Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
XFD backlog
V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 3 65 68
TfD 0 0 0 0 0
MfD 0 0 1 3 4
FfD 0 0 0 11 11
RfD 0 0 0 34 34
AfD 0 0 0 2 2

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 what should be 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 should we 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.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • 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 should we delete a redirect?[edit]

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 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[edit]

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  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", 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 "Orange". (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, are an exception to this rule. (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.)
  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.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

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 the article texts 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 left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. 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[edit]

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. ClimategateClimatic 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 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 "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. 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[edit]

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[edit]

Tag the redirect.

  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 do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • 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.
List the entry on RfD.

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

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

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. 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 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[edit]

September 25[edit]

Four Golden Princess[edit]

A redirect to M-Girls seems inappropriate given that these are two completely different music groups. Adding this as a redirect to a completely different group is misleading. Suggesting to delete and leave as empty page until more updated information can be sourced. RagnaParadise (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per reason 10: "the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Tevildo (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree that this is not a good redirect. The DRV was started first, so I would wait for it to be closed. The comments there may be leaning to a restore and AfD. Jay 💬 07:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Waiting for the DRV to be closed...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 24[edit]

Neighbours: The Adventure[edit]

Not mentioned at target (or anywhere else on Wikipedia). * Pppery * it has begun... 23:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bzyb (village) ()[edit]

The empty parentheses have no connection to the name of the village in question. Both titles resulted from accidental page moves, and no one is going to search for them. I suggest deletion. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: The parentheses were only a kludge. The redirects can be deleted safely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leigh Chappell[edit]

No mention at target. Google searches fail to elucidate the matter. Edward-Woodrowtalk 22:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete I created this redirect when the target mentioned Chappell. Since then, the article has been heavily rewritten, and mentioning Chappell by name would probably be undue. (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goodbуe Little Darling[edit]

Mixed script redirects. The "y" in "goodbye" is actually a U (Cyrillic). These were created by accident, they are left over from the creator moving these pages to the correct title. (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. I get it, they were created bу accident, but I'm not sure people will be searching with mixed Latin and Cуrillic scripts. It might be better for these redirects to go to allow for uninhibited search. Regards, SONIC678 21:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Climber (climbing)[edit]

Previously listed on the Climber disambiguation page as "Climber, a participant in the activity of climbing", with only the action of climbing being wikilinked.

This redirect was created to replace the word "Climber" in the aforementioned description with "Climber (climbing)", with both the participant and the activity being wikilinked. I do not think the double-target with this particular disambiguator is needed. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: really seems absurd. Just morphological variants of the same word: there would be no problem in WLinking 'climber' to Climbing if necessary. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep (or fix so it doesn't redirect to a disambiguation page). As per runner redirecting to running, the word climber should redirect to climbing, and not go to at a climber disambiguation page (may IP editors to climbing articles leave the disambiguation link in place which has to be fixed). Either redirect climber to climbing (and list its entry on the disambiguation page, per runner), or leave as is (which is better than redirecting climber to a disambiguation page). 10:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the purpose of the redirect? Is it for people who come to WP and type in "Climber (climbing)"? What sort of people would they be? Or is it so there can be WLs like "Fred was a [[Climber (climbing)|climber]] who enjoyed baseball", rather than just WLinking "climber" to "climbing"? Imaginatorium (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the latter, and the fact that a lot of IPs (who do most of the climbing editing these days), just put in climber and leave the disambiguation in place. In addition, the redirect is used to link the WikiCommons category:climber to the Wikipedia climbing article, and to the Wikidata entry for climber. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing how this redirect is "for the IPs", to be honest. I get that you were the one who created the page and naturally you made it because you found a "gap" to be filled, which in my opinion was a gap that already had a working solution and didn't really exist. You ask about how "Runner" redirects to "Running", but what about climber? From my point of view, it's purely a matter of WP:PTOPIC. When in comes to the two verbs, Running receives 5x the pageviews as climbing does, and none of the other disambiguations come close. Climbing, on the otherhand, and particularly "climber", has competition, as the article for "Vine" (referred to as a "climber") receives 3x more pageviews as climbing does. To that end, because to my knowledge there is no primary topic for "Climber" necessarily, I think the disambiguation page is appropriate to exist there.
As for what I don't buy about the explanation, is that this article was not linked anywhere before you created it. In my opinion, nobody would ever think to use this particular disambiguator unless that person had insider knowledge that it existed. Because there is no article called Climber which talks about climbing, the natural solution is to just link to Climbing instead rather than typing in the redundant "action doer (present participle version of verb)". The solution that every other verb-article uses is just "[[X-ing|X-er]]", or "[[Climbing|Climber]]" to get the job done. This redirect has a very strange disambiguator that nobody would think to use as it's more complicated than the status quo.
Checking the Climber (climbing) what-links-to page, and there may be information that I don't have the full picture on, but it doesn't seem like this redirect was created to deal with IP editors linking to DAB pages. In fact, it seems like the opposite happened. This page was created in June, and the handful of pages (~5) that link to it, all were edited in AFTER the page's creation, in July or so. I don't know what was happening to any IPs that changed linked to here before June, and what occurred to the previous links to the main Climber disambiguation page. Instead, for the couple of IPs that made these changes across the pages by changing Mountaineer to Climber in the lead, it seems to me like the solution for all of these would be to change the redirect target to target the main article itself. This redirect's creation seemed to just add a middle step for the sake of having a redirect called "climber", when there didn't need to be. Any further use besides this, I'm unsure. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Also it seems as if you imported from Wikidata to the redirect after the RfD was up. On this topic, and based on what I've said above, I don't think I agree that the Wikidata or Commons should be attached to this particular title, as it is quite unintuitive for any interested person to find this item if they didn't know which redirect this Wikidata entry was associated with. Unless they looked for the Wikidata entry first, and upon accessing that page, they'd find a redirect containing no further context towards its entry besides "this is a redirect to climbing".) Utopes (talk / cont) 20:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikidata entry for "climber" has existed since 24 Feb 2020, and I added the link from Wikidata to climber (climbing) on 11 June 2023. The WikiCommons category for "climbers" has existed since 21 April 2008. By having climber (climbing) all three are linked. Not an expert in these matters, but is not this not a good thing? Given that redirects are relatively inoffensive, why would we break this link? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for what I don't buy about the explanation, is that this article was not linked anywhere before you created it. As the entering of "climber" threw up a disambiguation error, someone would have to come along an fix it. Obviously, if climber automatically redirected to climbing (as per runner), this would not be a problem, but for some reason that was not considered acceptable? Regardless, even if that was fixed (and it probably should be) I think having climber (climbing), allows the Wikidata-Wikicommons-WikiPedia articles to link which is useful (per my comment just above). thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I completely agree with your sentiment here. I think as a whole, the linking of Wikidata and Commons for a topic of a "Climber", if it exists as an article, is likely for the betterment of Wikipedia and adds information, depending on the circumstance. Additionally, linking to climber in pages about the activity is not great, because links to disambiguation pages should be avoided where possible in order for an accurate wikilink. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, in its execution, I don't know really understand how this redirect "for the sake of wikilinking what type of 'climber' it is" is more helpful than simply wikilinking to the base page of Climbing. Disambiguators should be about distinguishing a particular title from the rest, whereas this doesn't really do that at all, I think. For vines called "climbers", it can potentially be said that they are also "climbing".
While I'm not advocating for these necessarily, Climber (mountaineer) or maybe even Climber (person) would at least add a second layer of description to identify what is being talked about in that title. Climber (climbing) says the same thing twice. This referral to the activity is clear via the Category:Climbers that exists and is already attached to the Wikidata & Commons, but it isn't particularly clear via the current title of the redirect, I think. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. Obviously, I am a relatively new editor (did some IP editing myself in my time) so I am open-minded about what is the best way forward. Now that I have explained my reasons for creating it, hopefully that will help the discussion to the right resolution. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: The redirect itself feels awkward, but I'm not entirely sure it's implausible to someone familiar with WP naming conventions. I would probably lean towards deletion, but I haven't thought too much on it. Starting an RM on Climber -> Climber (disambiguation), with the base name redirecting to Climbing, may not be a bad idea; a glance at massviews seems to indicate the only non-PTM target with a large number of views would be Vine as an alternate name, which might be in common enough use to warrant disambiguation; I don't really know. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do think that this might also be helpful, as I think the main use of climber is for climbing. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep policy is that redirects that aren't hurting anything don't need to be "cleaned up" or disposed of because they're "weird" or "don't have an obvious use." It's not in the way of anything. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'd be curious to hear more about this apparent policy in regards to RfD, because WP:R is a guideline and WP:RCHEAP is an essay, and neither are binding to my awareness. Your argument that "redirects without an obvious use should be left alone" justifies the existence of Climber (person who climbs) as well as any redirect created solely by one person, where that redirect's intended use-case is only known within the confines of someone's mind, excusing the hyperbole. While I'm not saying that THIS redirect is an example of the above, it should be said that in general, Wikipedia is not a playground for all sorts of one-time use redirects, and RfD is the place to figure out whether redirects of questionable use are worth keeping or deleting. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Sorry, "editing guideline" not "policy." It is a distinction that matters. However, editing guidelines at WP:R are still more valid than the parts of the essay WP:COSTLY, which I'm seeing get quoted a lot as if it is guideline or policy. So, yes, I'm going with WP:R#CRD, WP:R#HARMFUL, WP:R#DELETE, WP:R#KEEP. I'm also not saying that we should go willy-nilly creating random redirects. I didn't pull the "don't have an obvious use" from anywhere but other people using it as an argument. Honestly, just because it doesn't make sense to you (or, honestly, me) doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or have use. In just a few days I've seen several RFD's that "didn't make sense" until someone with the right background knowledge happened along; then suddenly it's obvious. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. I consider myself pretty lenient at RFD, keep anything vaguely plausible, but... this isn't useful. Seems created solely to format the disambiguation link a particular way, but there's no need for that, and actual harm - the article is at "Climbing" so just link to, well, Climbing. Seems like a Pandora's Box situation of creating a precedent for strange self-disambiguators if allowed (Builder (building) redirecting to Construction worker?) SnowFire (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't actually disambiguate anything - if "climbing" had some other meaning then people doing it would be called climbers too. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vlad putin[edit]

Unlikely search term. No one calls him this. (Created by the sockmaster of Jaiquiro and Hamtrane). Delete. Edward-Woodrowtalk 19:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


At Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_23#ⵜⴰⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ_ⵏ_ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ, Randi Moth (talk · contribs) observed that Morocco's official website in Berber consistently refers to the country as ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ (lmɣrib) or ⵜⴰⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ ⵏ ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ (tagldit n lmɣrib), but never ⵜⴰⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ (tagldit). They conclude that ⵜⴰⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ simply means 'kingdom', not 'Morocco'. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 19:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current Morocco page also provides that "ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ" is "Morocco" and literally translates as "the west", while "ⵜⴰⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ ⵏ ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ" is "Kingdom of Morocco" and literally translates as "the western kingdom". Both are in notes and while they don't cite a source directly, references include a "Dictionnaire berbère-français" which could plausibly verify this, though I don't have access to the book. Randi🦋TalkContribs 20:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good ol' boy[edit]

"Good ol' boy" usually does not refer to old boys networks. It refers to culturally conservative Southern whites - see Merriam Webster, Wiktionary, The Free Dictionary, etc. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conservative southern whites are only an old boys network if you take a far more expansive definition of the latter term than its article does.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnote per Ivanvector and WP:ONEOTHER. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 22:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguation page - Old Boys is another disambiguation target which should be included, which is specific to UK/Commonwealth culture. "Good ol' boy" is not explained on White Southerners, so just linking to that as if it were an alternative meaning doesn't make sense. But linking from a sentence that gives better context would be helpful. M-W gives the definition as "a usually white Southerner who conforms to the values, culture, or behavior of his peers". Good ol' boy used to be an article; a previous version cited the definiton of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as "A man having qualities held to be characteristic of certain Southern white males, such as a relaxed or informal manner, strong loyalty to family and friends, and often an anti-intellectual bias and intolerant point of view". -- Beland (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Good old boy, Good ol boys, Good 'ol boys, Good Old Boy, Good ole' boy, and Good ol' boys, all of which redirect to the same target, should probably be included in the discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate and repoint the variant points to the new disambiguation page -- (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the late retarget suggestion. Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of the target, the disambiguation entry suggestion of Old Boys, and the suggested target of Country (identity).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to wikt:good old boy via {{Wiktionary redirect}}. There are too many not-so-great redirect targets on offer here, and I think if we're using Wiktionary's definition to guide us here, it would make the most sense to just send it there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambiguate We now have four different target suggestions, and credible arguments readers could be looking for any of them. That's exactly what a disambiguation page is for. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mary Bale[edit]

Not mentioned at target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This section of the article was deleted by @Valereee: in January 2022. Ms Bale fails WP:PERP and should not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Tevildo (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drug seeking[edit]

The Behavior section of Substance dependence is gone, and I don't see a good place that discusses what drug seeking behavior actually is. There are more mentions at Addiction, but all seem to assume readers' familiarity with the phrase. There are mentions in other articles (e.g., Relapse, where Reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior redirects) that I'd say the same of. I think this is a case for WP:REDLINK deletion, though at a minimum, we'd want these to have the same target. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect all to Addiction. The relevant content was evidently moved from there by Seppi333 during multiple extensive revisions on 12 February 2015. Much of that content appears to still be there, including what causes drug seeking behaviour from a neurobiological perspective. ("Drug seeking behavior is induced by glutamatergic projections...") Discussion about the causes of seeking is much more than a passing mention, such as the one at the current revision of Substance dependence. I think there's enough content at Addiction to warrant an {{r from related topic}}. – Scyrme (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget the various "behavior" options to Doctor shopping, Neutral on "Drug seeking". This term is used in literature directed at doctors and pharmacists ([1] [2] [3] [4]) to describe the behaviour described in our Doctor shopping article (attempting to get prescriptions for drugs of abuse) - indeed, one of the variants of "drug seeking behavior" might be a better title for that article. Tevildo (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Doctor shopping doesn't mention "seeking" so it would be a surprising target, whereas Addiction has uses of it throughout.
    Additionally, "doctor shopping" isn't "attempting to get prescriptions for drugs of abuse", rather it's "attempting to get prescriptions for drugs of abuse from multiple physicians/pharmacies", as in "shopping around". Doctor shopping is a particular example of a drug seeking behaviour rather than a synonym, and that not all forms of drug seeking would constitute doctor shopping. There are other behaviours which don't imply going to multiple providers and so wouldn't constitute "doctor shopping" such as "still requesting pain medication with signs of over dosage: slurred speech, unsteady" (from the first PDF linked).
    "Drug seeking" in the context that you're referring to essentially encompasses any form of manipulation to acquire drugs of abuse. Doctor shopping is only one form of such manipulation. Even in this context it's implied that the seeker is an addict and is using manipulation to satisfy their addiction; the first PDF for example, notes "... the majority, 51% or more, of the general nurses agree drug seeking means are that the patient is addicted to opioids (58%)". – Scyrme (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree Doctor shopping isn't an ideal target, as it only covers one specific form of drug-seeking behaviour, but we don't have a more comprehensive article on the subject. Addiction only covers the mechanisms, causes, and treatment of addiction, and has no mention of the methods addicts use to obtain drugs, which is what someone who enters "drug seeking" is going to be looking for. In default of expanding and renaming Doctor shopping, my alternative suggestion would be Substance abuse#Drug misuse, where the behaviour in question is at least mentioned. Tevildo (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrowtalk 13:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not sure why this redirect exists - no mention on destination article. This is a Hungarian surname, so it is a likely search term that should not be silently redirecting to a place in Belarus. asilvering (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Morocz is only linked to in the WWII article Operation Hornung. The village has an article in 5 languages, including Polish, but with only 137 inhabitants not really notable. I propose to change the link in Operation Hornung to Morocz (Salihorsk District) which would be a link to Salihorsk District.Filiep (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NCPLACE suggests the form Morocz, Belarus, or if that's not disambiguated enough, Morocz, Minsk Region (including Region to disambiguate from the city of Minsk). I'd be fine with either. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move without redirect to Morocz, Belarus per Skarmory and retarget per IP. I understand the IP said later to "keep the redirect" but I think he may have meant to retain the redirect at the suggested target of Sluch (Belarus). Removal of the page at the title of Morocz will ensure that search results are helpful, per IP. Jay 💬 12:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrowtalk 13:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox[edit]

This page was merged into Firefox back in 2006, but the target currently doesn't contain much in the way of criticisms of firefox, leading to this being a bit of a confusing redirect. TartarTorte 14:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm surprised there's nothing about Firefox per se at Mozilla#Controversies. I'm not sure if targeting there would satisfy readers, but I'm leaning against it. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maintain - I'm not sure what is a suitable target, but this is a {{R with history}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Week delete until/unless there is a section on the Firefox article called "Reception" or "Criticism". InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wherever it goes, maintain as {{R from merge}} per Ivanvector. user:A smart kittenmeow 13:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Interesting that it seems there was never intended to be a specific “Criticism” section at the time of the merge - e.g. the edit summary at Special:Diff/85653841: There was considerable discussion on this matter. Criticism has been re-merged back into the main articles (throughout them, not in a section).
    If there’s no better target found, I think I’d probably weakly support keeping the target as it is (due to having to retain the redirect as {{R from merge}}), but without prejudice to a bold retargeting in the future if a more fitting target/section is found.
    In terms of the avoided double redirect Criticisms of Firefox which I’ve just bundled in here, I’m less sure. It doesn’t have any edit history that needs to be preserved, so that’s not a barrier to deletion there. I’m just unsure what’s usually done here — presumably, if Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox has to be kept due to edit history, it would perhaps also make sense to keep the avoided double redirect pointing to it (a sort of ‘well, maybe it shouldn’t exist, but as it does… type scenario).
    Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 08:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joel Pinhead[edit]

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


This appears to be a separate entity to Emerillon, but with some difference in circumstance. Emerillon was removed from the page back in 2018, but this particular target (FoxtrotGPS) disappeared last month, when User:Arjunaraoc edited the article 130 times between July and August. I don't have much context regarding the restructure but what I do know is that this title is no longer mentioned on the page, and thus does not make much sense to retain as a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: I revamped the article and removed sections which are not useful. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multi-member university[edit]

This terminology is no longer mentioned at the target; all mentions of "multi-member university" were scrubbed and replaced with "university systems"... although even with that being said, "multi-member university" is still a vague search term and, to my understanding, not necessarily unique to universities in Vietnam. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phoebe Russell[edit]

Delete; the name "Phoebe Russell" is not mentioned at the target article, nor in Charmed or in any of the related articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Judging by Special:Permalink/205747875 (the status of the redirect prior to redirection) and Special:Diff/205291309, it seems that Russell was the surname of the character in a past life. (See also Special:Diff/452115404, where the word “Russell” was last removed from the article, according to WikiBlame.) Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 19:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That may be, but the name of Phoebe Halliwell (or her aunt) in a previous life is not currently mentioned in the article. Removing it in 2011 without re-instatement indicates there is no great significance attached to it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't think any of the entries on the disambiguation page are described by this modification. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This and {{Condensed}} are too vague not to be disambiguation pages. See history for my proposed substitution. Mach61 (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Actually, I think Delete is the right action here. "Condense" is just too vague, even with the explanatory text. And I don't think a dab page in template space is the right answer either. - jc37 18:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No evidence the country is ever referred to in this way; in the same way the one doesn't talk about Japan-Tokyo, or Czechia-Prague. Unlikely search term. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this redirect point to Equatorial Guinea or to Malabo?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Is it verifiable that the country is actually referred to in this way? The four examples provided by Tavix are certainly real and explain why it might be used, but I cannot find any evidence suggesting that "Guinea-Malabo" has been used by anyone to refer to the country. Randi🦋TalkContribs 07:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix; I can confirm this is sometimes the employed disambiguation method (especially for the Congos in my experience), though I haven't seen this specific example before. I don't have an example on hand, but that it was created is a strong indication that it does indeed exist... J947edits 10:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Storm Daniels, Stormy Daniel[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel where some editors are saying it makes more sense for Storm Daniels to be a typo of Storm Daniel rather than Stormy Daniels (which was previously the redirect target). I am bringing it to XfD for discussion. Some people at the Storm Daniel page think Stormy Daniels is a joke, which I don't necessarily agree with. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 19:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added XfD notification to Talk:Stormy Daniels (Twinkle only auto added it to Talk:Storm Daniel) . (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 19:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@All in Thanks for starting this discussion. There is also the redirect from Stormy Daniel to Stormy Daniels. I don't think that specific redirect has been contested, but I wanted to bring it up here for people's awareness. Edge3 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added Stormy Daniel above for completion (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 20:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Google search results show a mixed bag, best to disambiguate or delete. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Delete: a DAB of two possible misspellings just feels wrong. Per Ivanvector. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete both and let the search engine handle it. We can't reasonably anticipate every possible error and the intent behind it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate both so that the readers can decide which article they want to read. Edge3 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am also open to keeping both for the reasons stated by BDD and Utopes below. If we keep the redirects as they currently are, then I would also support hatnotes using {{Redirect-distinguish}} or a similar template. Edge3 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The status quo actually makes sense to me. I would especially keep Stormy Daniel, which seems like a reasonable misnomer since Daniel is a surname. The other is iffier, and I'm skeptical it would exist if not for the actress, but the singular "Storm" does make me assume the reader is looking for a storm. The hatnotes would look silly, but so what? --BDD (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep both or disambiguate both Handling plausible one-letter typos or one-offs is not handling "every possible error". And it shouldn't be news, but the Wikipedia search results are often pretty sh*tty.—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate both: whilst neither Stormy Daniel nor Storm Daniels would be particularly likely typos in the absolute, both redirects and disambiguations are cheap. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate both: As noted, while each typo is unlikely, each is plausible; thus making both into dab pages, with no primary topic, offering links to Stormy Daniels and Storm Daniel (no "X redirects here, for Y, …" hatnote on either article's page) may be the better option. Drdpw (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate both as per people above, especially Drdpw Daikido (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate both as both plausible spelling mistakes but this way we avoid the clunky (inappropriate?) hatnotes. --woodensuperman 15:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambiguate or delete I don't think the Stormy Daniels hatnote is necessary because I don't think people are making this mistake. It seems to be a bad faith addition. PaulRKil (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep (with hatnote potentially, for reader convience). The most relevant aspect of these two names are whether it is referring to the weather or to the name of a person. In other words, whether it refers to "Storm", for the storm, or "Stormy", for Stormy. This distinction is the defining characteristic of each search term, and should be the distinction that determines the outcome of the targets. The more confusing part of both of these names, and thusly the typo of more insignificance in regards to correctness, is whether or not the second word is singular or plural. To that end, as long as "Storm Daniels" is considered a "storm", it should point to the storm. As long as "Stormy Daniel" is labeled as "Stormy", it is most likely referring to the person, with a typo in the last name. I think these two redirects currently point at their correct respective locations because of that. I weakly oppose deletion because these are very likely search terms towards proper nouns, and I don't think its an "XY" situation because the relevant aspects of "Storm" vs "Stormy" is captured and appropriately assigned. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Utopes, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep both with hatnotes. A disambiguation page here is weird (A: what do we title it, B: outside of searching how are you going to get to it?). Hatnotes may add a little clutter, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a "not to be confused with" hatnote on these articles anyway, so I don't think it's a big deal (in fact, I might prefer that hatnote to the "X redirects here" hatnote; it's a bit shorter, does the same job and feels a bit more natural). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep both with hatnotes. I'm convinced by Utopes' arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep both with hatnote redirect notice and link to DAB page. it was not my implication that the page/persons is a joke. the concept of forced typo or childish noting and immature pointing out of inappropriate adult topic phrases or words for humor and fooling around (laughing among friends hiding behind a cupped hand), i.e.: 69, 420, "do it", etc. has no place there, be it for clarification or not. i don't think many of the readers would have a grasp of what a redirect and failsafe/safe-net typo for foreigner convenience and only perceive it as a bad out-of-place joke. i also don't believe there would be any form of censorship as it was suggested and it's unreasonable to brand this as such. it's only a rational and simple note to keep in mind that people looking up the disaster (perhaps including those who may have had close ones fall victim to it) might find it insensitive. the only point i was making was that graphic adult entertainment (seen as indecent in half the world) does not go well with a natural disaster. i think it's fair to say more respect is due to all the victims and their families than to the appropriate spelling of the name of a single person (whoever they may be) or to those who would make an inconvenient typo they could get around in just a few extra seconds. i believe that the wording/spelling is clear enough and i support the editors who say the scenario where someone would seek one topic while fully typing in the title of the other is highly unlikely and it does not warrant an additional reminder that there is some chance that it could be a typo after the page contents have already been displayed and can be recognized at a glance. in short: being sensible to where being respectful is more helpful than the conveniencing of a possible but highly unlikely grammatical error by linking to an inappropriate article (even more so, as mentioned - at the beginning of the page) is what the consensus should be.
kuchesezik 22:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuchesezik (talkcontribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, disambiguate, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete both. Both misspellings are ambiguous. There's no case for a disambiguation page, which is supposed to be a list of articles that might otherwise have a title, not a list of misspellings. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both. Better to let the search engine resolve this for users. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 23[edit]


per WP:RLANG greyzxq talk 22:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being the direct translation of "April" to Russian, the vast majority of these mentions are in Russian-language sources provided in articles, usually as either part of the name of the source where it covers a certain month (or a few) of history or as a part of the access date, making them not useful targets. The DAB page is more useful, and I've edited it to include each entry I've found that may be plausibly searched for with just "Апрель". Randi🦋TalkContribs 12:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ⵜⴰⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ ⵏ ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ[edit]

this is both of the terms for Morocco in the Standard Moroccan Tamazight language (ⵜⴰⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ and ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ), copied from the infobox which is why "|" separates them. there are already two separate redirects for the separate terms, and i cannot imagine someone typing both terms separated by | into wikipedia. greyzxq talk 22:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It isn't the pipe character, it is the yan character in the Tifinagh script used to write the Berber languages. In fact, it is impossible to include the pipe character in the name of a page. This is a part of the full name of the country, as can be seen in the Moroccan government's website in the Amazigh translation (part of the banner image in top-right). Randi🦋TalkContribs 13:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, while I do not know the language in any fashion and cannot find a Standard Moroccan Tamazigh–English dictionary, the website seems to consistently use only ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ to refer to Morocco, so ⵜⴰⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ is presumably the "Kingdom" part of the name rather than being used to refer to Morocco, so the ⵜⴰⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ redirect is likely invalid. Randi🦋TalkContribs 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The current target is inappropriate as I can find nothing with Virat Kohli's naming being spelled with an umlaut, but it seems like it's because this originally redirect to Kohli, which was converted to a redirect to Virat Kohli, before being converted back to what it is now. Having said that, there is no one at Kohli whose name is spelled with an umlaut either, so this would best be deleted. TartarTorte 16:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete - The redirect as it stands does not make sense. "Köhli" with an umlaut is neither mentioned anywhere in the target article nor is it spelt that way in RS.
Lord Clayton7 (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foldi Valley[edit]

Redirect from page move, nothing links to it. Un-needed redirect now - RichT|C|E-Mail 11:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Not mentioned at target page. This is apparently a type of laptop associated with Libreboot, but its relevance as a search term to end up at a page where it is not discussed is questionable. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more input on the retargeting suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This redirect is somewhat tricky, but I thought it would be better to discuss it here. Without any context, "LancetGate" appears to be an R from non-neutral name, but this name is not mentioned anywhere at the target page, nor does it appear in any of the references to my knowledge. Conducting my WP:BEFORE shows that this term does receive mild media use, but its unclear to me whether this is a colloquial synonym and "abundantly clear that this is what people want to see about when searching this" Utopes (talk / cont) 18:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • My first assumption is that the term would refer to the Lancet MMR autism fraud. I think it could reasonably refer to any Lancet controversy. Since there are two separate controversy sections, just removing the section target may be our best bet. If there were a single controversy section or standalone article, I'd advocate for pointing there. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After seeing BDD’s comment, my first instinct was to see if a “Controversies” section existed at The Lancet (it doesn’t). I agree with BDD: in my opinion, the term could reasonably be used to refer to any controversy regarding the paper. If something like List of controversies involving The Lancet existed, I’d suggest retargeting there - but as it doesn’t, I can’t. user:A smart kittenmeow 21:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (post-relist comment) I guess if there isn’t such an article, I’d say my !vote would be weak retarget to The Lancet#Retracted papers and scientific controversies, which seems to the most fitting section at the target (and the parent section of the current target). If a separate list gets created, I’d advocate for re-retargeting there per my comments above. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 09:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian Christian Channel[edit]

Unhelpful – no mention at target. (NPP action) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @TechGeek105, Duckmather, and Edward-Woodrow: Thanks for the ping. I deleted this it was blatant spam mostly written by an obvious COI ip account. I know little about Oz TV, and I'm happy to leave it to those who know what they are doing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TechGeek105, Jimfbleak, and Edward-Woodrow: I'd also be ok with having the article formerly at this title restored (and maybe immediately AfD'd after, if the references therein aren't quite paragons of reliability). Duckmather (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Duckmather: Hm. If it was blatant spam, as Jimfbleak said, then I'm not crazy about having it restored, even if it's taken to AfD right after. If there were good references there, then maybe someone could look at the deleted page and extract those references. We don't even need a WP:RESEARCHER; it's on ([7]). Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Edward-Woodrow: Well, based on the archived version you found, I wouldn't be excited about having it restored either (the article mostly depends on primary sources, though with a few citations to The Australian). I think that either restoring and AfD'ing or retargeting to List of digital television channels in Australia#Digital Forty Four as I originally proposed would be good outcomes. (And if we AfD, we can decide whether to merge or just redirect at that time!) Duckmather (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget per Duckmather above. This is RfD, not DRV - if someone wants the prior deleted article restored they should go there. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This redirect was created via a page move of Union Bank (Pakistan). At a guess, this was a way to create a new (essentially spam) article without appearing to create an article. I reverted the move, leaving behind a redirect, although it isn't clear to me that the two titles are in any way related. There has since been a reverted attempt to convert the redirect into a (somewhat spammy) article, again reverted. I think it might be best to remove the redirect completely. It is currently an orphan. Lithopsian (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Restore and AFD or delete – no connection between the redirect and target, as far as I can see, but there was an article on the subject of the redirect before. Don't think the article in the history is quite in G11 territory, but it's certainly not suitable for mainspace; I'm not seeing notability here, so it probably shouldn't go to draftspace either. I'd rather take something like this through a normal deletion process, whether that be AFD, PROD or CSD, than delete it at an RFD discussion, but I don't think it has much chance to survive either way. There is no point to keeping the redirect around, though. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Files[edit]

This redirect was created as the "nickname of NASA Astronaut Group 23", which is actually a typo because the group is called "The Flies".

That being said, we already have an article about The Flies, a separate entity to the astronaut group, and this title is a single character transposition from that.

In terms of possiblities, one suggestion is retargeting to The Flies as a plausible typo(?). My other main thought is to lean into the name, and target File#Other uses, which contains a number of different titles consisting of "The [X] Files".

When writing that out, the X happened to represent a variable in place of different words; but, despite this, The X-Files could maaaybe be a possibility as well. Or just deletion. But right now I think File#Other uses is likely the best candidate for retargeting. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to File (disambiguation) -- where an album and a film series could be intended -- (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as vague and confusing. Note that none of the items listed on File are specifically referred to by the exact string "The Files", and an onwiki search (which is what the reader would see if this redirect was deleted) shows that the phrase is just as vague as it seems. However, it seems plausible that readers looking for "The Files" could be looking for things whose names are of the form "The [something] Files" (which a google search backs up), so retargeting to File#Other uses could be a vaguely plausible target (in addition to The Flies as the nom suggests) if we opt not to delete. Duckmather (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947edits 02:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helena Mankowska[edit]

Unhelpful: the target tells the reader very, very, little about Helena Mankowska. (NPP action) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the model and Helena Makowska the same person?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947edits 02:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Seems very unlikely to actually be useful to anyone, the only other page that links here is another stylization with the letters ᗅ and ᗷ replaced with normal As and Bs (AᗺBA  · they're homoglyphs), and there was only one page view in the past 90 days. LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 01:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Password hint[edit]

A password hint is a cleartext displayed to the user when they requested so. A security question requires the user to answer a question to reset their password. They are not the same thing. Requesting to delete. NM 00:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: There is surprisingly no good target for this on wikipedia. Delete per nom. TartarTorte 02:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alpha-naphthyl thiourea (Antu)[edit]

Redirects where the an expansion of an abbreviation is followed by the abbreviation in parentheses should be avoided, due to confusion with disambiguation. In this case, there is an incorrect space and the initialism is capitalized (ANTU); all these factors indicate this is highly unlikely to be useful and should be deleted due to the potential for confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 22[edit]

Vixy Reinard[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep per {{R from merge}} - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is not mentioned at the article and the only content that was merged was 2 lines of original research that never received a reference on its original page, or on the page that it was merged to. If, in the off-chance this character gains notability in the next decade, the page can be undeleted and presumably restored. In the meantime, it is a misleading redirect that points readers to a page where they will be inevitably disappointed by the redirect's implied (false) promise of information. As mentioned by Zxcvbnm, this hopefully will encourage people to seek out the relevant Fandom page instead. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrowtalk 22:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I-95 exit list[edit]

The target article does not contain a list of exits on I-95. The article of the version prior to WP:BLARring is unworkable as many of the transcluded pages no longer exist. TartarTorte 23:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment The ideal solution is to create a list of lists by creating redirects to the exit list sections of all of the state articles (e.g. I-95 in Florida exit list as a redirect to Interstate 95 in Florida#Exit list to link from the list of lists. Happy to do this, but want to make sure there is consensus for this before taking the time. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Such redirects are unnecessary and the nominated redirect can be deleted as totally unneeded. Imzadi 1979  03:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's workable as a solution to me. I'm not entirely sure where it would best be to gain consensus (unless as a result of this RfD). Out of general WP:LISTNAME concerns, it would be probably better to have this at List of exits on Interstate 95 and each subarticle as List of exits on Interstate 95 in Florida or something along those lines. I'm not sure if there's any policy one way or another against a list of redirects, but that would provide people with what they are looking for generally without requiring substantial amounts of work compared to restoring the dependent pages from the state of the article when it was WP:BLARred. TartarTorte 13:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It has been consensus for many years that exit lists do not warrant separate articles. Creating additional redirects is unnecessary. Imzadi 1979  19:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete—just adding a bolded !vote here to clarify my position for the !vote-counters. Imzadi 1979  21:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to a set index or a list of lists as proposed; i.e. create that page, but not at this title. The information is already on Wikipedia; we're not doing readers any kind of service by making it harder to find. If there is a rule that prevents creating such a list of lists with redirects to the state exit lists, it should be ignored. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I drafted a quasi-disambiguation navigation page below the redirect. Initially I tried to compile a full list here by transcluding the exit lists from each state's article, but this breaks the transclusion limit. We could possibly create the full list and then transclude the sections back into the state's articles, but that would make the state articles difficult to edit (I think - I haven't tried). I drafted it here instead of creating a new page because there's history here, but if consensus is to go with something like this then it should be moved to a more appropriate title, probably List of exits on Interstate 95. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nice draft. I would personally maybe think this would be slightly better at Lists of exits on Interstate 95 and have the redirects be something like List of exits on Interstate 95 in Florida as opposed to having piped texts with links to anchors, but both work pretty nicely and elegantly in my view. TartarTorte 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete I honestly don't see why this is needed considering that you can just add links to the state exit list on the main I-95 article page. ChessEric 19:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. –Fredddie 00:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget/create per Ivanvector. Gets a few views a month, so someone's probably looking for the info. No real reason I see not to have a list of lists here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting / expanding?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 01:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment What about refining to the "Major intersections" section? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever happens here, it’s also worth bearing in mind that this isn’t the only “I-[X] exit list”-type redirect. Other examples include Interstate 90 exit list, List of exits on Interstate 5, etc., so there’s potentially a bit of a rabbit hole here. Many of these (including the nominated redirect here) also appear to be - often untagged - Rs with history/Rs from merges, and so for that reason I would strongly oppose deletion in order to preserve edit history and attribution. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 12:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See quarry:query/76614 (and User:A smart kitten/random pages/interstate exit list redirects) for my very very very very very rough attempt at compiling a list of interstate exit list pages. I’m working through the redirects now to see which should be tagged with either {{R from merge}} or {{R with history}}. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 17:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks so much for going through this backlog of untagged redirects. I think that based on the outcome of this RfD, regardless of if it's to SIA, delete, or keep; it could make sense to RfD all of those in a bundled redirect with the intent on having the same outcome as this RfD, to have consistency as you've indicated. TartarTorte 17:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only problem with bundling IMO would be that some of the redirect targets here do have exit lists. So I, for one, wouldn't support deleting, for example, List of exits on Interstate 96. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to a list of state pages, because if someone is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's format of listing interstate exits under the subpages for the length within each individual state, they would probably have trouble finding them, and as mentioned above this link does get a few views per month so it would help a significant number of people. RedPanda25 20:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrowtalk 22:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget or repurpose seems necessary by licensing, given the history from 2006 including content moves/merges. If there's currently no viable target, keep as is, to preserve history. I don't think a history merge is appropriate in such a case because the content was moved to multiple different articles. —siroχo 03:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


WP:RFOREIGN: According to French Wiktionary, phytophtire is a dated French name for an insect in a suborder of Hemiptera that included aphids and cochineals. This seems rather an obscure redirect to have on English Wikipedia, as the term is not mentioned in any article on English Wikipedia (nor on French Wikipedia for that matter). I suggest therefore it should be deleted. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Orban[edit]

This is not a logical target for this article title. Orban was a pulp illustrator and it would be better to leave this as a redlink per REDYES until someone (possibly me) gets around to finding the sources and creating an article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wither skeleton[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete this is a thing in Minecraft, but since it isn't a synonym for Minecraft and our article on Minecraft doesn't mention it the redirect doesn't make any sense. Hut 8.5 18:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, wither skeleton is not notable enough for its own article. (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per Hut 8.5: unhelpful/misleading. Edward-Woodrowtalk 22:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – mentioned at Skeleton (undead), but probably shouldn't be. J947edits 02:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This should be retargeted to a disambiguation page instead. There is an active airline called ValueJet, operating since 2022, which makes the old redirect to the defunct ValuJet Airlines confusing. The fact that there is no mention of the new airline on either ValuJet Airlines or Valuair doesn't make it better. Renerpho (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: I’ve started a very rough draft of a dab page at Draft:ValueJet, but would WP:ONEOTHER apply here? I haven’t checked, but if one of them is the primary topic, should the redirect be targeted there (with a hatnote to the other page)? (As a side note, if ValueJet (Nigeria) is the primary topic, it could potentially be moved to just ValueJet.)
The existence of Valuair does make things slightly more tricky (maybe it makes it more like a WP:TWOOTHER situation than a more straightforward ONEOTHER). I suppose the question then might be of whether to have two hatnotes (eg. {{Redirect}} and {{Distinguish}}), or to have a disambiguation page and just have the one hatnote that points to that dab page.
Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 11:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm not actually sure what the primary topic is. The Nigerian airline is the only one that's currently operating, and it's the one I was looking for when I noticed the missing dab page; but ValuJet Airlines was much larger, and the name became almost synonymous with the 1996 crash. If I had to create a new airline, I wouldn't want to call it Valuejet to avoid bad associations, but that's a different story... Renerpho (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Renerpho (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar[edit]

I created this so I could create an article based on the fallout of the death of the redirect target. I was told "no" via someone converting this into a redirect, only for someone to do the thing I was planning on doing at 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis. This redirect is now moot, and I am pissed off. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the reason you think this redirect should be deleted? Being pissed off is not a good reason (note that the diplomatic crisis article is also a redirect as of this writing). VQuakr (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that people are far more likely to search for "Hardeep Singh Nijjar," "Nijjar," or "Canada-India [crisis/incident/etc.]." "Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar" is more appropriate as a neutral, WP:CONCISE title for an article that the mentioned search terms would instead redirect to. Mootness comes from there being consensus for an article at Hardeep Singh Nijjar. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore and send to AFD I personally disagree with BLARing this article, but I could see why some may think it is too soon to create a separate article. I think having this discussion at AFD would be more constructive due to this disagreement. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis has now been merged back to Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar seems like a perfectly reasonable {{R to section}} to me. There has been discussion at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar#Split content to Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar where the consensus is not to split off the death into a separate article, so I don't think that restore/AfD is necessary or likely to be useful. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The BLAR has just been reverted by the creator, Lukt64. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And is on the main page now?!?!?! What exactly am I doing wrong that Lukt64 didn't? I don't understand this. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He was doing it wrong. He made a three-sentence stub that was totally pointless because everything is in the main article. Another user copied-and-pasted a lot of content over, making it a still-pointless redundant duplicate. Lukt64 should not have restored the article because there was nothing on it that wasn't already on the main article, there was consensus against a split, and a proper split that avoids so much duplication was not performed. Reywas92Talk 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Presidentman: good point that there is significant editing history in the redirect, which would potentially be a reason not to delete at RFD. But all significant contributions in that history are by the nominator, so we could potentially accept this per WP:SPEEDY criterion G7. There is clear consensus at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar that the fork is unnecessary at this time so I don't think AFD is the right path; something shouldn't be sent to AFD when the consensus outcome is already to retain as a redirect. VQuakr (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VQuakr: thank you for informing me of the talk page discussion. I did not see this intially. I change my !vote to keep the redirect as an {{R with history}} and {{R to section}}. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep – whatever the status of a split here, the redirect is useful, whether it points to a section of the main article or a separate article. No reason to delete. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete the Redirect Similar issue has been already discussed on "Hardeep Singh Nijjar" TALK page, and consensus was to have article name "Hardeep Singh Nijjar". It is clear that people are far more likely to search for "Hardeep Singh Nijjar," or "Nijjar,". Also "Hardeep Singh Nijjar" is more appropriate as a WP:NPOV and WP:CONCISE title. Further, Google / Bing search is smart enough to automatically bring Nijjar's Wiki page on Nijjar's death search.RogerYg (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep with {{R to section}} - Even though people might search for "Hardeep Singh Nijjar" or some variation of "2023 Canada-India diplomatic crisis", a quick search on Google Trends reveals slight but subsequently dwindling interest in searching for "Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar". Retaining the redirect with its history intact doesn't make sense as it was mostly copied from the current article. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeni Mersin İdmanyurdu[edit]

Being a phoenix club of the former Mersin İdman Yurdu, it should have its own article as it's a separate legal entity. – anlztrk (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phalaenea crataegella[edit]

Implausible misspelling of Phalaena. Searching for this exact spelling of "Phalaenea" brings up no results other than Wikipedia and its forks. Randi🦋TalkContribs 12:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Presidents of the United States of America[edit]

Everything must be redirected to the associated dab page shown above. RMXY (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget The Presidents of the United States of America to List of presidents of the United States Targeting the DAB page isn't helpful, because the redirect clearly indicates it is specifically for the U.S. president. There is a clear primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Re)target all to List of presidents of the United States. The "America" or "USA" in these naturally disambiguate it from the other "United States" at the dab, and the office holders are the clear primary topic over the band and album. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose (that is, retain the status quo). "The Presidents of the United States of America" (only, with this exact wording and capitalization) does unambiguously refer to the band, although I appreciate that it may not today be the primary meaning. However, this is a case for it redirecting to the dab page, as it does now. Tevildo (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I mostly side with Tevildo, although I'd retarget "Presidents of the United States of America" to President of the United States (disambiguation) too. The band/album combo is a primary topic for this search term over the list, and even then the dab page covers the other uses. The absence of a "The" isn't the greatest syntactical difference. Wouldn't mind if the 3rd one is retargeted too, but it's a greater distance from the band name. J947edits 02:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In hopes of avoiding a mini-WP:TRAINWRECK, retarget all to President of the United States (disambiguation) as nom suggests. If no consensus for that, then, add a hatnote linking to dab on List of presidents of the United States and retarget all there. The two principles I'm using here is (1) all three should go to the same place (2) it shouldn't be difficult for readers to find the band if they are using its official name or close to it. —siroχo 04:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would also support a hatnote for the latter option. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Either Delete The Presidents of the USA or keep it pointing to the list. It's an implausible search term for the music group or for the various presidents in the Americas. And I think there is a big difference between "Presidents of America", and "Presidents of the Americas". I don't think any of these are plausible for the dab page directly. As for the other two, I think they are pretty clearly intended for the band, so retarget to The Presidents of the United States of America (band). I added a hatnote for the dab page, to the band article. - jc37 19:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your proposed target is named (band) to differentiate it from its album of the same name – therefore readers should be directed to the dab page. J947edits 20:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judea deleda est[edit]

Roughly translates to "Judea must be destroyed", although neither phrase is mentioned at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: I'm just going to assume that the phrase exists in some literary form (shouldn't it be "delenda est Judaea"?), since neither of these are what we would expect someone to type for it. In the first instance "delenda" is misspelled; and it's highly improbable that someone would search in all capital letters using 'I' for 'J' and 'V' for 'U', as if searching for the meaning of a Latin inscription without bothering with lowercase letters. Even if the phrase—in this order—has a legitimate reason to be a redirect, neither of these is a probable search formulation. P Aculeius (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: aside from the typo in Judea deleda est (the correctly spelled Judea delenda est does not exist), this just seems generally implausible. The reference to Carthago delenda est is clear, but I can find no evidence that this phrase has been used to refer to the Bar Kokhba revolt (or indeed the Roman-Judean wars more generally); google search just brings up a bunch of weird antisemitism. At best this is unhelpful. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invasive carp[edit]

I feel this redirect can be interpreted vaguely, as this topic is discussed at many different pages. In the section at the current target article, North America is the only location that Asian carp is listed as an invasive species at. To this end, Asian carp in North America is an article currently dedicated to this topic, which could warrant its target. There's also the Asian carp entry at the Invasive species in the United States page, or the substantial invasive species section for Bighead carp#Invasive species and other similar carp articles.

Currently, I think the vague-ness of "invasive carp" as a search term could be a hit-or-miss surprise-box for readers, and I don't think a title such as this would be very likely to be searched for that reason as there's many different carp species that are considered invasive. (People with a target in mind would type in the carp and not leave it to a possible guess.) Utopes (talk / cont) 05:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there are other carps considered as invasive, feel free to convert the redirection to a disambiguation page.
When I create a redirect, it's because I hear or read about something and can't find it in Wikipedia. If there's already a disambiguation page, I just add an entry.
Note that in this case, "Invasive carp in the United States" doesn't exist either (not that someone is likely to search that, but the search suggestion could be useful). The RedBurn (ϕ) 06:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Life is but a dream...[edit]

This used to be the previous name of Life Is but a Dream, including the ellipsis, which refers to a Beyonce documentary. However, this page was moved away from this title to drop the ellipsis, all while there is seemingly another topic that does contain an ellipsis, being Life Is but a Dream... which is an Avenged Sevenfold album.

(There seems to be something odd going on with the capitalization as well, because WP:DIFFCAPS might differentiate these two subjects. Currently though, both titles have capitalized "Life", "Is", and "Dream" each, strangely, when this does not reflect the articles at times. Specifically the Beyonce one, which has several capitalization variations used throughout.)

In any case, I believe that the existence of the ellipsis in this title means the redirect should target the album with the ellipsis, which seems to exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments - Capitalizing "Dream" or adding (or removing) elipses, doesn't really help pick a target. Between the confusion that you note and the hat notes, and even Row, Row, Row Your Boat - that all of these refer to - this seems to be a good candidate for a dab page. - jc37 20:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Life Is but a Dream..., agreeing with the nom about the ellipsis. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baw with a ba[edit]

I think this is supposed to be a transliteration of the lyric? I could not find any information online to verify this particular pronunciation, but maybe it sounds similar-ish. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tag team boxing[edit]

From my point of view, it does not seem like people who would search for "tag team boxing" would be expecting to end up at a article about a fight where tag-team boxing occurred, but would want information about tag-teaming as a medium. While I could be mistaken, it feels like redirect about "fighting as a tag-team" would be better off targeting the base article of Tag team, even with the wrestling focus, as it provides more coverage and potentially useful context about the "tag-teaming" portion as opposed to the brief mention at the current target where it is not the primary focus. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel Schneemann[edit]

All the target says it that he exists. I mean, yes, there is a mention at the target, but as a redirect this isn't useful to the reader. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete as an unhelpful redirect, since there's no meaningful material about this player at the target list. This is one of a bunch of redirects for non-notable minor-league baseball players created around the same time by the same user. Most of them probably should be deleted. - Eureka Lott 21:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. He is mentioned at the target, and that is likely the ONLY page where he will receive a mention. It is a clearly spelled redirect, pointed at the appropriate applicable page where the subject is featured. As long as those are true, this redirect serves its purpose as a redirect, even if the subject is not notable on their lonesome. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Notability isn't the problem; this kind of redirect isn't helpful to the reader in my opinion. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Utopes · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A human[edit]

Implausible search aids that make it harder to find articles that begin with "A __", no incoming links, and not a generally accepted pattern for redirects. Skynxnex (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak keep. The nom suggests these are implausible search aids, but the search results for these are not great. Dog doesn't even show on the first page of search results for [14]. (I assume the search index is updated since the template was added a whole week ago). Given Randy Kryn's note about usage, we should probably keep. Any necessary disambiguation is fine. —siroχo 05:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Something odd's happening with your default search preferences, I think (?). If I'm logged out I get this. J947edits 05:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My main reason for suggesting deletion is that we've had past discussions that delete indefinite article redirects and I don't know if any reason these should be treated differently. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Currently redirects to a disambiguation page, but all the related disambiguations there are partial title matches which should be removed. Thus this redirect has no purpose and obscures search results, of which there are many not listed in the current disambiguation page (i.e. the search results are superior to the DAB page). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Created per request by, along with 53rd and 67th, with their reason "{{R from partial disambiguation}}", which is a link to a template rather than WP:RPURPOSE. We do have at least one disambiguation page at a similar title: 111th, which is a list of partial title matches. I was notified of this discussion because of my edit of 15:32, 21 September 2017 as part of the cleanup work after the year 95 was moved to AD 95 and pulled off of primary topic status. Such redirects may be "cheap" but they aren't free – they pile additional work on gnome-administrators like me, when changes of this sort are requested by the community. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. The ordinal entries at the dab page 95 in their own contexts may simply be referred to as "the 95th" or similar, so they are valid WP:PTMs, and this then is a valid {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I did consider that usage. There are some divisions sufficiently famous that they are commonly referred to only by their ordinal, for example the 101st, which is rightly a redirect to 101st Airborne Division, but I couldn’t find any evidence that the same applies to any 95th division. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scotched English[edit]

Frankly it's kinda offensive linking what is essentially broken Scots (because Scotched English is essentially broken Scots) to the Scots Wikipaedia. Broken English does not redirect to English Wikipedia and Spanglish and Broken Spanish do not redirect to Spanish Wikipedia. The Scots article has been a thing since 2005 as well, so saying that it's just Scowiki is wrong CiphriusKane (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, equating an English variety with a Wikipedia doesn't make sense. I will note that the reason this redirect exists while similar ones don't is probably that Scots Wikipedia was written in Scotched English rather than Scots until 2020. But that doesn't really justify a redirect. Justin Kunimune (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's more accurate to say broken Scots rather than Scotched English. The amount of Scotched stuff was a lot less than was made out to be, especially as a lot of the "Scotched" stuff was actually just different dialects being mixed together/niche words being used inappropriately. Also, the Scotchers only started showing up in 2010 from what I can tell, while the wiki itself was founded in 2005, so saying "until 2020" is inaccurate CiphriusKane (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a section ("Controversy") in the Scots Wikipedia article about that very controversy. Maybe it should be a redirect to that specific section? HappyWith (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: While at a period of time, a number of articles on the Scots Wikipedia were in broken Scots, that doesn't mean that this term should redirect to that wikipedia's article, given that it refers to broken Scots in general, and the Scots wikipedia a few years back is not the only example of broken Scots. I don't really think that there's any good target on wikipedia right now. If a section to the article on the Scots language about the frequency of this practice were to be added, I'd support retargetting there, but as of now, I support deletion. TartarTorte 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unless there's actual content about Scotched English on its own somewhere (and not its role in a controversy), I think deletion is the best option here. Someone searching this will likely not be looking for the Scots Wikipedia incident. This is also supported by the fact that there is no mention of the word Scotched anywhere in the target (outside the hatnote). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Forgot to check the history. Restore and AFD – this has been contested multiple times in the past, an AFD should settle things here instead. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is a lot that this page has gone through in the last 3 years for it to be deleted at a RfD - draftification, draft objection, PROD decline, and a BLAR which is now being questioned. It was unsourced, however there were multiple maintenance tags added, before it was BLARd. Restore and AfD. Jay 💬 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, what is basically broken scots does not related to a wikipedia. (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore article there was an article at this title which was redirected by an editor to the current target. That target isn't appropriate - it doesn't mention the term and even if it did it's about a specific instance of a more general phenomenon. Deleting the redirect would act as a backdoor deletion of the article, it should instead be sent to AfD if someone wants to delete it. Hut 8.5 18:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: Idc if this is restored or kept, but the phenomenon is mentioned, albeit not by name, in the target. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 04:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore article per others above. - jc37 19:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poor country[edit]

A poor country is not a developed country nor a developing country. A developing country is termed as middle income country by the World Bank. A poor country is instead classified as Least developed countries. So redirecting poor country to developing country would be factually wrong. So the redirect should be changed to Least developed countries, which World Bank classifies as Low Income Countries. - Crashed greek (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Least developed countries. I don't think the current target is inappropriate because although not all developing countries are poor countries, poor countries are developing countries. The term "Least developed countries" is a subcategory of developing countries. However since that subcategory relates more specifically to the search term it makes sense to retarget. Hut 8.5 18:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as is, (Developing country). It is incorrect that a poor country is not a developing country. The article Developing country makes it clear that there is no universally agreed definition of "developing country" but discusses the terms "developed" contra "developing" with no indication that there is a third group of countries that are so poor that they do not even count as developing. Given that there are no set definition of what countries count as "poor" or "developing" I think that the reader is best served by a redirect to the general article from which he or she can continue in the direction they want.
It would be misleading to redirect to Least developed countries since that is not of list of the poorest countries. Least developed countries is a very specific list of countries kept by the UN, where gross national income per capita is only on of three criteria that decide if a country is included. (The other two are an index for health/education and an index measuring the structural vulnerability to economic and environmental shocks.) For instance, Syria which is in the low-income group of List of countries by GNI (nominal) per capita is not on the list of Least developed countries, but Laos which is in the lower-middle-income group is on the list. Sjö (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 21[edit]


No indication the film is known by this initialism. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrowtalk 20:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to HIV/AIDS#Clinical latency. That is a much more accurate target. scope_creepTalk 10:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate at Ahiv and retarget there. I think we can squeak out a dab page here. The movie should be listed too, because while the abbreviation looks uncommon from my searches, the fact of the matter is this article is being searched up 20,000 times a day; there's going to be a wide range of search terms used. J947edits 02:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Done. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 15:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Injuries in netball[edit]

No longer mentioned in target article after consensus on its talk page. The redirect text was previously merged in to the Netball page, so I'm not quite sure what should be done with the page history here (perhaps moving it to a talk subpage of the netball article?). The page was made as part of a student project by Rachm97 (see this discussion). An unmerge might be possible but as I said at the netball talk page, there doesn't seem to be much good data out there on this subject. Graham87 04:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. The article Netball no longer discusses injuries. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have just tagged the redirect with {{R from merge}}. As per the target talk discussion, we have injury articles for volleyball, cricket and tennis. Restore and let AfD decide if the earlier revisions should go back to being an article. All content was added by one editor (since inactive) and most cleanup was by one editor Doc James, who was also the merger. Jay 💬 07:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as the content is very limited and dated. The articles compared above on injuries in cricket, tennis, and volleyball are all of greatly superior quality to this. Violetine (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "limited and dated" argument is essentially circular. It happened because the content was condensed to fit into the article on Netball. Compare it to the much larger article that existed before then. There was no point in members trying to update it over time, because that would have be WP:UNDUE in the article on Netball. But if it had stayed as an independent article, it would have been practical to update it from time to time.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]