Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion

From Eurovision Wiki
Revision as of 23:35, 18 March 2026 by imported>VWF bot (All requests closed for February 28; removing transclusion (bot))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For the reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.

Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Header Template:Purgebox

Current list

[edit source]
Shortcuts

Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 18 Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 17 Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16 Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15 Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14 Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13 Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12

March 11

[edit source]

Birtish

[edit source]

Target has no entries that could be called "Birtish". Its creation may be related to this discussion on Template:Use Birtish English, where the only internal link exists at this time. Searching on Google and searches on Wikipedia outside articles show that "Birtish" is most likely a misspelling for "British". Also, note Steel1943's comment on the discussion for Template:Use Birtish English that was made months before this redirect was created, which said:

Delete [Template:Use Birtish English]. If this typo was so common, the redirect Birtish would have existed sometime during the almost 25+ years of Wikipedia's existence, but it never has.

What do others think? Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Misspellings are more likely to happen in sentences like in the template than as standalone words. Not all common or standart misspellings have a redirect, but this one had, except it wasn't standalone or in the mainspace. Abesca (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
...What/Huh? That's not clear at all. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to British and tag as {{r from misspelling}}. External search results show this is an error that does occur naturally outside Wikipedia, so it's not implausible that it could be helpful. It's not just one that appears in informal contexts; see eg. Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, New York Times. Something not existing before on Wikipedia doesn't mean it shouldn't; there are a lot of things on Wikipedia that editors just haven't gotten around to yet. If it exists for a while and the traffic report shows negligible usage, then it can be renominated. – Scyrme (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't especially like keeping redirect misspellings, but probably retarget and tag as above. Seems to be used frequent enough. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Scyrme, this is plausible, reasonably common and pretty unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, R3, and as a WP:POINTy creation after the previous RFD. This is not a spelling error, but a typo, and this typo is no more deserving of a redirect than any other. Searches find matches for all sorts of them, such as "Brtiish". Again, we managed for 25+ years without this without any problems, and like pointed out in an rfd a few days ago, searches for "Birtish empire" and "Birtish columbia" find their targets just fine, rendering this especially useless. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    Redirects from plausible, common typos aren't unusual. {{r from typo}} is a redirect to {{r from misspelling}}, and hundreds of redirects from typos use that redirect. The rcat description for {{r from misspelling}} encompasses typos: This is a redirect from a misspelling or typographical error. – Scyrme (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:POINTy at this point if there is not sufficient evidence. We don't want to be the ones encouraging an unlikely misspelling by having this spelling flow all over Wikipedia mirrors. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    What makes you think it's unlikely? There's plenty of evidence of people making this exact mistake, as has already been shown.
    Regarding, WP:POINTy, that is about editors who apply an interpretation of policies/guidelines they disagree with to make a point about how bad it would be to apply the interpretation consistently. I don't see how that applies here. Hypothetically, the equivalent here would be nominating other redirects that have the same typo (if they existed) for deletion to try to make a point of how disruptive it would be to actually do that. This redirect isn't any more disruptive than any other redirect from a plausible typo or misspelling. – Scyrme (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Retarget to British per Scyrme. This is a typo, a recently created one at that, but as demonstrated above it's not an implausible one, so R3 does not apply. I don't think the act of creating this redirect is disruptive, so WP:POINT doesn't apply either (not to mention that the creator didn't participate in the RFD, so I'm not sure what point the others think they're trying to make). That we went over 2 decades without having this redirect means absolutely nothing, since you could use that argument to ban the creation of new articles (which I'm not going to do, as that would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). As for the argument about search results, you need to make an extra click to reach your destination, and this redirect is useful by preventing that. Also, readers might search for this term (on accident, of course) using methods that don't autocorrect this kind of thing, and this redirect would be especially useful to them. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: I, as nominator, have a few comments, which should not be treated as a !vote but are simply observations made to provide more information: 1) The redirect creation is mostly related to the discussion on the template redirect. That discussion had the only link to "Birtish" before nominating the redirect in this discussion. In addition, it's unlikely that this redirect would be created independently of that discussion given the strange target. 2) This word may possibly be a misspelling of birdish. In this case, only one letter is incorrect instead of two, and "Birtish" sounds more similar to "birdish" than "British". 3) Just about every possible misspelling exists on the internet. One source though describes that "Birtish" specifically is a last name, but that source may be unreliable. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    "Birdish" seems like an enormous stretch to me. Even setting aside that "birdish" is a very uncommon word that few people would have cause to ever use, let alone misspell, the comparison of one letter's difference against two is very misleading. In English, as in many languages, errors of metathesis (swapping letters) are very, very common. In-fact, they're so common in English that the letters don't even need to be next to each other to swapped around (see spoonerism).
    In contrast, randomly devoicing a consonant would be exceedingly weird in speech, let alone in writing. Especially so, as English, unlike languages like German or Russian, doesn't regularly devoice consonants like "d" to "t", and in-fact often does the opposite, voicing consonants like "s" and "t" to "z" and "d" in various contexts, including intervocalically (relevant to birtish-birdish if your dialect is non-rhotic) and in clusters with voiced consonants like "r" (relevant if your dialect is rhotic). – Scyrme (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    Anagrams are more likely to be mistyping than with closer misspelling with distant keyboard letters. And if birdish existed, it could be linked in a see also section of british, but currently it's an obscure dictionary entry. Abesca (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    The thing is that this is part of what I thought made birtish a possible misspelling of "birdish". Also, maybe a reasoning for creating this redirect may help? I'm still trying to understand why you created this redirect to "Birt (disambiguation)". In case any logic for creating the current redirect exists. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    oh I see. I've always pronounced the word standard as standart for some reason. But that's because they are syllabic consonants (silent vowel). while the reasoning was because -ish is a very common prefix for such words, isn't it? but I wondered if someone if could boldly retarget, thats why I inserted Brit dab in the see also. Abesca (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    I just assumed your native language was one where standart is the normal pronunciation or spelling. Standart in English is archaic; it's one of the variant spellings from Middle English, from the Old French estandart. If your native language is English, maybe it's survived in your dialect, idk. – Scyrme (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    No, it’s not my first language. My teacher teached me a lot of wrong pronunciations, and it was supposed to be American English (I have a hard time understanding British accent, even from people of my supposed regional accent, cause I notice the difference). And my native language is both syllable-timed and Latin-scripted, which makes difference in the nasalization/palatalization which is why birtish, for me, wouldn’t have the same sounding of birdish. Abesca (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to British per Scyrme. It is beyond plausible that this is a common typo for a very common demonym in the English language. Google Search results number nearly 200,000, which for a typo, is a very high number. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

TTân Châu District, Tây Ninh

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

K. B. Hedgewar redirects

[edit source]

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

  • Keep - Agree with comments above by EarthDude, but seems reliable sources are using this term for this person. e.g. see this source, maybe seems this also - seems many like that. However, the target page has no mention of this term. Asteramellus (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    Even if some reliable sources call him that, most layreaders won't be thinking of him when they search these terms, due to how broad they are. — EarthDude (Talk) 05:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Abdallah Husseini

[edit source]

Should point to the same place but not mentioned at either target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Per this New York Times piece,[1] Abdallah Husseini is an alias of Labed Ahmed, mentioned on List of Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay with isn 703. मल्ल (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep per मल्ल Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Palæstina

[edit source]

Retarget to Palaestina? Abesca (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget all to Palaestina. Seems like an obvious case of WP:DABCOMBINE. Besides being a closer match in spelling, these aren't spellings which someone would likely use by mistake and I doubt someone deliberately using an archaic spelling would be looking for the modern state of Palestine. – Scyrme (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
There is also Palaestinea, which might be a misspelling of special:search/palaestinae (Daboia palaestinae, Leucania palaestinae, Caesarea Palaestinae) Abesca (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Not opposed to bundling it, but I lean delete on that one. I'm not convinced it's a likely misspelling, and the base title for which it's a misspelling (Palaestinae) doesn't exist so it can't be tagged as {{r from misspelling}}. I'm not sure that the base title should be created just to make it work; it's an adjective not a noun, and comes from Latin, a language where adjectives follow the noun (which means someone searching this would type the noun first), whereas the redirects nominated here are nouns. – Scyrme (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, this is too detailed to be assumed to be accidental, so retargeting to a disambiguation page makes the most sense. ----Joy (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Kelly Wiglesworth

[edit source]

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

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

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

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

Ossero

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Some redirects

[edit source]

Not a part of their respective national teams, erroneous redirects. Previous similar nominations of this user's redirects resulted in delete. zglph•talk• 15:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Zglph, Lim Zhi Shin is specifically mentioned as part of the Malaysia team at that target. Tharun Mannepalli is also mentioned at the target. How do you know that these redirects are erroneous? J947 ‡ edits 23:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    It just enlists players who are or were at top 100, not necessarily part of the core team. zglph•talk• 03:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    Right, so you don't. J947 ‡ edits 11:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    I don't understand? zglph•talk• 11:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    Shan Zi Oo as well. If they are not part of their national teams, their entries should be removed from there. Having redirects to their entries doesn't make them erroneous redirects. Jay 💬 11:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Noted the disagreements, so I'm providing a new rationale for deletion. Per RETURNTORED and searching for these players is likely to give more information on the subjects than these redirect targets. I request someone to relist this discussion. zglph•talk• 20:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, zglph•talk• 06:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Stacey Stillman

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 18#Stacey Stillman

Survivor: Borneo-only contestants

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

X (formerly Twitter) killer

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Northern Airlines(1928)

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

It's not about the money

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

Puzzle (video game)

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 18#Puzzle (video game)

Wikipedia:Homepage

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 18#Wikipedia:Homepage

March 10

[edit source]

Khamenei

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Pokemon master

[edit source]

Template:Oldrfdlist

Potentially confusing. An earlier discussion resulted in similar the last three redirects being retargeted from Gameplay of Pokémon to Ash Ketchum. At the same time, the plural Pokémon Masters mostly refers to the current target Pokémon Masters EX, but there isn't anything that currently deals with the confusion of the similar terms. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC) (updated 00:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC))

Retarget to Ash Ketchum, who repeatedly proclaims he wants to be a Pokemon master. PokémonPerson 19:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, going to do the following: user:Cogsan user:Pokelego999 user:Lenticel user:Skynxnex 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No preference where this goes tbh. Perhaps point to Masters with a hatnote to Ash for those looking for that? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
retarget as per Pokelego999 User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 17:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Too vague - it can refer to the title as part of the plot of Pokemon or the specific gameplay challenge of the video games to collect all Pokemon. The search function should be allowed to do its job instead of forcing someone to arrive at a surprise target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Chorlton, Lancashire

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

War of Independence.

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Intestinal paralysis

[edit source]

No paralysis mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I removed that section as unsourced. Jay 💬 01:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ileus, which mentions the word "paralysis" several times and can be understood to be about something that non-specialists would regard as "paralysis" more generally (even if it may not be technically correct). Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Ileus mentions "paralysis" only once, and as one of the causes of Ileus. It appears to be a synonym of atony which is a generic muscle-related term, and we don't have intestinal atony. The lead of Ileus mentions peristalsis which also doesn't mention paralysis, because Ileus is the lack of peristalsis. Delete if we have no info anywhere else. Jay 💬 08:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

War on independence

[edit source]

I have absolutely no idea why this term redirects here. Not mentioned at target and searching produces extremely scattered results (alternate history scenarios, music, an academic paper), none of which have anything to do with the Eighty Years' War. Delete. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Yeeeaaaaahhhhh, I repeat that these need to be bundled to have them pointed at the same target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I think the redirects ending (disambiguation) should stay pointed at the list article, as that's performing the disambiguation function. The rest should all have the same target, and that target should be either List of wars of independence or Wars of national liberation. I'm leaning towards the latter as the search terms don't indicate a desire for a list, but this preference is weak. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wars of national liberation. This target gives a better definition of what a war of independence is, so I think the same applies to "War on independence". Also, List of wars of independence is mentioned in a hatnote in case readers want a longer list than what is already given in the proposed retarget. Mathguy2718 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment. Speaking only for the redirect I nominated in the first place, "war on independence" does not appear to ever be used a generic synonym for "war of independence" (and it would be a pretty implausible typo given the keyboard placements of F and N). The uses I found online seemed deliberate but none appeared to refer to notable topics. — An anonymous username, not my real name 21:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Lunamann, @Mathguy2718, @Thryduulf — An anonymous username, not my real name 21:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
    The uses of "war on independence" on Wikipedia usually refer to wars of independence, but though I did not notice any, it could possibly refer to wars against independence. Besides the Ten Year War on Independence, which was a war for Cuban independence, searches on Wikipedia for "war on independence" included a mention in Rise of nationalism in Europe that is piped as [[Swedish–Norwegian War (1814)|War on independence]], which was an unsuccessful battle for Norwegian independence; a mention in Atatürk Museums in Turkey, which has the text Atatürk's family stayed before the Turkish war on Independence, referring to the Turkish War of Independence; a mention in Zoubeida Bittari with the text Algerian War, War on Independence, referring to the war for the independence of Algeria; and in Foreign policy of Meles Zenawi, there is the sentence This was the first time of Eritrea since War on Independence in 1961., which probably refers to the Eritrean War of Independence. Based on these mentions, I think it would be logical to target something related to wars of independence, and I don't think the nominated redirect is a typo. Mathguy2718 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
    I have started a new discussion about all of the variations of "War of independence". I think "War on independence" should not be deleted based on my research above, but given the proposed target isn't obvious, a discussion is necessary there to find the best target, which I think should be Wars of national liberation as I stated earlier. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as a grammatically incorrect redirect created more than 20 years back. A real or symbolic war is waged against something negative, or what something wants subdued. Forces in power would try to subdue a war of independence, in which case this would be a "War on War of Independence". A war against independence is not heard of. The mentions found by Mathguy should be fixed as well - replace "on" with "of". Jay 💬 15:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to War of independence per Mathguy2718. My initial thought was of a war whose subject matter is independence – a war about independence – in which case the retarget is very helpful. However, a formulation akin to war on terror / war on drugs is also plausible. Nevertheless, a war against independence in the context of a broader national liberation struggle isn't far outside the remit of war of independence, so I'm happy with that target. I think this is most plausible as a search term from someone who speaks English as a second language (or 75% of English speakers). J947 ‡ edits 07:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Marrying for money

[edit source]

This topic could also refer to a Marriage of convenience or a Gold digger. Redirecting only to Transactional sex would narrow the scope of the topic and likely cause confusion. Uffda608 (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Normally I'd say retarget to Marriage of convenience through the WP:SMALLDETAILS of "they are specifically asking about a marriage and not sex", but that article needs some SERIOUS help-- logically it'd cover the topic, but it doesn't mention marriages for money at all... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not quite synonymous with any of the suggested targets—the current target is the worst match. Marrying for money is not exactly the same as a marriage of convenience or being a "gold digger". Absent explicit discussion of this, pointing it to Marriage of convenience or one of the other targets erroneously defines them as exactly synonymous and fails to address the specific topic readers are searching for. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined towards disambiguation here, with all the above topics and Dowry being things the searcher could be looking for. Search results are not at all helpful here, without quotes it's mostly just a collection of articles where marriage and money are mentioned, as an exact phrase the results are almost entirely plot summaries where characters do this. There does exist though an album titled "Re-Marrying for Money" (Henry Kaiser (musician)#Discography), Don't Marry for Money (a film) and "Marry for Money" (a song) that would be good see-alsos. There also seems to be a 1914 or 1915 film Marrying Money but the only mentions we have of that I've found are in actor's filmographies none of which are obviously a better target than any of the others. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
    I'm cool with a disambiguation as per this, yeah. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, preferably (in my opinion) at the title Marry for money, with this title pointed there, under a header that says Marry for money or Marrying for money may refer to... BD2412 T 03:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
    I have no preference regarding which title the disambig is located at. Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate if we are all in agreement that it could have more than one meaning User:53zodiac
  • Delete. Agree with Myceteae that none of the suggested targets are suitable entries for a dab page. Jay 💬 13:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Template:Dabr * Pppery * it has begun... 22:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose disambiguation but support a broad-concept article (at Marrying for money), a format that aligns much more with the opinions above. This isn't an ambiguous title: it's a title with a quite particular and quite well-known meaning; it's just that discussion of that meaning is spread out through multiple articles. Hypergamy should be linked. Second choice delete. J947 ‡ edits 07:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate to marriage of convenience and gold digger; transactional sex is basically just prostitution, both in the normal sense and in "exalted" forms. This is marriage, at least, and it needs to be distinguished from prostitution. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Pippo Speedway

[edit source]

"Pippo" not mentioned in target, even when the redirect was created. As a result, someone who searches "Pippo Speedway" will get no information about the speedway. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Changed it to "Pipo". The page can be moved without redirect to Pipo Speedway. Jay 💬 05:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
All the other enwiki mentions call it "Pippo Speedway". Even if they're all wrong, a longstanding and non-obvious error on enwiki will normally make for a useful redirect anyway, the error becoming relatively common as it propagates to other sources (and to readers). Besides, a redirect is an exact search term. Moving the redirect to a different title makes it reach a completely different cohort of readers. Just create a new one. J947 ‡ edits 06:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei

[edit source]

Template:ECR

No longer a alleged assassination. Mysticair667537 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep for now, redirects are cheap, and several dozen hits per day is still a fair amount. I would revise my position if (roughly) median daily traffic drops to zero signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: The last two redirects have now dropped to a median daily zero and the first one has dropped to 16. There are other problems with these redirects aside from the very low pageviews, readers using these may think that they will be directed to a section of Ali Khamenei's article about old debunked assassination rumors, leading to issues with WP:XY. Mysticair667537 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Rape-vinegar

[edit source]

Probably meant grape vinegar but not even mentioned Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep Read Preserved_lemon#History. I don't usually hang around these parts, but couldn't looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Rape-vinegar have prevented this confusion? 03:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Reading the source, it is indeed "rape-vinegar". I understand it as rapeseed vinegar. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 03:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Not sure where I land on what to do (since the article doesn't actually reference rape-vinegar, which as far as I can tell is just an outdated term for wine vinegar?), but firmly on do not keep since there is no section Wine in the article Vinegar so we should at minimum retarget elsewhere in the article (to either the article as a whole or a different section). NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
I'll be real with you, I'm pretty annoyed you didn't acknowledge my comment. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 01:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
My comment didn't seem related to yours? Mine was primarily about the fact that we shouldn't have a redirect pointing to a non-existent section of an article. And I did read the context from where it is linked at Preserved lemon#History, but that doesn't change any of what I was adding NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Refine to Vinegar#Spirits per NerdyEpiscopalian and Oxford Reference: "Rape vinegar: An antique term for wine vinegar made from the stalks, skins, and pips left over after the grapes have been pressed." I2Overcome talk 01:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on refining to Vinegar#Spirits?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Microslop

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Template:PAL

[edit source]

Wrong and misleading object while existing Template:Fb ( {{fb|Palestine, British Mandate}} ) able to work on presenting correct historical party; "PAL" short form per UNDP was only seen at doc names or filing system. Even Template:URL uses "<recipient-country code="PS">" (i.e. ISO 2-digit code for "PSE") in its default coding structure. It is supposed to be orphaned by Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template cleanup work. Gzyeah (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  • @Gzyeah: Template redirects don't come by RfD very often, so the regular participants here might not be very well versed in best practices for what to do with them. "PAL" as short for Palestine (even if mistakenly) seems reasonable enough to me, and it's unclear if you're proposing that something else is a more appropriate target. Would you care to elaborate your nominator rationale a bit further? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    But "PAL" is technically not in used as exact "country code" by recent notable organisations searchable online, and the current redirection pointed to modern sovereign (Palestinian Authority) is giving wrong info on equating it with "PSE", rather than simple geographical meanings. Gzyeah (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    The "PAL" is fine to be mentioned its functions in disambiguate page, however we should not encourage to continue holding it for a country template without historical and logical senses unless we had any reliable source to prove such misuse. Gzyeah (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Do you have a better place to retarget, or do you prefer a disambiguation instead? And would you use a bot to replace the current transclusions? Or its own new template? Abesca (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
there is already an existing PAL (disambiguation) as mentioned with content updated, while it may have no better place to retarget since it was created initially as an individual template compared to Template:PSE before the last redirection made. Gzyeah (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep primary topic PER WP:PT1 and WP:PT2 Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 22:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to the bathroom to read.

[edit source]

Retarget to Elvis Presley#Death, since it's his last words. ~2026-13617-37 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Should I nominate other last word redirects? ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per Chess enjoyer – we only "delete." redirects with periods when the period is not part of the term itself. Nobody would argue that we should delete U.S. in favor of U.S, or move Apple Inc. without leaving a redirect. The connection between a sentence and its final period might be slightly weaker than that, but it's still a reasonable WP:AFFINITY. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:In rem jurisdiction

[edit source]

In rem jurisdiction is not exclusive to the United states. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep: While we have an article, a non-US category will be empty at this point. While Canadian and British examples are plentiful, none has an article in Wikipedia. --Викидим (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it possible to create a category Category:In rem jurisdiction that exclusively contains Category:United States in rem cases for now and can be expanded if such categories ever exist elsewhere? Casablanca 🪨(T) 00:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. (1) No real point to having a category that holds nothing except the US subcategory; this isn't part of a bigger tree where we expect a worldwide category. (2) Categories aren't articles; we ruthlessly get rid of categories without useful content, and if we refined it to hold non-US cases, it would soon be deleted as empty. (3) Per nom, the redirect itself is confusing. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Викидим. Toarin (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Further comment I have found the article Operation Megaphone, which to me seems like it should be categorized in the (currently non-existent) Category:Canada in rem cases. If so, I think then this could largely be considered moot as that could be added to Category:In rem jurisdiction, which would make the category not just redirect to the US's cases. Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

March 9

[edit source]

Zhang Weiyin

[edit source]

"Zhang Weiyin" is the name of at least two (?) other non-notable people: a professor at the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, and a person in IMDb who worked in a "transportation department". So I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. They seem to be the only notable person with this name. Almost nobody has a truly unique name, so we only disambiguate with those who are notable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    But Zhang Weiying doesn't actually have this name. "Weiyin" and "Weiying" are very different names in Chinese, and only look similar when romanised. Searching externally, it doesn't seem to be a common mistake. The only place I found it this error was in the name of a file (File:Zhang Weiyin Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2011.jpg) on Commons. I've requested the file be renamed to fix that one use. – Scyrme (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    Update: the file has been renamed. The misspelling now only exists as a redirect from the original filename. – Scyrme (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - To me, this is quite an implausible misspelling and it could be misleading. Sun8908 Talk 18:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zhang Weiyin is a real name shared by at least two people with an internet presence. It is also a plausible error for the name of the Chinese economist but it is not at all clear that someone who might search this is more likely to be making this error than they are to be searching for someone who actually has this name. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Information Note: If kept, this should be tagged at {{R from move}} per the redirects history. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

28 February 2026

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sweet sandwich time

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Liz (musician)

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sparra

[edit source]

vague, almost hopelessly so. the closest this term seems to have of a primary topic is somewhat suggestive furry art

...except this isn't where it ends, as there's some pre-blar content here, that suggests that this was a somewhat obscure type of irish battle axe. that axe isn't currently mentioned, and of the two sources in that stub (which seems to have been an attempt at an article about obscure ancient irish battle axes in general?), i could only get one to load, and mentions of the sparra seem to be passing in it

i don't really know if the source is useful for this. if it is, i don't know if the target would be the proper place for a mention, and i've found no other stuff about it, so maybe return to red? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  • eh, delete as a foreign redirect, there doesn't really to seem to be the affinity there to justify having this. even wiktionary doesn't list sparra as an irish term meaning battle-axe (though sparth/sparthe is listed as a middle english term meaning battle-axe) also uh, what kind of furry art? asking for a friend, or maybe to judge whether or the art meets general notability guidelines and is worthy of an article caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 18:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    bird consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    I can see the logic in that, as "Sparra" is a plausible spelling pronunciation of "Sparrow" in some English accents, but this is not a justification to retarget to Sparrow. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, second choice disambig. For me the primary topic in searches is clearly "Scottish patients at risk of readmission", which might be notable (certainly enough for a mention on a broader article, maybe for a standalone one) but which we don't have content about, followed by the "Symptoms in Persons at Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis" questionnaire that again we have no content about but where the acronym should be mentioned if we did. On Wikipedia, I found a bunch of uses, none of which I'm certain are sufficient for a dabmention - Ayquelinus Guillelmi de Sparra (mentioned at Archdeacon of Bournemouth#Late medieval, DJ Sparra (mentioned at Popular music of Birmingham#Hip hop and Dance music), multiple characters at Redwall (TV series), and Ivan "Sparra" Romcek (mentioned in the prose and table at Milperra massacre#Battle) being the best contenders. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-BLAR page content?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Access 1 disorder

[edit source]

The section target is broken and the terms aren't mentioned in the article. The redirects were created in 2009 but I can't find mentions of the terms in the article from that time and a search didn't bring up enough sources that I think it warrants adding the terms to the article. Suonii180 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Big DT

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nat Geo &YO

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

No-kernel

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

God's Beads

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#God's Beads

Bloodwort (disambiguation)

[edit source]

First time I've ever seen this... I don't think we need spelling variant redirects for disambiguation pages? Both Bloodwart and Bloodwort already redirect to Bloodwart (disambiguation). This seems superfluous. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Bloodwart redirects to Sanguinaria currently. However, I would support a moving of Bloodwart (disambiguation) to Bloodwart though that is a different discussion. PokémonPerson 15:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Huh... so it does. Okay as primary topic. But I don't understand what you mean by moving of Bloodwart (disambiguation) to Bloodwart - that means giving the article the title of the (unneeded) disambiguation? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I think they mean that since there's no article located at Bloodwart (the article is located at Sanguinaria not Bloodwart), there's no need for the disambiguation page to have "(disambiguation)" in its title; it can just be located where the redirect presently is. Practically, this would mean a technical move to swap the titles of Bloodwart and Bloodwart (disambiguation), so the latter becomes a redirect to Bloodwart (which would be the disambiguation page). The redirect with "(disambiguation)" in its name could be kept in case intentional links to the disambiguation page are needed. – Scyrme (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep as {{avoided double redirect}} for Bloodwort - Bloodwort (disambiguation) could, in principle, be used where a link to Bloodwort is intentional in a context where "bloodwort" rather than "bloodwart" is the spelling used by an article. If only Bloodwart (disambiguation) existed, the only way to make an intentional link to the disambiguation page would be to use "wart" even though elsewhere the article refers to "wort". Though we could get around this problem by piping the link to make it look like Bloodwort (disambiguation), it seems harmless to keep it so piping isn't needed. – Scyrme (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep bloodwart is the misspelling; bloodwort (disambiguation) was recently moved with the edit summary "correcting typo", and bloodwort was moved by the same editor without an edit summary. I can see somebody not familiar with list of wort plants thinking that wort is a misspelling, but it isn't. I don't think Sanguinaria is the primary topic of bloodwort; that plant is usually known as bloodroot. Haemodoraceae is definitely known as the bloodwort family. At a minimum, move back to bloodwort (disambiguation), delete bloodwart (disambiguation), keep bloodwart as a plausible misspelling and retarget to bloodwort (disambiguation). But also consider moveing bloodwart (disambiguation) to bloodwort. Plantdrew (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment as mover: I've found sources that use the spelling "bloodwart" (e.g. [3])- Bloodwort would be a useful redirect as the -wort ending is common in plants as seen by List of wort plants, but the -wart ending seems to be used more specifically for bloodwart. PokémonPerson 15:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Sammarinese Ambassador to the United States

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Ico (playstation)

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Ico (playstation)

Cuban language

[edit source]

Is Cuban Spanish the best target? The current target does show this is the main language of Cuba. However, it does not link to Languages of Cuba, which redirects to Demographics of Cuba#Language. The only mentions of "Cuban language" are for Cuban Language Academy and in Music of Cuba. At the same time, no language spoken in Cuba is directly called "Cuban language", but there is Cuban Spanish and Cuban Sign Language. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language as {{R avoided double redirect}}, since it mentions the other languages spoken in Cuba and already has a hatnote to both Cuban Spanish and Cuba language, which is another possible (but less likely) desired target. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep (1st choice) and add a hatnote to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language and possibly Cuba language. Spanish is the official and predominant language of Cuba. A cursory Google search for "Cuban language" exclusively reveals hits referring to Cuban Spanish on the first page. Google Scholar results are more mixed but largely reference Cuban Spanish; references to non-Spanish languages are often qualified, e.g. Afro-Cuban language. Weak retarget to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language as distant second choice—in other words, don't let me stand in the way if consensus otherwise goes that direction but Cuban Spanish appears to be the primary topic for Cuban language and is my preferred target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Demographics_of_Cuba#Language. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per Kepler-1229b. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Yguazú

[edit source]

Retarget to Iguaçu, hatnote, or disambiguate itself? Abesca (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

gn:Yguasu is a dab. Abesca (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Dabify at Yguazú for Colonia Yguazú, Yguazú District, and Yguazú River NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Iguaçu, and add these articles to that list. I think this falls within WP:DABCOMBINE. In this context, "y" is pronounced identically to "i" in Spanish, so someone could plausibly confuse the spellings if they don't know the Paraguayan version is spelled with "y", more closely following the Guarani y guasú. Iguaçu already combines Iguazu; it's not a huge leap from there to Yguazu or Yguasu. – Scyrme (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I previously said to dabify on its own, but after re-evaluating, equally okay with retargeting with the articles added. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Iguaçu, add Template:Xtn as one of the bolded variants in the lead, and add these three articles to the dab page. These are all variants of the same name. These are highly ambiguous and prone to confusion even when one spelling is used deliberately. Combining these on a single dab page makes sense given the ambiguity but also because the names are related. While this is a perfectly appropriate dab page, it also serves as somewhat of a set index article by listing all of the related entries that share the same/similar name. Cataloguing all of these on a single page best serves our readers. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

LENS

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#LENS

Super Pro Fighter Q

[edit source]

What does this has to do what the target section? Anyways, delete. ~2025-42974-91 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  • keep, mentioned at target as a peripheral of the snes, pre-blar content also describes this as a snes thingy, logical redirect to have caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 19:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is a mention, but it doesn't go into much detail about what it is. It's also pretty far away down the section, which makes me want to use an anchor to refine it. I wonder if it should be returned to red. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

サンズ

[edit source]

This should be deleted per WP:FORRED. There's no affinity between Undertale and Japanese, so this is not a valid foreign-language redirect. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 23:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. The only language that Undertale is in, other than English, is Japanese. See the Japanese version of the official website, as well. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Organhaver's comments would be relevant if the original language were Japanese or there was some other strong connection between the subject and Japan or the Japanese language. Simply being the only language into which it has (currently) been translated is not enough. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep The Japanese-speaking fanbase of the UT/DR franchise is large, and it's inaccurate to say there is no affinity. Dege31 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Why would the Japanese-speaking fanbase be seeking English-language information about the subject by searching the English Wikipedia in Japanese? Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Why is there any other foreign-language redirect? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Absolutely not to cater to foreign language readers. We create foreign-language article titles and redirects to cater to English speakers who may have encountered something under its foreign name. Non-English speakers should be consulting the Wikipedia for their own language. If they are going to use the English Wikipedia, they should have enough familiarity with English to look topics up by their English names. --Srleffler (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Also, if someone does want to look up information about a given topic in English but doesn't remember the English name, then there are several far more reliable strategies to finding the English Wikipedia article, including:
  • Looking at the article in the Wikipedia for the language they do remember its name in and following the interwiki link
  • Looking at a related article in the English Wikipedia they do remember the name of and following links from there
  • Searching using related words/phrases they do remember
  • Consulting a dictionary / translator to find the English name
Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this has already been explained before, but this definitely could be for "Template:Userquote". 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Comment: Honestly, I never even thought about including a Japanese name for each of the Undertale/Deltarune characters. At the very least, I believe the redirect for San's Japanese name should be kept if the actual article mentions this specific word/phrase. If it's included, then I will change my Weak Keep to Strong Keep if that is the case. For example, Sans name could be written like Sans (Japanese: サンズ, romanized: sanzu) OR Sans could have a nihongo footnote like Template:Nihongo foot
As video games, Undertale and Deltarune has official Japanese localization/Japanese language in the game by Toby Fox. This is what matters. I understand why this redirect was questioned, but considering what I said earlier though, It isn't misleading to say that Undertale/Deltarune has Japanese in the game since there's official Japanese language in both of the games by Toby's Japanese localization team 8-4 and this is reassured on https://undertale.com and https://deltarune.com with the site having the option to be in the Japanese language. If this redirect is kept I will include Japanese names for each of the Undertale/Deltarune characters that currently has an article and cite this RfD discussion as the reason for doing so.
KrispyBlueJays (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep or refine to Sans (Undertale)#サンズ or Sans (Undertale)#Sanzu. I have added an anchors at Sans (Undertale)#サンズ and Sans (Undertale)#Sanzu. The visible anchor at Sans (Undertale)#Sanzu may be more helpful to readers. The character's Japanese name is used and described with relevant detail. On-wiki search shows that「サンズ」is used to transliterate a handful of other English words/names but very often appears on en-wiki in reference to the Undertale character. This redirect helps readers find relevant information about the Japanese name. The simplistic 'FORRED' analysis is insufficient as it fails to address the encyclopedic content we have for this Japanese name. We typically keep foreign language redirects when they point to relevant content that describes a non-English word or name in context that is most helpful to en-wiki readers. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Chicago station

[edit source]

This should be a disambiguation. Chicago has had multiple intercity train stations in the past. There are also a number of 'L' stations called Chicago. Gamingcanary (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Some stations to consider:
Gamingcanary (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, also Dearborn Station Gamingcanary (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, also Wells Street Station and Wells Street Terminal Gamingcanary (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate - there are no less than four CTA stations alone that are named Chicago station, none of which is currently the target of this redirect. I'll draft up.a dab page. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I drafted up a dab page at Chicago station (disambiguation). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I would suggest adding the intercity terminals listed above. On most timetables and station indices they would be written as simply “Chicago”, with maybe a footnote or subtitle indicating which one. Gamingcanary (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
@Gamingcanary, I would be fine with that. You can feel free to add any (or all) links you find appropriate. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
It's been a week with no objections. I'd say it looks good. I don't exactly know how to close these discussions. Gamingcanary (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
  • This is ambiguous, but I think a set index is going to be better than a dab here, as that can cover stations without "Chicago" in the name as well (e.g. Dearborn Station) and ones like North Chicago Station. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Nazzi

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Nazzi

Obsolete word

[edit source]

DELETE. "Obsolete word" is just a common noun phrase. It shouldn't be in an encylopedia. It also shouldn't redirect to an article about a distinct topic (Archaism), as this is obviously misleading.

On a sidenote, the Archaism article shouldn't give a dictionary definition of the word "obsolete": "an obsolete word or sense is one that is no longer used at all." No shit. you could replace "word or sense" with anything and it would be true, because that is the definition of the word obsolete. Really; use your imagination. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no objection to the proposal here. My only comment to leave here is to explain why anyone felt compelled to explain what "obsolete" means regarding usage specifically (as opposed to other senses of that word). There is a specific reason why that desire for clarification arises. People assume various interpretations of the label "obsolete", regarding word choice and usage, that coexist and compete with or contradict one another. Wiktionary tries to reserve "obsolete" to the sense that "not only is that word, or that specific sense thereof, no longer used, but also, many readers might have a hard time even guessing the intended meaning", which makes it different from both (1) "archaic", which refers to a word whose intended sense in the given occurrence is obvious to most readers (i.e., fluent speakers who aren't stupid or ignorant) but whose use for that meaning feels noticeably antiquated, and (2) "historical", which many people assume "obsolete" refers to. Again, this is only to explain why the explanatory effort wasn't stupid; I have no objection to the proposal here, because I currently don't give much of a shit about how or whether Wikipedia tries (or fails to try) to help its users with this usage quibble. Wikipedia and Wiktionary are both currently merely assclownery anyway, really, compared to what they ought to be by now, because almost nobody on Earth (not even the minority who are competent to try) truly gives a fuck about being arsed to fix them lol. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This is a simple redirect from a quick two-word definition of "Archaism" towards the actual article for "Archaism", meant for those who don't know what the actual name for the concept is but still want to read an encyclopedia article on it. As for the idea that the Archaism article should be rewritten... That's not for this forum to worry about. Bring your concerns to Talk:Archaism... or be bold and find a way to fix it yourself. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
No its not. These mean very different things. Your misunderstanding of that illustrates the problem. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
...Sorry, got distracted by the actual arguments you made in the OP post-- "noun phrase that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, and shouldn't be redirected towards any topic" and "Archaism needs to be rewritten"-- and didn't think to check the actual meaning here, which is something you never argued against in your original post. You're right in that, as the Archaism article states, a distinction exists between archaisms and obsolete words; however I'm not sure a good alternate target exists.
Still weakly keep, as the article does briefly talk about obsolete words in the second paragraph (as a comparison between that concept and archaisms); however, if a better target is found please take the reader there instead. Worst case scenario we can delete as per WP:RETURNTORED; while I am roundly unconvinced by the idea that a "noun phrase" like this "doesn't belong on an encyclopedia" given we have actual articles with much longer and more elaborate titles, the idea that we don't have a suitable target to go to is much more concerning. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with being long and elaborate. It would be like having a Wikipedia entry for "red shirt", that redirected you to a page that said "a red shirt is a piece of clothing worn on the upper body that is red in colour". The entire meaning is contained in the word definitions, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY, its an encyclopedia. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
red shirt exists, though-- it's a redirect to the Redshirt DAB, which includes, among other things, a link to Redshirt (stock character), a noted trope regarding stock characters killed off early for little reason. Which tells me the problem was never with the redirect itself, "noun phrases" like that are fine-- it was with the target being a WP:DICDEF.
And I repeat what I said in response to that-- if you feel the page redirected to shouldn't have a WP:DICDEF of "Obsolete word", the response is to try and get the DICDEF removed first-- not to remove the redirect first. And the correct venue to do so, if you're not interested in simply being WP:BOLD and rewriting the article yourself, is Talk:Archaism. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with {{R to related topic}} (maybe with {{R with possibilities}}? although probably these two should stay together). Even if the content of archaism is refined, keeping some discussion of the distinction between an archaic word and an obsolete word makes sense. Skynxnex (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    But is it not misleading to redirect to a word that means something different. Most people clicking or hovering on it will only read the first paragraph, and assume that an obsolete word is an archaism. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The concept of obsolete words and the relationship to archaisms is described in the lead. The brief description is encyclopedic—not merely a dictionary definition of obsolete word—and likely helpful to readers interested in the concept. I don't see how this is misleading since the term is clearly defined and distinguished from archaism. We do know that readers often skim the lead or don't get past the opening sentence or two. There are several approaches to address that concern. The lead could be reorganized to define Template:Xtn early in the opening sentence; an anchor could be placed at the beginning of the second paragraph and the redirect could be targeted (refined) there; obsolete words could be given their own brief section and the redirect could be refined there. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Y2K7

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Y2K7

9:41 AM

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

March 8

[edit source]

Barnstar of National Merit

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chicken Pyongyang

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nintendo 8-bit

[edit source]

Nintendo 8-bit and Sega 8-bit are ambiguous, as the Game Boy, Game Boy Color and Game Gear were also 8-bit. Sega 16-bit is less ambiguous, but the Sega CD can be considered a separate system in some respects. UPDATE 7 FEBRUARY: bundling similar redirects. Mr slav999 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Nintendo video game consoles and List of Sega video game consoles would be the ideal landing places for these redirects. The Nintendo list does a good job of listing the number of bits, but the Sega list does not. Perhaps that's something that can be added to the Sega list? -- Tavix (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • the Sega CD can be considered a separate system in some respects
    Even if this was correct-- it's not, the Sega CD is as unambiguously an add-on to the Genesis as the Sega 32X is (as well as the Nintendo 64DD > Nintendo 64)-- the Sega CD is explicitly discussed on the Sega Genesis page. Similarly, the Game Gear is basically a Master System made portable, and is compatible with all Master System games through a cartridge converter; it is also, as with the Sega CD, discussed on the Master System's page. Keep these two.
    The Game Boy and Game Boy Color, though... Those aren't as clear-cut, as the tech of the GB and GBC aren't nearly as cleanly mapped to the NES's hardware (you can't just use a converter to plug an NES or Famicom copy of Super Mario Bros into a GBC and play it, like you can with a Master System game on Game Gear). NES still feels primary topic, but I'm not sure enough to come to a decision there; anyone have any other thoughts here? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
    I don't think most people would say a console is the same as another just because it can play its games. The Genesis has an add-on that allows it to play Master System games, but no one considers them to be the same. The PS2 can play most PS1 games but no one thinks they're the same thing. Also, I said the Sega CD may be considered its own system because it has an exclusive library of games that can't be played on a base Genesis. Mr slav999 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
    I don't think most people would say a console is the same as another just because it can play its games.
    That's a valid concern re: referring to the Genesis as a Master System, a PS2 as a PS1, or the Wii as a Gamecube. However, I'd say it's not applicable re: the Master System and Game Gear. Unlike with all of the prior examples, which are backwards compatible but have extensive libraries that the prior console it's compatible with can't play, the Game Gear and Master System are literally the same thing-- not only can most Master System games work on Game Gear with a cartridge converter (save for certain games that require, say, the light gun), but in turn, most Game Gear games can be played on Master System (although a converter didn't exist at the time, there *are* third-party ones that exist); there are exceptions-- Game Gear exclusive titles that you can't play on Master System because they use colors that the Master System couldn't support-- but one of these Game Gear exclusive games can be converted into a Master System compatible game with only minor graphical modification.
    Which means rather than being a case of a PS2 and a PS1, it's more like the case of a Game Boy Advance, a Game Boy Advance SP, and a Game Boy Player. All three of those I'd consider to be versions of the GBA, and that includes the Game Boy Player.
    I said the Sega CD may be considered its own system because it has an exclusive library of games that can't be played on a base Genesis.
    ...Hm. I'm... a little torn on this. Part of me is insistent that the Sega CD should merely be considered a disk drive addon to the Genesis-- like of course the base Genesis can't play Sega CD games, it doesn't have a disk drive on its own!-- but then I look up at my own argument that the Game Boy Player is a GBA (which... it is, it's not an emulator, it's the actual hardware from a GBA hooked up to your Gamecube). And as per Sega_CD#Technical_specifications, it's NOT just a CD drive bolted to the Genesis, it has its own graphics and processor.
    ...Hm. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • delete all redirects missing the word "console" as vague with consoles, games, rereleases of those games, and rereleases of those games but in collection form, among other less plausible stuff like merch and the reader being one of those "so retro" folk
delete the others as well as... a misleading mess of varyingly implausible targets at best. judging by the views and incoming links (all one of them not related to this rfd in sega 16 bit console), it's unlikely that a reader would be looking for those without already knowing what the consoles are, which would make the most plausible target some sort of list of consoles separated by bits or something, which technically doesn't exist, and even if it did (which would be at the list of sega video game consoles and list of nintendo products), they'd actually still be vague with arcade systems, which are separated in the nintendo list and in a separate list for sega (for which no 8-bit ones seem to exist, and only one 16-bit one seems to exist), and with the multiple consoles each of them have per bit (despite sega's best attempts to hide its pre-mega drive stuff) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
they'd actually still be vague with arcade systems
You're arguing that the redirects that have the word "console" are an issue because they're vague with... arcade systems, which are famously not consoles? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
yes and no. regardless of whether or not i think it's plausible (it's a skill issue, really), this is a confusion i've seen a good bit of among people who have lives, and i have snk's arcade shenanigans of all things to blame for about half of it, with the other half being a sentiment of "that's just nomenclature, isn't it?". and Streets™ 2 depending on who you ask
even then, there are still multiple systems for both (do people even remember the sg-1000 and pico?), and no target that would really fit the oddly specific criterion of a search for consoles per that one number consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 22:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
...Okay, while the Pico does roundly trounce the idea that the Genesis is the only target for Sega 16 bit console, I'd like to point out that the Master System was the SG-1000 in much the same way that the Game Gear was the Master System; the Master System being the Sega Mark III (as in the 3rd release of the SG1000). The Master System article even mentions it in the second sentence. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
that they even have different articles in the first place makes this whole thing kinda pointless, as they're considered different enough platforms in mainspace consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Eh, my counterexample regarding that is Game Boy Advance SP, DSi, 2DS, et cetera, all examples of major revisions of popular (handheld) consoles (the GBA, Nintendo DS, and 3DS respectively for the examples I gave) that ARE in every respect the base console but have enough notability by themselves to have their own articles. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Well, most would say that the SG-1000, Master System and Game Gear are separate consoles, even if they have some common origins. Sorry, but the fact you have a different opinion on this is kinda irrelevant, because what matters is what most people think. Mr slav999 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • This has largely been a three-way discussion. @Tavix: would you like to add or modify, considering 3 more entries were bundled after your !vote? Jay 💬 03:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Why? I left a general comment—not a !vote—that would also apply to the additional entries. -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Ok, I read your comment as a retarget !vote. Jay 💬 17:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Leopard skin

[edit source]

This disease is certainly not the primary target. Redirect to one of the following options (or some other that I haven't thought of): "Leopard skin" should point to Leopard skin (clothing in Ancient Egypt), Animal print, or Leopard#Characteristics. "Elephant skin" should point to Elephant#Skin or Elephantiasis. "Lizard skin" should point to Lizard#Anatomy, or possibly somewhere at Moulting to describe the shedding of skin.TNstingray (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget per nom with following specifications:
Elephant skin to Elephant#Skin
Lizard skin to Lizard#Anatomy
For Leopard skin, I tend to think retarget to Leopard skin (clothing in Ancient Egypt) is the way to go with potentially the addition of a hatnote to Animal print and Leopard#Characteristics but could also be convinced otherwise (or convinced to dabify) NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget elephant skin to elephant#Skin, retarget lizard skin to lizard#Anatomy, and disambiguate leopard skin. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Elephant skin can also refer to matgrounds. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What should we do with Leopard skin?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget Lizard skin and Elephant skin, with a hotnote to Matground, and disambiguate Leopard skin per above. मल्ल (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Based on the consensus, changing my vote from retarget to disambiguate for Leopard skin, as I didn't have a strong opinion between them. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Savage Man Savage Beast 2

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Savage Man Savage Beast 2

Symplectic form

[edit source]

Most backlinks to this seem to be referring to the 2-form on a symplectic manifold. Should this be retargeted or disambiguated? (cc Chatul per Talk:Symplectic form#Redirect or disambiguation?.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect seems fine to me. Anyone looking for symplectic form or symplectic vector space will be looking for the same information, to be found on this redirected page. Ebony Jackson (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    The above comment was moved here from below the relisting notice on the 1 March page by Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    Actually, I changed my mind. I think I agree with 1234qwer1234qwer4 that symplectic form is more often the 2-form on a symplectic manifold, so disambiguation might be better. Ebony Jackson (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I would recommend having this type of discussion at Symplectic vector space or Symplectic manifold (rather than here or the talk page for the redirect title), but anyway, either target seems fine as long as there's a hatnote pointing at the other one. –jacobolus (t) 02:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. All else being equal, I would probably change the redirect to symplectic manifold. But all else is not equal, and editors (and the automated tools that support them) should flag this particular link as needing disambiguqtion. This will have the added benefit of forcing an audit of all existing links to be sure they point to the correct target. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. There's no primary topic here, it could reasonably refer to a symplectic form on either a vector space or a manifold. Streded (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Super P.E.K.K.A.

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Renewability

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Renewability

MNC News

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#MNC News

00FFFF

[edit source]

Unless someone can demonstrate that hex is more affiliated with Aqua (color) and rgb is more affiliated with Cyan, these redirects should have the same target. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  • None of these redirects need to exist at all. Wikipedia article titles do not need to be a service for resolving RGB color triples to CSS color names. –jacobolus (t) 06:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget all redirects to Cyan since that is the longer article. In fact, it might even be worth merging the aqua and cyan articles at some point. Duckmather (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all. There are 50,331,648 such possible redirects of these forms, and they're still ambiguous. Triplets of numbers and bare hex values can refer to all sorts of things besides color. Even something like rgb(...) is ambiguous without a reference for what the possible ranges can be. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
    Not sure where 50,331,648 is from. There are 16,777,216 triplets of 8 bit numbers; 113,379,904 if we include mixed-case hex. pburka (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    It's 3 * 2^24, for the 3 types of each in the nomination. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Deacon Vorbis. TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 04:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • delete all per WP:COSTLY. I also the last redirect as having a malformed modifier. --Lenticel (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:PANDORA per Deacon Vorbis. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget the first one to Cyan (and I would also support a merger of Aqua (color) there. The WP:PANDORA argument is nonsense, we don't have 50,331,648 different color articles so there wouldn't or shouldn't be redirects for all of them. That's like saying the redirect 418 (number) should be deleted (even though we have content on that number) because 50331648 (number) is a possibility. -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    Colors don't have unique such representations as triplets. A human cannot distinguish between #00FFFF and #01FEFD. Most will be a close approximation to a color we do have an article on and could realistically be made into redirects. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    The article for Cyan defines it as #00FFFF. That's the redirect that should exist for the color (minus the # for technical reasons). Any other approximates can and should be deleted, but that's not what's being discussed here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    No, it merely lists that as one value in an infobox...a value which very much contradicts the same infobox describing it as a range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. "Cyan" doesn't have a strict definition; it's a word that has a range of similar colors associated with it. We should no more have A52A2A redirect to Brown, even though it's a "standard" value for it in certain schemes. Instead, someone can use WP's search feature to search for the string, and find a number of articles where such standard color values are listed. There isn't a single best target for these. Redirects should have clear targets and not get in the way of searches. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    Just as we don't list all possible hexes in the infobox, we don't have redirects for all possible hexes. 00FFFF is a standard definition of cyan, so that's the hex that's listed in the infobox and thus the redirect that should be kept. -- Tavix (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Central Estonia

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Central Estonia

Autopedophilia

[edit source]

Unmentioned; history dive was a little interesting. The longer "Anatomic autopedophilia" and the shorter "Autopedophilia" were created on the same day by the same user, who also edited the target article that same day. Despite this, Anatomic autopedophilia started out as a redirect to Autopedophilia (and required retargeting by bot to paraphilic infantilism). In addition, just like with Mollycoddle fetishism before, this was unmentioned when the redirects were created-- DESPITE there being a same-day edit from the same user. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll note that MassXFD declined to notify user:James Cantor (redirect creator) of this discussion, and upon investigation, it turns out that he got himself blocked for socking. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The article mentions autonepiophilia multiple times; nepiophilia redirects to pedophilia. Abesca (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
That's still not something explained in the article itself-- in order for someone who searched this to figure out why they got sent here, they would need to:
-Read the entire article, in order to
-Find Paraphilic infantilism#Historical terminology and definitions at the bottom of the article, where it's explained where the at-first-blush-unrelated term "Autonepiophilia" came from, as well as the link between it and the term "Nepiophilia"
-Decide to look up what "Nepiophilia" means, which will FINALLY lead them to Pedophilia#Etymology and definitions, and the revelation that it's a subtype of pedophilia
-THEN AND ONLY THEN will they have the "ohhh" moment of "oh okay now it makes sense"
On top of that, I also have two MORE issues-- the first is the "anatomic" thing, which even with the "autonepiophilia" connection still makes little to no sense; the second is the worry that this specific formulation runs into WP:NEO / WP:RFD#D8 issues. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
It's not so hard cause both have the same prefix and suffix to guess. The anatomic part seems to apply to desiring to be physically a baby, but that’s what I’m guessing since I didn’t search it yet Abesca (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another target has been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Renewables

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Renewables

Fastest man-made object

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of shipwrecks in Lake St. Clair

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

l + ratio

[edit source]

unmentioned in both targets, wiktionary, and twitter usage, but i guess mentioned at jidion, not that any of those would necessarily be good targets consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC) Template:Oldrfdlist

Link both to Glossary article, most fitting target, with a bit added in either the #R or #L section, under the ratio or L section about its usage. — Knightoftheswords 14:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
i don't think so, honestly. if a proper mention is added, i'm not entirely sure this would be a good place for it, as it's more of a sentence composed of slang than just slang consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Listed the previous RfD that eventually resulted in the retarget to the glossary. The L+Ratio section was removed as duplicate .. since Ratio is already listed, which is the first entry at #R. Keep or create anchor at Ratio and refine. Jay 💬 11:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 07:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Houston Soccer Team

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Côco

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Côco

Sarah (Suikoden)

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Sarah (Suikoden)

Picton Parish (Yancowinna County)

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Picton Parish (Yancowinna County)

Edgar, Yancowinna County

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Edgar, Yancowinna County

Body mass

[edit source]

Clear case of RETURNTORED; this concept is not specific to humans and most incoming links appear to not be human-focused. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  • I'm confused by the idea that an article should be created at this title. What would it look like? Let alone body mass, it's difficult to generalise the concept of a body between all organisms – body (biology) only became an article in 2021; perhaps it could have a few sentences on body mass? The state of the incoming links is interesting, given that there's one article on an organism's body mass, but an entire sidebar on {{Human body weight}}. But I suppose there's a lot more biology articles on animals than humans.
    Disambiguate, probably. Chuck in links to the current target, Horse body mass, and see also Body mass index. And a link to Mass; after all, its first sentence is "Mass is an intrinsic property of a body." If an article is justified, it should probably be at Body mass (biology) / Body weight (biology) or Animal body mass / Animal body weight anyway. Should the disambiguation page be titled Body mass or Body weight? It doesn't really matter. J947 ‡ edits 01:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    I could get behind DABifying. Whether there is indeed an article to be written is perhaps less clear than I initially assumed. Either way, most of the incoming links should probably just be removed as this should fall under everyday words that don't generally need to be linked. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I was thinkinh in Muscle mass> Abesca (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is too vague. "Body mass" in "Body mass index" doesn't mean body weight. There are a number of other problems surrounding this, not least of which is that the lead of Human body weight "Human body weight is a person's mass or weight" is just wrong scientifically, and similarly "...body weight is the measurement of mass..." is wrong too. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep at Human body weight with a hatnote - External search results for "body+mass" are overwhelmingly for Body mass index, however these results are misled by the partial title match. When searching "body+mass" -index results are overwhelmingly related to human body weight, indicating it's the primary topic (WP:PTOPIC) for the base title.
While Shhhnotsoloud is right in the abstract, in that scientifically-speaking weight is a measure of force not mass, in practice people discuss their weight in units of mass, and if someone asked you how much you weigh and you answered with a measure in Newtons they'd be baffled. They'd expect you to state your mass as read by a scale. Similarly, "body mass" in Body mass index actually does mean "body weight" in the sense it is used by Human body weight, which is why the article for BMI defines BMI as a value derived from the mass (weight) and height of a person, using weight and mass synonymously. It's also why there's a whole article for Mass versus weight which begins with In common usage, the mass of an object is often referred to as its weight.... Given this, it'd make sense for body weight and body mass to share a target.
Though "body" in isolation is ambiguous between body (biology) and physical body, in the whole expression "body mass" is much less ambiguous as in physics you wouldn't need to use that expression, you'd just use "mass"; if something has mass then it is a body, likewise if something is a body it has mass. This is why I don't think the broader, more fundamental meaning in physics has primacy. The full expression "body mass" suggests biology, not physics, which concurs with the search results.
The hatnote I'd suggest would be:
"Body mass" redirects here. For the mass of a physical body, see mass. For the measure derived from body mass and height, see body mass index.
If someone wanted horse body mass, they'd almost certainly include the word "horse" in their search, so I don't think that partial title match (WP:PTM) warrants mention. – Scyrme (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agree with Scyrme - Human body weight seems to be the primary topic for body mass and suggested hatnote would help navigation to other meanings. Asteramellus (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and add hatnote per Scyrme. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Shhhnotsoloud Body mass and body weigth especially human body weight don't have the same meaning Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Guitarjunkie22: What is the difference? If someone asked you for your body weight, how would your answer differ from if they asked for your body mass? – Scyrme (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate or delete/create new article. There are a few reasons that googling "body mass" gives mostly results about human body weight, and it's not that the topic is called just "body mass". If referring to a person's body mass or weight, something like "my body weight" or "your body weight" would be used since using "your human body weight" is uncommon; however, a standalone "body mass" is ambiguous in itself (since "its body mass" could refer to something else). Also, the results involved "lean body mass" and "muscle body mass", but usually not "body mass" by itself. But most crucially, googling has a strong bias towards humans; for example, searching "nose" gives mostly results about human noses, even though other animals have noses; searching for "height", which could literally be used for almost anything, gives mostly results about human height.
    Also, look at Template:What links here and Template:What links here. For body mass, most links refer to body masses of organisms–mostly animals–in general, but a few do refer to human body mass. It would be weird for an article like Woodland jumping mouse to indirectly link to human body weight through body mass, as that was not the intent. The reverse is true for body weight; the links that do not refer to human body weight include but are not limited to in Primate and in List of poisonous plants. Disambiguating will let editors know that they should link something more specific when linking to "Body mass" as to avoid linking to ambiguous terms. It is possible that an article that talks about body mass in organisms–including humans–is needed, which would help with the ambiguity problem in links. Keeping and hatnoting would not help resolve the ambiguity in links, as there are no reminders given when linking to redirects to articles and the proposed hatnote does not mention body masses of organisms.
    There's also confusion between mass and weight. In addition, there's body force, which may fit in a possible disambiguation page on body mass. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

U(1)

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#U(1)

Muntaber

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Muntaber

Acii

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Acii

Big Booty Judy

[edit source]

“Big Booty Judy” appears to be a song from Chris Brown’s first mixtape, “In The Zone (Rhythm & Streets)”. However, this specific song on the mixtape is not mentioned in the article nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. The mixtape in question also doesn’t have its own article.

This term also seems to have multiple uses besides the Chris Brown song, as there is apparently a wrestler also called “Big Booty Judy” from searches of the term, so I’m not sure where this could be retargeted to. ApexParagon (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: The song is mentioned at Kevin McCall#Production and writing credits and "Big Booty Judy" (Remix) is mentioned at Chris Brown discography#Guest appearances. A different (?) song with this name is mentioned at Shawnna discography#Solo singles. A character with this name is also mentioned at ATL (film). There's enough here to cobble together a dab page. Problem is, the wrestler is also mentioned at two pages—Mike Jackson (wrestler) and Evan Golden (wrestler). Neither of the '(wrestler)' pages is an appropriate entry on a Big Booty Judy dab page and we don't have an article on the wrestler him(?)self. Creating a dab page would effectively hide the passing mentions to the wrestler, although we could include {{canned search}} or similar links. The primary meaning is a slang term which has appeared in a number of songs and other places. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    Note that the Chris Brown and Kevin McCall articles refer to (essentially) the same song. If DABified, I would link only the Chris Brown discography. Still not sure a dab page is the right move. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. While there may be enough bits and pieces to scrounge together a dab page, Myceteae is right that it would hide mentions to the wrestler. Readers would be better off with the search results. मल्ल (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Accra International Airport (AIA)

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Accra International Airport (AIA)

Paaskula

[edit source]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Safechuck v. MJJ Productions

[edit source]

This nomination is on behalf of Bhdshoes2, whose original nomination was somewhat malformed. Part of their rationale is as follows: Template:Block quote Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

There was also this text at the redirect itself:
Template:Block quote
Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete The article was REDIRECTED three years ago because the case was still in it's early stages. No trial has happened and like the title says it's about the case between Safechuck vs MJJ Production. Nothing has happened in the last three years in this case to warrant a standalone article. TheWikiholic (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    It was redirectsd erroneously three years ago - I just didnt bother raising an objection so it got memory holed by superfans. The case is in the press now renewied because of the lawsuit booked for trial in November 2026 and the litigation between the estate and Jackson's daughter over the legal spend related to the lawsuit. If there is a reason to have a page about the DOCUMENTARY about this lawsuit (Leaving Neverland ) surely there is a reason to have a page on the actual case actively going to trial in 2026 Bhdshoes2 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete/retarget. Just because a case involves a celebrity does not warrant a standalone article, as notability is not inherited. Based on my research on this subject, the case appears to still be at an early stage and has not yet demonstrated notability on its own merits. At minimum, the redirect target should be changed from the current one to Leaving Neverland#Safechuck and Robson lawsuits. Never17 (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: The redirect is a result of a BLAR. It was contested by the nominator, then re-BLARed. This happened multiple times. Per WP:BLAR, I think AFD might be a better venue for this. Chess enjoyer (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Restore and send to AfD as per Chess Enjoyer. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't need a redirect. ~2026-15034-31 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOVFORK. Wiki doesn't have pages for millions of lawsuits, there is no reason to have one for this. The Safechuck's lawsuit is extensively covered on already existing pages. If not delete as a result of votes here send it to AfD PinkSlippers (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    Wiki doesn't have pages for millions of lawsuits, there is no reason to have one for this.
    This is a pandoran argument and needs to go back into the box. The wiki is certainly not starving for storage space, especially not for redirects. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    Those are reasons to delete an article, not a redirect, and this is currently a redirect. Do you mean that you want to keep the redirect? Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    No, I agree it should be up for deletion as you proposed PinkSlippers (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    I proposed no such thing. My nomination was on behalf of another editor, and they want it to be standalone article. I myself don't have a strong opinion on this at the moment, except that RFD may not be the right venue for this discussion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    I meant it should be sent to articles for deletion, you proposed that above to send it to AfD, I agree with that. Unless of course it gets deleted based on the vote here. Not sure if that is possible. PinkSlippers (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, I guess I misread you. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    re "The safechuck lawsuit is already covered extensively on already existing pages," tell me more about that. There is an aside on the Leaving Neverland documentary page but that documentary came out 7 years ago. The documentary and the lawsuit are two separate things. The lawsuit is going to trial now. The ruling came 4 years after the documentary. I also don't see that as a reason to redirect this page to coverage of a child accuser from 33 years ago. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    The plaintiffs first filed in court, years later made the film to support their ungoing effort to win their multi-million dollar lawsuit. Hence, there is a whole section for this lawsuit on the film's own page. The newly created page does nothing but cheerypicks certain elements of the legal process incl. using primary sources, thus it's WP:NPOVFORK and should be deleted. PinkSlippers (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete The material is already adequately covered in broader articles such as Leaving Neverland , rebuttal documentarys and the pages discussing post-2009 allegations involving Michael Jackson. Creating a separate page maken the information unnecessarily. I think sent to afd be best like Chess enjoyer expressed Mr Boar1 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete or send to AfD as per Chess enjoyer The article violates numerous policies WP:BALANCE WP:NOR WP:NPOVFORK also looks like it was hastily put together by AI Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Free access

[edit source]

Access is not copyright, which is what the target is about. Possibly retarget to Open access? 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete (or retarget to gratis versus libre) - To me, 'free access' means I could access a place without payment. Note that in English, free either means 'free as in freedom' (libre/liberty), or 'free as in no payment' (gratis). JuniperChill (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Open access. Free as in beer.--Srleffler (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

March 7

[edit source]

Shock and Delight (Bridgerton)

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Saint Vincent (island)

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Singature of Imam al-Mahdi

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Closed point

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Closed point

P.B. Slices

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#P.B. Slices

Israeli invasion

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Merely

[edit source]

Immediately recreated as a redirect following deletion. None of the entries on the page are called 'merely'. — An anonymous username, not my real name 16:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Does consensus from eight years ago (2018) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merely prevent {{R from adverb}}? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352, look at the entries on the page. They are all specific words unrelated to the adjective 'mere'. 'Merely' would never be used in relation to them. — An anonymous username, not my real name 18:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
{{Wiktionary redirect}} per 8BitBros User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 02:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Pokemon ThunderYellow

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Iran–Israel war

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

National Geographic TV channels

[edit source]

Utopes previously nominated these here at RFD on 31 March 2020, more than a fortnight after E789999 created these to redirect to the original American channel on the 14th. (Not sure what the linkages meant or were for!) Approximately 6 years later, the target decided at that RFD has linkages akin to MOS:CIRCULAR and WP:SELFRED. Per Mathguy2718's statement (not comment) at my earlier RfD nomination; "Weak delete National Geographic (Spanish TV channel) (but more strongly delete the non-nominated National Geographic (Spain TV channel).", I wanted to nominate only the latter, but after seeing its page history, hence leading me to this earlier RfD linkage, I'm rather re-nominating all the 4 again to gauge if anything has changed in the about 6 years since all this! Intrisit (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom and my previous statement, which also included in reference to National Geographic (Romanian TV channel):

    Note that there are similar redirects which cause some links on National Geographic Global Networks to indirectly self-link. I think WP:RETURNTORED also applies to all of the "National Geographic (nationality TV channel)" redirects and these redirects should also be deleted.

This also applies to National Geographic (MENA). Most of these are also inappropriate self-redirects. Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Well, it took me 2 hours and 30 minutes or 150 minutes to survey all the links to "National Geographic Global Networks" which has this exact title "National Geographic (nationality TV channel)" in the "WhatLinksHere" special page per my internet café time as at this edit, but I've finally done it! (the previous day) The links in total were numbered 447 with the title in focus here rendering 12 (excluding the American, Latin American, Canadian, British/Irish, Scandinavian, Asian/Southeast Asian, South Korean, Australia/New Zealand, Iran/Farsi, Dutch, French and Portuguese channels which all have articles as at this edit). So now, it's up to you to remove the circular and self-redirection titles I've nominated from the NGGN page, to avert or head off any possible accidental redirection back to this target title when clicked (desktop/laptop-wise) or tapped (smartphone/smart TV touch/tablet PC-wise)! One exception to this: I tagged the Nat Geo &YO title on 15 February, but did not attach to my "TimTims2022-created redirects (Part 1)" nomination that was closed by Pppery the day before (7 March), so I've now nominated it alone and fresh at the present-day (March 9) page more than a fortnight now! You can vote or comment over there if you wish/desire! The 7-day clock for this can now begin!!! Intrisit (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
My !vote applies to all of these redirects. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Walt Disney Japan

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Walt Disney Japan

Lewkenorian theory of Shakespeare authorship

[edit source]

Does not seem to be described anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

No. It started as an article [4] but it was all SPS/OR and the article was written by the originator, I think. It's ok to delete it, nothing was ever merged. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Crater/tank it. Apart from WP:OR, it's WP:Promo. Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
I think there are two different issues entangled here: redirect; and delete. Redirecting would amount to deletion. But I don't see the point of a redirect, because there is nothing in the Shakespeare authorship question about Lewkenor (or Lewknor?). If someone wants to salvage this article, perhaps there is enough, with sufficient reliable sources, to justify remaking it into something like "The Influence of Lewes Lewknor on William Shakespeare". If what results would still be judged too heavily original research, then, yes, delete. But I can't see any value in a redirect, which would be a redirect into a void for anyone interested in any kind of connection between Lewknor and Shakespeare. --Alan W (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Another thought. If the article is truly all SPS and OR, then it doesn't even deserve a redirect, which would preserve the title as if it were a topic worth considering on Wikipedia's terms. So just delete it, with the proper warning. If anyone is interested, they can preserve as much of it as needed for the kind of article I just mentioned. And there certainly are reliable sources that establish that Lewknor was an influence on Shakespeare. But "redirect"? I say no. --Alan W (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Eins, Zwei, Drei

[edit source]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Cinémathèque de la Ville de Luxembourg

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dark Oak

[edit source]

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

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

Palmerston North District

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Richie (Pokémon)

[edit source]

Neither Richie nor Ritchie mentioned at Pokémon (TV series), which means the "Ritchie" section is broken. I believe it is linked to Hiroshi as it looks like the Japanese name (and also why it is part of this nomination). There are mentions of the character in other languages, like in Japanese. However, in English, there seems to be no information about the character. Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Naughty pictures

[edit source]

Contrary to the edit summary of this redirect's creation, I would not call it "valid and proper". — An anonymous username, not my real name 04:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep? It looks like the nominator wants this deleted, but I'm not seeing a deletion rationale. This seems like a plausible search term and it gets a decent number of page views. Maybe it should be retargeted to something like erotic art or erotic photography, since visual media is not the only form that pornography comes in. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Chess enjoyer, that's the problem. It's an extremely vague term. There's no single article this can be said to clearly refer to. Could even mean pictures used for a practical joke (i.e. "naughty" in a non-sexual sense). Page views are not necessarily a measure of utility. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Play Time

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Play Time

Amiga Games

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Amiga Games

VVIP

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#VVIP

Multiple identity

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Multiple identity

Discussion

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Discussion

Therianthrope

[edit source]

Retarget to therian, therianthropy, or therian subculture? Abesca (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete Theranthropy and Therianimism as implausible (to my knowledge), Contherianthropy and Contherianthrope as unmentioned, and retarget the rest (Therianthropic & Therianthrope) to Therianthropy. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 02:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oh I just noticed Therianism. Maybe should I bundle, boldly retargeting or does it deserve a separate discussion? Abesca (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Mostly agree with organhaver. "Theranthropy" seems to be sort of plausible looking at a web search, but "therianimism" gives essentially no results. Cladotherianthrope should probably be deleted for the same reason as the contherianthropy redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
These might retarget better to Otherkin. The Some of them are documented in Lupa's Field Guide to Otherkin or in Scribner's Otherkin Timeline. Cladotherianthropy came into use substantially earlier than might be imagined from Scribner's reference to Pantairin's essay, as the essay itself pushes the history of the term back to at least September 2003, citing Mokele as the credited coiner on the Awareness Forums. I believe the Mokele post may still be out there, since it sounds similar to something I have come across. Note that Cladotheria has a distinct scientific use. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Therianthropic is perhaps worth separate attention, as it's not a term exclusive to the therian/otherkin community, but is also used (Merriam-Webster) in "serious" publications as a term to describe the Egyptian gods and similar historical figures. This usage is currently covered on Wikipedia under Zoomorphism, which is perhaps less than ideal, but that's a topic for another discussion. Tevildo (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Therianimism I've never heard of before, so probably not notable; I'm unsure whether cladotherianthrope or contherianthrope are notable but if they are I would personally redirect them to therian subculture, theranthropy appears to be a mispelling, therianthropic I'm unsure about. kitokat (xe/it/any) (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Shelving

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#User:Shelving

Source code respository

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pagalavan

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nintendo Gameube

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Nintendo Gameube

QkFTRTY0

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

March 6

[edit source]

Merely (definition)

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete, redirect was deleted under g8 of the speedy deletion criteria and no longer exists (non-admin closure) caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 15:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Queer woman

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Second gulf war

[edit source]

These should have the same target. My preference is for the disambiguation page, as while the Iraq War is the conflict most commonly referred to as the second there are enough sources using the term for the conflict beginning in 1991 that I don't think there is a primary topic. It's worth noting that Second Gulf War was a separate disambiguation page from 2003 until it was merged to Gulf War (disambiguation) following a discussion in 2013. That remained the status quo until an IP editor boldly retargetted it in Novmeber 20142024. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC) corrected typo 2014→2024. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Strong support all having the same target, of course. I made the second one and I think it's logical for that to refer to GWB's Iraq War, which would be a vote to retarget the others. But not a strong vote, I'm not sure this is best. I do definitely think having the three not be identical is very, very dumb, though. Great catch, @Thryduulf: Red Slash 22:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note I've added the redirects starting with "2nd" to this nomination (I didn't think to look for them before). The "other two" to which Red Slash refers are "Second gulf war" and "Second Persian Gulf War". Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Target all to Gulf War (disambiguation) Anecdotally, it seems the term isn't as widely used for the Iraq War as it used to be. Even if there's a case that Iraq War is primary, it's confusing. Navigationally, I think it's better to land someone only one click away on the DAB page, especially considering the long-term. —BrechtBro (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    It's still in common use in UK. Here is an example from The Guardian of 8 March 2026, which uses it as a subheading. Narky Blert (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Gulf War (disambiguation) (and check and correct any incoming links). Narky Blert (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Target all to the disambiguation page. The numbering is too ambiguous in general parlance for the redirect to go anywhere else. It certainly should never redirect to the popular, but wrong, article about the Iraq War. Str1977 (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Target all to Gulf War (disambiguation) GCarty (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: can you show me these sources where it's used for other conflicts? When I Google it in quotes I see exclusively content about the Iraq War. — An anonymous username, not my real name 15:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    @An anonymous username, not my real name Read Gulf War#Names. All of [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9], [10] (examples found in less than 2 minutes searching) use the term to refer to the 1991 conflict. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    Six hits versus how many for the Iraq War? — An anonymous username, not my real name 16:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    Six examples, not six total. However the number of hits is not relevant. What matters is whether the conflict that began in 2003 is the primary topic for the search term "Second (Persian) Gulf War". The results show that there is not - while the Iraq War is probably the single most common thing referred to, it is not much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined. The other way that a topic can be primary is by long-term significance, but it is unarguable that the 2003 does not have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note I've just found another 5 redirects (those ending in "2", "Two" and "II") which I've added to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whatever the final target ends up being, I think one of these should be chosen as the primary redirect and the rest tagged as {{avoided double redirect}} for it, so in future these continue to all share the same target. – Scyrme (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    Agreed. I'd pick Second Gulf War, but that's personal preference and it doesn't really matter which. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Gulf war II, which is currently not part of this nomination, redirects to Iraq War. Interesting that Second Gulf War (disambiguation) redirects to Gulf War (disambiguation). Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Gah, I thought I'd found them all yesterday. Anyway I've added Gulf war II to the nomination as it should have the same target as all the others. As for the disambiguation, it's not surprising at all that WP:DABCOMBINE has been applied here given that "Second Gulf War" is a complete subset of "Gulf War". Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The Doohickey

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Authorship attribution

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#Authorship attribution

Sexidemic: A Cultural History of Sex in America

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sexidemic

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Theta angle

[edit source]

Both redirects need the same target. There is no mention of theta at Angle. Though an angle θ is mentioned in Theta vacuum, most people (me included) are not looking for this. I was looking for the history of how θ became a common symbol for an angle, which neither target discusses. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The original target was Theta vacuum (actually, that page was originally titled "Theta angle", and then moved to "Theta vacuum"), but after a brief RFD in 2022 by two random Wikipedians without input from any experts in physics, it was retargeted to angle on the grounds that the symbol Template:Tmath is commonly used for angles in many contexts. I think that was poor reasoning and the retarget was harmful to readers. Judging from a search of academic literature, "theta angle" is a physics jargon phrase with thousands of papers using it with a commonly understood meaning, but is rarely used as a phrase in other contexts. This should be retargeted back to Theta vacuum. The appropriate place to add information about the history of the use of the symbol Template:Tmath to represent angles is in Theta § Mathematics and science or somewhere in Angle; feel free to research that topic and expand our coverage. –jacobolus (t) 16:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Target both to Theta vacuum with hatnote if needed (see below) or disambiguate. Searching externally "Theta+angle" provides a mix of results relating to geometry/topology and physics, though by my estimation leaning more so towards the latter. I was initially sceptical, but it does seem it's more often used in a physics context than a mathematical one. I think this is a case of small differences (WP:SMALLDIFF), where theta angle pertains to physics, while angle theta pertains to mathematics. As an aside, I was surprised angle theta doesn't already exist; it's a common expression. I would suggest creating it and redirecting to Angle, assuming others here agree that the order of the words makes a big difference to the most pertinent topic. – Scyrme (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't think there's any value in having angle theta as a page/redirect title, so please don't create one. There are many angles which are labeled with the symbol Template:Tmath (theta), but the phrase "angle theta" is not commonly used as a unit. There are likewise many angles labeled with Template:Tmath or Template:Tmath (phi), Template:Tmath (psi), Template:Tmath (alpha), Template:Tmath, Template:Tmath, Template:Tmath, Template:Tmath, etc., but it would be ridiculous to try to make redirects out of every such title (angle alpha, angle C, etc.). –jacobolus (t) 20:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
I know it's not a unit. It's a conventional name for a variable. Given how especially frequently it's used across levels of education I don't agree that's it's no different from any arbitrary symbol. There also would be value in it, as it's plausible a confused student might look it up when they're not yet familiar with the nomenclature and conventions of mathematics. Searching online gives plenty of results aimed exactly at students explicitly referring to "angle theta" (how to "find" it, what it means, etc.).
I think a stronger argument against my own suggestion is that Angle actually doesn't mention "theta" at all, surprisingly (which is also all the more reason for theta angle to not redirect there as well), it only uses the Greek letter, so wouldn't be super helpful to a hypothetical confused student looking this up on Wikipedia. Search around I wasn't able to find a particularly suitable target, so I now agree that it shouldn't be made. – Scyrme (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
This is not the purpose of redirects. We also don't have redirects from the titles t time (time t is something specific, redirected based on the data type time_t), i index or index i, n number or number n, r radius or radius r, etc. Instead, people can find those uses under t (disambiguation), n (disambiguation), i (disambiguation), r (disambiguation), or more generically at Variable (mathematics) § Conventional variable names. –jacobolus (t) 00:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
The purpose of redirects is to assist readers in finding what they're looking for (if it exists and belongs on Wikipedia to begin with). I don't agree that these are comparable, but it does't matter; I already retracted the suggestion. – Scyrme (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget both to Theta#Mathematics and science, where it's usage as angle variable is noted. Failing that, second best option is delete per WP:XY (ie. do you want to know about theta, or about angles?) BugGhost 🦗👻 22:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
The name "theta angle" is a specific jargon term in physics. You can find thousands of papers using this as a jargon term (with such titles as "Instantons, renormalons and the theta angle in integrable sigma models", "Discrete theta angles, symmetries and anomalies", "A Solution to the Strong CP Problem Transforming the Theta Angle to the KM Cp-Violating Phase", "Theta angle versus CP violation in the leptonic sector", "Theta angle in holographic QCD", or "On unconstrained SU(2) gluodynamics with theta angle"), and it's highly plausible that someone learning about physics and encountering this term would look it up at Wikipedia; it's also plausible that authors of physics related Wikipedia articles would use a wikilink to theta angle to point interested readers at background information about it. Deletion would be harmful; the situation is entirely unrelated to WP:XY. The current situation is an inappropriate target that was improperly switched by people who didn't understand the context and made a bad decision. Switching to Theta#Mathematics and science would replace one bad decision by a different approximately equally bad one. –jacobolus (t) 00:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
In it's current state Theta vacuum does not mention "theta angles", it mentions "theta vacuums" and "vaccuum angles". It refers to angles using θ, but so do hundreds of other articles. If the article were to define theta angle then it would be a good target. At the moment though, I think Theta#Mathematics and science is a better tatget, as it explains the usage of theta as an angle in several different topics, which is a far more plausible target than a uncommon term for a very niche topic. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't see how deletion is preferable to redirecting to an article that discusses the topic and was located at Theta angle until 2022. We could just add a {{redirect}} hatnote to Theta vacuum if we agree it's plausible that at least some readers would expect something about other scientific or mathematical nomenclature.
Maybe the following hatnote:
"Theta angle" redirects here. For notation representing angles in geometry, see Angle § Notation and measurement. For other uses in science and mathematics, see Theta § Mathematics and science.
That seems like it'd work fine, and cover everything some might plausibly be looking for. – Scyrme (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Outline of Java

[edit source]

This title could be mistaken as an outline of the island of Java, rather than the programming language, and is likely to cause confusion. Uffda608 (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment. One one hand there is no WP:OUTLINE for the island and I'm not sure how likely it is for anyone to make an "outline of" for a geographical location, but on the other hand Java is the primary topic (WP:PTOPIC) for "Java". – Scyrme (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
We do have Category:Outlines of geography and places so a geographical place outline is not as unlikely as I might have thought. The redirect has scant pageviews since its creation and no incoming links. I'm leaning 'delete' but an alternative would be to 'keep' with a hatnote to Java and possibly Java (disambiguation). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Interesting. Looks like it's mostly cities/metropolitan areas, countries, and territories right now, but someone making one for a large island doesn't seem so implausible now.
Thinking about it more, I'm actually now leaning keep. There is no outline of the island, and redirecting to the island's article isn't appropriate as it's a prose article (WP:NOTOUTLINE). The primary topic problem could be dealt with using a hatnote so if anyone was looking for information about Java they could still find it, even if not in outline format. I only lean because arguably it might discourage someone from creating an outline if it already redirects somewhere else, especially if there end up being incoming links to change. – Scyrme (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep per discussion above. If an outline is ever written about the country, it should live at the base name or this should be retreated there. If there is concern for ambiguity, a hatnote can be added to the outline pointing to Java and/or the dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Nationalized industry

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Corporate nationalism

[edit source]

The target doesn't talk about Nation or Nationalism. There is a section on Fascist corporatism, but this will be an extreme, and not what the reader would expect from the redirect topic. There is a section on examples by country, but at best this could be a target for a redirect titled "Corporatism by country".

There is no content about corporates or corporatism at Nationalism. Among similar titles, there is Corporate statism which may be close, but Nation is not State. There is Business nationalism but this is US-centric. Other possible targets are Economic nationalism, Nationalization and State ownership.

If there is no suitable target, Delete. Note that this used to be article that had a no-consensus outcome in a 2009 AfD, but was subsequently trimmed and finally BLAR'd in 2024. Jay 💬 14:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Corporatocracy sounds better ~2026-14405-64 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure this was a good BLAR, done by a user with only 3 prior edits and only 19 total with the comment "Contains no relevant information. Lacking citations. The little text that existed had nothing to do with corporatism." Nevertheless, the pre-BLAR article accurately describes that the term has at times been used to mean several different things, which is not an appropriate quality for an article. I've found a source that defines it synonymously with Corporate statism, but the article on that discusses (sans citation) how it is different than corporate nationalism. I also see a source that defines it as synonymous with corporatism, but means something more like Corporate capitalism or toward corporatocracy. Other sources use it to discuss corporations acting in the national interest. So, disambiguate or delete. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

US-Iraq war

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Iraqi War

[edit source]

While Iraq War is the primary topic for "Iraq War", I'm not convinced the same is true for "Iraqi War". External search results for "Iraqi+War" and "the+Iraqi+War" yield mixed results including results for the Anglo-Iraqi War, Gulf War, War in Iraq (2013–2017), and Iraqi Revolt, in addition to the Iraq War. A primary topic suggests the target is more likely than all the other topics combined (WP:PTOPIC), but with these results I don't think that's the case. I propose a retarget to Iraq War (disambiguation) where several of the entries include "Iraqi" in the title, and which includes all the wars returned by external search results. – Scyrme (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Rthro

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

ImageBind

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Post-industrial (music genre)

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#Post-industrial (music genre)

Commie Manifesto

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

St. Lawrence Valley

[edit source]

I feel like a better target would be Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Lowlands, which describes the broader biogeographical region of the St. Lawrence Valley, not just the river itself. As an Ontarioan, I feel like saying "St. Lawrence valley" would be understood to mean the lowlands surrounding the river, not the river itself—thus, a slightly stricter definition that the St. Lawrence lowlands, but looser than just the geography of the river. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current target points out [a]ccording to the United States Geological Survey, the St. Lawrence Valley is a physiographic province of the larger Appalachian division, containing the Champlain section. However, in Canada, where most of the valley is, it is instead considered part of a distinct St. Lawrence Lowlands physiographic division, and not part of the Appalachian division. Add a link to Appalachian Highlands § St. Lawrence province (Champlain section) and I think we're sweet. It's a disambiguation happily embedded in the article.
    I'm not strongly opposed to retargetting like the nom suggests (with an appropriate hatnote or link otherwise to Appalachian Highlands), but I think the current target does a better job of explanation and directing readers who search this very popular term, if perhaps at the expense of not being quickly directed to the article they're probably looking for. J947 ‡ edits 00:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Katherine E. White (Michigan)

[edit source]

Subject is not sufficiently notable and is only referenced in passing in the target article. 42-BRT (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  • I have removed the self-redirect from the target. Keep, useful to differentiate from all the other Katherine Whites. Jay 💬 07:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 07:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Pokémon Battrio

[edit source]

This is just one of many pairs of Pokemon/Pokémon redirects that need their targets matched. I think I prefer List of Pokémon video games#Puck series as there is more information there. For more information, many redirects that have different targets based on "é" are shown below:

Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I think if we're going to consider the list of redirects we'll quickly enter a wp:trainwreck situation. Mathguy2718 - just a reminder that wp:bold applies to redirects too, so if you're willing feel free to boldly retarget the more obvious ones (like Pokémon: Diamond & Pearl to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, and other similar ones) rather than taking them all to RFD. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Low boys

[edit source]

On the one hand, these are unmentioned at the Hi-hat article. On the other, "Low boys" or "low socks" are a known ancestor of the hi-hats (what do you think is "high" about the hi-hats? They're higher than low boys, is what), to the point where it's mentioned in the title of one of the references on the Hi-hat article-- and they're mentioned in other articles, such as Drum kit#Early development and Double drumming (the latter is where a link reading "Low-boys" is piped to the Hi-hat article; said article actually describes the low boys better than the actual hi-hat article).
On the THIRD hand, Lowboy can't be scooped into the RfD because it's too busy being an article for a piece of furniture. Said furniture has an equal claim to the name, I suppose, if not a greater claim given you still find lowboy dressing tables in use wearas the lowboy cymbals have vanished near completely in favor of the hi-hats (which have the exact same function except you can hit them with your drumsticks).

on the FOURTH hand (what are we, one of Ben 10's alien morphs?), the Low sock redirect pointed to a THIRD place unrelated to furniture OR cymbals, because apparently someone thought it was a synonym for 'low cut sock'. So idk lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Seems like the current lowboy is the most prominent item here, and the rest should be added to the hatnote at the top of that page along with Lowboy (trailer). Add mention of the term to hi-hat or make Drum kit#Early development the target listed in the hatnote. Redirect both "low sock" and "low-sock" to Drum kit#Early development since it's already mentioned there, or to hi-hat if mention is added there. A hatnote at either target pointing to Sock#Low cut socks should resolve that concern. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Low boy is a disambiguation page, that should probably be the target mentioned in hatnotes. To complicate matters further, W. A. Case & Son Manufacturing Co. mentions it being "the first company to produce a one-piece, "low boy" toilet", but that's the only mention of such I can find here. On google from the UK, the furniture is the clear primary topic for Template:Kbd as one word, but it is pretty much equally prominent with the drum kit component (or more commonly actually stands for them) when searching Template:Kbd/Template:Kbd (Google treats them as identical). Turning on a VPN set to the US changes things considerably - the one word form has no primary topic at all with trailers, cymbals and various other things competing. The two-word form is a roughly equal split between trailers and cymbals with furniture a close third. As such I'm leaning towards targetting everything to the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I think that for lowboys, the only meaning that is (moderately) widespread is the current redirect target, so it makes sense to keep them as WP:PRIMARYTARGET with a hatnote in Lowboy pointing to Low boy, as all other meanings appear to be obscure. I have not heard before about low-socks, thus no position on these. --Викидим (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Canada women's national lacrosse team

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gay erotica

[edit source]

Not sure what to do with this one. Pornography and erotica are related but not synonymous. Category:LGBTQ erotica and the subcategory Category:Gay male erotica don't list a suitable, synonymous broad coverage target. The word "gay" appears only twice in Erotica, once in a link to the current target. Delete per WP:RETURNTORED? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Homoeroticism is a better target. Abesca (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
I disagree. Homoeroticism is sexual attraction between members of the same sex whereas erotica refers to literature or other art forms of a sexual nature. Homoeroticism exists and is experienced in real life, although it is of course also a subject of art. Erotica, gay or otherwise, is explicitly an art form. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Although Homoeroticism gives that definition, it clearly depicts arts as if the concept of homoerotica is more about aesthetics rather than erotic attraction. Abesca (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to erotica Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to erotica. Its conventional definition (cf. Template:Britannica URL) includes neither the number nor sex of people whose amorous activities or thoughts are being depicted, so this generic article is a good fit until a specialized article is written. --Викидим (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
That may be true of the generic term but when someone specified gay erotica they surely are expecting the narrower subtopic to be described, well, specifically. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Anyone navigating to erotica to learn about erotica will be disappointed as all they can learn about specifically gay erotica there is that it exists as a subgenre. —BrechtBro (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Vernon Martin

[edit source]

Although this redirect was created from a page move, it is likely to be confused with Vernon Martin (jazz bassist). Perhaps it should be made into a disambiguation page that also includes Martin Vernon and Vernon Martinus? Uffda608 (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate is the right answer. BD2412 T 21:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • It depends.
    • If the football player's article should truly be at "Vern Martin" (I had trouble getting a good answer due to inability to access most of the sources), then the bassist should be moved to the base title of "Vernon Martin" and hatnotes would suffice.
    • If on the other hand, the football player should be at "Vernon Martin"
      • and one is primary among the two, then that article should be moved to the base title, and hatnotes will suffice.
      • and neither is primary, then there should be a dab page at the base title consisting of exactly those two entries and nothing else. Neither of the other articles mentioned in the nomination are the same name and shouldn't be listed in this case.
  • –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with Deacon Vorbis's suggested approach. It's not readily apparent to me that there is a primary topic. A Google search turns up several unrelated, probably non-notable Vernon Martins, including a recent news story[11] (that probably gets an artificial boost as he is in the news now) and two deceased individuals.[12][13] A quick scan of the first page of JSTOR results was no help.[14] Neither page has a significant pageviews advantage.[15] (Note that the page move occurred Feb 21, 2026[16] so past pageviews for "Vernon Martin" are for the article that now lives at "Vern Martin"). Absent evidence of a primary topic, a dab page would seem to make sense. On the other hand, Vern Martin lived at the base name until very recently, apparently without controversy. Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Vernon_Martin&namespace=0&limit=100, there are 80 links to Vernon Martin in article space but when I spot checked several of these, I could not actually locate the link in most of the articles listed. Not sure if this is user error or if the "What Links Her" is out of date. The links I could confirm clearly refer to Vern Martin the football player. Changing the target could be quite disruptive and would require review and possible updating of the links in articles. That would seem to argue for maintaining the status quo. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

In the Eurovision Song Contest 2025

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Slavery in Slovakia

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nicole Cathcart

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

2026 Iran-US war

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Third Gulf War

[edit source]

Template:ECR

It appears sources are now sporadically using this term to describe the current Iran war ([17], [18], [19]), and it seems reasonable to accordingly retarget this redirect there. I could see how this might look like recentism, but it's unclear what else would be the "Third Gulf War" if not this. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep, at least for now. Based on the target, there are at lefourtast four conflicts that could be regarded as the third gulf war. At present I'm not seeing a primary topic for the search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf, if you're referring to the DAB page, most of the entries are from before the original Gulf War. There's one that took place in the immediate aftermath of the First Gulf War, but it seems dubious that this internal Iraqi conflict was ever described as a "Gulf War" (no source is provided for any of the entries). In any case, "Second Gulf War" is overwhelming understood to refer to the war that began with the 2003 US invasion, and this recent conflict is the only one listed that has occurred after the "Second Gulf War". — An anonymous username, not my real name 14:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    That assumes that everyone searching for this term is also familiar with what people mean by a different term, and I don't think we can be sure of that, especially as Second gulf war also targets the dab page (Second Gulf War targets Iraq War though, so see separate nomination shortly). Regardless though of whether the "Second" has a primary topic, it's clear from search results that the "Third" does not (yet). Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    Looking at sources from between the invasion of Iraq and this recent war, I see three specifically using this term to describe a hypothetical war with Iran (one during the buildup to the current conflict, one in the context of the Twelve-Day War (describing a hypothetical escalation), one from several years earlier). The National Interest has been using this tag on articles on similar scenarios for years. It seems rather uncanny that they all essentially describe this conflict before it even happened — and of course, there are a great many more using this descriptor now. As a sidenote, I cannot imagine that the Iraq War wouldn't be the primary topic for the Second Gulf War, but I suppose we'll see. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    Making it explicit that I believe Gulf War III and Third Persian Gulf War should be retargetted to the disambiguation page. That three different redirects for variants of the same term have been created with three different targets strengthens the case for there being no primary topic imo. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like fairly niche use so far to me, considering the breadth of coverage of the conflict. The Iran-Iraq war is sometimes referred to as the first Gulf War, so there would need to be much more widespread use to make the current war primary topic. Need for DAB is clear. —BrechtBro (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reason as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 6#Second gulf war. A bunch of Google Scholar results that refer to the Iraq War by this term. There might be some influence from other languages, as German calls the 1990/91 Gulf War the second one. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep with no prejudice to retarget in, say, a few weeks' time especially if more countries get involved. Passengerpigeon (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note I've just added Gulf War III to this nomination as it should have the same target as Third Gulf War, regardless of what that target is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Third Persian Gulf War redirects to Iraq War. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    • I've added that redirect to this discussion as it should have the same target as the other two. We should pick one as primary and mark the other two as {{R avoided double redirect}} of it to keep them in sync in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note comments above saying "Keep" refer to the first nominated redirect only. @Passengerpigeon, 1234qwer1234qwer4, BrechtBro, and An anonymous username, not my real name: Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    Target all to Gulf War (disambiguation) —BrechtBro (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep because the name is relevant. SavagePanda845 (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Coexsekans

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

March 5

[edit source]

Yorkshire county cricket teams

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Yorkshire county cricket teams

Nottinghamshire county cricket teams

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Nottinghamshire county cricket teams

Lancashire county cricket teams

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Lancashire county cricket teams

Achievements of Ash Ketchum (Pokemon)

[edit source]

Delete, term not mentioned in target article and the article doesn't have a section which specifically discusses his achievements in sufficient detail. Previously an article which was turned into a redirect in 2020 [20]. I don't think it's a useful search term and the parentheses are not needed as there is not an article or redirect at Achievements of Ash Ketchum Suonii180 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page content?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Potentially re-refine to Ash Ketchum#Appearances, which does list SOME of his achievements; that said, I can totally see an arguement re: implausibility.
History dive indicates pre-redirect content was hilariously incomplete, as by the time the article was BLAR'd it'd only managed to amass a short list of the eight Kanto gym badges and which episode Ash obtained them in; nowhere near comprehensive enough coverage to warrant keeping. The section it was redirected to, however, lasted until 2023 when it was removed as part of a flurry of trimming by user:Media Mender. Said section was more complete than the article version, but it was... nnnnnnot much better in other regards. Maybe we don't bring it back. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Booji (Vorlon god)

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Megawatt (band)

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#Megawatt (band)

Minnesota Target

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nintendo Switch (Arcade Archives)

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#Nintendo Switch (Arcade Archives)

Donald J

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Iran conflict (2020-present)

[edit source]

Retarget to List of wars involving Iran § Islamic Republic of Iran (since 1979), because involves more than just the U.S. Abesca (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Capitols of ancient Rome

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Capitols of ancient Rome

Iranian plate

[edit source]

There is no mention of this tectonic plate in the article, and it would need its own article if there is consensus that it exists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean keep or subtarget to Iranian plateau#Geology, unless we have a target that better explains the presumably complex geologic situation here where multiple major plates are colliding. I can't find a definitive source at a look that really defines the purported plate (also found a mention of a Turkish-Iranian plate) so perhaps geological consensus is unclear, but being pointed to the plateau puts readers in the right direction and includes the geology section which rather briefly touches upon the topic. CMD (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    Keep and refine per CMD. Abesca (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Men's T20 World Cup Qualifier

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Men's T20 World Cup Qualifier

Chone Town

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Chone Town

The Poles

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Rejected energy

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Donald Jr.

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

March 4

[edit source]

Experimentalist

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Diquark condensate

[edit source]

Does not seem to be described anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  • retarget to Bose–Einstein condensate, though a retargeting to diquark also makes sense. the current redirect was created in the big '06 around the same time as the colour superconductivity article. diquarks are mentioned in revisions of that time as a possible occurrence of said superconductivity in nature, e.g. as a "a bose–einstein condensate of spatially-bound diquarks" (note: the bec article didn't exist at the time), and the academic literature describes diquark condensation relative to bec. there is always the possibility of returning to red, but i feel like it may be better as a section on the bec article. any particle physicists in chat let me know if this makes sense or not caesar (it/he) (talky place) (united bestowals) 11:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Reftalk

Pope elect

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Oppression and depression

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Oppression and depression

Military industrial oligarchy

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#Military industrial oligarchy

Virumandikum Sivanandikum

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Canada at the 2028 Summer Olympics

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Child recruitment

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of religious studies scholars

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#List of religious studies scholars

The Liverpool Post

[edit source]

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

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

10.18792

[edit source]

DOI prefix targeted to an EL section with multiple journals listed and which it is unclear to the reader which journal this targets. The section does not contain a single sentence about the subject in question. Not helpful (would be helpful if we had an article on the subject, which is probably notable, but we do not) PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Match outcome with the British Association for the Study of Religions RFD, discussed below. It redirects there because British Association for the Study of Religions redirects there. This is clearly explained on the redirect page, and is used by WP:JCW (see WP:JCW/DOI/10.17250#10.18792, WP:JCW/Publisher32#British Association for the Study of Religions). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I probably should have bundled it. My bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

British Association for the Study of Religions

[edit source]

Useless redirect. Not a word of content in this article is about them, only a single external link, which is not helpful to redirect towards as the article gives you no content about them; also, one of many listed (surprisingly, none of the others are redirected). I think this may also be notable [21], in which case, WP:RETURNTORED PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Untitled eighth Mission: Impossible film

[edit source]

per WP:UFILM. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Extremely strong keep. This redirect got over 1,500 views in the 30 days before this nomination, with only one day this year receiving fewer than 21 views (and that got 19), 7 days this year (including 28 February and 1 March) had more than 100 views in a day. I'm not sure how much less in accordance with what UFILM says a redirect can be and still get nominated here with that rationale? Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading, the film has a title (and has had one for a while). -- Tavix (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Per the severe decline to 3 pageviews on March 8. Mysticair667537 (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, pageviews have declined a lot in the 2 weeks since this was nominated. It now receives an average of only 1-4 views per day. Seems to have outlived its usefulness. ApexParagon (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Starlight (character)

[edit source]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to Starlight (disambiguation)#Fictional characters

K. B. Hedgewar redirects

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 11#K. B. Hedgewar redirects

Photolab

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#Photolab

United States War against Iran

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Half-circle constant

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete RfD is not bound by an AfD of a different title entirely. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:67

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Phoenix (2019 film)

[edit source]

Ambiguous and confusing redirect. Could just as easily refer to Dark Phoenix (film) also from 2019 Mysticair667537 (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to be a wrong term for a wide variety of things, and possibly a correct term for something we don't have content on. Seeing a redlink would hopefully tell then that and result in the reader using more specific terms to look for whatever they are looking for. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Commie blocks

[edit source]

There are several kinds of concrete apartment building that might be referred to as "commie blocks" including (f.x. Brezhnevka). Redirecting only to Khrushchevka rather than discussing Urban planning in Communist countries would mislead readers. Uffda608 (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Urban planning in Communist countries as proposed - more general target for a term that doesn’t only refer to one type of Soviet panel building. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Note: Commie block was discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 21#Commie block. The result was retarget from Urban planning in communist countries to Khrushchevka. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Urban planning in Communist countries per nom. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Communist block points to Eastern Bloc. BD2412 T 13:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Bundle Commie block (and perhaps Commieblock too). If the earlier RfD is to be reversed (Disclaimer: I was the closer.), then we need to formally notify it. It was controversial as 3 attempts were made by a user after the close, to override the RfD outcome. Jay 💬 16:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to bundle Commie block and Commieblock
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Given this range of articles containing information about the sorts of large apartment blocks in eastern bloc countries which tend to be colloquially referred to as 'commie blocks', I think the best bet would be to just present the reader with a disambiguation page to the specific articles about large-scale housing developments in the eastern bloc, so they can find the information about the particular commie block they're looking for. Of course, there would be the page name issue (as 'Commie block' is arguably a bit of a perjorative), so maybe just call the disambiguation page Soviet large-panel-system buildings or something like that. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Oldrfdlist

  • I'm with HOTmess in the idea that disambiguation is likely warranted; that said, I wouldn't put the dab page at Soviet large-panel-system buildings, I'd just put it at Commie block-- specifically so that a link to Communist block, the proposed alternate target from that old RfD, could be placed as part of the DAB (which would in turn prevent potential WP:SURPRISE from those who searched Commie block and expected discussion on the Eastern Bloc rather than discussion on Soviet architecture.)

𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  • dabify per HotMess --Lenticel (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Hotmess; I find it highly implausible that a layperson searching for a type of building wants to primarily and solely read about how those buildings (and many other unrelated ones) were built. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 15:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Stage 13 (company)

[edit source]

Another TimTims2022-created redirect which leads nowhere! It's not even mentioned at the target! Delete Intrisit (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Al-Qaida military training camp

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Al-Qaida military training camp

Abdallah Husseini

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 11#Abdallah Husseini

Lists of Pokemon

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Incorrectly ranged List of Pokémon redirects

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hossein Borujerdi

[edit source]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Puzzle (video game)

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 11#Puzzle (video game)

WikiIndex

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

March 3

[edit source]

Template:IIHF World Ranking/testcases

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

GameCibe

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13#GameCibe

Template:IIHF World Ranking/sandbox2

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:IIHF World Ranking/sandbox

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:IIHF World Ranking/doc

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:IIHF World Ranking/data

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hindu theology

[edit source]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: article created

Boston's

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Servangio

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pokemon master

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Pokemon master

Spongebob's Sea Monster Smoosh

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog film

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Tambucho

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hello! How are you doing today

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Serb and Serbian diaspora

[edit source]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget some to Serb_diaspora#Demographics, Delete others

Korean Japananese

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Speedy close

[edit source]

Template:Oldrfdlist

This should definitely be retargeted though I'm not quite sure where. It seems a safe assumption that anyone searching this is looking for a policy page, not a rather obscure user essay. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Support this retarget proposal. The current redirect, and the user page (it's hardly an essay) to which it links, were both created to fill a gap in our documentation that no longer exists. This is documented at User talk:Andrewa/speedy close#Why this page. Once they were helpful, but they are now counterproductive. Good catch. So assuming this retargeting goes ahead I'll then see to the deletion of my user page. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Retarget as per Tavix et al; my first instinct was to retarget to WP:SPEEDY's target but Tavix and ApexParagon make a good point re: the potential XY with WP:SK. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, add mention at WP:WHENCLOSE and retarget, or delete (in that order, with the deletion process retarget as my fourth choice): Speedy closes are frequently used in a wide range of discussions around the project like DRV, RM, GAN that I think it's too ambiguous to have a primary topic. I suspect that there may be a systemic bias towards favoring the XfD process in this discussion given that it's being hosted at a deletion discussion venue, and am weary of forming a local consensus here. A disambiguation page can include WP:RMEC, WP:DRV#Speedy closes, and WP:GAFAIL. In GA-land, speedy closes are called "quick fails" but essentially the same concept. Left guide (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Regarget I would not expect an essay about when to speedy close but rather the process. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the disambiguation options?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

J. P. Morgan Bank

[edit source]
No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:PAL

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Template:PAL

I'm going to the bathroom to read.

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#I'm going to the bathroom to read.

March 2

[edit source]

Liberal Party (Chile)

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

The Democrat

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to The Democrats * Pppery * it has begun... 20:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Maonesa

[edit source]

somehow, no affinity with catalan demonstrated despite the affinity the target technically demonstrates, and this doesn't seem to be the only meaning of the word in catalan consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 21:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What Jay said is still true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Prehistoric Estonia

[edit source]

Bot note: Prehistoric Greece (talk · links · history · stats) is a related redirect of "Prehistoric Estonia "— Preceding unsigned comment added by VWF bot (talk • contribs) 09:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Redirect targets a section that does not exist. Not sure what the best target is, whether it be History of Estonia#Ancient Estonia: pre-history, Ancient Estonia, or Estonia#Prehistory. Mathguy2718 (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Seeing as the latter two both direct readers to the former, I say this should uncontroversially retarget to Ancient Estonia. Besides, the § Ancient Estonia: pre-history section is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK of the Ancient Estonia article and the § Estonia prehistory section is just a summarized overview. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that Prehistory of Estonia redirects to History of Estonia#Ancient Estonia: pre-history. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
    I'd say that we would retarget that, as well, then, to ensure both targets match. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Well, the section did exist before this 2 November 2024 edit by DJ Sturm, which made "some minor improvements". Breaking a section link is not a minor improvement. The DJ Sturm account has been globally locked for cross-wiki abuse. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
    You're right that it did exist previously, but the article has gone through a number of significant revisions since then, largely to expand various history sections. Apparently, that edit by DJ Strum was cited by IdrapoelIII in their December 2025 edits here, here, and here, claiming to be removing suspected LLM-generated content, but apparently doing far more than that. Their edits were nevertheless reverted due to being a suspected sock. The suspected LLM-generated content in DJ Strum's edits was flagged by Gnomingstuff, who explained their reasoning at Talk:Estonia#Possible AI generated text. Thus, the issue with DJ Strum's AI-generated additions still persists in the article without being adequately addressed. Hopefully this can bring more attention to the issue. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Prehistory of Estonia and notified of this discussion at the proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Center Party (Iraq)

[edit source]

Without the target section, it is unclear why this redirect points here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Weak restore the section. The creation summary makes it clear that Mowaffak al-Rubaie was the founder of the party. We have a List of political parties in Iraq but there is no mention of a "Center Party" (or "Centre Party"). The section as it existed when the redirect was created notes "al-Wasat" as an alternative name, but that doesn't appear in the list either (that apparently just means "Centre Party" so is ambiguous with other parties of the same name). It is also not (currently, I've not looked in the history) mentioned by either name at 2010 Iraqi parliamentary election which the old section linked it to, nor on the current version of the articles about the three groups that section mentioned there was speculation it would form an alliance with. The section was reworded and de-sourced by Alibaker with this edit who then removed the entire section an hour later [22], with neither edit giving an explanation. Alibaker contributed only to this one article, with 23 edits (including the 2 above) over 3 hours in February 2010 and then a further 2 edits in as many minutes in December that year. The removed section was sourced, and other sources verifying this do seem to exist so my thinking is that the target section should be restored and the redirect retained. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:In rem jurisdiction

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Category:In rem jurisdiction

Hawaiian English

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Template:Infobox Paris street

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Лв (disambiguation)

[edit source]

Redirect contains "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page. In this case, Лв does not seem to have refered to Kyrgyz som, which was in the former disambiguation page of Лв, but there is possible ambiguity with ЛВ, which redirects to Soviet locomotive class LV. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Streets of Toronto

[edit source]

This redirects to the street circuit in Exhibition Place that is used for racing. I don't believe that this is the appropriate target for this redirect and I think it should be a disambiguation page or redirect to a different target. Previously, many pages that mentioned the Exhibition Place street circuit linked to this redirect, but I bypassed them. Cyrobyte (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that technically those bypasses were done out of process. Keep - "Streets of Toronto" as a proper noun is commonly used in the racing press, community, and vernacular to refer to the street course used for the Molson Indy Toronto (and referring to it by that name probably dates me!). - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Lists of roads in Toronto. I've attended the Molson Indy and this phrase is far too generic for the circuit to be the primary topic. pburka (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

French speaking countries

[edit source]

These redirects should have the same target. Note that the 4th redirect misspells "countries" as "contries". Also note that there are many other overlapping redirects that target to all of the possible given targets. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese-speaking redirects to Portuguese-speaking world, while Portuguese-speaking countries to Community of Portuguese Language Countries. French-speaking has French language as the target, French speaker has Geographical distribution of French speakers, but French-speaking world has Francophonie. ZNático (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC) {I just noticed I repeated what Mathguy did.}
  • Comment: My first thought is to target all to Francophonie. There is a subtle distinction between French-speaking world and French-speaking countries that may justify different targets for similar redirects. The question is whether the wording most often represents a deliberate distinction or whether these term are more likely to be used interchangeably or imprecisely. I'm uncertain at this point. See: redirects to Francophonie for more related redirects. I would not bundle these or French-speaking world, as the discussion may hinge on the specific use of countries. If any of these need discussion, I would wait until this discussion closes. I see distinct but related considerations such that the outcome here may be relevant to the assessment of others but the discussions (if more are needed) are best separated. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete the last item: with the error has no use. Retarget the others to one item, I am flexible on which. The targets are so similar and repetitive that it doesn't matter so much. Some or all of the potential targets need to be merged. gidonb (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to List of countries and territories where French is an official language. It includes non-official cases as well in a specific section. ZNático (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Iranian strikes on Cyrpus

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16#Iranian strikes on Cyrpus

Yekgirtú

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Darft:2025 Lone Star Le Mans

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

Microslop

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Microslop

If you read this, you are gay

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Superwholock

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Burundians

[edit source]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close

Subsurface-to-air missile

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rape-vinegar

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Rape-vinegar

Nazzi

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 9#Nazzi

Zeroth Avenue

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10#Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei

March 1

[edit source]

Hetero-curious

[edit source]

Invert the targets? Also, there's no homocurious/homo-curious redirect(s). Abesca (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Retarget per caesar. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget Hetroflexible → Heteroflexibility. Not sure if a redirect can be both an {{R from misspelling}} and an {{R from adjective}} but if so, these both apply. It's simply a misspelled adjective form of the word Heteroflexibility. Note that the correctly spelled Heteroflexible redirects to Heteroflexibility and Hetrosexual exists as an {{R from misspelling}}. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Hetero-curious, Heterocurious, and Straight-curious. These are not synonymous with either heteroflexibility or bi-curiousness. At a minimum these terms require more explanation, which is not found at either target, though it's possible they could be defined in these articles or some other article as related concepts. Bicurious typically describes a straight-identified person whereas hetero- or straight-curious describes a gay-, lesbian-, or otherwise queer-identified person. Bicurious people are "curious" about sexual or romantic engagement with the same gender while heterocurious people have similar "curiosity" about the opposite gender (or a gender different from their own, depending on definition). Heteroflexible is an identity unto itself although may also describe someone who also identifies as or is assumed to be straight/heterosexual. Keeping or retargeting these indicates that these terms are synonymous with heteroflexible or bi-curious. These all receive minimal pageviews and none are linked in articles. Thus they do not qualify for soft redirects to Wiktionary per WP:SOFTSP and Template:Wiktionary redirect. All of these terms may have somewhat squishy and context-dependent definitions. Reliable sourcing may be a challenge but these need to have a clear definition or discussion of varying usage if they are to be targeted anywhere. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    homoflexibility redirects to its antonym. And it doesn’t seem that there are only one case of bicurious or only one definition for heterocurious. It’s not rare to find uses while searching for this having the same meaning of bicurious, especially when most results in my first googling were porn. However, I found some definitions in scholar:heterocurious: [23] By ‘heterocurious’ we mean those individuals who consider themselves heterosexual but like to engage in sporadic homosexual relations. So it’s either a subtype of bicurious or itself. Abesca (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
    Homoflexibility may need to be considered separately. I maintain that all the straight/hetero-curious redirects should be deleted unless and until they are discussed in an appropriate article. The fact that the definition is squishy is all the more reason why an appropriately sourced discussion is necessary to support these redirects. My finding is that definitions vary but part of the base definition of 'bicurious' is straight or straight-leaning while part of the base definition of 'heterocurious' is (often) non-straight. Unexplained redirects will either indicate that these are always completely synonymous with 'bicurious' in all its uses or will leave readers scratching their heads wondering why they landed at an article that doesn't describe the redirect—WP:RSURPRISE applies. With only 21 hits on Google Scholar, this terminology appears rather obscure, hence my earlier statement: Reliable sourcing may be a challenge but these need to have a clear definition or discussion of varying usage if they are to be targeted anywhere. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Notice placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Kuiper belt in fiction

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Iran-Israel-United States war

[edit source]

Template:ECR

Ambiguous since there's not a single page it could refer to, Iran–Israel conflict, US-Iran War. Abesca (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Is the contentious topic warning really needed? (/genq) I've seen other discussions of redirect similar without it, and redirect discussions are... fairly short, I've seen. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
As the editor who added it, I think it's necessary, @Organhaver. You're right that RFD participants don't often go over 1000 words, but this also lets non-extended confirmed editors know that they can't discuss this one. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
This seems reasonable. The CTOPIC restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the major exception being non-disruptive edit requests on Talk: pages. I agree that the average RFD discussion is short and measured but they can become heated. I think the reminder can't hurt and may help. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all. No incoming links, and no point in redirecting these to a dab page or set index article. Better to let the search function take readers directly to where they want to go. I2Overcome talk 06:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    there used to be [24] Abesca (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Don't these exactly refer to the ongoing 2026 Iran war? Other redirects to it are US-Israeli war with Iran and 2026 War between United States Israel and Iran and lots of similar redirects with the word "strikes" instead of war. Jay 💬 14:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 2026 Iran war. The subset of entries at Iran–Israel conflict which this could refer to are the ones listed at US-Iran War, and the descriptions there all mention both Israeli and United States involvement. In theory, there could in future be a conflict which only involves Iran and the US but not Israel, which would be listed at US-Iran War, but that's not the case right now. However, there are only two main entries listed there, namely the 2026 war and the Twelve Day War. Of these two, the 2026 war is (perhaps arguably) the primary topic due to its larger scale and global impact, making it much more likely to be what a reader would be looking for. The 12 Day War is linked in the lead section of the 2026 war, so if that was what someone intended, they'd likely still find it. This is no different to redirects like US-Israeli war with Iran, as mentioned by Jay. – Scyrme (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 2026 Iran war and leave a distinguishing hatnote. Iran-Israel-United States war (and variants) are utilized in other languages to name the war and seem to be reasonable enough to search. Alternatively, it could be turned into a disambiguatory page linking to Twelve-Day War, Iran War, and possibly a few others. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the dab at Iran–United States war. I almost closed this as "Retarget to 2026 Iran war", but then I realized the logic for doing so is inherently self-contradictory. These terms seem to be no less ambiguous that "Iran–United States war" as all of the entries on the dab page involve Israel, so if there's no primary topic for that then by definition there's no primary topic for this. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Dead Kings

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Assassin's Creed: Rising Phoenix

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Old English words for "True"

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Miś

[edit source]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Kuiper belt and Oort cloud

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Iraqi wars

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

UN-Iraq war

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

Symplectic form

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Symplectic form

Artsakh’s

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Renewability

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Renewability

US-Iran talks

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Miki mouse

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Let's get physico

[edit source]

Delete undefined phrases. These are mentioned without definition in the article. This could refer to physical properties and chemical properties together as well as to certain properties that may be conceptualized as living at the boundary between these classifications. These are certainly relevant to physical chemistry but are broadly part of the domains of chemistry, physics, and other disciplines. An introductory text will often define and distinguish physical properties and chemical properties together and it's possible an en-wiki target could but I've not found one. Information Note: There are several redirects from adjectival forms like physicochemical that I have intentionally not bundled. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Material property / List of materials properties. Material property seems close if not identical to the literal meaning of physicochemical, "a physical property or chemical property that does not depend on the amount of the material". Also the content makes sense as a target, generally someone is looking for a specific property. The actual page may need some editing (e.g. physical property is a "see also" but also a link in the lead) but that can come after. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
    • I don't have an opinion on the redirect but it would also be helpful if the definition of physical property in the respective article could be improved. At the moment the lemma could be understood as either synonymous to physical quantity or to "physical property" in a broader and more general sense, i.e. not purely in the context of physics as I have stated here. best, KaiKemmann (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
      The discussion of these topics across multiple related articles needs improvement. @Mathnerd314159, do you have a source for your definition of physicochemical property? A clear definition should be added especially if these terms are not always completely synonymous. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
      Well, the quote is from the material property article. As far as the physicochemical property, the sources do not seem good, so I would rely on the etymology, which is just physical and chemistry put together. That is part of why I said redirect, is because there does not seem to be a suitable definition of physicochemical property to use as the basis for an article. I did find some definitions such as this NIST definition, but they seem like convenience definitions and not authoritative. In particular, it seems across different sources they generally speaking want to include almost all physical and chemical properties in the definition. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
      I see. I had similar findings. The term is used with closely related meanings but I've not found a strict definition. Its usage in certain fields appears to often refer to a specific subset of relevant properties but these don't constitute a general definition of "physicochemical properties". Usage in medicinal chemistry is especially common per my search, see this book chapter for an overview. I agree these are usually convenience definitions or simply lists of especially relevant properties for a given discipline or discussion. Standard dictionaries define physicochemical as referring to both physical and chemical properties, with a secondary sense pertaining more specifically to the domain of physical chemistry.[25][26][27] (These dictionaries aren't necessarily authoritative for technical definitions, just sharing what I have found.) It's not as well-defined as other related classification of "properties" such as chemical, physical, material, and mechanical. I've not seen anything that suggests the meaning is consistently the same as material properties and nothing that defines "physicochemical property" as being defined as "material property". Assigning a definition of "material property" sounds like WP:SYNTH. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Boogie worm

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Sammarinese Ambassador to the United States

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 9#Sammarinese Ambassador to the United States

Leopard skin

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Leopard skin

Sooth

[edit source]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate * Pppery * it has begun... 20:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Savage Man Savage Beast 2

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Savage Man Savage Beast 2

Renewables

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Renewables

United States strikes on Iran

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Ico (playstation)

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 9#Ico (playstation)

Draft:2026 CONCACAF U-20 Championship qualifying

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Draft:Football at the 2028 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Draft:Football at the 2028 Summer Olympics – Women's qualification

[edit source]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Anaclitism

[edit source]

Unmentioned; this is a 2007-era BLAR victim that was unmentioned upon BLAR. The edit summary notes that the page was PRODded and then BLAR'd after user:PhilKnight moved the article to Wiktionary; the wiktionary article resulting from this is here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Also bundle Anaclitic that redirects to Hospitalism. Jay 💬 07:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Don't keep: Upon looking up anaclitism and anaclitic, I'm surprised to see this connected to paraphilic infantilism here, as well as the wikitionary definition tied to sexual gratification. The Merriam-Webster definition defines anaclitic, "of, relating to, or characterized by the direction of love toward an object (such as the mother) that satisfies nonsexual needs (such as hunger)". One study uses anaclitism without reference to sexuality, stating that survey items relating to anaclitism "are primarily externally directed and refer to a disturbance of interpersonal relationships"; this is similar to this one that connects anaclitism with being dependent on others. This one discusses in relation to anaclitic depression (Hospitalism). All in all, I couldn't find sources linking anaclitism to sexual behaviour or the desire to be a child. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
    Objectophilia or Erotic target location error? @Significa liberdade Abesca (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    Neither of these make sense to me based on the sources I found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This redirect's history functions as attribution for the Wiktionary entry, and that should be retained.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 05:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Comparative biochemistry

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Avanthop

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 19:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

2/28 and its kind

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Big Booty Judy

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Big Booty Judy

Crab emoji

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Seperating Personalities

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2024 Games

[edit source]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12#2024 Games

Troy aiken

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Global economy journal

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rod Blackhurst

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bryce McGuire

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Amélie Hoeferle

[edit source]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Réis

[edit source]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


  1. ↑ Yuan, Wen-Li; Chao, Jingyi; Li, Ang (8 August 2023). "Diquark and chiral condensates in a self-consistent NJL-type model". Physical Review D. 108 (4). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043008.
Retrieved from "https://eurovision.jobogamer.xyz/index.php?title=Eurovision_Wiki:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=4655"