite of the approach we should use for every decision we make here. In this case a minor deviation from style guidelines is a significant improvement to the encyclopaedia over rigidly following something that explicitly states exceptions may apply. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

    Absolutely not. MOS:DABMENTION derives from Policy WP:V. There's no evidence in the article that Firefox was known as BonEcho, so we shouldn't have a redirect pointing there, and we shouldn't have a disambiguation page entry pointing there either. If Firefox was known as BonEcho simply put a cited mention in the article. Pointing to the article otherwise simply isn't helpful. There's no reason to assert that an exception to policy or guidelines exists here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

    There's no reason to assert that an exception to policy or guidelines exists here. other than the explanation I have given multiple times already you mean. WP:V requires sources to exist, not for them to be cited in the article. Yes a mention in the article would be ideal, but that is not required for a dab page entry to be more beneficial to the reader than a redirect to a completely unrelated topic. I think it's clear at this point though that we are not going to agree so further replies are almost certainly going to be pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget first one and Delete the other three per Thryduulf. Asteramellus (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Selenochromatic image

• Selenochromatic image → Selenography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no such thing as "Selenochromatic". This name was invented in an unreviewed work https://www.gawh.it/main/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Selenocromatica-2.0.pdf I found no references to this word outside of Wikipedia. "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." See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#"Selenochromatic"_moon_crater_images Johnjbarton (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - The text "Selenochromatic image" exists on several hundred pages, and is a plausible adjective of Selenography. I tried searching for "Selenochromatic image" on WP, but nothing useful came up, only the captions of the images brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#"Selenochromatic" moon crater images. I had to google it, which is a better search engine than WP, to find Selenography. I suspect others have had, and will continue to have, the same issue otherwise.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  That discussion is exactly about deleting all of those captions. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Seleno" for "Selenography". "Chromatic" from the Greek chrôma for color. A colored selenographic image is therefore, logically, a Selenochromatic image, regardless of whoever coined the term or when.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And this term is not in any dictionary, you just made up a story. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. – Scyrme (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - It's a made-up word, so WP:R#DELETE#8 applies. The hundreds of mentions of "selenochromatic image" on Wikipedia were added by one user, Selinous (talk · contribs). The term was invented by them. There is no scientific basis to the term or the imaging method. There is an active discussion to remove the images and their captions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  WP:R#D8 is for synonyms. Selenochromatic image is not a synonym. However, it does not appear in the target, so it's a judgement/WP:IAR call.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete; not mentioned at the target and no suitable target exists. Per WP:NEOLOGISM: Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. That appears to apply here (perhaps with the exception of "wide use"). While I did find two uses ([23], [24]) in publications outside Wikipedia, on examination it's clear both in-fact got the term from Wikipedia in the first place (WP:CITOGENESIS). Other uses can be found on Google, but these appear to be blogs, etc. not reliable secondary sources.
  Even if we only consider the neologism on its own merits, it's not clear that it's especially needed or well-formed. Why "selenochromatic image" instead of "chromoselenographic image"? Or simply "false-coloured selenographic image"? Analysing it literally, "selenochromatic image" reads as "moon-coloured image" not "coloured moon image". Using the straightforward standard English expression "false-coloured selenographic image" (or even more simply, "false-coloured image of the moon") has the advantage of allowing linking to False color which mentions the use of this technique for images of the moon, whereas this redirect goes nowhere helpful. This technique isn't even covered at Selenography. The closest thing to a mention there is a false-coloured topological map, but that's distinct from the psuedocolour mosaic/"mineral moon" technique described in the Italian source linked by the nominator and mentioned at False color. – Scyrme (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NEOLOGISM applies to articles, not redirects.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  If relevant content doesn't belong in any article then there's nowhere for the redirect to go. – Scyrme (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per editor Tom.Reding above. Useful and meaningful. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Even if this were true, it's not actually discussed at present target. The word "selenochromatic" doesn't appear even once on the page. Even if we were to accept that the term is useful and meaningful, and that discussing the topic on Wikipedia would be appropriate, there's no substantial content about the technique on Wikipedia so WP:RETURNTORED would apply. – Scyrme (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete For the reasons already mentioned, and because this only sounds useful and meaningful, but it is actually void of meaning. Who wants to invent some fancy words, anybody? Renerpho (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

"Neologiphobia"? (jus' kiddin') P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Good one. Renerpho (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! this only sounds useful and meaningful – if it quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck, n'est-ce pas? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This duck is mute though. In the context in which it is used, the term "selenochromatic" is pretentious. It promises something it doesn't keep (revealing something about the color of the Moon, when it's just someone's personal method to create false color images). Just because it sounds like it does something interesting doesn't mean that's actually true. Is the word potentially useful and interesting? Yes, of course, depending on how it's defined and how it's used! But this isn't Wiktionary, and we should look at it in context. Renerpho (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment A second vote, about deleting the images that use the term, is taking place at WikiProject Astronomy. Renerpho (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Muscle (muscle)

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

this is a strange one, so i should clarify right at the start that deletion is not an option

with the boring part done, this is a redirect from a surprisingly not very old merge discussion (here) and moved after a move discussion (here) to what's effectively a placeholder title if someone has a better one in mind, so... uh... what should this be moved to? we can't just have a sort of confusing title in mainspace, since it implies the existence of a muscle named "muscle", so maybe move to draft:muscle? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• If this is actually problematic (and I'm not certain it is) then the solution is not to move it to draft space to be deleted in a few months, but to move it to a better title - Muscle (tissue) as a {{R avoided double redirect}} and {{R from other disambiguation}} of Muscle tissue) perhaps. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  a draft redirect wouldn't be deleted, though... would it? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Move without redirect to Muscle (tissue). The muscle muscle is clearly the biceps. 💪 -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  abs, take it or leave it consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 21:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support move to Muscle (tissue) and tagging per Thryduulf. If the move goes through it is probably courteous to add a note to the the previous Muscle move discussion (or at the top of the talk page) that will make tracking the progression of page titles a little easier (trying to address one of the cons stated at WP:MOVEREDIRECT) ⇌ Synpath 17:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Sight on Sound

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

Not mentioned at target; likely to cause confusion for readers searching for Sight and Sound. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

"Sight on Sound" was the QUBE precursor to MTV. If you want to have it mentioned in the article, then I suggest that you click the [Edit] button and add a sentence. You can cite these sources for it:

• Creeber, Glen (2023-11-30). The Television Genre Book. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 277–278. ISBN 978-1-83902-210-4.
• Denisoff, R. Serge. Inside Mtv. Transaction Publishers. p. 30–42. ISBN 978-1-4128-2630-3.
• Banks, Jack (2018-02-12). Monopoly Television: MTV's Quest To Control The Music. Routledge. "Warner Conducts Extensive Audience Research". ISBN 978-0-429-97847-0.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I just now created Sight on Sound (Qube)... well, as a redirect to Paramount Media Networks, which mentions the show there. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 07:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to History of MTV since it's a part of the history. I've added a sentence from one of the sources that WhatamIdoing helpfully provided. Katiedevi (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

K. B. Hedgewar redirects

• Doctorji → K. B. Hedgewar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Doctor Ji → K. B. Hedgewar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In many Indian languages, ji generally functions as an honorific suffix, comparable to "Mr". The redirects in question point to K. B. Hedgewar, founder of the Indian right-wing paramilitary organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. As they stand, the redirects are extremely broad; most readers searching for the title would be unlikely to have Hedgewar in mind. Moreover, the two pages have collectively attracted a little more than 60 views over the entirety of the past two years, as seen from their page information; clearly, they aren't being used. Given their novelty and general obscurity, they are never going to be useful and should therefore be deleted. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Agree with comments above by EarthDude, but seems reliable sources are using this term for this person. e.g. see this source, maybe seems this also - seems many like that. However, the target page has no mention of this term. Asteramellus (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Even if some reliable sources call him that, most layreaders won't be thinking of him when they search these terms, due to how broad they are. — EarthDude (Talk) 05:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The nickname is mentioned over at Britannica and the subject is the most prominent (and the only wiki-notable) result for searches on this keyword on search engines. 30 views each on average over two years is nothing to balk at for a couple of redirects, probably above average if anything. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The only hits for this are from the RSS's own sources. The first page of google results has nothing to do with Hedgewar. Other uses include a song in Haryanvi, a BJP politician, and most prominently a Bollywood movie, which, despite being an incorrect rendering of the title (we have the article at Doctor G), appears to be the primary topic in terms of usage in independent sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  There are two different redirects in this nomination: one with a space between "Doctor" and "ji", another without. Your comment seems to be based only on a search for the former string. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  If we search "doctorji" as well, no results deal with Hedgewar. The results instead vary from Bhagat Singh Thind to a medical website, as well as the aforementioned song and, importantly, movie titled Doctor G. Also, 60 collective views for two redirects, over two years, really is extremely low. That is about 15 uses for each redirect per year. — EarthDude (Talk) 06:41, 24 March 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, Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Searching "Doctor ji" on Google itself does not show this person anywhere on the first page. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  This comment is also only about the second entry about the nomination. Searching for Doctorji brings up Hedgewar, including the Encyclopedia Britannica page on him, and all the image results are him. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. I've added sourced mentions for "Doctorji" being both the nicknames of K. B. Hedgewar and Bhagat Singh Thind, though google seems to indicate that there aren't any other notable uses besides those two. Duckmather (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider Duckmather's proposal, and whether the fate of the two redirects should differ.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 06:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The term is a nickname and is far too generic. This is like redirecting Kingfish to Huey Long even though several other less famous people have the nickname. NotBartEhrman (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Kingfish is a disambiguation page that does link to Huey Long. Duckmather's proposal of "Doctorji" being a disambiguation page linking to Hedgewar and Thind is the most sensible route here. "Doctor Ji" can be redirected to the "Doctorji" disamb page. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 09:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree making it a disambiguation page could work. NotBartEhrman (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Per Vanamonde, Doctorji is a generic term that cannot be applied to the subject alone. It is also only used by his own organization. Zalaraz (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Fanter

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

This appears to be an ambiguous term with no primary topic. It could refer to:

• Fanter, a term used to describe Indigenous Norwegian Travellers.
• Michael Fanter, an impersonator of Pau Gasol seen in Sports Show with Norm Macdonald.
• Savannah Fanter, an additional musician who worked on Perilous.
• Roger E. Fanter, an actor who appeared on a vignette from Angels & Airwaves Presents Love Live.
• FanTer, an award given to They Will All Die in Space.
• Andrea Fanter, a member of Milhaven.

I'm inclined to say delete for this redirect since it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for having a disambiguation page. Also, search results were all over the map for this term. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 05:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• dabify... uh... per nom's opposition to it!? i'm not actually sure what in this would prevent creation of a dab. if search results are confused, it would actually be better to have it as a dab anyway consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  In fairness, I did say "it doesn't seem to be" since I wasn't 100% sure. It appears as if I may have gotten confused and misinterpret one of the guidelines, so that’s entirely on me. Nonetheless, it's good to know that a disambiguation page can be created. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 17:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Disambig per Consarn and the nom's arguments (even if they thought they were arguments against disambiguation they are actually arguments for it). A see also to Fanta (disambiguation) would also be appropriate as it is a plausible misspelling of the names there (although probably not of the soft drink brand at Fanta). Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete None of the proposed entries for a disambiguation page have their own articles, so I do not feel that creating one would be appropriate. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Parks and recreation

• Parks and recreation → Parks and Recreation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This does not look like the right target, judging by what links to it. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I removed the incorrect links in mainspace; there were only few of them. The rest (including WikiProject Indiana) are probably in reference to the show. The only other possible target is Department of Parks and Recreation, a dab page, but note the capitalization. If Parks and Recreation is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then it is also the WP:RPRIMARY for Parks and recreation. I₂Overcome ^talk 18:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I checked; all the links in project space are related to the RfD. I₂Overcome ^talk 18:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Per I2Ovecome, whose analysis I find convincing. My initial hesitation was that *maybe* readers use parks and recreation generically to refer to parks departments even while individual departments are capitalized as proper names. However, WP:DIFFCAPS doesn't usually apply when people omit capitals in multiword titles, since most search engines are case insensitive and it is common practice to 'lazily' type in all-lowercase online. It is highly implausible that lowercase parks and recreation most often represents a deliberate choice by readers to search for a list of named parks departments/boards/etc. The hatnote will help those readers who do land on the wrong article. Wikinav shows that Department of Parks and Recreation is not among the top 20 pages readers navigate to, from Parks and Recreation. There's no indication that large numbers of readers are landing on the wrong page and the cleaning up of links from articles should reduce that even more. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget. The generic term "parks and recreation" is what inspired the show, and is very much used to describe organizations and departments tasked with maintaining parks and organizing recreation activities in a local area. I don't think we should be immediately pointing readers towards a niche use like the TV show without at least having an article on the general term. SounderBruce 22:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per Bruce to Department of Parks and Recreation, though I'm not sure I'd call that particular TV series niche. At best, it's also a misspelling of the TV series' title given the lower-case r and should never be linked to onwiki with the intent of targeting that title. (I am also a bit skeptical of that article's capitalization, but since it's presently a DAB for actual departments, I'll leave it alone.) Izno (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  It should never be used for linking in articles but is useful for searching, which is a major function of redirects and one of the reasons we create and maintain {{R from miscapitalization}}, {{R from misspelling}}, and redirects with similar tags. Brintey spearsBrintey spears gets thousands of hits per month. DAB links also should not be used in articles, with some exceptions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  Britney spears has the luxury of being a bit more unique than a name like "parks and rec". IznoPublic (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  True, true. I used an intentionally extreme example to illustrate the point but in doing so you've helped me see the error of my ways. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Department of Parks and Recreation and consider restoring links from articles that were removed. Parks and recreation is a widely used generic term, especially in the United States, and the type of administrative body the TV show is named after is the primary topic for the generic term. It is definitely primary topic by long-term significance WP:PT2 and almost certainly by usage WP:PT1, despite the show's popularity. Upon looking at this more closely—including a series of Ngrams[25][26][27]—I'm actually not convinced that the TV show is even the primary topic for the capitalized form, but that is quite off-topic for this discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Parks and Recreation is a substantially more viewed article (over 70,000 page views in the last month compared with under 200 for Department of Parks and Recreation), despite an existing hatnote to Department of Parks and Recreation—this suggests that very few users are using the hatnote because they are ending up where they intended. Additionally, the article Department of Parks and Recreation, I would argue, is pretty WP:SURPRISE-ing, as it is a list article of parks and recreation departments and if you've not searched for a list I wouldn't expect to get one. If it were an article about what parks and recreation as a topic is broadly, I could see the argument for it, but as is, I think there's two strong arguments against it as the redirect location. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep the DAB doesn't appear to have generic uses so I don't think WP:DIFFCAPS applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Moderation (album)

• Moderation (album) → Our Love to Admire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of an album with this title at the target. Readers will likely be surprised to land here and when they can't find information about this album. Suggesting either deletion, retargeting to a biography about a musician with an album titled Moderation, or creation of an article. 1isall (talk | contribs) 01:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• This was created as "the rumored title of the new Interpol album" in 2007, but that rumor wasn't accurate. After searching locally and on Discogs, I only see one potential target that's not a WP:PTM. Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible), retarget to Daysormay as a {{r from album}}. - Eureka Lott 00:48, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Daysormay#2024-present: MODERATION per User:EurekaLott, but specifically to that section since it discusses that particular album. Duckmather (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Perfect choice, both of you. 1isall (talk | contribs) 00:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Francis Bacon (Playwright)

• Francis Bacon (Playwright) → Francis Bacon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted. Francis Bacon is not a playwright. The redirect might cause confusion. Dotoilage (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Some people think he wrote Shakespeare's plays. The title should really be Francis Bacon (playwright). I₂Overcome ^talk 18:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. Dotoilage (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget per I2Overcome. Traffic stats show over 300 total uses since 2015 and it has existed since 2004 (stats aren't available from before 2015; this doesn't mean there are no uses 2004-2015, they simply weren't tracked back then). While these aren't huge numbers over such a long span of time, there are enough that it's plausible this redirect would be helpful to someone. Tag it as {{avoided double redirect}} for Francis Bacon (playwright) if that gets created. – Scyrme (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Someone who searches this will typically be looking for a biography. Across Wikipedia, John Smith (actor) means "John Smith, the actor", not "John Smith as an actor". Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship is linked clearly in the lede anyway. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and create Francis Bacon (playwright) as a redirect to Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship per @I2Overcome:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Râtul River

• Râtul River → Fizeș (Someș)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not seeing any evidence that there is such a river anywhere in Romania. The google search results aren't giving any such evidence; the Southern Min article zh-min-nan:Râtul Khe is completely unsourced; and the wikidata item wikidata:Q7385893 does not cite any sources other than enwiki or itself. I suggest deletion unless someone has an explanation. Duckmather (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I've found exactly one source for a river by this name[28] however that is "Ratul" (with no diacritic) and is located in Nepal not Romania (I'm not certain what river it is actually referring to, possibly "Ratu" but we don't have an article on a Nepalese river by that name which is odd as one source describes it as a significant tributary of the Ganges, so I'm guessing there is maybe an alternative transliteration?). Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

April 9

Artemis Three

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

History of the transgender movement in the United States

• History of the transgender movement in the United States → LGBTQ movements in the United States#History of the Transgender Movement in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

better redirected to Transgender history in the United States Skemous (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. The presently-targetted section does not exist - it was renamed by an IP editor in February 2020, while the edit summary is unhelpful ("yes") the name change did better reflect the section contents. LGBTQ movements in the United States#Transgender activism is the closest extant section but that is only a single paragraph that at first glance covers only the period from 1966-1974 and points to the proposed target as the main article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Transgender history in the United States. This target is broader but essentially covers what could be described as the history of the "movement". Note that the link to this redirect at Transgender history in the United States#See also will need to be removed as this will be self-referential if this is retargeted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

DBATC

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

Unlikely acronym for "death by a thousand cuts" that is not the target article title. Most uses of the acronym are likely for the song or for other media. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 21:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. No mention anywhere in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

United States Expansionism

• United States Expansionism → Manifest destiny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• American expansionism → Manifest destiny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Greater United States → Manifest destiny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] bundled at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12 § Greater America

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7 § American expansionism – retarget to Manifest destiny

Dab together: Origins of the War of 1812#American expansionism, Blind nationalism, and American expansionism under Donald Trump; put The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism American nationalism as see also. Skemous (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• I think retargeting to American imperialism would be a better solution here. That already covers what readers are likely looking for when they search these terms but on a broader scale than the current target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
• I'm not sure here. I originally thought of retargeting the redirects with "expansionism" to Territorial evolution of the United States, which explains how the United States expanded through much of North America. Note there are 18 mainspace links to the redirect American expansionism, most of which refer to expansion of the United States during the 1800s. However, Manifest destiny and American imperialism are also plausible targets. Majority of the links to the redirect Greater United States come from the transclusion of {{Irredentism}}. I'm surprised we don't have content about something like American irredentism, which would match the theme of the template. The five mainspace links not from the template are Marco Rubio, North American Union, North American integration, Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland, and United States of North America. Of these five links, two seem to refer to American expansionism under Donald Trump while the other three seem to refer to the idea that the United States should control all of North America (which doesn't have a clear target). I don't have much idea on the best solution, but I believe that the "expansionism" redirects should be distinct from the "greater" redirect(s), based on links. (Note that unless otherwise stated, Greater America is outside the scope of this discussion as it is not currently part of this nomination and it also has a different target, American expansionism under Donald Trump.) Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  I also considered Territorial evolution of the United States. But that article is largely a tabular list of various boundary changes rather than a discussion of the idea of "expansionism," which is what I think the reader is more likely looking for. It also has no discussion of the recent Trump era proposals. Manifest destiny is fine, but it's focused narrowly on the 19th century and thus a broader target may be more appropriate. I felt that American imperialism seemed to be best in this regard. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  I just unbundled to renominate it together with Greater America. I agree it should probably have a different target. Skemous (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

640-553 IINS

• 640-553 IINS → Cisco certifications#Associate certifications  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 640-460 IIUC → Cisco certifications  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These terms are not mentioned at the target, and so the redirects are confusing for those who don't know why they're being redirected there Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". Redirects should not be deleted if the connection to the subject is obvious to most people, or if the redirect is correct but not appropriate for inclusion in the article, such as {{R from brand name}}.

I think people will quickly figure out why they were taken to this page. You have to remember that, unlike RFD folks who search for random unmentioned redirect names, the readers who are searching for something on wiki already have some off-wiki context. I also suspect that a lot of people really just want to know basic information, like "Is this thing on his résumé one of the Cisco things or one of the Microsoft things?"

If you want to provide the alternate names, then I believe you'll be able to easily find sources in your favorite web search engine. 640-553 IINS is the old name for a CCNA Security test, and 640-460 IIUC is the old name for CCNA Collaboration (formerly "Voice").[29] However, I suggest not cluttering up the article with a long list of former brand names, and just leaving the redirect alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete – The target article itself, Cisco certifications, has article issues, like excessive use of primary sources, like Cisco itself. Also, I just assumed that they are some weird phone numbers without realizing that they are/were really for. In other words, I question their plausibilities to be searchable without either exact memory or ability to be copied-and-pasted... or highlighted and then searched for, i.e. right-click to open options. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This target is a bit of a mess, but it is more or less a "List of Cisco certifications". These items don't appear on the list, nor anywhere else on en-wiki, and should be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Afro-American sideneck turtles

• Afro-American sideneck turtles → Pelomedusidae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Afro-American Sideneck Turtle → Chelidae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Afro-American sideneck turtle → Chelidae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This appears to be a mistake that originated on Wikipedia. Pelomedusidae is native to Africa. Chelidae is native to Australia and South America. Plantdrew (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Firstly, if not deleted, these should definitely all have the same target. The first of these redirects originally pointed to African helmeted turtle (a species in the family Pelomedusidae) but that article gives its native range as sub-Saharan Africa and southern Yemen, so that doesn't make any better a target. I'm torn between deletion and retargetting to Pleurodira (where sideneck turtle redirects) which notes the three extant families and their native ranges, none of which are stated to include both Africa and the Americas. However reading the linked articles, Podocnemididae is a family with seven extant species native to South America and one native to Madagascar and Bothremydidae is an extinct family that was once widely distributed including but not limited to Africa and the Americas. However not all of the families have articles so I don't know if there are others with ranges on the mentioned continents so the suborder seems the best target if this is retargetted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This has only a handful of hits on Google and many are Wikipedia mirrors or unreliable sources that directly reference Wiki, like this 13 year old forum post. It does show up in this official gazette from the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, where it is said to mean Podocnemididae. Google Scholar returns zero hits. A Google Books search does return one hit, from A Dictionary of Zoology published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in 2020, which gives this as a name for Pelomedusidae. While we might expect better from government agencies and OUP, we've seen WP:CITOGENESIS and wiki-hoaxes have a wider reach than this. This name appears very likely to have originated on en-wiki. But even if it didn't, it is a very obscure name that appears in only two sources I can locate, each assigning it do a different turtle family. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Voiceless dental approximant

• Voiceless dental approximant → Voiceless dental fricative  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in article. Sixaxis^Yes 19:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. No point in keeping or retargeting anywhere as no such consonant exists. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 21:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete, not a sound that exists or has been reported to exist. ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Kel Gleason

• Kel Gleason → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kel gleason → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC))
• Kelly Gleason → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC))

I'd like to list this redirect as part of the multi-nom section about contestants appearing in only Survivor: The Australian Outback. Nonetheless, how he was eliminated from the season was... well... Actually, I was hoping some buzz about that. Alternatively, the "Jerri Manthey" article mentions her interactions with him and his elimination. Preferably, the page should be redirected to The Australian Outback article as, like other contestants, he hasn't appeared in later Survivor seasons as of now. George Ho (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Described at the current target and the proposed target with slightly different information, alongside passing mentions at Jerri Manthey and Miss Universe 2001. Delete the first two redirects since search results ably disambiguate between those mentions, but retarget "Kelly Gleason" to Survivor:_The_Australian_Outback#Contestants with the anchor (or keep) since search results are less helpful. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Did you mean Google results? (Google ≠ Wikipedia) When I used the exact term " 'kel gleason' " on Wikipedia, the results came with just this Survivor contestant. Is there another Kel Gleason I'm unaware of? George Ho (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  No to both questions. Since "Kelly" is used in many more articles than "Kel", Special:Search/Kel Gleason is much more useful than Special:Search/Kelly Gleason. The majority of readers do not know to search with quote marks. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Found out just now there's the other "Kelly Gleason", who won an Emmy for non-prosthetic makeup in Angels in America (miniseries). Perhaps disambiguate "Kelly" instead. Is there a way for me to make you reconsider deleting the "Kel" pages? George Ho (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC); clarified, 19:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think deleting the "Kel" pages would be unjust. He was often called "Kel", especially in the series and secondary sources, like this one. George Ho (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget the first two to Survivor: Australia. Delete Kelly Gleason. His name is listed as "Kel", not "Kelly", in all four articles that have been suggested as targets. He only appeared on one season and the Australia article contains the most information about his gameplay. All the other articles that mention him describe him as a Survivor: Australia contestant and this is consistent with external sources. He's most known for appearing on this season of the show. Google and Google News searches for Kel Gleason exclusively return references to this contestant on the first couple of pages. Some sources do include his long name "Kelly" but this is not the norm. A search for Kelly Gleason is more mixed and includes non-notable people not covered on Wikipedia. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Kelly Wiglesworth

• Kelly Wiglesworth → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kelly wiglesworth → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
• Kelly wigglesworth → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC))
• Kelly Wigglesworth → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (added, George Ho (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC))

In my mind, she is best known as a runner-up in Survivor: Borneo, while she was eliminated in Survivor: Cambodia. Perhaps the page should be redirected to the Borneo page due to how far she has come. I doubt that sources covering her Cambodia appearance would justify retargeting the page to the Cambodia one.

Indeed, plenty of reliable sources covering her Cambodia gameplay discuss mostly her elimination. This mag piece deeming her a "boring" TV character of Cambodia would be one of grounds to restore the article. So would how Cambodia has changed her life. Unfortunately, a draft article about her that I made (Draft:Kelly Wiglesworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) wasn't approved, so good luck to those favoring an article restoration.

I can't help wonder how the current target destination has helped readers seek her name. Indeed, they would have to look for her name, click/tap on either the season that she first appeared in or the subsequent season that she also appeared in. Also, how much data has the MediaWiki server infrastructure handled over the years since it was retargeted from Borneo to the list?

If the list is no longer a suitable target for this person, then the page should be (again) retargeted to, preferably, Survivor: Borneo. George Ho (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC); edited, 17:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Nom's further comment – The outcome should depend on how the results comply with WP:RASTONISH. If the current target is the "least astonishing", then... all right. George Ho (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The current target contains the most information and links to the other two sources of information. Only problem is it's not easy to navigate without searching the page. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:57, 7 April 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, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep all per J947. The master list serves as a directory of all her appearances. She may well be more associated with Borneo but there substantial coverage of her gameplay in the Cambodia article and picking one obscures the other and may misleadingly suggest that was her only appearance. The target is unwieldy but steering readers away from it isn't a solution to that problem. Perhaps the list needs to be reorganized or perhaps a separate, alphabetical list of contestants with multiple appearances would be a better service to readers. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Wanggiya (surname)

• Wanggiya (surname) → List of Manchu clans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As I know, "Wanggiya" only means the Manchu surname, which is a variant of Wanyan, and there is no need to disambiguate by parentheses. Therefore, I suggest to create the redirect "Wanggiya" (without parentheses) which would be redirected to Wanyan and delete this redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahogany115 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• I have gone and redirected Wanggiya (and Wanggiyan) to Wanyan as alternative transliterations. This seems to be a R from unnecessary disambiguation; I don't think it needs to be deleted. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  (To be clear, I believe that, if not deleted, this should point to Wanyan. I do not have an opinion on whether it should be deleted.) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The correct redirects are there, so a one with parentheses is not necessary TNM101 (chat) 12:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Wanyan and tag as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. This gets about 9 hits per month. There are no links to this redirect in articles but it's possible there were until recently and/or that external sites use this link. I see no benefit to deletion and real harm in breaking links or disrupting whatever method readers are using to access this redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:40, 2 April 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, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

When a man argues...

• When a man argues → When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• When a man argues... → When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These are correctly tagged as redirects from short names, but I think these are too short for the target to be the primary topic. Search results were mainly about men arguing with women in relationships, not the quote. Unless a better target is found, I think these should be deleted. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as article (but not redirect) creator. It's a bit of a strange situation because like, generally a quote doesn't have a canonical name, right? But because notable quotes tend to be short, or have a short portion that they're easily identified by, the convention for articles on quotes has become to just use the quote (or that identifiable portion) as the title. I'm not sure this is even written down anywhere, but I followed precedents like "We begin bombing in five minutes" and "Russian warship, go fuck yourself". In such a case, any distinctive portion of the quote is (presumptively) a valid redirect, which is why I created a few shorter-title redirects like "When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like thisWhen a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this" and longer-title ones like "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court. It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word.Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court. It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word." In this case, as the nominator gets at, the question is whether these shortenings are distinctive. On the one hand, this is the only article that begins this way, and in the Google results for the phrase, it's the only topic I see that is the sort of thing that would have a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, it's a common enough phrase, and the average person using this phrase probably isn't thinking of this joke. If the shortening were widely used as a way to describe this joke, that would be different, but it doesn't appear to be, so I think it's better to delete, knowing that in most cases search autocomplete will still take people to the right place if that is what they're looking for. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tamzin's research, namely: this is the only article that begins this way, and in the Google results for the phrase, it's the only topic I see that is the sort of thing that would have a Wikipedia article. What else would someone be looking for that has a Wikipedia article? For example, this seems too narrow if someone is looking for the Argument article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Tamzin. These are simply too short and non-distinctive to specify this or any other target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep both reluctantly. Wikipedia ≠ Google; Google ≠ Wikipedia. Sure, Google results produce different results of "when a man argues", but... I'm less convinced that viewers users would exactly type "when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this". Furthermore, I'm more worried about over-reliance on drop down results in lieu of especially logic, IMO. Moreover, there have been no other notable topics suitable as targets so far, so... I guess the quote is the safest so far. The listed pages might or might not meet WP:RASTONISH, but I'd rather surprise non-Wikipedians who rely a lot on Google. Furthermore, I appreciate Tazmin's research on this, but what about other registered users who decided to disable drop-down search suggestions? George Ho (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC); corrected, 19:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Tamzin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tavix and George Ho. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. When a man argues about anything else, it's not likely to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We don't typically divide articles by sex, e.g. one article for arguments by men and another for arguments by women. Although this redirect is just four words long, it's enough to be specifically related to its target. What matters is ambiguity (or the lack thereof), not length. "Himno Nacional de la República" is five words, and thus longer than this, but you wouldn't want to create it as a redirect to National anthem of Costa Rica [the song's full title is Himno Nacional de la República de Costa Rica] because that would conflict with National anthem of the Dominican Republic [full title Himno Nacional de la República Dominicana] and probably various other Spanish-language national anthems. Nyttend (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Chaotix

• Chaotix → Knuckles' Chaotix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should target the character group, named just the Chaotix, rather than the game, as a reader searching for this word more likely means the character group. All incoming mainspace links are for the characters, further illustrating my point. I'm only bringing this to RfD because I was reverted. The reverter's objection was that the game is known as "Chaotix" in Japanese, but this is the English wikipedia and the English title of the game is only a partial match, unlike the name of the character group. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 04:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Chaotix is the name of the game in certain regions. The group of character that originate from the name is usually referred to as "The Chaotix" or "Chaotix Detective Agency", both of which correctly redirect to the List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters list. Considering the characters are also prominently listed off Knuckles Chaotix in the gameplay section, there's no need for change here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters § Chaotix Detective Agency. Don't agree that the group is usually referred to with the definite article; there are enough exceptions that it's plausible readers wouldn't use it when searching. The game Sonic Heroes refers to them as Team Chaotix, for example. Chaotix should share the same target as The Chaotix and Team Chaotix. It's very plausible someone searching this would be looking for the group not the game. I agree with the nominator's objections to the current target (the game). I've added a link to the game at the proposed target, so any readers redirected there would also find the game. – Scyrme (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Also, regarding it being the name in Japan, that would be true if romaji (Chaotix) were the usual way of rendering the title, however it seems that katakana (カオティクス) is more common. While romaji is often used in Japan, it doesn't seem to be the primary way of rendering this title. I don't think the language affinity overrides it's primary use in English, especially since it's usually written using a different script in its native language. – Scyrme (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  There's no need for that sort of speculation here - a quick Google search shows it very clearly says Chaotix in plain English on the Japanese boxart. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  It wasn't speculation, it was based on search results (which is why I said "it doesn't seem to be" rather than "I don't think it is"). The box art is a different situation, since it's branding. That's the sort of context in which romaji might be expected, as a stylistic choice similar to how branding in English is often stylised in all caps or with mirrored letters etc. My understanding is that's a common way to use romaji in Japan. The box art has the katakana directly above the romaji logo to indicate pronunciation, and it's the katakana title which people would actually use in discussions or to search. The Japanese Wikipedia article title for the game, for example, is in katakana, and the article uses katakana throughout in its prose, though it mentions the romaji in brackets in the lead paragraph and includes an image of the romaji logo. While I'm not fluent in Japanese so may be mistaken, my attempts to search indicate that Japanese-language pages and discussions online generally use the katakana, reserving romaji for branding. It's a stylistic choice, not the usual way of using the native name. – Scyrme (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  All of this misses the point, which is that the game is both named "Chaotix" in Japan, and its name is portrayed very prominently, in English, on its box art. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  No. It's named カオティクス in Japan. That is how it's actually discussed and searched for. (It's also carries a trademark on the box art, so a valid version the title legally not just a guide to pronunciation for the actual title.) The English is used for style. Even if it were the actual title used in the Japanese-language to discuss and search for the game, it still wouldn't override the fact highlighted by the nominator that this is the English-language Wikipedia and the priority should be on how English readers would primarily use the term. Maybe some English readers would search it based on the title they read on the Japanese box art, but they would be a minority, and I as I said I added a link to the proposed target to deal with that. – Scyrme (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Again, beside the point. "Chaotix" is the single most present word on the game's box art (and the game itself). That the most identifying aspect of a physical game released in the 1990s. That's why its a valid redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  How is it beside the point that only a minority of English readers would search for the game based on the most identifiable English word on the Japanese box art? I didn't say the game wasn't a valid target. It's one of two valid targets. External search results for just the word "Chaotix" by itself doesn't bring up the game, it brings up the group/team. In English the group of characters are the primary topic over the game which originally introduced them. – Scyrme (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Your entire argument is based on your own person research that "it's not really the name", which is, quite frankly, preposterous. But rather get into it with you on that, I was trying to take another route by pointing out that, whether its the name or not, the word "Chaotix" is plastered across the game and game box more prominently than anything else.

  I also am perplexed by statements that "External search results for just the word "Chaotix" by itself doesn't bring up the game". I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but the very most basic test of that, simply typing the word "Chaotix" into a Google search, is currently showing 2 of the top 3 hits being the game. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's not what my entire argument is based on, it was my response to you insisting the Japanese name is most important detail in all this, whereas the name in Japanese was entirely ancillary to my arguments and I discussed it as an aside following my main points. Repeating myself in different words probably wouldn't be helpful so let's just agree to disagree.

  On my end the top 3 hits are [30], [31], [32]. This is when including the quotes. Using the link you provided, which is a search without the quotes, the top 3 for this are [33] (same top result as last time), Knuckles' Chaotix, and [34]. In the first set zero are for the game. In the second set only 1 of 3 is for the game, and it's the Wikipedia article.

  Perhaps this difference is due to search histories or our being located in different countries or something. I can only communicate what I see on my end. Part of the point of having a discussion is to each share evidence. You have evidence I don't. I repeatedly stressed that this is how things "seem" rather than how they "are" because I'm aware that search results for one person aren't strong evidence.

  Do you have stronger evidence that the game is the primary topic? If not, then it shouldn't be the target. If there's no primary topic, it should be a disambiguation page. If the team is the primary topic it should be the target. – Scyrme (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  whether its the name or not, the word "Chaotix" is plastered across the game and game box more prominently than anything else.

  Yes, and the conclusion I infer that you draw from this is that you assume that people would generally associated the word "Chaotix" very strongly with the game as a result. I haven't seen any evidence that is actually the case, which is why I kept bringing it back to how people actually discuss and search for the game, whether in Japanese or English. Hence looking at search results. Hopefully this makes what I wrote earlier clearer to you. If not, then I don't know what to write to make you understand my reasoning. I agree that it's plausible that some might take "Chaotix" from the box art, but the box art by itself isn't persuasive evidence of usage.

  It's entirely plausible many people familiar with these characters don't even know the Knuckles' Chaotix game exists at all (it failed commercially according to the article). Many may have first encountered them from Sonic Heroes (which was very commercially successful), for example. If this is most people, then it would be easy to see how the game wouldn't be the primary topic even if those who do know the game very strongly associate it with that topic. – Scyrme (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - for some background, it was a unanimous decision to redirect it to Knuckles Chaotix back at its AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaotix. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  It was a short AfD that mostly focused on the article previously located at Chaotix not being independently notable. A lot of the details raised in this RfD were not brought up in the AfD and the outcome may have differed had these points been brought up. – Scyrme (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Both targets were mentioned in the nom though, so its not like no one thought of it as an option. The nominator recommended redirecting it to the game, all 4 participants agreed, no one dissented, and it remained in effect since 2019, except for the one time Arnav tried changing it once back in October 2025. People can take that as they will. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  The AfD was presented on the false premise that most of the sources about the characters were about the game. A simple count shows that at least 20 of the 36 references in the article at the time of the AfD weren't. Also, the characters have had more significant appearances since then, which would have only added to this count - IDW, TSR, CrossWorlds and Chaotix Casefiles. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 07:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  20 out of 36 is...55%. That's a pretty weak argument for showing a stronger tie. And the problem is that these characters are not a prominent part of any of these things - they're side characters in ensemble casts in everything except Casefiles, which is, of all things, a very minor "audio-only" short story. None of this is a strong argument. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  55% are not tied to the game, which means 45% are tied to the games, my goal is to show a weaker tie to the game, and you say 55% is not a strong tie, so 45% is even less. And that 45% would only have gone down. They are main characters in Heroes, from which they also derive much of their current characterisation. And that 45% should have been less, as the article includes lots of Knuckles' Chaotix reviews and few Sonic Heroes ones. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I understood what you said, I'm just saying 55% is a very weak "correlation". Barely more than an even split. I can't comment any further than that with such a vague claim. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Chaotix Detective Agency. I find the arguments for this far more convincing. The article section (list entry) provides a concise overview of the characters in one place, with a prominent link to Knuckles' Chaotix. This is also a logical place to expand coverage of their other appearances, if appropriate. Mention can also be made of the fact that Knuckles' Chaotix was released as Chaotix in Japan. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Chesse

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

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 19 § Chesse – keep

This could also refer to Matt Chessé in addition to being a common misspelling of cheese. This would be {{R to diacritic}} and {{R from surname}}. Searching here would reveal that it refers to the person quite often compared to the alternative spelling of chess. There are also some places like here and here where it most likely refers to cheese. Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. There are quite some different things that Chesse can refer to. Sixaxis^Yes 18:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate; although the Oxford English dictionary solely describes "Chesse" as a medieval variant of "Chess", the number of people who will inevitably misspell Cheese as such makes me decide that a disambiguation is necessary, especially once combined with the guy with the diacritical surname. Even if Chess is considered the WP:PTOPIC for that spelling, a hatnote to the DAB page should be added to it regardless. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate given Matt Chessé even though they are a PTM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. I would have said this even without the people named Chesse, as it's clearly an easy typo for cheese; when I saw the listing I initially misread it and guessed that you'd jokingly nominated Cheese here. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested (done). Left guide (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does somebody want to draft a dab?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Besides the person, what is there to actually disambiguate here? It's not a plausible misspelling of "cheese" (which wouldn't warrant an entry on a dab page), and if the above is accurate about it being an archaic spelling of "chess", then it also doesn't belong on the dab page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. Draft provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep (1st choice) or delete. A dab page consisting of only one topic actually named "chesse", a partial title match, and a misspelling is bonkers. If there's really so much concern for ambiguity/errors, update the hatnote to include Matt Chessé and Cheese or add Matt Chessé to Chess (disambiguation)#See also (it already includes Cheese (disambiguation)). Or delete. That's what we typically do for vague errors, where it's unclear whether something is more likely to be a misspelling of one or more topic or intentional use of an obscure word for another. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Monica Culpepper

• Monica Culpepper → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Admittedly, she appeared in two Survivor seasons: One World and Blood vs. Water. Nonetheless, she fleshed out more in the Blood vs. Water season. I thought about retargeting her to her returning season, but then she's also the wife of Brad Culpepper, an ex-NFL player who also appeared on Survivor. If the page cannot remain as-is, i.e. redirected to the list, then shall she be more associated with the Blood vs. Water season, the ex-NFL player, or her debut season where she was eliminated pre-merge? George Ho (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Why can't we just leave it alone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

You want me to withdraw and let it redirect to the whole slow-loading list? --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. She appeared on multiple seasons, both of which are mentioned and linked to at the current target. The list is a bit unwieldy but it effectively serves as a directory of articles that discuss her gameplay. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Palm Springs Walk of the Stars/Archive 1

• Palm Springs Walk of the Stars/Archive 1 → Palm Springs Walk of the Stars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Hyphanet/Archive 1 → Hyphanet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate redirects in mainspace; there might be system-wide ways to handle the "article" links of talk pages but they should not be created for individual talk pages. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages

• Wikipedia:New pages → Help:Your first article  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Special:NewPages. Makes a lot more sense as a cross namespace redirect to a popular page than to the WP:Your first article page, I don't see why it's that. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 21:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget, per nom. A very odd redirect, clearly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  There's also WP:New page but at least that one makes more sense because your first article would, by definition, be one page. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 16:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• The redirect in the plural does seem a bit odd but do we normally have redirects to special pages? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  So, it looks like no based on precedent, there is no category for redirects to Special namespace. Perhaps instead we could retarget to New Pages Patrol? Or maybe create a DAB to include all of these? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• @Crouch, Swale and FloblinTheGoblin: It actually isn't possible to have a hard redirect to a special page! There are some non-soft redirects from pages in the special namespace to other pages in the special namespace, but those are "harder" redirects that are coded into MediaWiki itself from what I understand.
• Fun Wikipedia facts aside, a soft redirect is the best you can do, but at that point, I would propose to disambiguate instead. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 08:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Disambig per MEN KISSING. It is indeed not possible to have a hard redirect to a special page, see User:Thryduulf/R to special so our choices are a soft redirect, deletion or disambiguation. Given there are multiple plausible targets disambiguation seems to be the best of these. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does somebody want to draft a dab?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• I've drafted a disambiguation page on the redirect. Feel free to make any changes to it. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 06:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Opinion basher website but worse

• Opinion basher website but worse → X (social network)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is obviously a non-neutral redirect, which is not problematic in and of itself (c.f. WP:RNEUTRAL) but can be problematic in some situations. In this specific case, I can find no evidence that "opinion basher website" is an established term for anything (google finds zero results for the exact phrase; see also #Opinion basher website below), nor is it clear what the "but worse" is meaning here. Even if we assumed that it was clear that this is a direct comparison between Reddit and Twitter/X (which is a big assumption) then it is entirely subjective which is "worse" as the two are qualitatively distinct in multiple ways. All this comes together to make this a distinctly unusuful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. One person’s opinion that doesn’t belong as a redirect. I₂Overcome ^talk 18:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and I2Overcome. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Opinion basher website

• Opinion basher website → Reddit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Honestly, I dont think i even need to explain why this shouldnt be here but I will. This is pure opinion. same user also made Opinion basher website but worse Finnfrog99 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I was expecting this to be ambiguous with other websites that allow readers to express opinions, but outside of this redirect I cannot find a single use of the exact term. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. One person’s opinion that doesn’t belong as a redirect. I₂Overcome ^talk 18:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Made up coinage by a single editor that serves no purpose to the wider community. Obviously non-neutral, to boot! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Dumboy

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

Is a redirect to Fufu, but it is not mentioned or explained there how a dumboy is used in creating fufu. --Enyavar (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note this was not tagged or properly formatted until now. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Either Retarget (and unlink from) Liberian cuisine#Starches (the only place on en.wp it is mentioned) or Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Per that section it is not the same as Fufu (The cassava or tapioca root is processed and pounded into starchy foods such as fufu (using dried cassava) and dumboy (using boiled cassava).) although some web results imply one is a type of the other. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Kamerad Ribbentrop

• Kamerad Ribbentrop → Joachim von Ribbentrop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Kamerad" does not appear in target article. Error? Vandalism? Gjs238 (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Kamerad is just German for comrade, but it is a far from common term to refer to Joachim von Ribbentrop, at least that I can find. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 15:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The motivation for the redirect is clearly the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, but it's not a term that's recorded. Tevildo (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Jim Miller (athlete)

• Jim Miller (athlete) → James Miller (pole vaulter)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are several other athletes who go by Jim Miller (e.g., Jim Miller (pitcher), Jim Miller (halfback), and Jim Miller (punter)). I would suggest retargeting to Jim Miller#Sports, where a list of athletes of that name can be found. Also, I haven't seen any sources that refer to James Miller as Jim Miller. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 05:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Jim Miller#Sports per nom. The suffix (athlete) is discouraged per WP:NCSPATH: it's best to disambiguate by event category rather than use a generic '(athlete)' suffix—Bagumba (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The pole vaulter is the only athlete here; it's already disambiguated by event category. Pitchers, halfbacks, and punters do not engage in athletics but in baseball and gridiron football. Nearly everyone at Jim Miller#Sports plays/played baseball or some sort of football; the only exceptions are one MMA competitor, one skier, one curler, and one administrator. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  They are still considered athletes, despite what you mentioned. Also, please refer to my second point and Baguma’s point. Results on my end have shown the targets I mentioned above and the ones in the disambiguation page. Thanks. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 21:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  See the article athlete, which notes that, while the definition you give of athlete is used, so is a definition of athlete that includes all sportspeople. Based on this, retarget per nom. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  This is a WP:ENGVAR situation. In the United States "athlete" is used to refer to all sportspeople while in other countries it's generally only used to refer to sport of athletics competitors. --Habst (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Jim Miller#Sports but first someone must go to Special:WhatLinksHere/James Miller (athlete) and retarget all of those to James Miller (pole vaulter). I'm curious, for anyone here who can answer with more experience at RfD -- is this standard practice, after any action on a redirect, to retarget the links in WhatLinksHere? I can imagine this could be closed without the retargeting which would create ten new disambiguation links that were unintended. --Habst (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Whoever the closer is can ping me and I'll fix the links if the decision is made to retarget (which is very much how it's heading). Casablanca 🪨^(T) 18:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  When there is a large number of links they are usually left until the retargetting happens, as then tools like dabsolver can make it easier than changing them all manually. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• See Olympedia for usage of "Jim". J947 ‡ ^edits 01:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Jim Miller#Sports per nom and Bagumba and tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. 'Athlete' is ambiguous and is explicitly discouraged per WP:NCSPATH. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Gaslight

• Gaslight → Gas lighting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Gaslighting.

The term "gaslight" is ambiguous. I can easily find recent uses of it in the methane-related sense, in the psychological one and for various proper nouns, so either page (or Gaslight (disambiguation), for than matter) would be a plausible target for the redirect.

Gaslighting is more frequently viewed than any of the pages or redirects with "Gaslight" or "Gas light" in the title. It had 7633 views/day over 10 years against 3687 for the other pages and redirects combined, of which 300 were for Gas lighting.. There was a big spike on 21st May 2016, but the page was more commonly viewed than everything else combined before then.

Far more people who visit Wikipedia are looking for the psychological version than the methane one. If those who visit the redirect are similar (and I know of no reason to think otherwise), this change would help more people than it would hinder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoeuidhtns (talk • contribs) 02:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Wikinav shows that around 40-45% of people viewing the Gaslighting article follow the link to Gaslight (1944 film), with the same article being the top destination from Gaslight (disambiguation) with 30-40% of outgoing views. From Gas lighting, the top destination is gaslighting but that's just over 16% of views. Wikinav stats for the redirect are apparently not available. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• I would suggest to retarget to the disambiguation page, and fix the link on the disamiguation page towards gas lighting: there are apparantently 9 more meanings aside from the the methane and psychological usage, including even the play/films that lent their names to the psychological usage (and that were themselves named after the methane usage). --Enyavar (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to the disambiguation page. While more readers may be here to view one meaning over the other, they effectively have the same name (differing only by a single space). Therefore, I think it's hard to call one of the two topics the primary. In fact, the disambiguation page already highlights the artificial lighting as the primary (but then, oddly, links to the redirect): Gaslight is the artificial light produced by burning gas. I take issue with this edit because all this uncertainty makes it impossible to know which of the two topics should be considered primary, aside from web traffic, which again is not a slam dunk, in my mind. — voidxor 16:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Gaslight (disambiguation) per others and fix the link at the top. I₂Overcome ^talk 17:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Dabify and retarget Gaslight (disambiguation) to Gaslight. Dab drafted over redirect. I₂Overcome ^talk 21:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    • You have to move the dab page, not copypaste the text in elsewhere.--Srleffler (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

      Yes, that makes sense. My bad. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Target DAB no clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: wouldn't retargeting to the dab page result in WP:MALPLACED? Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I have drafted a new dab at Gaslight. I₂Overcome ^talk 21:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• If the consensus is that gaslight does not have a primary meaning, the right solution is to delete the redirect and move Gaslight (disambiguation) to Gaslight, editing the page to the form for a dab without a primary meaning.--Srleffler (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Move Gaslight (disambiguation) to Gaslight: no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Move Gaslight (disambiguation) to Gaslight. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

References

April 8

WP talk:Astronomy

• WP talk:Astronomy → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"WP talk:" is not a recognized pseudo-namespace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Low benefit to deletion & a high cost. See recent request for undeletion here. If this redirect is deleted, then it will break 11,853 old edit summaries. Redirects are cheap, so why not keep it? This was made at the same time as WT:Astronomy in 2015, since I figured they were similar enough to not matter, but it is what it is.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: This page was deleted twice due to R2, which says that that the speedy deletion criterion applies to redirects from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, and Portal: namespaces. The redirect was then undeleted by Graeme Bartlett. Note that the redirect itself is from the main namespace and the target is in Wikipedia talk: namespace. I see the speedy deletion criterion as not having exceptions for the talk namespaces of Category talk:, Template talk:, Wikipedia talk:, Help talk:, and Portal talk:. However, based on the fact that the request for undeletion was successful despite two previous deletions due to R2, there seems to be at least a few editors who think that talk namespaces of the five mentioned are also exceptions to speedy deletion criterion R2. There needs to be a clarification if certain types of talk pages are exceptions to R2 at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion § R2. Cross-namespace redirects. This venue is probably not the right place about discussing about this speedy deletion criterion, but given that having clarification on the criterion can have an effect on the outcome of this discussion, I decided to post comments here. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tom.Reding. Not worth breaking ES's. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP talk isn't a valid WP:ALIAS or WP:PNS, which makes this an unwanted mainspace redirect. It's the only page using this prefix, and we don't want to encourage similar shortcut misuse by other editors. - Eureka Lott 00:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 18 to fix the edit summaries (which had a section link to a particular discussion now located in that archive). Regardless of past mistakes, breaking 12,000 links is generally considered a bad idea. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete with an edit summary with a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 18 § Semi-automated bot request to redirect asteroid stubs > 2000. This cross-namespace redirect is particularly harmful because it shows up as the second drop-down search option when inputting "wpta", the first being WPTA. Readers given a Wikipedia talk page as a search option would be confused if they are just looking for a television station. The edit summaries are already broken anyway even if they were kept, so keeping is unhelpful. (I'm going to guess this is because the section contains ">" and that interferes with internal searching for the section throughout the archives.) I believe the best way to 1: not have an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect, 2: not interfere with reader search (which is a significant issue given WPTA gets about a thousand views every month), and 3: best help someone in the rare instance that someone needs to use the link in one of the thousands of edit summaries (for whatever reason this is necessary), would be to delete the redirect (satisfying 1 and 2) but have the edit summary mention the bot request section (to satisfy 3). Decluttering search for readers is much more important than preserving non-essential non-article links only visible in the history, so I believe deletion (preferably with an edit summary with the mentioned link) would be the most helpful action. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a massive problem that this redirect shows up in the search dropdown for "wpta" and "wp t". 99 times in 100, it's as irrelevant a search result as all the others are (WPTD, WPTZ, WPT Five Diamond World Poker Classic are also very unlikely to be what the reader is looking for). J947 ‡ ^edits 05:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete after looking at the history of this redirect: it was created in January 2015 by User:Tom.Reding, deleted in June 2015, re-created later that day by Tom.Reding again, then deleted again in August 2015. It seems to have then stayed deleted after that for a decade, until a few days ago Tom.Reding posted on WP:REFUND and it was inexplicably undeleted by User:Graeme Bartlett. Since it stayed deleted for such a long time, I see no good reason not to restore the status quo. Mathguy2718's suggestion to include the link in the deletion message is a good one, to help navigation for anyone who clicks through from these 11853 cryptic edit summaries (all on edits by Tom.Reding, no one else seems to have used it thus). It's unfortunate that Tom.Reding created an incorrect shortcut (using "WP talk" rather than "WT", which was already documented in 2015) and used it in a bot run of some sort, but I don't see a pressing need to preserve that mistake for all time. Anomie⚔ 13:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: If deleted, please include a link to the Archive 18 target in the edit summary per Mathguy2718.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tom.Reding. WP:R2 should include explicit exceptions for these unusual cases where there is actually benefit to an XNR, but even without that IAR applies. This is an unlikely search term for anyone not following a link or looking specifically for this as it is dissimilar to all but one of the over 7 million articles (or all but three if you include redirects) with less than 650 views this year between them, so the chances of anyone finding it accidentally are very low - even more so for those searching in a case sensitive environment as the others all start "WP T". This means the cost of this XNR is significantly lower than average and the benefit significantly higher than average. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Keith Tollefson

• Keith Tollefson → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wanting to redirect this page to Survivor: South Pacific. However, as I found, he has a child with his castmate Whitney Duncan. Furthermore, he also appeared in The Amazing Race 25 with her. Now torn between the South Pacific season article and Whitney Duncan#Personal life. George Ho (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

* Weak keep. Since there's a few valid options, I'm leaning towards keeping the redirect where it is. Someone looking for the South Pacific Survivor season will be able to find a link from the current list page. If we retarget to the Amazing Race article, we lose the readers who were looking for his participation in Survivor, and vice-versa. So they seem like equal options to me? For the personal life retarget, I understand the appeal since he has a child with Whitney Duncan, however, since there's an option to not just associate him with the personal life of another person, I'd prefer that option. Katiedevi (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC) Retarget to the South Pacific page. George Ho makes a good point about users needing to sift through a lot of information to find Keith on the list. Katiedevi (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards keeping the redirect where it is. Someone looking for the South Pacific Survivor season will be able to find a link from the current list page.

  With all due respect, the whole list would be harder to navigate without using the Ctrl + F tool. Even anchoring or redirecting to a section still doesn't resolve my issues with the list itself. Furthermore, this person hasn't reappeared in another Survivor season. If you like to leave out the "Personal life" option, then let's go for South Pacific instead, his only season so far. George Ho (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the respect. It was a weak keep because I completely understand that the different options are valid.

  If I am understanding correctly, you'd like to retarget all redirects from the list of contestants to the shows the contestants participated in instead? Because it's difficult to navigate the list?

  That sounds good to me. Especially because South Pacific article mentions his participation in the Amazing Race so a reader could navigate to that page quite seamlessly too. Katiedevi (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Rachel Foulger

• Rachel Foulger → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Her only Survivor season is Survivor: Blood vs. Water. Nonetheless, she's the current wife of Tyson Apostol, whose notability I previously contested but then inadvertently proved amid the AfC process. Just to be safe, I'd prefer the page to be retargeted to Blood vs. Water, but then she may be more suitable to the Apostol article under assumption that her husband's notability will stand the test of time. George Ho (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Retarget to Survivor: Blood vs. Water. I am leaning to this page over the list because she's mentioned considerably more so a reader searching 'Rachel Foulger' would get a lot more information this way. Katiedevi (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Communist Manual of Instructions of Psychological Warfare

• Communist Manual of Instructions of Psychological Warfare → Brain-Washing (book)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in article. Also, incorrect. The marketing material said this book was actually based on, "Communist Manual of Instructions of Psychopolitical Warfare" (which does not exist but oh well) not psychological. So that's not even correct. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Katiedevi (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

John Fincher

• John Fincher → Survivor: Samoa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently re-retargeted the page back to Survivor: Samoa. However, as I realized just now, he is an ex-husband of Parvati Shallow. Uncertain whether he is better known as either a Survivor: Samoa contestant or Parvati Shallow's ex-husband (i.e. Parvati Shallow#Personal life). From what I read, Shallow gave him a domestic violence restraining order before divorce. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Dirt Squirrel (Survivor)

• Dirt Squirrel (Survivor) → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Discovered that the nickname "Dirt Squirrel" was given to Alina of Survivor: Nicaragua by another contestant. Nonetheless, I don't see the nickname in that page. Uncertain whether it's the issue with WP:BLP policy. George Ho (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems like she was only called a 'dirt squirrel' once and there's already a redirect for Alina for the Nicaragua page. Katiedevi (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Chicken (Survivor)

• Chicken (Survivor) → List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Thought about redirecting this to Survivor: China because one of the contestants was nicknamed "Chicken". Nonetheless, it may also refer to Mark the chicken in Survivor: Kaoh Rong. It also may refer to other chickens seen (...and slaughtered!) in other Survivor seasons. Delete by default if there's no agreement on which appropriate target and the list is no longer a suitable target. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Nom's comment – I reaffirm my stance to have it deleted by default primarily if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Jannsen

• Jannsen → Johann Voldemar Jannsen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Also Uwe Jannsen. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Based on pageviews, Johann Voldemar Jannsen may be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the surname, even if you discount the spike in July 2025 when the article appeared in WP:DYK. Web searches don't appear to show a primary topic, though. If Johann Voldemar Jannsen is determined to be the primary topic, it may make sense to create a surname page at Jannsen (surname), since there's also Lydia Jannsen. - Eureka Lott 19:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Either create a surname page or work that content into Jansen (surname). BD2412 T 15:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Setindexify. Don't think there's quite a primary topic. Let's keep it separate from Jansen (surname); all its different variations listed in the sidebar appear to have separate pages. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or dabify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

tilde double-dipping

• Į̃ → Tilde  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ę̃ → Tilde  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ų̃ → Tilde  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

well, it's kinda clear that the creator intended to make those redirects to two articles at once, but that didn't work, so what to do here? i don't think their letters would be particularly good targets without proper mentions, and wikt:Į̃, wikt:Ę̃, and wikt:Ų̃ don't actually exist... consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. This combination of diacritic apparently only occurs in Lithuanian and one method of indicating a degree of nasalisation in IPA (Nasal vowel#Degree of nasalization). The three letters have articles and Wiktionary entries in French - fr:Į̃, fr:Ę̃, fr:Ų̃, wikt:fr:Į̃, wikt:fr:Ę̃, wikt:fr:Ų̃, but only unhelpful mentions in English (Lithuanian accentuation comes closest to being useful). I think the ideal here would be to write content, possibly using the French articles as a starting point. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Will Shakespeare

• Will Shakespeare → William Shakespeare  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to William Shakespeare (disambiguation). While the Bard of Avon is the primary target for the name "William Shakespeare", he's not usually known by nicknames. As such, a person looking for "Will Shakespeare" is probably looking for one of the other William Shakespeares. ~2026-83591-2 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Will Shakespeare is a somewhat odd, but not entirely uncommon, way to refer to the bard. No one else at the DAB goes by "Will". Potentially, Will Shakespeare (TV series) could be moved to Will Shakespeare, but I think most people typing said phrase are looking for the playwright rather than the TV show. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 17:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The current arrangement is the best arrangement. BD2412 T 19:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Move Will Shakespeare (TV series) to this base title and add a hatnote to the dab page. None of the entries at the dab page are commonly referred to as "Will" according to their pages, while that is the name of the TV show. The playwright is so well known, and is so well known as "William" rather than "Will", that we can assume that people searching for him should be using his full first name in this case, when there's a specific topic using "Will" instead. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I see Deacon Vorbis's point, but there was a move discussion on Talk:Will Shakespeare (TV series) in December. 4 people rejected the idea that Will Shakespeare was the primary topic for "Will Shakespeare" and it was closed. I don't know what policies there are, but this discussion doesn't seem like a good way to reopen that one. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm, well that's certainly awkward, then, but I still maintain that the TV series is clearly primary over the person, and WP:CCC ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Not an uncommon name for Willie S. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Talk:Will Shakespeare (TV series). This doesn't seem like the correct place to fight out which is the primary topic for "Will Shakespeare", but also I agree with the talkpage discussion that it should probably go to the Poet rather than the Tim Curry TV series made about him. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above. While consensus may change, it seems unlikely to have done since December and the correct venue to overturn that decision if you think it has is either Move review or a new RM, not an RfD. However, I would have !voted the same way as the majority in the RM if I were aware of it and would opine that the historical figure is the primary topic if a new one were opened today. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as is. Common misspelling. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Protestant movement

• Protestant movement → Reformation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Vague, this could also refer to Protestantism the religion. I stumbled upon this redirect while I was trying to create Protestant movements and it somewhat WP:SURPRISEd me where it pointed to, so I halted the creation of the previous redirect to nominate this first and see where it goes. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 15:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Alexandra Stewart-Matthews-James

• Alexandra Stewart-Matthews-James → List of Home and Away characters#Stewart Family  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. I couldn't find an article relating to Home and Away with this name or with the individual surnames Suonii180 (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:It

• Template:It → Template:Italic title  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Confusing redirect. {{it}} is often understood as either {{in lang|it}}, {{lang|it|...}} or {{langx|it|...}}, not {{Italic title}}. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 12:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep The transclusion count for {{it}} is at 114, which is lower than I would've expected; however, there are no few other templates that exist as redirects to {{lang}}/{{lang-x}}/{{langx}} in this way that I can find from Special:WhatLinksHere. With that said, it seems that this works fine as is. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 13:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Replace with intended targets and delete/salt: Nearly all of the intentional transclusions of this redirect were added by a single editor, its creator. This template and many like it used to exist as two-letter redirects to indicate the language that a source was written in. They were all replaced by {{in lang}}. Since it used to perform this language-related function, and probably still does on Wikipedias in other languages, editors will inevitably and erroneously use this redirect for that earlier purpose, such as at File:Sky Sport - 2015 logo.svg, where it does not do what the inserting editor intended. This template should be replaced in each case with its intended targets (either {italic title} or {in lang|it}) and then salted so that it cannot be recreated for any other use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This is completely lazy and makes understanding the Wikitext unnecessarily harder. I agree with Jonesey, replace usages, delete template and salt it. Gonnym (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete It's hard enough to identify what's causing the title to appear in italics without having to look for a cryptic two-letter template name. It would only be used once per article or template, so there's no reason to so heavily abbreviate the template name. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and salt as shown by this discussion - Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Alberto della Valle - it's not easy to find and it's target has changed in its various iterations. Nthep (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. This page has been deleted three times already, the first time as a WP:CSD#G8 following Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 23#remaining link language wrappers - at that time it was a redirect to Template:It icon, and had been for eight years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. It was either a template for Italian text or a redirect to such a template from 2006 to 2020. it is the language code for Italian and such templates with language codes were well-known by numerous editors until they were deleted and replaced with language parameters to general templates. The current redirect has only existed since July 2025 and easily causes confusion, both for users trying to mark Italian text and users wondering why a page name is in italics. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Earth

• Hello Earth → Riley Martin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned on this page, and searching about suggests this was a catch phrase and website he ran (but not finding it in an RS in a way that I could add to the page). It would seem better to have this redirect to the Kate Bush album Hounds of Love which contains a song called "Hello Earth". Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree that it is an incorrect redirect. The song is the closest, although Hello, World is an iconic photograph from the Artemis II Moon mission and could be discussed as well, The song should not be a hatnote on Hello, World (different wording and not close enough for a hatnote). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The Hello World disambiguation page seems like a reasonable target in general, eventhough no "Hello Earth" instances are listed. Possibly a reasonable confusion? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment - It seems that he was initially planning to call his show "Hello Earth" when he initially haggled his way into getting it (has now been noted in the article, with a citation). However, it seems that this title wasn't actually used for it. Seems safe to retarget/DABify/whatever to me. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Hounds of Love per nom. There is a third possibility - 2018 Commonwealth Games opening ceremony - but that and the proposed Riley Martin show can adequately be covered by a hatnote. Tevildo (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Mt.a

• Mt.a → Mount Allison University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

With the dot, lack of spacing and lowercase a, this is a rather implausible search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – Article suggests "Mount A" is a common name for this school. "Mt. A" would be a reasonable shortening of this. "mt.a" would be the shortest and most basic possible spelling, and it seems like a reasonable search query to me. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

"Mt. A" is very common. Mt.a isn't. You have to double screw it up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

If "Mt. A" is "very common", then I definitely think that same phrase with all optional punctuation removed, is a very reasonable redirect. I don't believe this to be an implausible typo; I can imagine a user typing "mt.a" on purpose to get to this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Maplestrip it's not just the punctuation (if you call a space punctuation), it's the capitalization as well. We don't have Mount allison or Mount allison university, so I don't see why we need Mt.a --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

For the record, practically, Mt.A is currently the same redirect as this for the purposes of the searchbar. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 04:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes and no. Some methods of searching are case insensitive but case preserving, meaning that people searching Mt.A will be taken to Mt.a if the latter exists but the former does not, but if both exist people will be taken to whichever matches their input (hence why Iron maiden and Iron Maiden can be different articles). However, other methods of searching are case sensitive regardless of what titles do and don't exist. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete Implausible double-typos. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• I can't see how this wouldn't be just as likely an abbreviation for Mt. Abram Regional High School or Mt. Airy School No. 27 or Mt. Angel Pioneer Cemetery or Mt. Ararat High School or Mt. Ascutney Hospital and Health Center or Mt. Ayr Community School District. BD2412 T 23:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• A disambiguation page for Mt. A might make sense, but only if these other organizations have ever been known as such. Our article suggests Mt. Allison University is actually referred to as "Mt. A" or "MtA", unlike these others. Either way, this would be a bigger concern that could probably use a bigger discussion (or a boldly created disambig). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OLDMANDIES

• Wikipedia:OLDMANDIES → Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths#Blurbs for recent deaths  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#WP:OLDMANDIES, this redirect may create confusion because the term "WP:OLDMANDIES" has historically been used in a very different way from what the target guideline says. Users have used the phrase "WP:OLDMANDIES" to highlight a perceived banality of frontpage blurbs, which the target guideline does not explain. It was not intended to be a real wikilink, or if so, it would have been intended to refer to a very different essay. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete No mention at target as to what this means. Unless it points to an essay with relevant content, this gives the misleading appearance of being a guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• This may do well being converted into its own essay on the concept. @Masem and Natg 19: from ITN talk seem to have the strongest grasp on how this term is used and what it means, so I'm wondering if they might have an idea of how to do it. Left guide (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I believe the reason why such an essay was never written, is because it's very gaudy to write much detail about the value and significance of people's deaths. It seems people have not felt too inspired to write this essay yet. It might exist in the future, but I wouldn't force it. It would be easy for such an essay to come across as extremely tasteless. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, keyboard warriors using a cheeky phrase they wouldn't use at funeral. —Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I will not be writing an essay on this concept, as I disagree with the use of OMD. It is just a handwaving way to ignore the "major figures" criteria and to say that all deaths (of old age) should be RDs. Natg 19 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep or retarget to somewhere that explains the term. The term is basically used (or at least was when I was a regular at ITNC) to say that when the entire story is that an old person has died of old age then it belongs as an entry in the recent deaths section rather than as a blurb. This is explained at the target section, and I'm not sure that an essay could usefully expand on that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete In first place, it's unclear what does make a person 'old' in this context (surpassing an arbitrary age threshold, retirement from public after an arbitrary period of time etc.). Furthermore, Wikipedia:ITNRDBLURB doesn't even mention the word 'old' or any age-related criteria. That said, this is just someone's original research that has never been widely discussed within the community as to whether it can become a policy. I agree that this could be an essay. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as another unneeded addition to the mess that is the criteria for or against death blurbs. I'm in the same camp as Bagumba is in particular with the concern about guidelines being viewed as outright criteria, which is something that I've encountered with frequency in debates over the general validity of death blurbs. Truthfully, I think the whole section should be 86ed, but we can start by not having a cheeky redirect like this that was not agreed upon. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Esoteric

• Esoteric → Western esotericism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Western Esotericism is certainly not the only thing meant by"esoteric" (cf. Esoteric (disambiguation) and Esotericism (disambiguation)). This has been correctly challenged before but looks like there are incoming links here, so starting a proper RfD. I propose this be rd'd to Esoteric (disambiguation) or there be a hard redirect to wiktionary, the current target certainly shouldn't stand. Gotitbro (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This is an odd redirect, because from a cursory review of the history it appears that no-one intended for it to be this way. It exists because in this 2015 edit a bot fixed a double redirect which was likely caused by a page move on a related different page. The only subsequent efforts to preserve this seem to be in the name of preserving links on articles so they're not broken/mistargeted. My initial impression from this research is move Esoteric (disambiguation) to Esoteric, although the links would need to be taken care of. Left guide (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Move per Left guide. Having the disambiguation at the 'default' term of Esoteric makes more sense than having this 'default' term be a redirect to a certain variety of Esotericism. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Swap with Esoteric (disambiguation) per Left guide. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Move per Left guide. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Move/Swap I just got to this page from Kabbalah as one of the first links (linked quite reasonably i might add), and I really dont feel like jewish esotericism counts as the western variety. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It is discussed as western esotericism, so this wouldn't change that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Carboniferous Peirod

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

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 7 § Carboniferous Peirod – No consensus

Unlikely and obscure typo that was the only result when searching "Peirod" instead of "Period". It inhibits search, so I do not believe this specific redirect is useful and should be deleted. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete to allow anyone making the typo "peirod" to see all search results, and not just this specific possible topic of interest out of many. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Peroidic table of elements

• Peroidic table of elements → Periodic table  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another case of rather obscure typo redirects inhibiting search, see Special:Search/peroidic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Not sure what search results are being inhibited, since anyone typing this certainly wants the present target, but that doesn't mean we should entertain all misspelling redirects. For example, we don't have peroidic as a redirect to periodicity, to accompany the redirect periodic. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I see the point, anyone searching "peroidic" will be given periodic table results only, rather than periodicity and other potential hits. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Ronald Reed

• Ronald Reed → Gig Young  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Ronnie Reed who is the only person with this name who has an article, or to the disambiguation at Ronald Read. There are a few definitely non-notable people with this name who get passing mentions (including local politicians in the UK and New Zealand), and an Iowa Hawkeyes football captain who is mentioned at List of Iowa Hawkeyes football honorees#All-conference selections for 1918. The footballer might be notable, I can't find anything on Google clearly proving that but I strongly suspect any sources are mostly going to be offline ones, and obviously cannot prove they even exist so I don't think WP:RETURNTORED applies here. I don't object to disambiguation, but I'm not sure any of the other people pass WP:DABMENTION. I'll add a see also to Ronnie Reed at the dab page, if we retarget to the article a hatnote to the dab page should be added. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've just seen that Ron Reed (who didn't appear in my search results) is also a Ronald so retagetting to the existing dab page or creating a separate dab page is better. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • According to this reference, Oscar-winning actor Gig Young had used the stage name "Ronald Reed" early in his career. However, since his use of this name appears to be rare, obscure and not even mentioned in his entry, I would not oppose Ronald Reed becoming a redirect to Ron Reed, Ronnie Reed, the Ronald Read disambiguation page or to any other target preferred by consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Scorpion (Marvel Comics)

• Scorpion (Marvel Comics) → List of Marvel Comics characters: S#Scorpion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's a little ridiculous, in my eyes, that Scorpion doesn't redirect to Mac Gargan, since that is his common name. But, suffice to say, I believe that Scorpion (Marvel Comics) should redirect to Mac Gargan, and then on top of the Mac Gargan article we add a for template that would look something like "For other characters known as Scorpion, see Scorpion (disambiguation)". I think this would allow us to fix the issue of Mac Gargan not only serving as Scorpion, while also keeping his common name and acknowledging others that have used the mantle.

This would be the same way the Kingpin article works right now. ModlordD (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support retarget to Mac Gargan, who is the Scorpion in Marvel Comics. BD2412 T 23:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support retarget to Mac Gargan, and also redirect Scorpion (comics) to Mac Gargan instead of Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics. Based on page views, Mac Gargan is the primary comics use. For all media, Scorpion (character) redirected to Scorpion (Mortal Kombat) (which didn't even have a hatnote about other characters) but it doesn't look primary so I have boldly changed it to Scorpion (disambiguation). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Reedman

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

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Setindexify per nom (Jack Reedman, John Noel Reedman, Harry Reedman at Rhodesian mission in Lisbon, Reedman at List of Transformers film series cast and characters#Other Decepticons). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  ... and also a see also to Readman (or maybe those set indices should be merged?). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Setindexify, definitely. Put Redman in the see also as well. BD2412 T 22:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Drafted. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

April 7

Speciousness

• Speciousness → wiktionary:speciousness  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 23 § Speciousness – no consensus

Per WP:SSRT. Not linked to anywhere from the mainspace, is not a common word, and has never been deleted and then recreated. It is also polluting WP:DUSTY. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• WP:DUSTY should be changed to ignore soft redirects like it does disambiguation pages. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't disagree, however this is non-trivial as we would need to look at the page content, which can't be queried for using SQL. Going by categories is another option, but the list to exclude would be quite long and need ongoing maintenance, and it'd likely slow down the bot as well.

  Regardless of the WP:DUSTY problem, I don't think Speciousness belongs on Wikipedia. Its purpose is also contingent on the existence of the article on the sister project, which isn't guaranteed (generally speaking).

  What would be more ideal I think is for MediaWiki to look for the term on sister projects and report it automatically on MediaWiki:Noarticletext. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. This has been raised before at Wikipedia talk:Database reports/Forgotten articles and more recently by me at Wikipedia talk:Database reports, where I hoped it would have more visibility but there has been no response after a few weeks. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and guidance at SSRT/WP:SOFTSP. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Trump's War

• Trump's War → 2026 Iran war  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too ambiguous. This redirect started in 2017, and was only retargeted to the current Iran war almost a month after it started. And let's be real, not many people call this current war "Trump's War" in particular, except for Trump haters. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 21:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Just revert to the redirect to Bibliography of Donald Trump (book title). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Another Believer, per guidance at the top of WP:RFD, Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers. I've reverted your edit to the redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

My bad! No problem, I thought I was helping by going back to a less contentious version of the page. I don't really care what happens here but I think a redirect for the book title makes sense. (shrug) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae: Meant to ping you and also I've added a comment below if the context's helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

As you said @SeaHaircutSoilReplace no one is talking about the Iran war as that. We appear to have enough consensous so I will wait 30 minutes then I will retarget at ~7:30 ET Avishai11 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

And yet, are calling it that. ChuckEye (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@ChuckEye And yet, the link you put redirects a 404 error. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 18:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@SeaHaircutSoilReplace Here's the fixed link. Warudo (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@ChuckEye @Warudo That source still does not appear to be neutral. It's clearly some critic of Trump. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 00:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear I never commented on the quality of the source, I only fixed the link. I'm not familiar with this website. Also your ping to me didn't work. Adding a username to a comment after the fact does not ping. Warudo (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete. Considering WP:LEAST, a user clicking on a link to 'Trump's War' would probably expect to find an article about a war with that colloquial name - not a list of books about Trump (even if a book with that title is in that list). But, per nom, this term isn't currently widely used to refer to any particular wars, so I think a redlink would cause the least confusion for everyone. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

There aren't any redlink issues if this redirect gets deleted. There are 0 links to this redirect. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 23:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per HotMess's rationale Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep I don't see any problems with this at all. Let it be changed, it isn’t creating any issue. Ahammed Saad (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. "Let it be changed" BUT "keep" at the same time? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 12:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

See Trump @War.~2026-21540-23 (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as vague per HotMess/WP:ASTONISH. This is a plausible non-neutral name for any number of conflicts Trump has been involved in. There is no primary topic—the non-notable book certainly is not it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Long-term pageviews show a spike in traffic in January 2020 following the assassination of Qasem Soleimani and in March 2026 following the outbreak of the 2026 Iran war. Otherwise traffic is stable at ≤5 views/month since the redirect's creation in June 2017. This is most consistent with readers associating the term with the latest hostility (especially against Iran) although possibly this is an artifact of links being inserted in articles and then subsequently removed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a comment that I had also created Trump's War: His Battle for America as a redirect to Bibliography of Donald Trump in 2017. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  The book's full title has a clear primary topic, unlike "Trump's War". Comparing long-term pageviews shows that these two redirect sometimes trend together but not consistently, and Trump's War: His Battle for AmericaTrump's War: His Battle for America does not see the same large spikes related to current events, nor has it been retargeted, unsurprisingly. (Off-topic but Michael Savage strikes me as a better target for Trump's War: His Battle for AmericaTrump's War: His Battle for America. That's beyond the scope here and could be retargeted per editorial discretion or nominated separately if there's disagreement. I don't feel strongly enough to take action one way or the other.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I understand. Feel free to redirect the page to the author. Makes no difference to me! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of wars involving the United States in the 21st century where there's a column noting the presidents involved in each war. I think this would be the least surprising target given the search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Fxxk

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

I don't see this as a plausible censoring style for the f word. Usually censored using asterisks, but not using X's. It's also not unambiguous - see Ferrari FXX-K. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 21:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Whilst there are also a few songs out there with the word 'Fxxk' (verbatim) in their title which almost could be deemed as potential DAB targets, that tenuous connection doesn't seem worthy of DABifying. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above. It's in 70 enwiki articles, including an article title, so it's certainly plausible! Pageviews bear this out. Unlike "FXXK", "Fxxk" will rarely refer to "FXX-K", and not refer to songs that are partial title matches. The reader should be unsurprised to end up at fuck. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  @J947 BUT here's the real question. Would readers SEARCH for "fxxk" to find the article about the F word? I seriously doubt it. I don't care if "redirects are cheap", by the way. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 12:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  You may not care if redirects are cheap, but RfD practice does. You're welcome to operate by your own rules, but outcomes continue to follow community consensus. Keep per J947. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Cremastra It's not that I don't care about it at all, I simply don't like that "redirects are cheap" is used as an excuse too often for problematic or questionable redirects. I've had many cases in the past where I nominated novel/obscure synonym redirects, ambiguous redirects, misleading redirects and/or downright vandal redirects here and some people said "nah, keep, redirects are cheap" without having any bigger argument (even though in many cases eventually retarget or delete won), so it might be a past personal experience though. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 02:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  This redirect is more viewed than most. I assume it's largely self-censorship. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Self-censorship? Even then, F**k, F*ck and F*** have 3-4 times more views than fxxk. https://imgur.com/a/VEiBgNf SeaHaircutSoilReplace 03:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. They're more common ways to censor oneself. Therefore they are more used than this redirect and more helpful than it. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  So, your initial point was less about redirect popularity, and more about the fact that fxxk is used in song titles to refer to fuck a lot? At least that's valid, I understand that right. But I still don't see much reason people would search for fxxk over asterisk based censors, as you said, they are more helpful than fxxk. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 05:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  People will search for "fxxk" because it is a frequent bowdlerisation, as all those song titles demonstrate. It is not as frequent as other variants, but that is no argument. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I have seen this very occasionally, and find J947's evidence convincing. Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per J947. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: FXXK has existed from 15 December 2014, while Fxxk has only existed since 7 February 2022, so the lowercase term has technically redirected to the car variant for over 7 years when using internal search. A similar case maybe to consider is Fvck → Satiric misspelling. Even though "Fvck" isn't mentioned in the body of that redirect's target, a hatnote exists for an album and song containing the word. However, that redirect has had its target changed multiple times. I'm not sure if replacing "u" with "v" and replacing "uc" with "xx" would be a different enough case to justify two different targets though if "Fxxk" should not redirect to the car model. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Stabray

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kæst skata

• Kæst skata → Stingray  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

as mentioned in hongeo-hoe for some reason, it's literally just fermented skates, which are not stingrays. i would suggest deleting as there's no mention that would warrant a redirect, but i'll instead suggest returning to red, as i've found a good few sources that might be reliable, and can dump them here if needed consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Possibly notable, and could be WP:REDLINKed from Hongeo-hoe, in which case WP:RETURNTORED applies. Notable or not, the current redirect is misleading and the dish is not discussed in any detail elsewhere on en-wiki. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Inc.

• Warner Bros. Inc. → Warner Bros. Pictures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This title is akin to the DABbed Universal Studios, the de-merged Lionsgate and the Walt Disney Productions redirect titles as it could also refer to the split-out Warner Bros. Entertainment. It could also house an article of its own to further quash Antony-22's concern on the talk page of Warner Bros. Pictures that the Warner Bros. media conglomerate between the Kinney National acquisition and the Time Warner formation had more going on than what was written about and sourced. The broad concept Warner Bros. page was just one of them and clearly needs rstructuring, but I'll dare say that this is the next step in bringing clarity to all this. So I've brought over here for a discussion as it hasn't fallen into one before. Intrisit (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a pretty good source on Warner Bros.' corporate history. Technically, the name "Warner Bros. Inc." was only used during 1969–1992, when it was a Kinney National/Warner Communications/Time Warner subsidiary. I'd say Warner Bros. is the best redirect target though, since searchers aren't likely to be that precise. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Warner Bros. - current target is too narrow and misleading - better to target to Warner Bros. Asteramellus (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid (video game)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Untitled Eternals sequel

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Taco wrap

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Transvestism (disambiguation)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Pokémon voice actors

• List of Pokémon voice actors → Pokémon (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

vague between a list of voice actors for the pokémon themselves (which doesn't exist here) and a list of voice actors for characters in pokémon (which doesn't exist be here and would itself be vague)

i would recommend seeing its afd, but it's a little on the sloppy side, and irrelevant now that the target it was redirected to there is no longer an article. there's also nothing worth preserving there, as it was cruft with barely any sources, and the few it had being unreliable consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Pokemon char dawn

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Persia War

• Persia War → List of wars involving Iran  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Persia Wars → List of wars involving Iran  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget List of wars involving Iran (before 1979) or move Persia War (disambiguation) to this? LIrala (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Persian War, where Persia War (disambiguation) (referenced in the nomination) redirects. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Persian War – I created these from a request at WP:AFC/R, but agree the dab page is a better target. nil ^nz 22:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

List of wars involving Persia

• List of wars involving Persia → List of wars involving Iran  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Invasion of Persia → List of wars involving Iran  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Conquest of Persia → List of wars involving Iran  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to List of wars involving Iran (before 1979), Persia War (disambiguation), or Military history of Iran? LIrala (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Persia War (disambiguation)/Persian War (the DAB). The Persia DAB page pretty much is a list of wars involving the states which were known as Persia during those wars (along with links to other articles on similar subject matter - including invasions/conquests), should be a generally-useful target for those redirects. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Jonathan Reed

• Jonathan Reed → Davey and Goliath  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Reed, Jonathan → Davey and Goliath  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Foxx (rapper) with hatnote back here. Is mentioned at target, just only by first name. The various other mentions don't rise to the level of disambiguation, and the article in the history prevents disambiguating by deletion. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Foxx (rapper) per J947. The rapper's birth name is bolded in the lead. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Mungus

• Mungus → Among Us  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could also refer to a type of mob in Minecraft, a fictional character in the Legends of Chima franchise, or a surname (though with no notable bearers), so I suggest either deletion or disambiguation. Duckmather (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This does not seem to merit disambiguation, since we do not have significant information on any of these topics (nor does it seem like any of them merit additional coverage currently). Leaving this to search seems like a better idea.

NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per NerdyEpiscopalian. Complete lack of coverage of that term in use, no suitable targets for a DAB. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hugh Mungus

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

Mungu

• Mungu → Mungu ibariki Afrika  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Mungu" just means "God" in Swahili, so the target ("Mungu ibariki Afrika", meaning "God bless Africa") is a partial title match. The concept of God doesn't have ties to any one language, so I suggest deletion per WP:FORRED. Duckmather (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Refine to Mungu ibariki Afrika#Etymology: the word's meaning is explained at the target, voiding the rationale at FORRED. Second choice disambiguate (God; Mongolia; Mungu Crater; the various PTMs). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Now that I think of it, I like the idea of disambiguating between the topics you've proposed. I've struck part of my original nomination statement. Duckmather (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Definitely disambiguate. At the same time, the Swahili mention does not satisfy the guideline. Maybe this can be mentioned in a section of the existing Mulungu article? --Joy (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Man A

• Man A → Taoyuan International Airport#Accidents and incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was recently retargeted from placeholder name to Taoyuan International Airport#Accidents and incidents. I think the new target is an WP:RSURPRISE, it seems unlikely that a search for "Man A" would be looking for that specific "Man A" unless they were already looking at the Taoyuan Airport incident. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep. The only time the placeholder name "Man A" was used was during that incident at Taoyuan. Not enough for an entry in List of English-language placeholder names for people (the previous target). That's why I did the retarget in Special:Diff/1347529720. It's possible that someone who remembers the name but not where the incident occurred would search for "Man A". — Chrisahn (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Taoyuan International Airport#Man A. As suggested by Myceteae below, I introduced {{visible anchor|Man A}} in Taoyuan International Airport. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep Retarget to Taoyuan International Airport#Man A [updated 14:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)] and tag as {{R from merge}} (replacing the {{R with history}} tag). The merger was completed on January 17, 2024[35][36] per the outcome of this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man A. Editors there were explicit that the Placeholder name article would be a better target. I agree in theory but, unfortunately, Man A is not covered at List of English-language placeholder names for people but is covered at the current target. If content about "Man A" can be added to List of English-language placeholder names for people then I would support a retargeting. But if it's not a notable or common example and can't be explained, then redirecting there is a bridge to nowhere. As for WP:RSURPRISE, the solution is to bold Man A at the target and consider additional approaches like targeting to an anchor or visible anchor and perhaps even adding a hatnote to Placeholder name or the list article. WP:RSURPRISE does not mean that readers always arrive at the article they were expecting. It directs us to make it clear why they've landed where they have (with bolding, etc.) and not just plop them in a dense wall of text where the connection is non-obvious. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. I went ahead and and introduced {{visible anchor|Man A}} in Taoyuan International Airport. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. I've updated by !vote. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Kyorosuke

• Kyorosuke → The Legendary Starfy#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Also not mentioned in target article soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Japanese name of Moe (side character who appeared in every game), but that name isn't used on any article, seems safe to delete. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete to open up the mentions, in the light that the unreferenced article in history in no danger of being kept at AfD. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Stapy

• Stapy → The Legendary Starfy#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Japanese name of Starly (character who appeared in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th games in the series), Japanese name isn't mentioned in any article, should be safe to delete. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete like above discussion. Note mention at List of Battle for Dream Island episodes. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Brazilian Jujutsu

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Mexican Ground Karate

• Mexican Ground Karate → Brazilian jiu-jitsu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

a joke term coined and/or primarily used by bjj big shot and wrestly boy craig jones. not mentioned in the target or the article about him, and all sources i could find (mostly merch stores and reddit) only use the term in the act of quoting him, wondering what in the deep fried fuck he could mean by that, or trying to literally but not figuratively sell the term, and all of them also directly addressed it as bjj, so the target demographic for this term as a redirect or search result seems to be craig and... really, no one else consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems to me that people seeing a synonym, even a humorous one, and pasting it into Wikipedia search and getting the actual subject is supposed to be one of the main purposes of redirects, as I understand it. So, since this term isn't derogatory perhaps we should keep it. I see the point that it's not a common term, not used in the target, and possibly self-promotion, though; so I have no strong opinions about it.

Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. My findings are consistent with the nom's—the term is used almost exclusively in direct reference to Craig Jones (grappler), his gym, and his merch. Some sources also suggest the term refers to the particular fighting style used by Jones and his associates, although that is not consistent. Usage of this term appears confined to wiki-unreliable sources. It does not appear to be used as a general synonym for BJJ, so the unexplained redirect is both misleading and promotional. This term requires some explanation, which would be better housed at Craig Jones (grappler), if suitable sources can be found to justify coverage there. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Word (word)

• Draft:Word (word) → Word  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

created as vandalism, and thus, wasn't even an actual draft consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Only potential targets would be Word#History (last sentence contains the original definition of 'dictiō', the original latin word for 'word') or wikt:word (about the word 'word'). 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 12:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

those rationales would apply to word (word) anyway, not a draft that wasn't actually a draft consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• How was it vandalism? It was a disctionary definition though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  that's why wikt: exists 🙃 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  check that last section in the pre-blar content lmao consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 02:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Word means Microsoft Word" is not wrong though even if it is badly written. There is even a hatnote in Word that points to Microsoft Word for this exact reason. How can you be so sure the edit was vandalism? Warudo (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: yeah, it's would just be a dictionary definition (theoretically). And word will serve the same purpose if any editor needs it. Or wikt:word. As far as I can figure Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Indiscipline

• Indiscipline → Discipline (King Crimson album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

oi, dat's a word! i was just gonna retarget to discipline as an r from antonym, as the song isn't mentioned in a whole lot of depth here and doesn't even seem to be the primary topic for the term, but the concept of indiscipline isn't actually properly discussed in that borderline essay either, so would wikt:indiscipline be better for now?

also, this is a blar, but the pre-blar content was cruft with only one unreliable source, so let's not worry about that consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Could be a WP:REDYES situation? I guess you could just make the page using a Template:Wiktionary redirect, and maybe include a link to discipline in a 'see also' section. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: a couple thing seem to use this wlink (maybe it is a ptopic if considered as a proper noun?)... what if we keep it as a redirect to the album, probably a section or anchor on the page, and then hatnote it with a wikt link? I haven't seen that done anywhere on Wikipedia but it seems logical. Then again, we could just change those wlinks. Maybe make Indiscipline (song) for the same purpose. I'm not sure what the best move is here; probably whatever seems right to you will be good. Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I have a cunning plan. If preserving the cruft-y page history is considered desirable, you could Move to Indiscipline (song) and then delete the Indiscipline redirect (after retargeting the lingering links to the song to point to the new redirect). Or just skip the page move, create the new redirect directly, and delete the current one (discarding the lingering cruft). idc really 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

preserving the crufty page history is not desirable consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION. There are over 1,100 articles that include this word, and while I didn't look through them all, I found enough uses to populate a disambiguation page. Draft page started below the redirect. No objection to moving the article history to Indiscipline (song) to avoid a WP:AHIJACK. - Eureka Lott 01:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Greece Interstate 37

• Greece Interstate 37 → Greek National Road 39  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Greece Interstate 38 → Greek National Road 38  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Greece Interstate 44 → Greek National Road 44  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Greece Interstate 48 → Greek National Road 48  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Proposing to delete because there are no interstates in Greece, and interstates are exclusive to the United States: in Greece, there are motorways (Ax), national roads (EOx) and provincial roads (EPx). This nomination rationale has been copied from WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Greece "Interstates" where interstates 70 to 91 were deleted. Jay 💬 11:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Your explanation makes sense to me! Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Ironicon

• Ironicon → Irony punctuation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused, unattested term for irony punctuation. Although it is a quite nice word — akin to obscenicon. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per very novel and obscure synonym. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 12:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Zing (punctuation)

• Zing (punctuation) → Irony punctuation#Irony mark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unattested name for ⸮. Used to be on Zing (disambiguation), and only there, but I just deleted it from that page. I am not aware of any other punctuation called zing this could refer to either. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Dr. Kubota

• Dr. Kubota → Ordyne  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a plausible search term. There are numerous people with the surname Kubota who could be confused with a character hardly anyone knows about, not even the players of the game would remember him anyway. Go D. Usopp (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 30 § Dr. Kubota – no consensus

• Keep. I haven't played the game, but he's described as the main antagonist so it seems like a bizarre statement that "not even players of the game would remember him anyway". As for the other people with the surname, a hatnote to Kubota (surname) can resolve that issue. I think if someone is searching "Dr. Kubota" they'd be looking for the character over someone like Tomio Kubota, who had a Ph.D. but didn't seem to use the title? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with retargeting directly to the surname page as well. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Kubota (surname) (per nom? It's not clear from the nomination what the requested outcome is). There are several other fictional "Dr Kubota"s - see, for example Eric Pierpoint, Swing Girls, and Denji Sentai Megaranger - none of whom, along with this character, have an obvious claim to be the primary referent of the term. Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Linked 2020 RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 06:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I'm convinced by Tavix's argument. Other info: No mainspace articles link to this, so we could probably just trash it if we wanted. From the wikipedia search function I have found that there are multiple fictional characters primarily known as "Dr. Kubota" (I see Tevildo below has also mentioned this). However, according to those pages, Dr. Kubota is more prominently featured in Ordyne than the others are featured in their works. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

StandWithUkraine

• StandWithUkraine → Protests against the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The only mention on the page is in a citation, so this is not necessarily a particularly helpful place to send readers. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 14:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete; this appears to be CamelCase and this particular type of redirect has no longer needed to be created for a while now. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• It's literally camelcase, yes, but it's not meant to stand for Stand With Ukraine, but #StandWithUkraine, the hashtag, and we do have {{R from hashtag}}. It looks like some of them point to a corresponding cause even without mention of the hashtag per se, e.g., Trump2024Trump2024 → Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, and note that this does run into the technical restriction regarding # in titles. The current target looks acceptable to me, though I don't feel strongly enough to register an outright keep vote. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep Stand with Ukraine exists as a redirect to the same target and should probably be bundled with this one, and (unless they are deleted) one marked as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of the other. There are lots of mentions of the exact phrase in articles (some prose, some reference titles) but none of them are both sufficient to anchor a redirect and useful as a target (e.g. picking just one of the articles about a leader of Japan, Finland and the UK saying their country will stand with Ukraine would be arbitrary and inappropriate, especially as in the UK's case both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer said the same thing). The search results make me surprised we don't have at least some content about the phrase, and the current target is probably the article most suitable for that. Without a mention the situation is not ideal but not overly bad either. Nobody is going to be WP:ASTONISHED to arrive at the target article, but will they will find what they are looking for? My gut feeling is that some will and some won't. The large number of search results, with some mentions in prose that the current target doesn't have, suggests that those who are being helped by the current redirects won't (reliably) be by search results. Overall I think I land at a weak keep, but adding a mention in the prose at the target would be best. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 06:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment - it is mentioned at Ukrainian information war during Russian invasion of Ukraine#Advertising and PR campaigns, which could also be a valid target for this redirect. However, Protests against the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) could still be expanded to cover general online reactions as well (which would be a good place to mention that hashtag) 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

or it could be mentioned in Non-government reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Social media 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Jane Farrar

• Jane Farrar → Bartimaeus Sequence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, not mentioned at the target. Geschichte (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Looking at the page history of List of Bartimaeus characters, she appears to have been a relatively minor character - nowhere near important enough to justify keeping this redirect. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 12:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Sprenger's asparagus fern

• Sprenger's asparagus fern → Asparagus densiflorus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Sprenger's asparagus redirects to Asparagus aethiopicus, and "Sprenger's asparagus" and "Sprenger's asparagus fern" both being names in common use for different species seems very unlikely. Especially so, since these species are closely related and have a history of being confused for each other. Most likely "Sprenger's asparagus fern" arose from a fusion of "Sprenger's asparagus" with "asparagus fern", which has an overlapping meaning. "Asparagus fern" is nonspecific, and in addition to A. densiflorus and A. aethiopicus, can refer to Asparagus setaceus or Asparagus virgatus. However, "Sprenger's asparagus" seems to specify A. aethiopicus quite firmly. ~2026-11614-51 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

"Sprenger's" in any vernacular ("common") names is just a result of scientists translating Asparagus sprengeri to invent a vernacular name. According to scientific sources such as Plants of the World Online, A. sprengeri is a synonym (taxonomy) of A. densiflorus. But the real question is which species (A. densiflorus or A. aethiopicus) is the commonly grown houseplant that has been referred to as A. sprengeri. I will look into that further. Plantdrew (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Next king of Tonga

• Next king of Tonga → Tupoutoʻa ʻUlukalala  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:CRYSTAL, subject to change A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Succession to the Tongan throne. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per J947. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Next king of Lesotho

• Next king of Lesotho → Prince Lerotholi Seeiso  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:CRYSTAL, subject to change A1Cafel (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Succession to the Mosotho throne. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per J947. Most "Next..." redirects that don't target an article specifically discussing the next whatever should point to an article that explains who, what or when the next whatever will be, or explains the process for determining that. It is usually only when we don't have such an article or that is unknowable (e.g. the next leader of a political party that is not currently holding an election for that position) that deletion is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Heath Mitchell Quinn

• Heath Mitchell Quinn → San Francisco Giants minor league players#Heath Quinn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-notable minor league baseball player; Fails WP:GNG; Heath Quinn was deleted in 2022 Joeykai (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at target. Geschichte (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Ricardo Genovés

• Draft:Ricardo Genovés → San Francisco Giants minor league players#Ricardo Genovés  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

non-notable minor league baseball player; Ricardo Genovés was deleted in 2024 Joeykai (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at target. Geschichte (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

April 6

Mohamed Khamis

• Mohamed Khamis → United Arab Emirates at the 1992 Summer Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Mentioned in 3 specific Olympic event pages but retargeting to any one of them would be a WP:XY problem. And there's also the unrelated Mohammad Khamis muddying the situation. This RfD is part of the User:Pppery/Names project. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: now mentioned at target. kline / talk / contribs 22:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The WP:SURMOUNTABLE concern raised by the nominator has been addressed, and Mr. Khamis' participation in the 1992 Olympics is a natural target. Possibly refine the target to United Arab Emirates at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Swimming. Frank Anchor 13:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Utah shake

• Utah shake → Milkshake#Utah shakes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

i might just be bad at this "finding stuff" thing, but the section it targets seems to have been removed not long after creation for being unsourced, and never added back. as is, utah shakes (which are milkshakes made in utah) aren't mentioned, and results refer to other definitions of "shake", like earthquakes, so this seems to also be a surprising target consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not mentioned and the content appears to have been removed with good cause. I checked Mormon foodways and Dirty soda thinking this might be discussed as a synonym or related drink but it's not there, either, nor can I find any support for this usage online. Like the nom, my search turns up a variety of uses, none related to milkshakes. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• No contest. This just meant "above the rim shake" (like at Arctic Circle Restaurants and many local area diners) at a time when I thought "above the rim shake" wasn't common usage. I also hadn't realized Arctic Circle had popularized both the shake and the term. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Bath milk

• Bath milk → Raw milk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

weird thing to make a weak nom out of, but life do be like that sometimes

per the creator, the term is mentioned in #australia, but results were instead mostly about milk baths... with the caveat that it did not necessarily refer to that article's definition of a milk bath, as they instead refer to a lot of assorted things that look like or are related to milk, with actual milk only being about the third most common kind of result. even then, it doesn't actually seem to be raw milk, but milk that may or may not have gone through a separate process to be better on a bathtub than venturing down a human's digestive system

this is to say, me have brain ouchie, what do? refine to #australia, retarget to milk bath, hatnote, or do something else? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to milk bath. Asteramellus (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• retarget to milk bath. A bit unwieldy but I think its a plausible search term. --Lenticel ^(talk) 21:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  to be a little unfair, i don't even think the term itself is unwieldy. looking for milk used for baths seems perfectly reasonable. it's just a little vague because too many different products are known by that one name. might as well just blame capitalism, call it a day, and escape to the one place that hasn't been corrupted by it consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 02:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Sweet and condensed milk

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Puzzle game

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Easter dates

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

Easter 2006

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Fuun

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Android 17

• Android 17 → Android (operating system)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect has been the subject of a long-term edit war between whether it should target the mobile operating system, or an article related to the Dragon Ball character such as Red Ribbon Army#Android 17. I am hence bringing this to RfD discussion to form a consensus. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• I think the best solution would be to create a disambiguation page between the two, or add a hatnote to one of the following pages. If the latter was to be done, I would likely choose the operating system, as it appears to be the more common topic. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 10:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  A disambiguation page makes a lot of sense here-it has clearly been contentious and that method doesn’t set one as a more ‘important’ meaning. I’d agree the operating system is likely relevant to more users and a hatnote on the page for the OS makes sense if a disamb page isn’t the consensus ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 14:59, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: My first thought was that the mobile OS is the obvious primary topic, but I don't see that we cover this presumed upcoming release at the current target, nor at Android version history nor at Android 16, the article about the most recent (current) version. I imagine readers do search for information about future Android OS releases but as long as we don't cover it, this redirect doesn't make much sense. MOS:DABMENTION requires that dab pages only list articles that actually mention the topic, so that won't work, either. I easily found some chatter about the Android 17 operating system online so perhaps we can add coverage somewhere and target there. All the incoming links appear to reference the Dragon Ball character so those will need to be addressed depending on the outcome here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  I partially agree with your idea. Adding some coverage about the operating system would be nifty for readers, but I'm not entirely sure if solely having the target link as the operating system is the best idea.

  
  

  There has been confusion between the operating system and the Dragon Ball character, so I feel as if having the target page to a disambiguating page would be better (when the specific criteria is reached, of course). That being said, I'd be open for further thoughts about this. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 07:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's a question of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Android operating system is extremely popular and is highly likely to be the primary topic for this redirect. If that's the case, which is my impression, a hatnote could be added to the Android article pointing to the appropriate Dragon Ball target. There is a similar situation with Android 16 and Android 8. If there is no primary topic then a dab page is generally warranted, although in consideration of WP:ONEOTHER and the approach recommended in the essay WP:1OTHERPRIMARY, if one page is more popular but not a slam-dunk for primary topic, it may still make sense not to have a dab page. My search results overwhelmingly refer to the operating system. Maybe there's some recentism surrounding the current beta release, but it would be surprising if the Dragon Ball topic were the primary for '17' and not the others. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  I understand your reasoning better now; I did mention the idea of having a hatnote in my initial comment above, so I wouldn't have any objections to it. My main concern is that there are over 100 links that are going to need fixing. I'm thinking that the links could be replaced with something along the lines of Android 17 (character).

  
  

  As for the target link, I think it would make the most sense for it to lead to Android version history; there is a small amount of coverage of it there, but not much. The article also lists other versions of Android there, so having it as the target link shouldn't come off as surprising to readers. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 05:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think Android 17 (Dragon Ball) would be a better redirect for the character. Android version history does look like the best place to point this redirect for now. I'm genuinely surprised we don't have more coverage about this Android version! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• I’ve notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga about this redirect. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 07:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Android, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Google. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Collectivities

• Collectivities → Territorial collectivity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Collectivity → Territorial collectivity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Judging by what links to collectivity and what links to connectivities, this doesn't look like the right target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: on a cursory reading, all of the uses in articles look correct to me, with the exception of the usage at Unilineal evolution. It's possible Overseas collectivity is a better target for some of these and perhaps disambiguation is warranted. The instance at Unilineal evolution is the only one that uses an entirely different meaning; this link can be removed.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

AI effect in the United States

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pinky's vocal tics

• Poit → Pinky and the Brain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Zort → Pinky and the Brain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These two redirects are of the character Pinky from the show "pinky and the brain"'s vocal tics. Poit has the character explanation but Poit is simply one of Pinky's sayings, not a character from the series. Unlike Narf, another one of his sayings, there are no other meanings mentioned the page besides Pinky and the Brain. ♡Draco Centauros♡ (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate Poit and include Vinicius Poit, Post- och Inrikes Tidningar (PoIT), Pre-Islamic rulers of Ternate#Poit (1277–1284), Pierre Antoine Poiteau (his author abbreviation is Poit.Poit.—it is already a redirect to his article and it appears [linked and unlinked] in numerous plant articles), Unicolored jay#Vocalization, and I suppose Pinky and the Brain. POIT also stands for Peanut Oral Immunotherapy. There are a couple articles that might fit on the dab page—I will review. Both poit and zort are mentioned at Pinky and the Brain. The word poit appears in several other articles in reference to the show (in addition to all the other uses I've noted), but zort does not. This may suggest that poit is more prominent in Pinky and the Brain discourse. The discussion of both of these is quite buried in the article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC) Correction 01:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Dab page drafted at Poit. I'm not married to the format or order of entries. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Greek National Road 61

• Greek National Road 61 → Greek National Road 81  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect should be deleted, because the road number does not exist according to my research in National roads in Greece. The redirect was originally created as a typo of Greek National Road 81. However, given that we now have references for numbered roads in Greece (which are stored in {{Cite Greek roads}} since they are commonly used in Greek road-related articles), I feel there is no point in keeping the redirect if the number was never allocated in real life. --Minoa (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If this was unambiguously created in error and left over as the result of a move, which appears to be the case, then this is possibly WP:G6 eligible, although it's quite old. Regardless, this redirect makes no sense and serves no purpose. This gets minimal traffic with zero hits in February and March of this year and one in January. I'm unclear what the relevance is of {{Cite Greek roads}}. If this was previously linked in articles and these were removed/corrected in the last few months, that might explain occasional spikes in traffic in the past. Readers who might search for this non-existent road will be surprised and not helped by landing here. There's no reason to suspect this is a plausible error specific to this road as opposed to Greek National Road 16 or Greek National Road 71 or Greek National Road 62 or one of the other numbered roads that contains a 1 or a 6. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Myceteae: I clarified why I referenced {{Cite Greek roads}}, as it stores commonly used references that verify the existence of any given motorway and national road in Greece. --Minoa (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Nonexistent road, implausible typo 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:28, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Winterer

• Winterer → wiktionary:Special:Search/winterer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Lijil (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• I think there's a chance it could be redirected to Winterer (surname), where a relevant Wikitionary link can be found; however, I do agree with deleting this page. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 05:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to the surname, as redirect creator.  Juwan  🕊️🌈 13:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Move the surname page to the base title per WP:MALPLACED. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Move Winterer (surname) to Winterer per WP:MALPLACED, WP:NOTDICT, and WP:SOFTSP. This does not meet the standard for a soft redirect—with zero incoming links, it is not commonly wikified. wikt:Winterer states that the name derives from the word winterer. If there's adequate sourcing for our purposes, the name etymology and definition of winterer can be included in the surname article. The Wiktionary template is already in place at the surname article, which will eventually lead readers to this information. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 7102

• Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 7102 → Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2017  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Let's not joke about the 72nd century, which is more than 5000 years away. GTrang (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I think it's safe to say that no one's going to be stumbling upon this. Within the past few years, there have only been a few page views.
  On a side note: 7102 is 2017 backwards. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 05:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – even if Wikipedia makes it to the year 7102, it is way too early for us to plan for that, since we have to work on April Fools' Day for the years 2027 to 7101 first. And even if 7102 is 2017 backwards, said joke is a bit too obscure. --Minoa (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• I really dislike April Fools' day in general, and particularly on Wikipedia. But, having just a single redirect like this that's been around for 9 years makes me lean toward a weak keep per WP:NOTBURO, mostly? Although I don't see any reasons in WP:RFD#DELETE or WP:COSTLY this fits, other than perhaps to avoid a future RfD discussion but perhaps future noms will read the talk page first. Per WP:Humor, it's too bad we can't mark redirects as jokes other than a hatnote which I think would be fine on a backroom humor page (Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2017) if kept. Skynxnex (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep - it'll be mildly funny when 7102 rolls around and the future wikipedians end up having to do the stuff which was predestined for them in 2017 in order to prevent a time paradox 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Textur

• Textur → Blackletter#Textura  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Textura → Blackletter#Textura  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Textualis → Blackletter#Textura  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Textura section and its content no longer exist. ~2026-11614-51 (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Blackletter. The word "Textura" still appears nine times in the article, the word "Textualis" still appears 12 times in the article, and the word "Textur" still appears once in the article, so the article itself is still a valid target for the redirects. Nicholas0 (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget (un-refine) Textura and Textualis to Blackletter. These terms are used throughout, as noted above, and Textura and Textualis are prominently bolded in the lead. However, Textur needs further consideration. It is a plausible misspelling of Texture and search reveals the partial title match Schistose texturSchistose textur, which is a redirect to Schist. If kept/retargeted, consider adding a hatnote to the article. Tag these as {{R avoided double redirect}} so they stay together in the future. I'm not sure which of these three terms should be treated as the "main" one. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Slap Battles

• Slap Battles → List of Roblox games#Slap Battles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned; only other mention is in passing at Spilprisen. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Spilprisen#2024 and unlink there; it's hidden in search results so deletion is unhelpful. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Blade Ball (Roblox game)

• Blade Ball (Roblox game) → List of Roblox games#Blade Ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not helpful in the absence of any discussion on enwiki. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Project Lazarus (Roblox game)

• Project Lazarus (Roblox game) → List of Roblox games#Project Lazarus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not helpful in the absence of any discussion on enwiki. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

April 5

Herscu

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Herscu

Politcs of the Balkans

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Third Gulf War

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Third Gulf War

Bunonematoidea

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Software life cycle

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

Jean Val Jean (actor)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Subjugate

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

People's Republic of Santa Monica

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Discovery Networks International

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

John Palyok

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

Conmhaícne

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Conmhaícne

Eth0

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Boys Voices

• Boys Voices → Castrato  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

2006-era BLAR of a stub made the same day as the BLAR. Notably the stub is a two-sentence blurb about the current target. That said... I can't be the only person that thinks that this title is way too vague to specifically be talking about castrati, right??? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• dabify between castrato, boy soprano, and treble voice, as it appears to me that this term could refer to all three, though feel free to add any other articles this could refer to as well if i've missed any (well, in the event of dabification, the dab page should probably be change the title to match standard article title style, and this should be retargeted to that) caesar (it/he) _{(talky place) (united bestowals)} 12:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Would Boy's voice work as a title for such a dab? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  ya, seems fine to me caesar (it/he) _{(talky place) (united bestowals)} 13:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Disambig at Boy's voice per above, and include a link to Boys' choir and voice change (despite the generic sounding title, the latter article is specifically about the changes occurring at male puberty). Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Voice change, which would be the general topic of a boy's voice (contrasted with an adult voice). Surprisingly, it also has links to the related topics of Boys' choir and Castrato so in the event someone was looking for that more specific topic, they'd be able to get to it from that article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

My !vote was largely to oppose disambiguation with the thought that deletion wouldn't be an option. Now that I see a deletion consensus forming, I'm happy to go along with that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguate per above and then retarget to that disambiguation page. ~2026-16755-69 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambiguation page has not been drafted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete because of the plural, uppercase V, and lack of apostrophe. Boys Voice could be a redirect to Bjørn Ole Rasch, and if it was a dab, it could have Boyzvoice in the See also. No opinion on the above dab entries, or title, but Boys Voices is not an ideal title. Jay 💬 08:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Anybody can create a DAB at the appropriate title. The combination of caps and bad grammar would make this a bad redirect anyways. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to close out the log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete reluctantly – Can't retarget to Boyzvoice page; I recently tagged that article for having issues. I'm thinking about merging that page into Get Ready to Be Boyzvoiced... but not now. I'll do so some other time should issues haven't been resolved by then. I don't really think retargeting to Bjørn Ole Rasch would be a good idea either. Kinda broad despite seeming like a proper noun. George Ho (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Jay and voorts. An article, redirect, or dab page can be created at the proper title Boy's voice or whichever sentence case variation is preferred. If created, it should either be a redirect to Voice change or possibly a dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I've created a disambig at Boy's voice. I continue to think that this title is an appropriate and useful as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Foundations of Aritmetic

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Met English

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

Richie (Pokémon)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Commie blocks

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

Iran-Israel-United States war

• Iran–Israel–United States war → Twelve-Day War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Iran-Israel-United States war → Twelve-Day War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Israeli–United States strikes on Iran → Iran–Israel conflict  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambiguous since there's not a single page it could refer to, Iran–Israel conflict, US-Iran War. Abesca (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Is the contentious topic warning really needed? (/genq) I've seen other discussions of redirect similar without it, and redirect discussions are... fairly short, I've seen. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

As the editor who added it, I think it's necessary, @Organhaver. You're right that RFD participants don't often go over 1000 words, but this also lets non-extended confirmed editors know that they can't discuss this one. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. The CTOPIC restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the major exception being non-disruptive edit requests on Talk: pages. I agree that the average RFD discussion is short and measured but they can become heated. I think the reminder can't hurt and may help. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete all. No incoming links, and no point in redirecting these to a dab page or set index article. Better to let the search function take readers directly to where they want to go. I₂Overcome ^talk 06:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  there used to be [37] Abesca (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Don't these exactly refer to the ongoing 2026 Iran war? Other redirects to it are US-Israeli war with Iran and 2026 War between United States Israel and Iran and lots of similar redirects with the word "strikes" instead of war. Jay 💬 14:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to 2026 Iran war. The subset of entries at Iran–Israel conflict which this could refer to are the ones listed at US-Iran War, and the descriptions there all mention both Israeli and United States involvement. In theory, there could in future be a conflict which only involves Iran and the US but not Israel, which would be listed at US-Iran War, but that's not the case right now. However, there are only two main entries listed there, namely the 2026 war and the Twelve Day War. Of these two, the 2026 war is (perhaps arguably) the primary topic due to its larger scale and global impact, making it much more likely to be what a reader would be looking for. The 12 Day War is linked in the lead section of the 2026 war, so if that was what someone intended, they'd likely still find it. This is no different to redirects like US-Israeli war with Iran, as mentioned by Jay. – Scyrme (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to 2026 Iran war and leave a distinguishing hatnote. Iran-Israel-United States war (and variants) are utilized in other languages to name the war and seem to be reasonable enough to search. Alternatively, it could be turned into a disambiguatory page linking to Twelve-Day War, Iran War, and possibly a few others. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to the dab at Iran–United States war. I almost closed this as "Retarget to 2026 Iran war", but then I realized the logic for doing so is inherently self-contradictory. These terms seem to be no less ambiguous that "Iran–United States war" as all of the entries on the dab page involve Israel, so if there's no primary topic for that then by definition there's no primary topic for this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to consider Pppery's late suggestion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Iran–United States war per Pppery. The two terms should have the same primary topic. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Iran-United States war (Israel is/was involved in both main instances of Iran-US conflict + most US strikes on Iran). Could Delete the strikes one though. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 00:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment:  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States strikes on Iran § Requested move 23 March 2026. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 18:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to remove from old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• retarget to Iran–United States war - this year these became unambiguously ambiguous terms. --Altenmann >talk 20:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's get physico

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

Minor Dalek variants and terms

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Minor Dalek variants and terms

Terrell Carter

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Terrell Carter

Chicago station

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Zhang Weiyin

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei

• Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei → Assassination of Ali Khamenei  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Purported assassination of Ali Khamenei → Assassination of Ali Khamenei  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Purported death of Ali Khamenei → Assassination of Ali Khamenei  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer a alleged assassination. Mysticair667537 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• As the user who first created this redirect, I have no objection to its deletion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom EvanTech10 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Perhaps instead of deleting it, it could redirect to the conflicting reports section? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: these redirects aren't inaccurate (it's an alleged assassination as well as a real assassination and they reflect a historical reality), and inaccuracy isn't a reason to delete a redirect anyway. The important part is that they're plausible search terms. Additionally, the first redirect was the article title so should certainly be kept per K4. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per all. It served its purpose. Jay 💬 16:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Refine per wikieditor. ZNático (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The terms "Alleged" and "Purported" are not used or mentioned at Assassination of Ali Khamenei#Conflicting reports. Also, Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei wasn't the original title according to this edit [38] so K4 doesn't apply here. Mysticair667537 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  K4 doesn't only apply to the original title. This redirect accumulated 26,000 views while being the title of the article. It's quite likely that it's been linked to from some place(s) because of that. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei received 26,684 pageviews on Feb 28, and 21,124 on March 1, however it rapidly declined to just 406 pageviews on March 2, and 304 on March 3, after his assassination was confirmed. K4 is starting to become moot. Mysticair667537 (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  On the contrary this is exactly why K4 exists. This redirect received 1,277 pageviews on March 4. That's incredibly high. I challenge you to find any redirect that beats that. For comparison, the article Geography received 774 views that day. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I was about to withdraw my nomination, but after checking the pageviews again and seeing that it declined to just 55 pageviews on March 8, It's safe to say it has outlived it's usefulness. Mysticair667537 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep for now, redirects are cheap, and several dozen hits per day is still a fair amount. I would revise my position if (roughly) median daily traffic drops to zero _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The last two redirects have now dropped to a median daily zero and the first one has dropped to 16. There are other problems with these redirects aside from the very low pageviews, readers using these may think that they will be directed to a section of Ali Khamenei's article about old debunked assassination rumors, leading to issues with WP:XY. Mysticair667537 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Outdated, more confusing than helpful now. --BDD (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice per WP:R#D2 might cause confusion and MOS:SCAREQUOTES indicating that the writer is distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. High view counts are actually an argument for deletion here. Paradoctor (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now. The inaccuracy here is the argument that these redirects are inaccurate, per J947's first comment. View counts are always unreliable when a redirect is at RfD so need to be put aside for at least a few months after this discussion is closed - in cases like this one waiting for a minimum of a few months after the event is no longer current news to determine how significant the term is in the long term is also usually wise. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's either alleged or a fact, never both. And we do delete misleading redirects: D2. The problem here is not "current", it is "false". Paradoctor (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's either alleged or a fact, never both. this is false. I allege that you (Paradoctor) posted a comment in this discussion at 10:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC). It is trivially provable that this is factual but that does not change that it is also an allegation. It is true that we do delete misleading redirects. but these redirects are not misleading so that is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  It is trivially provable That ignores the critical change that proof induces. Before such proof exists, it is an allegation. Afterwards, it is a fact. Before, you're right in saying "the alleged comment". After the proof is had, saying "alleged comment" is an expression of doubt contradicted by the consensus of the reliable sources. Paradoctor (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  Just because something is proven doesn't stop it being an allegation - anything that is alleged is an allegation, regardless of factuality or proof. However, even if it did rewrite reality that wouldn't impact it's plausibility as a search term. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  anything that is alleged is an allegation That's wrong:

  Allegation: an allegation is a claim of an unproven fact (my emphasis)

  FYI: It's not so much that reality changes by constructing a proof, it is how we speak that is changed by evidence. Someone becomes a criminal only through a court saying so. Without that, calling someone a criminal is defamation. With it, it is a statement of fact.

  search term As before: this is trumped by D2. In this context, pageviews are a bad thing. The consensus of the reliable sources says that Khamenei's death was an assassination, and we don't contradict the sources. Paradoctor (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  allegation:

  1. An assertion, especially an accusation, not necessarily based on facts.
  2. The act of alleging.

  Nothing there, in your quote, or at wikt:allege means that a proven allegation is no longer an allegation, although our article is indeed poorly worded in this respect - it may be unproven, it may be proven, the speaker may or may not know whether it has been proven - they are all allegations and do not cease to be allegations. Just because it is not commonly referred to as an allegation, but it doesn't cease to be one. This is identical to how allegations which turn out to be false do not cease to be allegations (if they did things like libel law would be very different).

  As for page views, firstly they are currently unreliable per my first comment, secondly a large number of page views is always a reason to be the most helpful we can be to our readers. In this case, if someone is searching based on the allegation that Ali Khamenei was assassinated we should take them to the article that has the content about the assassination of Ali Khamenei without forcing them to go via search results which can never be guaranteed to contain the content they are looking for and which may be several clicks/taps away from where they arrive (this depends on multiple factors including the method of searching they use and whether they are logged into an account that has the privileges to create an article at the title they searched for). Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  Seriously, if you don't understand English, there is no point in talking. Paradoctor (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  I have just explained, in English, with reference to the definition of the word in an English language dictionary that the common usage of "alleged" includes all allegations whether the speaker knows (or knew) them to be proven, knows (or knew) them to be unproven or does (or did) not know whether they were or were not proven. If you want more references, you might try Mirriam Webster, Cambridge Dictionary, Oxford Learners Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Collins, Dictionary.com and OED, none of which restrict the usage to statements that are unproven. If you don't want to discuss it further, that is up to you, but you do not need to make provably false allegations against me to justify that (indeed doing so rather hurts your argument). Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree, but anyway this argument does not exist for "purported", which Cambridge Dictionaries, Oxford Languages, and Wiktionary agree refer to something that might be true. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to remove from old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 15:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep for now until it drops lower.

🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 03:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The main reason why I believe this should be deleted under D2 isn't because of the definition of the word but confusion caused by use of the word. If I search Alleged assassination attempts of Ali Khamenei, the only result I will get is Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei and by WP:SURPRISE be directed to the real Assassination of Ali Khamenei. This is a perfect example of why WP:R#D2 exists. As a side note to these stating that the pageviews are unreliable due to being listed at RFD. Alleged assassination of Muhammad Deif which was never listed at RFD received 2,053 pageviews on July 13, 2024 however after it was moved to 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack, the pageviews dropped to zero two weeks later and now receives an average zero views per day since Aug 2024. Mysticair667537 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. A true allegation or purporting is still an allegation or purporting. It would not be a good use of rersources to create "alleged/purported assassination" redirects in most cases, but in this case, where the redirects already exist because they were once more logical search terms, the fact that they're technically still true is enough to justify keeping. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

National Democratic Party (Philippines)

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

Coco 2

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Semi-decidable

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Semi-decidable

list of hoaxes on wikipedia

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Trump and Zelenskyy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Trump and Zelenskyy

Groups of numbers

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Homosexual necrophilia in animals

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Seoul.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Seoul.

April 4

Greek National Road 37

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Guideway

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Jalaaluddin

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Maldives secondhand market fire

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Law

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Law

The Liverpool Post

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#The Liverpool Post

Low boys

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

United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites

Jetix Arab world

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 11#Jetix Arab world

Utilisima

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

TheMaxChannel528-24-created titles (Trimmed)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Member of the House of Lords

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Member of the House of Lords

Narb

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wikipedia:VITP

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Tomás Ó'Sé

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Paper ticket

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Draft:Thomas Jankins

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Brent Diaz

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

John Carroll (reality TV)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sarah Jones (reality tv star)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

All the 2d shapes

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

96-gon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#96-gon

New Xbox

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#New Xbox

サンズ

• サンズ → Sans (Undertale)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should be deleted per WP:FORRED. There's no affinity between Undertale and Japanese, so this is not a valid foreign-language redirect. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 23:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The only language that Undertale is in, other than English, is Japanese. See the Japanese version of the official website, as well. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Organhaver's comments would be relevant if the original language were Japanese or there was some other strong connection between the subject and Japan or the Japanese language. Simply being the only language into which it has (currently) been translated is not enough. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep The Japanese-speaking fanbase of the UT/DR franchise is large, and it's inaccurate to say there is no affinity. Dege31 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Why would the Japanese-speaking fanbase be seeking English-language information about the subject by searching the English Wikipedia in Japanese? Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is there any other foreign-language redirect? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not to cater to foreign language readers. We create foreign-language article titles and redirects to cater to English speakers who may have encountered something under its foreign name. Non-English speakers should be consulting the Wikipedia for their own language. If they are going to use the English Wikipedia, they should have enough familiarity with English to look topics up by their English names. --Srleffler (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, if someone does want to look up information about a given topic in English but doesn't remember the English name, then there are several far more reliable strategies to finding the English Wikipedia article, including:

• Looking at the article in the Wikipedia for the language they do remember its name in and following the interwiki link
• Looking at a related article in the English Wikipedia they do remember the name of and following links from there
• Searching using related words/phrases they do remember
• Consulting a dictionary / translator to find the English name

Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this has already been explained before, but this definitely could be for "English speakers who may have encountered something under its foreign name". 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Comment: Honestly, I never even thought about including a Japanese name for each of the Undertale/Deltarune characters. At the very least, I believe the redirect for San's Japanese name should be kept if the actual article mentions this specific word/phrase. If it's included, then I will change my Weak Keep to Strong Keep if that is the case. For example, Sans name could be written like Sans (Japanese: サンズ, romanized: sanzu) OR Sans could have a nihongo footnote like Sans

As video games, Undertale and Deltarune has official Japanese localization/Japanese language in the game by Toby Fox. This is what matters. I understand why this redirect was questioned, but considering what I said earlier though, It isn't misleading to say that Undertale/Deltarune has Japanese in the game since there's official Japanese language in both of the games by Toby's Japanese localization team 8-4 and this is reassured on https://undertale.com and https://deltarune.com with the site having the option to be in the Japanese language. If this redirect is kept I will include Japanese names for each of the Undertale/Deltarune characters that currently has an article and cite this RfD discussion as the reason for doing so.

KrispyBlueJays (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:FORRED --Srleffler (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:FORRED, considering Undertale was made by an American individual. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. This name is mentioned in the article. PokémonPerson 19:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment it's worth noting that ja:サンズ is a disambiguation page with a lot of different entries. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep or refine to Sans (Undertale)#サンズ or Sans (Undertale)#Sanzu. I have added an anchors at Sans (Undertale)#サンズ and Sans (Undertale)#Sanzu. The visible anchor at Sans (Undertale)#Sanzu may be more helpful to readers. The character's Japanese name is used and described with relevant detail. On-wiki search shows that「サンズ」is used to transliterate a handful of other English words/names but very often appears on en-wiki in reference to the Undertale character. This redirect helps readers find relevant information about the Japanese name. The simplistic 'FORRED' analysis is insufficient as it fails to address the encyclopedic content we have for this Japanese name. We typically keep foreign language redirects when they point to relevant content that describes a non-English word or name in context that is most helpful to en-wiki readers. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - as unlikely search term - I don't understand why someone would come to the English language Wikipedia and search for an English language character's name by their Japanese name. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider Thryduulf's 4 March and Myceteae's 18 March unresponded findings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 04:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Refine to Sans (Undertale)#サンズ per @Myceteae. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Diquark condensate

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

Some ambiguous redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Some ambiguous redirects

Security minister of Israel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Security minister of Israel

1997 OFC U-17 Championship

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2025–26 Iraqi Premier Division League

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

Church lands

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Sexual abuse perpetrated by children

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

BBC Radio Sessions

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 11#BBC Radio Sessions